| Revision as of 14:21, 1 August 2007 editVaoverland (talk | contribs)31,318 editsm you removed all mention of the controversy from the lead← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:48, 2 August 2007 edit undoVaoverland (talk | contribs)31,318 editsm worked on your suggestions about the leadNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| You basically gutted my edits to the lead of the ] 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. ] 14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | You basically gutted my edits to the lead of the ] 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. ] 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 ], Mark, aka ] 09:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:48, 2 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)