User talk:Black Kite: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:29, 18 November 2024 editGhostOfDanGurney (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,822 edits →Your revert: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:43, 18 November 2024 edit undoSouthasianhistorian8 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,289 edits →Your revert: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:In light of this apparent consensus to not include that paragraph, could you please revert your edit? ] (]) 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)		:In light of this apparent consensus to not include that paragraph, could you please revert your edit? ] (]) 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	:The edit you made that Black Kite reverted was not a reflection of the discussion, though. In it, both DataCrusader1999 and myself agree that the {{tq\|q=y\|article needs to be '''rewritten'''}} (bolding mine). To claim I said that a specific paragraph and only a specific paragraph should be removed is wrong. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)		:The edit you made that Black Kite reverted was not a reflection of the discussion, though. In it, both DataCrusader1999 and myself agree that the {{tq\|q=y\|article needs to be '''rewritten'''}} (bolding mine). To claim I said that a specific paragraph and only a specific paragraph should be removed is wrong. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|I agree that the lead needs to be rewritten and that the highlighted '''paragraph about a diplomatic row is undue weight for the lead section of a BLP article'''. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that either the scope of this article needs to change, or that content regarding the diplomatic row should be split.}} This what you said on October 15, one day after this version of the article-.
			::And this is what DataCrusader said: {{tq\|The below paragraph should be mentioned in the '''diplomatic-fallout section'''.}} under the section title {{tq\|change in lede of the article}}. ] (]) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:43, 18 November 2024

"And while I'm alive, I'll make tiny changes to earth." Frightened Rabbit

Black Kite
Hi, I'm an administrator here, and have been since 2007. I'll try to answer any questions here as soon as I can, though I do have periods where I'm not available. For admins: if you think I've done something really f***ing stupid and I don't respond to a question about it, please feel free to reverse it ... we can work it out later on.

For Talk Page Archives, click here.

If you email me via Misplaced Pages, please leave me a note here (unless there's a good reason you do not want that fact to be public). I do check my Misplaced Pages email fairly regularly, but not that regularly.

Revision deletion request

Many thanks for your quick response. Could I request one more please, at ? Wikishovel (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikishovel Done - thanks. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Your revert

There is a section in the t/p in which 2 editors expressed an objection to this paragraph-. Including my own issues with it, that makes it 3 editors. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In light of this apparent consensus to not include that paragraph, could you please revert your edit? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit you made that Black Kite reverted was not a reflection of the discussion, though. In it, both DataCrusader1999 and myself agree that the article needs to be rewritten (bolding mine). To claim I said that a specific paragraph and only a specific paragraph should be removed is wrong. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs to be rewritten and that the highlighted paragraph about a diplomatic row is undue weight for the lead section of a BLP article. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that either the scope of this article needs to change, or that content regarding the diplomatic row should be split. This what you said on October 15, one day after this version of the article-.

And this is what DataCrusader said: The below paragraph should be mentioned in the diplomatic-fallout section. under the section title change in lede of the article. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:29, 18 November 2024 editGhostOfDanGurney (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,822 edits →Your revert: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:43, 18 November 2024 edit undoSouthasianhistorian8 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,289 edits →Your revert: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:In light of this apparent consensus to not include that paragraph, could you please revert your edit? ] (]) 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)		:In light of this apparent consensus to not include that paragraph, could you please revert your edit? ] (]) 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	:The edit you made that Black Kite reverted was not a reflection of the discussion, though. In it, both DataCrusader1999 and myself agree that the {{tq\|q=y\|article needs to be '''rewritten'''}} (bolding mine). To claim I said that a specific paragraph and only a specific paragraph should be removed is wrong. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)		:The edit you made that Black Kite reverted was not a reflection of the discussion, though. In it, both DataCrusader1999 and myself agree that the {{tq\|q=y\|article needs to be '''rewritten'''}} (bolding mine). To claim I said that a specific paragraph and only a specific paragraph should be removed is wrong. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|I agree that the lead needs to be rewritten and that the highlighted '''paragraph about a diplomatic row is undue weight for the lead section of a BLP article'''. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that either the scope of this article needs to change, or that content regarding the diplomatic row should be split.}} This what you said on October 15, one day after this version of the article-.
			::And this is what DataCrusader said: {{tq\|The below paragraph should be mentioned in the '''diplomatic-fallout section'''.}} under the section title {{tq\|change in lede of the article}}. ] (]) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)