User talk:Black Kite: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Brustopher (talk | contribs) |
Black Kite (talk | contribs) reply |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
* I think NorthbySouthBaranof's comment on the talk page (which sums the issue up) together with mine and others edit-summaries make it quite clear, do they not? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
* I think NorthbySouthBaranof's comment on the talk page (which sums the issue up) together with mine and others edit-summaries make it quite clear, do they not? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
** I do not think so. Hence why I wrote a response to them before making my edit justifying my position. Baranof's comment only explains why the sources shouldnt be used to accuse anti-GamerGate people of being behind the DDoS. It does not justify leaving it out of the article altogether. I have posted why I think this is warranted article space in the talk page, and not of the edit summaries have even remotely adressed any of the points i have made, with the first edit comment made by Tarc [unless I failed to understand it] being just plain factually incorrect. A response to my post in the talk page is warranted in this situation. [[User:Bosstopher|Bosstopher]] ([[User talk:Bosstopher|talk]]) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
** I do not think so. Hence why I wrote a response to them before making my edit justifying my position. Baranof's comment only explains why the sources shouldnt be used to accuse anti-GamerGate people of being behind the DDoS. It does not justify leaving it out of the article altogether. I have posted why I think this is warranted article space in the talk page, and not of the edit summaries have even remotely adressed any of the points i have made, with the first edit comment made by Tarc [unless I failed to understand it] being just plain factually incorrect. A response to my post in the talk page is warranted in this situation. [[User:Bosstopher|Bosstopher]] ([[User talk:Bosstopher|talk]]) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
*** Since, even if the event actually happened, we don't know who was actually behind it and whether it was relevant to GamerGate itself, ''that's'' (one of) the problem(s). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:46, 21 September 2014
 | I'm not around all the time. If you urgently require action on some admin-related issue, it may be better to contact another admin. Admins - if I haven't edited for a while and you genuinely believe I have made an error, please feel free to reverse it. |
Did I...?
Was something I said in that exchange with that Capilary or whatever guy problematic, or did you just want to nuke the whole exchange to be sure to get all of whatever he said? (I never saw his last reply, the on it says is +995 bytes, was away). Tarc (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was him. The usual stuff about Quinn's motivation for her romantic liaisons. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding my Edit Warring warning
I am aware of the 3 revert rule, and have no intentions to revert indefinitely. You have written "To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." This is exactly what I have done and none of the other people involved in this edit war have engaged. From the very point when I made this edit, I have asked for a response on the talk page. All 3 people who have reverted my post (yourself included) have not given me a response. Could you kindly do so? Bosstopher (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think NorthbySouthBaranof's comment on the talk page (which sums the issue up) together with mine and others edit-summaries make it quite clear, do they not? Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think so. Hence why I wrote a response to them before making my edit justifying my position. Baranof's comment only explains why the sources shouldnt be used to accuse anti-GamerGate people of being behind the DDoS. It does not justify leaving it out of the article altogether. I have posted why I think this is warranted article space in the talk page, and not of the edit summaries have even remotely adressed any of the points i have made, with the first edit comment made by Tarc [unless I failed to understand it] being just plain factually incorrect. A response to my post in the talk page is warranted in this situation. Bosstopher (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since, even if the event actually happened, we don't know who was actually behind it and whether it was relevant to GamerGate itself, that's (one of) the problem(s). Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think so. Hence why I wrote a response to them before making my edit justifying my position. Baranof's comment only explains why the sources shouldnt be used to accuse anti-GamerGate people of being behind the DDoS. It does not justify leaving it out of the article altogether. I have posted why I think this is warranted article space in the talk page, and not of the edit summaries have even remotely adressed any of the points i have made, with the first edit comment made by Tarc [unless I failed to understand it] being just plain factually incorrect. A response to my post in the talk page is warranted in this situation. Bosstopher (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)