Content deleted Content added
→Loss of Explorer Posts: reply |
No edit summary |
||
Line 222:
I know you put down citation needed at the end of the article. I'm just speaking from personal experience with the LAPD posts. I volunteer with an explorer competition in California. We had the LAPD cadets come to our comp. for several years. In 2012 or 13 they notified us they were not coming back unless we got different insurance. The LAPD told us the LAFD were in the [[User:Caryeastwood|Caryeastwood]] ([[User talk:Caryeastwood|talk]]) 07:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
:Unfortunately personal experience alone can't be used as a reference. It can be used as a pointer that proper references do exist and should be hunted down. Note that insurance might have been an issue if the BSA insurance did not cover non-BSA participants or was considered insufficient; it need not have had to do with BSA policies on gays and god. Note also explanations can get mangled when passed person to person. --[[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp#top|talk]]) 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
==Fingering characerization==
re [[special:diff/763849717]] you mentioned:
:"possibly because you wanted to link to an article on [[digital penetration]] which is solely about the consensual act and that plays down that this particular digital penetration was not consensual"
That appears to be an oversight, I figured it was common sense that people knew that sexual acts were sexual assault if not consented to.
I just made this edit adding a source showing that digital penetration without consent is considered sexual assault from ~12-13 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764094538&oldid=760713940
With that now present, is it still objectionable to link to the article when describing what happened? [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 01:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
| |||