User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2016/June

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)


 * Thanks for the message. Talking is always good, and I see you are initiating a discussion on the talk page. It is suggested under BRD to revert one time only and then discuss. So, I'm glad that you haven't fallen into the trap of reinstating without discussion. I'll try to monitor the situation, but please remember to maintain a positive, collaborative attitude, because a confrontational attitude will always run into difficulties eventually. So, please carry on with the work by discussing things more. I really hope more editors would talk more and confront less, which is what writers of encyclopedias do for hard paper copies anyway (and so in this instance, wikipedia mirrors the traditional processes of building them.)  DDStretch    (talk)  10:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm much obliged. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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 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)


 * Kindly stay away from my talk page if you are going to use loaded questions. I have done all I intend to do for now.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It wasn't my intention to load anything; I was quoting from this, which you posted on the talk page: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." What I refer to as the stable version stood for 10 years; if you don't consider it the stable version, can you explain why? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I did say for you to stay away from my talk page. If you do not, action will be taken against you. You need to read up about loaded questions, and look at your use of the phrase "edit warriors". If you repeat any of this inflammatory language again, you will be sanctioned. I have satisfied all the requirements for protecting a page. That is all. I protected the page as it was, and this is allowed. That is the end of the matter. I do not wish to see any contributions from you again on this page, and I am instructing you to post no more messages here.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

taking a break
Hi DDStretch, Just to let you know that I'm not very impressed with any of this and I'm walking away for a while. I'm particularly annoyed about the unjustified allegation of plagiarism that was made against me. When it happened it took a while to sink in what John was talking about. I knew instinctively that I hadn't done anything wrong, and suddenly I was blocked for copyright violations. I knew I had been using a source that's nearly 200 years old and that copyright was irrelevant. I made a specific effort to avoid any block copying and I was working from a paper back source. Despite explaining this, John still insists on accusing me of copying and pasting. Well it's very easy to find out the truth. The source also happens to be available on-line as John quickly discovered. You should find it at this link - It's since been removed from the article by Snowded and as far as I am concerned somebody else can restore it, because I don't consider myself responsible for the removal. You can look at this source and see for yourself that I never copied and pasted anything. Here is the edit which gave rise to the accusation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Derry&type=revision&diff=723582329&oldid=723577710 I double checked just there now. My sentences are selected from a lengthy range of text, which as per this on-line source begins at Chapter XIX on page 75 and going on to page 84. I only spotted two sentences that were verbatim and neither of these contained any particular literary style. Had it been a problem, it could have been pointed out politely. It certainly didn't warrant a 48 hour block without warning. John has since acknowledged that he should have warned me, but he is still insisting that I copied and pasted which I didn't do. Meanwhile Snowded failed to demonstrate that he knew very much about the large amount of material in my subsequent edits which he reverted all in one go. It's up to you what you want to do about this, but I'm not impressed and I'm walking away in the meantime until you all think it over. And for your general information, plagiarism, as per the dictionary, means taking credit for someone else's work. To be guilty of plagiarism, Mr X would have to publish something written by Mr. Y while giving the impression that Mr. X was the original author, and without mentioning Mr Y's involvement. There has to be intent to deceive for the purpose of taking credit. That's impossible when the editor is anonymous and the original author is referenced. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. DDStretch   (talk)
 * I have activated your account, thank you for volunteering.--v/r - TP 02:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)