User:Domer48/Archive 1

First edit. I highlighted the need for references,. I then placed a Tag edit. My first edit on the Great Irish Famine article section titled Suggestions of Genocide,. That this section title was there already, calls out for some elucidation with regard to future events. I would draw editor’s attention to a) no references in this section, and b) the first paragraph, the quote by Joe Lee being particularly illuminating. This tag was then added and this editor then included the fact tags. The tag on the article was inadvertently removed,. It was me who then replaced and added a notes and reference section,, surprising given this article is considered “contentious.” During this time I reverted some vandalism and removed some unreferenced material which was added. Since there was enough of it already. I then added this,. It was removed, and the reason was valid. I considered the content sufficient reason. Sony’s first time since I began Sony’s second edit Notice no content dispute on the suggestions of genocide section? I then added referenced text and images. . No dispute at all. Sony’s third edit. Still no dispute with any sections or edits. I on the other hand was, about a book. I continued to remove vandalism, and added this tag. Sony’s fourth edit,. And still no content dispute. Sarah’s first edit since I started. Sarah then made a number of minor edits including this one, and this one .We then had the name change

Sarah had differences over some material. Sony then dose have a problem with content, unreferenced material, but not on the now disputed section. , , . With other sections though,  I found this edit intresting though. Becomes relevant when the check user is called. Sarah then makes this edit, and a difference of opinion ensued. MarkThomas’s first edit since I started. A difference of opinion ensued with Sarah, MarkThomas’s line of argument becoming familiar. Sony starts to add fact tags. But still no content dispute with the suggestions section. Mark again. I now make my contribution of referenced information on the Suggestions of Genocide section, notice the material I remove And then again. Look at what I removed. Added more referenced material Marks typical edit. Mark removes unreferenced material and adds a web reference and fixes my typo’s. Sony reorganises intro.

Now we come down to it, Mark’s typical edit. Forgetting what I had removed. Not happy with that Mark wants more of a change, and adds unreferenced opinion as well .All of which Sony ignores. I make the change on title. Regardless Mark changes it. I revert Mark in another attempt .I add more referenced material. Replace title .Now wiki calls this an edit war? I add more referenced edits. Sony now steps in and re arranges the lot. And then adds a tag on their own work. Another clean up and drops a line from a referenced quote by mistake  (Few historians…), and places tags on material which gives both the name of the book and the author were the information came from. Later I had to place references regardless. Sarah has a difference of opinion on one of the references. I then added more referenced material, and removed the part of a reference Sony lost, as it was being used as a lead to a section. I then added another reference. Mark then adds the unreferenced lead I removed. I removed it with an explanation. Mark again. I removed it again, and gave reasons. I added more referenced material. I would draw editors to the quote by James Donnelly I added. Now look at Sony’s response. In particular the lead sentence, and the context in which it was written. I responded. Mark jumps in. What the POV was I do not know? I replace it again. Now this is supposed to be edit warring? Mark again. I revert again. Sarah now makes an edit , I would draw editors attention to the Donnelly quote. I now add more referenced material. Now editors should notice that Sony changed it back to my original version and therefore knew all along that I did not change it. I reverted back Sony’s changes,. While I did not notice the change, they certainly did!Mine after all was a simple revert. Mark then makes a typical edit. And then removes a referenced quote with a spurious argument. Has a swipe but no mind. Sarah removes Marks opinion piece. I then replaced the referenced information Mark removed. The article was then locked.

With the article unlocked I done a clean up of it and placed citation tag, wishing to tackle the issue on the article,. Again issue with book, continued to tidy article. I changed a title name. Added another reference , and added a new section with referenced information, on background and context,. I then made a number of edits and added citation tags. Sarah tweaked some of the information. I then began to tidy the references and address some of the tags. Mark then reverted all the changes I’d made since the page was unblocked. There was never any agreement to not edit the article, there was a request and a proposal  by SirFrozzie. There was never a prohibition. I reverted and stated reasons. And then Mark and then me, with comment . There was never any disagreement with the information I added or any of the work I’d done! Then another editor contributed , . A bot added tags, and Mark reverted the lot. The editor kept editing obliviouls of the change. I then reverted .Then SirFrozzie steps in and reverts it all again, and Asks editors not to edit. Which wiki policy is that? .Then the fun really starts an editor steps in and reverts, and another  and removes tags, then another editor  and another  and another, and then Mark reverts the lot with an accusation. I step in and revert, I’m not accepting that accusation, another editor comes in  read the comment it’s a dead give away! Makes you laugh, well I was not having that. New editor reverts again , Me again. There comments sound so familiar. An established editor steps in, and then Mark again. More edits, , page gets locked.