User talk:Ddstretch

SandBoxes
• CP x Settlmnt
• Settlmnt x CP
• "Former ..." Artcl
• Artcl for CP in Ches
• Misc1
• Misc2
• EP Tmplt
• CP Tmplt
• Crewe Article Sandbox
* Arbcom evidence

Response

Re: ::My opinion is that the civility card is now too often used as a weapon to settle apparently old scores, and as such it has become utterly devalued. I make no comment or assumption about whether it ever had any value or not when I say this, by the way. Those who jump to use it bring the whole area into even more disrepute, especially when they take a one-sided stance in dealing with a reaction to obvious baiting.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologise to User:DDStretch for the discussion which has been going on here; however there was no need for User:Eric Corbett to follow me first to User:Nevi's talk page when I requested removal from the list of participants in the Greater Manchester WikiProject and then here when I made a comment about defining Chorlton-cum-Hardy. Surely being an experienced writer of settlement articles does not release User:Eric Corbett from the obligation to follow norms of behaviour which are required of all editors. I have already made it clear that I will not contribute to the Chorlton-cum-Hardy article again. Describing a request for "civility" as "baiting" seems very unjust. From the time I began to contribute to the Chorlton-cum-Hardy article there was minimal interest shown in it by other editors until an anonymous editor who had worked on the Whalley Range article transferred his attentions to Chorlton-cum-Hardy (however these contributions never had reliable sources and were often contradicted by other historical writers on the township).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comment that I should have remained engaged with User:Eric Corbett and User:J3Mrs. From previous experience they are inclined to just impose their will on any article which interests them rather than having reasonable discussions about it. Also anyone is allowed to contribute to articles about Greater Manchester topics whether or not they belong to the Greater Manchester wikiproject and anyone is allowed to abandon such a project if they prefer to work elsewhere in Wikipedia. As all time spent here is freely given it is counterproductive to its aims to persist in personal criticism such as appears above. Every editor is going to have somewhat different ideas of what is worth adding to articles and in the case of Chorlton-cum-Hardy much of what I added was about that place but not particularly interesting to me. Of the four editors who have done most of the work on Chorlton-cum-Hardy in the last few years User:Eric Corbett and User:J3Mrs think it was until recently a very poor article but myself and probably the anonymous IP do not agree with them. If you accept User:Eric Corbett and User:J3Mrs's view I should have devoted unlimited time to writing a better Chorlton-cum-Hardy article; instead I preferred to make contributions to various topics which are nothing to do with Greater Manchester.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Martinvl

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, and I do hope you have notified everyone who was involved with this, because I sense that gaming and wikilawyering may figure greatly in what now happens. It is actually for these reasons that I am extremely reluctant to get dragged into a dispute, particularly at WP:AN/I because my intervention on Talk:United Kingdom led me to believe that any further interactions on this subject would not be conducive to the general rules concerning WP:AGF and other forms of polite interaction. This is mainly because of the ease with which unjustified insults and accusations start to be flung around, so that one feels any debate over what is a rather small matter becomes full of unnecessary drama and then things can get nasty. It would be far better that everyone just went on their way and began to edit for content in articles than become obsessed with some administrative or bureaucratic game. If it becomes particularly contentious, I may be forced to contribute, but if it is a free choice on my part with no consequences for myself or many others, I, for one, wish to decline to get involved. In cases of doubt, I always say that a good baseline position is to go for no change to current rules or their implementation. Sorry, this may not be what you want to hear, but I feel it the best option for myself. I also think anyone involved in the exchanges on Talk:United Kingdom should also carefully consider whether they should simply demonstrate their ultimate good faith by declining to pursue any of the positions they favour (We are all, in a very general sense, "damaged goods" when it comes to that debate. Let others carry it forward, but let us remain dignified by becoming silent on the matter now, apart from just implementing the rules as given in WP:MOSNUM as they are or as they become). Additionally, my link from China to wikipedia is very fragile at the moment, and this also means it would be best not to begin getting involved with some issue where quick responses are necessary to avoid some undesirable actions happening.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)