Talk:British Overseas Territories Act 2002

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

does this mean that a british passport holder can enter any british overseas Territories with out the need to apply for a visa??

Former inhabitants of BIOT are Chagossians

It is a clear fact that the former inhabitants of the BIOT are Chagossians. How in the world is presenting a fact a POV edit? It is all the more ridiculous when it's claimed to be POV by someone involved in the Falkland Islands who has an obvious bias due to the discriminatory treatment by the British government towards the white population of the Falkland Islands. This user is trying to cover up the far from "civil" treatment to the Chagossians by the British government by deleting any link to the article. In fact, there should not just be a link or a short unclear phrase "or a parent's birth" , but a whole paragraph explaining that the British government had to extend the British nationality to all Chagossians born in exile between 1969 and 1983 because of the expulsion. That the other editor should chose to defend a biased editor is all the more disgusting. --Stomatapoll (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of a link was tortuous and effectively an Easter Egg in that it was unrelated to the text. That is why it was reverted. For information I am mixed race and a member of a the Chagossian Support Group. I don't allow my POV to spill over into my editing. See also WP:GREATWRONGS, further personal attacks and edit warring will see me making a report to WP:ANI. W C M_email 11:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got too emotional and thought you wrong, my apology to any harm that I might have caused. but I still don't understand what you mean by an Easter Egg, since I am not a native speaker of English, and don't know the rules for links in English wikipedia, and I have just learned the issue by chance a few weeks ago and am totally unaware of the sensitive things attached to it. Sorry again for misunderstanding your motive. --Stomatapoll (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Easter egg (media). A link should be directly related to the text, the link you added was only (at best) tangentially linked to the subject. W C M_email 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]