User talk:78.84.209.91

August 2021
Hello, I'm LongLivePortugal. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kurt Waldheim, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, LongLivePortugal! Sorry about the inconvenience and for taking your valuable time. However, I changed the information based on the already used citation/source provided. From what I read, the original edit was inaccurate according to the said source. Perhaps I read it wrong, or differently? If I've chagrined on the matter, please excuse my mistake! Thanks for your commitment anyhow! I can't imagine the responsibility!

- Me


 * Hi! Thank you for your reply! I'm looking at the source carefully. The text is confusing, but it seems to say that the US and the UK had voted in favour of Kurt Waldheim on 20th December, but had apparently changed their minds (for some unknown reason) and did not want him elected after all on the meeting of 21st December; they changed to an abstention, hoping that China would veto, but that did not happen and Waldheim was elected. This is what I interpret from paragraph 4 of the source, where it says: "After above meeting adjourned, substance of Hillenbrand telephone call from Bermuda received instructing US to take action to be certain Waldheim not elected during voting Dec 21. On return to the Mission, Bush received telephone call from Sir Colin Crowe informing us that the Secretary and Sir Alec Douglas Home had agreed in above sense. Crowe noted that, US and UK, having voted for Waldheim Dec 20 could not now cast veto without fact becoming known. However, US and UK could switch to abstain if we were reasonably certain PRC would veto." (Are you interpreting the source in a different way? What are your thoughts?)
 * Therefore, to me, it doesn't seem correct to say that the UK and the US had supported Waldheim; that only happened on an initial stage, and their final intention was that he would not be elected. It was the Soviet Union that backed him all along. Furthermore, please note that, the way you had phrased it, the article read: "Waldheim was supported by the UK and the US and led the first two rounds of voting. However, he was opposed by China, the United Kingdom, and the United States." You couldn't say that the UK and the US both backed him and opposed him (because that would be a contradiction) without further explanation, can you? What do you think?
 * Finally, as for the time spent, no worries! I have no responsibility over Wikipedia. I only contribute voluntarily, based on my availability, just like you! :-)
 * By the way, I noticed you added a 'Help me' template here. What is it you need help with? Is it this matter, or a different thing? LongLivePortugal (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)