User:Domer48/Archive 1

First edit [1]. I highlighted the need for references, [2]. I then placed a Tag edit [3]. My first edit on the Great Irish Famine article section titled Suggestions of Genocide, [4]. 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 [5] and this editor then included the fact tags. The tag on the article was inadvertently removed, [6]. It was me who then replaced and added a notes and reference section, [7], 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, [8]. It was removed, [9] and the reason was valid. I considered the content sufficient reason. Sony’s first time since I began [10] Sony’s second edit [11] Notice no content dispute on the suggestions of genocide section? I then added referenced text and images. [12]. No dispute at all. Sony’s third edit [13]. 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 [14]. Sony’s fourth edit, [15]. And still no content dispute. Sarah’s first edit since I started [16]. Sarah then made a number of minor edits including this one [17], and this one [18].We then had the name change [19]

Sarah had differences over some material [20]. Sony then dose have a problem with content, unreferenced material, but not on the now disputed section. [21], [22], [23]. With other sections though, [24] [25] I found this edit intresting though [26]. Becomes relevant when the check user is called. Sarah then makes this edit, [27] and a difference of opinion ensued. MarkThomas’s first edit since I started [28]. A difference of opinion ensued with Sarah, MarkThomas’s line of argument becoming familiar [29]. Sony starts to add fact tags [30]. But still no content dispute with the suggestions section. Mark again [31]. I now make my contribution of referenced information on the Suggestions of Genocide section, notice the material I remove [32] And then again [33]. Look at what I removed. Added more referenced material [34] Marks typical edit [35]. Mark removes unreferenced material and adds a web reference [36] and fixes my typo’s. Sony reorganises intro [37].

Now we come down to it, Mark’s typical edit [38]. Forgetting what I had removed. Not happy with that Mark wants more of a change [39], and adds unreferenced opinion as well [40].All of which Sony ignores [41]. I make the change on title [42]. Regardless Mark changes it [43]. I revert [44] Mark in another attempt [45].I add more referenced material [46]. Replace title [47].Now wiki calls this an edit war? I add more referenced edits [48]. Sony now steps in and re arranges the lot [49]. And then adds a tag on their own work [50]. Another clean up [51] and drops a line from a referenced quote by mistake [52] (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 [53].

Sarah has a difference of opinion on one of the references [54]. I then added more referenced material [55], 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 [56]. Mark then adds the unreferenced lead I removed [57]. I removed it with an explanation [58]. Mark again [59]. I removed it again, and gave reasons [60]. I added more referenced material [61]. I would draw editors to the quote by James Donnelly I added. Now look at Sony’s response [62]. In particular the lead sentence, and the context in which it was written. I responded [63]. Mark jumps in [64]. What the POV was I do not know? I replace it again [65]. Now this is supposed to be edit warring? Mark again [66]. I revert again [67]. Sarah now makes an edit [68], I would draw editors attention to the Donnelly quote. I now add more referenced material [69]. Now editors should notice that Sony changed it back to my original version [70] and therefore knew all along that I did not change it. I reverted back Sony’s changes, [71]. While I did not notice the change, they certainly did!Mine after all was a simple revert. Mark then makes a typical edit [72]. And then removes a referenced quote with a spurious argument [73]. Has a swipe but no mind [74]. Sarah removes Marks opinion piece [75]. I then replaced the referenced information Mark removed [76]. The article was then locked [77].

With the article unlocked I done a clean up of it and placed citation tag, wishing to tackle the issue on the article, [78]. Again issue with book, continued to tidy article [79]. I changed a title name [80]. Added another reference [81], [82] and added a new section with referenced information, on background and context, [83]. I then made a number of edits and added citation tags [84]. Sarah tweaked some of the information [85]. I then began to tidy the references and address some of the tags [86]. Mark then reverted all the changes I’d made since the page was unblocked [87]. There was never any agreement to not edit the article, there was a request [88] and a proposal [89] by SirFrozzie. There was never a prohibition. I reverted and stated reasons [90]. And then Mark [91] and then me, with comment [92]. There was never any disagreement with the information I added or any of the work I’d done! Then another editor contributed [93], [94]. A bot added tags [95], and Mark reverted the lot [96]. The editor kept editing obliviouls of the change [97]. I then reverted [98].Then SirFrozzie steps in and reverts it all again [99], and Asks editors not to edit. Which wiki policy is that? [100].Then the fun really starts an editor steps in [101] and reverts, and another [102] and removes tags, then another editor [103] and another [104] and another [105], and then Mark reverts the lot with an accusation [106]. I step in and revert, [107] I’m not accepting that accusation, another editor comes in [108] read the comment it’s a dead give away! Makes you laugh, well I was not having that [109]. New editor reverts again [110], Me again [111]. There comments sound so familiar [112]. An established editor steps in [113], and then Mark again [114]. More edits [115], [116], page gets locked [117].