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

May 2016

OK so the flag has being reinstated without agreement on the talk page using contested sources. So .... ----Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ddstrech, I would invite you, or any fair-minded person, to read the discussion here[1] and determine who has been adducing sources and arguing civily about content, and who has been throwing around allegations of "gaming the system", "disruption", "tag teaming", "making false statements" etc . Miles Creagh (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Miles, it isn't the role of an admin to mediate on a content dispute. Ddstrech issued a warning on the talk page and another editor has chosen to ignore that warning. I took your Queen's Birthday source to the RS notice board and it was rejected by all the uninvolved editors. Jonto's response was to say they were not qualified to be involved while yours is to simply ignore it and support his edit warring. Not sure what else we can say about that ----Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Ddstretch mediate a content dispute. I'm asking that he consider whether you are stepping beyond the bounds of WP:CIVILITY with your various allegations of misconduct, and your imputation of political motives to editors who disagree with you. If you comment on content, not editors, we'll be fine. Miles Creagh (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If you use the talk page before you edit the article, don't put in known controversial edits without agreement and respect the result at the WP:RS notice board life would be a lot easier for everyone. If you reverted Jonto's change it would show you are prepared to respect the rules around here. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll think you'll find I have made extensive use of the Talk page to discuss sourcing and content, and edited the article probably less than you.Miles Creagh (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It saddens me that editors who I quite like are on opposite sides of a squabble that risks a lot for them both. I suggest everyone stands back and waits for a suggestion I intend to make to try to make you all work more positively together for the benefit of wikipedia in this instance. Please try to not let your strong opinions get the better of you.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me if the UB is adopted or not. Until a consensus for its adoption is reached however? I must agree with Snowded, in that perhaps sanctions 'might be' required to put an end to the continuing attempts to insert it into articles, in flag or pros form. Thankfully, these disputes haven't drifted onto the Northern Ireland article. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Will you restore the stable version, and stop rewarding the edit-warriors? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

following editors across articles

I would be much obliged if you could monitor the talk page at Siege of Derry. I was blocked a few weeks ago for complaining that Snowded had removed sourced material from the lede at Flag of Northern Ireland. I have now moved on to a new article and Snowded has followed me there and is systematically removing my edits. If I were to go to an article that Snowded edits on, which I had never previously edited, and began to remove his edits, would action be taken? In the meantime I'm going to give Snowded the benefit of the doubt that he is genuinely trying to improve the article, but it's a subject which I know a lot about, and so far there is evidence that Snowded is removing well known and well sourced material while claiming that I am imposing a point of view. I have asked him to elaborate on what point of view in Macaulay's source he is contesting. So can you please monitor the discussion to check that all is above board from a behavioural perspective. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)