| Revision as of 22:14, 14 August 2007 editVictoriagirl (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,404 edits Discussion about me← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:17, 15 August 2007 edit undoAnber (talk | contribs)344 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| In the interests of openness and community, I prefer communicating through user talk pages - and so, am responding to here. To be frank, I'm not certain that any discussion would be of value as I know of no solution to your concerns. This is not to say that no resolution is possible - only that I do not know of one. I recommend that you consult Misplaced Pages's . | In the interests of openness and community, I prefer communicating through user talk pages - and so, am responding to here. To be frank, I'm not certain that any discussion would be of value as I know of no solution to your concerns. This is not to say that no resolution is possible - only that I do not know of one. I recommend that you consult Misplaced Pages's . | ||
| I must add that I’m a bit mystified by your references to traces of articles you did not want to be on Misplaced Pages. When given an opportunity to vote in the matter of the |
I must add that I’m a bit mystified by your references to traces of articles you did not want to be on Misplaced Pages. When given an opportunity to vote in the matter of the ] 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)] AfD, you chose to (while arguing for inclusion). Are you saying that the person who participated and posted the following isn't you: ? Or that it was someone else who posted your photograph: ? Or that you didn't create the speedily deleted Dynamic Legal Solutions article? I'm not trying to be difficult, rather I'm hoping to clear some rather mucky water. ] 22:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:17, 15 August 2007
You basically gutted my edits to the lead of the Michael Vick article stating "The lead already refers to the controversy. Elaborating the controversy can be (and is) done in the body. This is more appropriate of an encylopedic article.)" Yet, you removed all mention of the controversy from the lead. So, you obviously got confused (or something). I put it back like it was, admittedly could be briefer, but not by removing all mention of the current controversy, which goes well beyond mentioning the criminal charges already filed. Vaoverland 14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I received your message on my Talk page and I have gone back in and worked on your suggestions about the lead. Being brief is an area of growth for me. <gr> This and related ones have been a tough articles to work with lately, and I did not intend to tromp on your efforts to help, which my comment above may imply. I hope you will see the edits I made after your message as collaboration, as it is one of the things I like the most about WP. So, stay with us and feel free to contact me again as you may feel helpful. Yours in the Historic Triangle of Virginia, Mark, aka Vaoverland 09:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion about me
In the interests of openness and community, I prefer communicating through user talk pages - and so, am responding to your post on my user page here. To be frank, I'm not certain that any discussion would be of value as I know of no solution to your concerns. This is not to say that no resolution is possible - only that I do not know of one. I recommend that you consult Misplaced Pages's help desk.
I must add that I’m a bit mystified by your references to traces of articles you did not want to be on Misplaced Pages. When given an opportunity to vote in the matter of the AfD, you chose to abstain (while arguing for inclusion). Are you saying that the person who participated and posted the following isn't you: ? Or that it was someone else who posted your photograph: ? Or that you didn't create the speedily deleted Dynamic Legal Solutions article? I'm not trying to be difficult, rather I'm hoping to clear some rather mucky water. Victoriagirl 22:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
