User talk:DissidentAggressor/Archive 1

This is an Archive file - Do not edit it

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds .... the material.

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds .... the material.

Why did you not give the editor on the Bitcoin article the chance to supply the citation? That would be normal and reasonable, don´t you think? I think we should give him/her a chance to do that. What do you think? MonteDaCunca (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The chance to supply the citation is upon addition of the material. Your chance was upon restoration. Both failed. Someone else cleaned up the mess. The Dissident Aggressor 23:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Laurel High School

Please come and rejoin the discussion. It is the source itself that is reliable, not the subject of the article in the source. I know of no-one that would say the Washington Post is not a reliable source.

BTW, your signature is out of policy. It must link to your user page and your talk page. This is not optional. John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the sig is fine. The Dissident Aggressor 02:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't up to you. I may think driving on the left side of the road is fine, but since the rules say I gotta drive on the right, drive on the right I must. I politely informed you of the problem. You essentially said "fuck off". So, change it, and do it soon, or I will report you and ask for you to be blocked as an obstructive editor. This is a cooperative project. Your name alone is somewhat an issue. Your blatant refusal to follow the rules set down for participation here is a bigger, and actionable problem. I'd rather not do that. Just go fix your signature, please. John from Idegon (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me be more explicit. I read the guideline on signatures. That I have a link to my talk page and it is not misleading about my user name is sufficient. Maybe you could go find somebody else to bother who is actually being disruptive.

I'm not quite sure I really understand your issue with that high school page but I really don't care and I'm not going to argue about it. I'm just trying to contribute. I don't have any idea what you're talking about about being obstructive or fucking off as you so eloquently put it. Seriously. please find somebody else to bother. The Dissident Aggressor 02:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Central Safety Force

Gooday sir,

I just uploaded Central Safety Force and it say's its awarded for speedy deletion. Can you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driverscreiber (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 July 2014‎

I explained it on your talk page. In case you haven't seen it there:

A tag has been placed on Central safety force requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

The Dissident Aggressor 20:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

DissidentAggressor, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi DissidentAggressor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! The Dissident Aggressor 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

p.s I co-founded the Teahouse, if we can help you there, I hope you'll stop by! Missvain (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I love some metal..but c'mon

You don't have to be finding articles I've written and totally tearing them up because of one opinion about protecting something. Seriously. I love Iron Maiden and the other gems (I'll tell you about me visiting a Manowar themed bar sometime in Budapest with User:Multichill and User:Kippelboy sometime!) but I thought it was a bit troublesome that you some how stumbled across an article I worked on only to totally gut it. I actually base the articles I write on content found in Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. You can find examples of the articles I use for inspiration here: Ben's Chili Bowl (been there a few times, oy vey...messy stuff!) and The Fat Duck. So I suggest you check out articles written by restaurant folks on Wikipedia before you go to town gutting things based on an assumption of notability AND promotion. But, what do I know after 8 years of doing this :) Let me know if I can answer any questions for you about editing Wikipedia. Thanks again for your contributions, and I hope you can learn more about how things roll in regards to restaurants! Missvain (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoa - hold up there. Articles? Administrator, you need to get your facts straight:

1. I looked at one and only one (very bad) article that you wrote. Using the plural is incorrect and mischaracterizing my actions in a negative way.
2. In your defensiveness, you seem to have lumped comments by me and ThoughtIdRetired (talk · contribs) in to one entity opposing your article. I've never mentioned notability as a reason for any actions on that article.

It's clear that you are playing the role of a victim here.

As to why I looked at that article, yes, based on your poor judgement in your out-of-policy semi-protection of Israeli military decorations I thought I'd look at a little bit of what else you have been doing here.

About that article: consensus on the talk page is that it sucked. It looked like a puff piece for the restaurant and had no business on wikipedia in that form.

Now, here's a bigger concern: Based on my interaction with you and very brief examination of your activity, I believe you have no business being an administrator:

1. Semi-protecting an article on a whim when no persistent vandalism is occurring puts IP editors at a distinct disadvantage. That's not how we do things. It's against policy.
2. Writing a puff piece for your favorite steakhouse? You really should know better.
3. Playing the victim when someone calls you on creation of a lousy article? That's pretty poor behavior from any editor but completely inappropriate for an administrator. Administrators are expected to be able to be accountable for their actions. Editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
4. Your nomination of The Willo Steakhouse for deletion appears to be a passive-aggressive response to criticism of the article, rather than continuing to engage in constructive discourse on the talk page. In short, a bad-faith nomination.
5. You have some fundamental misconceptions about editing here as pointed out in this comment: "At least my article was fully cited with reliable secondary sources. I'm actually sad about having my article torn up like this..". Coming from an admin, this is ridiculous:

1. It's not "your article"
2. This is a collaborative project. If you have problems with others editing the pages you write (for better or worse), you're probably working on the wrong site. Being sad about others editing the article is just plain problematic. This is probably the root of the problem here.

May I suggest you think about these issues and whether you have the temperament and judgement to continue being an admin? I for one, have some serious concerns. The Dissident Aggressor 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Emile Munier

Strange that you have now decided to go after the Emile Munier page. Here is another article that has been active for years and discusses the life of a fairly important 19th century Academic master. When I placed the text on this page (which was directly from something I wrote) a senior editor pointed out that if I left it there, it would become 'public information' and I would not keep the copyright ... so the text was cut down to just the BASIC facts.

Also, you removed an image from Wikipedia of his work ... an image, which as the copyright holder, I personally posted and understood that it was now public ... why?

108.21.0.30 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

See response above. The Dissident Aggressor 19:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rehs Galleries, Inc.

Thank you for your comments on the Rehs Galleries, Inc. page. I thought I had updated the link with the proper page. Our site was reworked and a few of the pages were changes ... I placed the link to the history page -- was that incorrect? Also, when the article was originally accepted in Wikipedia (back in 2009) I did post on the talk page that I was connected to the firm ... I trust that was the appropriate thing to do? In addition, I do not think I put (or have put) anything on the page that was not impartial. If there is something you feel may have crossed the line, please let me know.

Can you add a little more about the actual text shown in the article. Is there a problem if the text is very similar (or almost the same) to what we ended up with on our web site? If so, how do we go about changing it on the Wiki site? I doubt there will be many people who want to edit our story!

Thanks again

Howard L. Rehs (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a better ideas is not to tell your story on Wikipedia. If it's truly notable, someone else will tell the tale. You're clearly too close to it and Wikipedia discourages folks from editing stuff they're involved in as I attempted to explain on your talk page. The Dissident Aggressor 03:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am now a little confused as to why you deleted the text for the article. Let me stress the following ... this article was accepted and posted to Wikipedia 5 years ago and there have been other edits, by other people, over the years. In addition, when the article was initially done I was very open about the fact that I am connected to the firm. The article was written in accordance with the rules at the time. I request that you please undo your edit and we wait for another editor to rewrite the text and chime in on the matter.

You also seems to be accusing me of editing from another account ... please retract that accusation immediately ... and if you decided to remove the article because someone else edited the text, then that seems very vindictive and maybe you now have a 'conflict of interest' in this matter.

108.21.0.30 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't just let you post copywritten material on Wikipedia, claiming that you own it and we can use it. We need you to verify with the Foundation that you are the real copyright holder and understand the legal implications of putting your copyrighted work on Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation has established specific licensing guidelines that we need to follow.

If you wish to grant Wikipedia the rights to this material, follow the instructions here. It has all the info you need. Be sure you understand the rights to the text that you will be giving up. Then, you'll be granted what's called "an OTRS ticket" that shows Wikipedia has been granted the rights to the text and then you can post the material verbatim.

We don't accept copyrighted work outside of that process in order to protect the holders of copyright, both from others posting their words on Wikipedia, and from unknowingly signing away their rights.

I hope you understand that refusing all copyrighted work until we have real evidence that it's been released into the GDFL is the best way to make sure we aren't violating anyone's rights.

I assure you that I have no conflict of interest with your gallery or any type of fine art. I urge you to WP:AGF. There is no vindictiveness here, but it is clear you have a major misunderstanding of Wikipedia's copyright policy which is causing problems with the vast majority of your edits. I'm not WP:HOUNDing you, rather following a trail of pervasive copyright violations and attempting to address them. The Dissident Aggressor 19:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As you noted, one of the other senior editors told me exactly what was needed in order to keep the text on Wikipedia and I did exactly what they said ... in turn, they placed the text back in the article. If you note the copyright text at the bottom of our page it states the following:

Unless otherwise noted on the specific page, all information and images displayed on this web site are the property of Rehs Galleries, Inc. and may not be reproduced in any manner or from without the express written permission of Rehs Galleries. Inc.

It is clearly noted on the history page that ... The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I am undoing your edit and if you still have an issue, then take it up with the Admin who undid your change before making further edits. At this point, your actions do appear to be 'sour grapes'.

One more thing, if you read all the posts on this issue, you will realize that the text was on Wikipedia before it was added to our site.

Howard L. Rehs (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Assume bad faith. Good idea. The Dissident Aggressor 22:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Bertha Butt Boogie

Hello, DissidentAggressor. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, The Bertha Butt Boogie, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. » nafSadh did say 06:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you like to boogie? The Dissident Aggressor 21:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversion made to Lemon (musician)

Hi DissidentAggressor. You may have noticed that I reverted one of your edits made to Lemon (musician). It looks like you made a typo, but then fixed it as I was reverting that change. I apologize if I introduced any issues with your edits to that article. Feel free to restore. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you proposed the article for deletion, so nevermind. Hopefully no harm done :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you deleting article content that has, in your view, insufficient citations? That is not WP:OR. You need to provide evidence of OR, otherwise you are breaking wikipedia rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Romance_languages has been deleted mostly. But it is more or less what is written in the info box. You are also edit warring. Please stop.

None of your removals are OR, if you knew about languages, or had some text books you'd realise how wrong you are being. Do you know anything about languages? None of the edits were OR! You cannot just delete all the articles you find with insufficient citations, that is against policy.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

That's not something I made up - it's policy. The Dissident Aggressor 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not policy that you can bulk delete content merely because you cant tell the difference between WP:OR and what you don't know. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's for dumb guys like me that we have WP:V. I don't know crap about languages. I do know a little about editing here though. The Dissident Aggressor 22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I repeat. If you cant tell the difference between WP:OR and your ignorance please stop all this. Also if you can't understand WP policy please stop. If you dont know about languages why are you deleting tons of content? Don't edit things you have no idea about! You said "It's for dumb guys like me..." no it's not for dumb guys "I don't know crap about languages." yet you're editing them? "I do know a little about editing here though." you don't. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Expert editors like you presumably are, are valuable, but you have to follow the same principles as the rest of us. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it does not make a distinction between editors based on their expertise. You don't WP:OWN anything around here and I am allowed to edit the same articles as you.

I hope you can find the time and patience to provide sources for your additions. Good luck. The Dissident Aggressor 23:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• What? You've deleted my contributions, and when I reverted you undid it. Do I provide refs for blank text?

Do not edit on subjects you haven't a clue about. Do not quote policies you don't understand. Do not waste my time and patience. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

warning-spam/trollery collapsed

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Western_Romance_languages, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Carlo_Porta, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Western_Lombard_dialect, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Eastern_Lombard_dialect, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Emilian_dialect, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Gallo-Italic_languages, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Lombard_language, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Eastern_Lombard_grammar, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Headless_computer, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Electro_swing, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjulesd (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am here because I have been assessing a report on DissidentAggressor by User:Mrjulesd at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

1. I see no evidence that DissidentAggressor is acting in bad faith, and in the absence of any such evidence, I have to assume that the editing is not vandalism.
2. DissidentAggressor is perfectly correct in his/her representation of Wikipedia policy: if any unsourced content is removed or challenged, it should not be restored without providing a reliable source.
3. I have looked at a number of the articles in question, and having some knowledge of linguistics, I am able to say that most of the deleted content that I saw was not by any stretch of the imagination original research, or in any way controversial or doubtful. Much of it is stuff that I first read in reliable standard textbooks in the 1960s, and some of it has certainly been accepted fact since the nineteenth century. I suggest to DissidentAggressor that it might be worth considering whether removing the content is helpful to readers of the encyclopaedia. Yes, you are free to remove uncited content, but the fact that policy allows you to do something does not mean that it is always constructive to do so. If there are particular parts of the content that you have reason to think are original research or for other reasons unhelpful, then perhaps you can say specifically which parts, and why you think that. Otherwise, requesting sources might be more helpful than removing large amounts of relevant content merely because you don't know where it is sourced from. Also, bear in mind that one fundamental Wikipedia policy can, under suitable circumstances, take precedence over all other considerations: Wikipedia does not have firm "rules", and whatever any policy, guideline, or anything else says, anything which is unhelpful to the encyclopaedia is not to be done.
4. Perhaps Mrjulesd can try to provide sources. However, I know full well that doing so can sometimes be difficult: you may know full well that particular facts are recorded in reliable sources that you have seen in the past, but you may not have immediate access to those sources now. I have no way of knowing whether Mrjulesd has access to suitable sources or not, and even if he or she has, searching through them to find references for every statement removed from all the articles involved could be a very large task. However, any sources which can be provided would be helpful
5. I should like to remind both of you that repeatedly making the same, or substantially the same, changes to a page in the face of reverts from one or more other editors, is unacceptable, and can lead to being blocked. You have both been around for a while, so you may well be acquainted with the policy on edit warring, but if not then you may like to look at it now. (In particular, please avoid the remarkably common mistake of thinking that edit warring is synonymous with the so-called "three revert rule". It isn't, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking that "rule".)

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Viva the past tense

General comment: Please don't use the present tense to describe something in the past. It is incorrect. You should use the eponymous past tense. The Dissident Aggressor 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pollock Rip Shoals

Sorry about the speedy, I didn't realize the source was in the public domain. Also, I don't know why you weren't notified of the speedy tag because I use Twinkle, which usually does this automatically. Jinkinson talk to me 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SS Fort Mercer

You might want to add {{Infobox Ship Begin}} and expand the article from this source. See SS Pendleton for an idea of article structure and how to incorporate the info. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Gerald Donald

It is an awful, awful article. But I think that AfD is a better venue for this. In addition, there's Drexciya, which is almost worse and also a candidate for AfD, as far as I'm concerned. I'm about to start pruning that article a little bit--it suffers from fan talk, poor writing, unverified factoids, and everything else. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Drmies. I'll probably take it there. You're one of the best. The Dissident Aggressor 03:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know about that--but thanks. Hey, that's a great song. Also, I've been chopping away at some of the related articles and redirected one; I think there is notability there for some of the subjects (and some content was already merged), but hey, I got rid of all my house and techno magazines. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's first rule of thumb is "If in doubt, User:Drmies is right." I don't think Juvente Norway is quite as bad as Gerald Donald, but for similar reasons I think this would sit better at AfD than CSD. Although to be honest, I think somebody with a grasp of Norwegian sources ought to be able to salvage it, so I won't nominate it myself. I did find one snippet of an English source that I popped in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this has been interesting. I've been working on Afrofuturism, Gerald Donald, Drexciya, and Dopplereffekt, simultaneously. I found some interesting sources: there is more to this (and more references for it) than our (poor) articles suggested. Someone was playing all coy and mysterious; there's not that much mystery, though there is a definite move away from the usual poppy openness. The guy ain't no media whore, that's for sure. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

PC reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

My COI

Hi DissidentAgressor, Since I do not work for any of the user groups, I am not sure why I should be too close. I happen to know a lot - but I thought that's supposed to be idea: to have experts write articles and ensure the content is correct. Happy to delete many links. Left only those that might be of interest for readers if they want to read more. is it ok now? or still too many? Thanks, Tania — Preceding unsigned comment added by UG-account (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Lake Forest representation

Why do you believe that the State and federal representation section of Lake Forest, California is out of date?—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My mistake - didn't see the {{representative}}. Folks frequently make statements like "the current mayor is ..." which is almost always (or soon will be) obsolete. A much better way of stating it would be "as of February 2015, the mayor is" and the {{representative}} uses the unfortunate verbage. I've fixed the tag. Thanks for pointing it out. The Dissident Aggressor 22:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this matter.—Stepheng3 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC

Ferguson Police Department

I'm sorry. I should have explained my edit. My mistake. At any rate, I edited out the Bearcat portion of the equipment section because in the source provided, the Bearcats shown were from either the St. Louis County Police Department or the Missouri State Highway Patrol. The Ferguson Police Department itself doesn't actually own any. I know the difference seems minor, but the County Police and Ferguson are two completely separate entities. - Gopman1 18:48 (UTC), 7 February 2015

St. Charles County, Missouri

The edit of the Sheriff changing from Tom Neer to Scott A. Lewis is a reflection of the change in not only the holder of the office, but a change in the County Charter. With my edit reversed, the article provides false and incomplete information. See the following: http://sccmo.org/1421/Sheriff http://sccmo.org/406/Police - Gopman1 18:53 (UTC), 7 February 2015

Curious

I am curious as to why you overstruck your keep, at Amanda Rosenberg.

I hadn't been following the edits there, until today. It seems to me that several of the unexplained excisions were highly questionable. I am considering pointing that out at the AFD.

Can I assume that if you had actually been convinced Ms Rosenberg didn't merit a standalone article you would have said so?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Geo Swan, It's disgust more than anything. I think PAX said it well. If you take out all the negativity and stuff folks are calling NOTTABLOID, there's not much left. I tried to say that in my restatement. Every product manager in Silicon Valley would have a page if we were saying such a feature contribution to a commercially non-viable product warranted an article. Now, add in publicly making highly racist statements (joking or not) and/or personal behavior contributing to the failure of a high-profile product team, that's notable as well as contemptible.

For the record and the talk page stalkers (if they exist here), I have never met Rosenberg, I don't work at Google and I don't have any personal connection to anything in that article. The Dissident Aggressor 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Greatest threat

You have a section on User:DissidentAggressor entitled Paid Editors: The greatest threat to this project. There was a wiki-id that devoted 80 percent of its edits either to material I originally contributed, or to commenting on material I originally contributed. Their edits were highly inflammatory, and highly intellectually dishonest. Yet they had to make over 20,000 edit before they were indefinitely blocked.

They used to accuse me of being a paid editor. I believe this was a case of J'accuse, and that I was being wiki-stalked by a team of paid editors. So, I think I know what a problem it can be.

But I disagree that it is the greatest threat to the project.

The way I see it, the golden age of the wikipedia ended almost a decade ago, when there was the right balance between anabolism and catabolism. Since then some ill-advised policy changes, BLP mostly, have made deletion too easy, and have made contributing valid, well-written new material too difficult. Fewer and fewer contributors are prepared to suffer the grief of contributing new material.

My hope? Someone with deep pockets comes along, and finances the creation of a wikipedia 2.0, one with some key policy changes, and one that makes all previously deleted material available for all editors with a certain minimum number of edits under their belt -- a first step that would allow material that was deleted under old bad policies to be restored to article space after being brought up to date.

What policy changes?

I'd get rid of BLP.

The Citizendium replaced "notability" with "maintainability", allowing all well-written articles, that cited sufficient good references to remain, without regard to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.

I'd get rid of anonymous contributions. I understand that the initial plan was that whistleblowers and individuals behind the Great Firewall of China could make anonymous contributions. But whistleblowers should use WikiLeaks, or OpenSecrets. The Citizendium does not allow anonymous contributions, and I found it much more civil and collegial than WP.

There are two basic models for the founding President of a new republic. George Washington and Nelson Mandela followed on model, while others followed the Robert Mugabe model. When a founding President's original legitimate term is coming to a close yes-men and flatterers tell them, "you are such a genius! You must hold on to power! Make yourself President-for-life. Don't step down. It is the only way you can make sure your full vision isn't diluted."

Washington and Mandela didn't listen to the flatterers. They did step down, and they resisted the temptation to make any comments on policy except of the broadest kind. The wikipedia and its sibling projects would be in better shape if Jimbo Wales made more of an effort to follow the Washington-Mandela model and resisted the temptation to follow the dictatorial model.

Wales is far too invested in stoking the legend that he was the genius who founded the wikipedia. He has far too much ego. I was appalled at the untruths he uttered after NYTimes reporter Rodhe was freed. The NYTimes approached him, personally, and he arranged a secret cabal of trusted administrators to secretly suppress any coverage of Rodhe's kidnapping. After Rodhe's release Wales lead a round of self-congratulation, when he never should have agreed to the NYTimes request, in the first place. Wales would claim the wikipedia would have faced hard decisions if anyone had tried to cover Rodhe's kidnapping who cited reliable sources.

One contributor had been trying their best to cover Rodhe's kidnapping, only to have their valid efforts thwarted, without explanation, by Wales secret cabal. Some members of this cabal said they had considered blocking this legitimate contributor. They couldn't leave him an explanation on his user talk page, without revealing the existence of the secret moratorium. And this legitimate contributor hadn't chosen to activate reception of private email.

The NYTimes had gotten most of its major competitors to agree not to cover Rodhe's kidnapping. But that moratorium was not complete, and a handful of legitimate publications did cover Rodhe's kidnapping. Wales wrote as if this legitimate press coverage hadn't existed. He acted as if his cabal had behaved ethically and responsibly. They hadn't. He should have told the NYTimes he could assemble a secret cabal, but they could only suppress unreferenced coverage Rodhe's kidnapping.

More recently I saw Wales ego get in the way of good decision making when an individual who represented himself as a boy-genius who claimed he was being bullied made a personal appeal to Wales. That "boy-genius" had turned down almost a thousand draft articles, even though they had key misinterpretations of practically every key policy. They had squandered a huge amount of volunteer time over on the commons over a petty and narrow-minded attempt to claw-back images they had released.

In his insistence that the images he released should be released, even though they were in use on various sibling projects, the boy-genius outed himself as a 14 year old minor, not legally competent to release their own intellectual property.

We have procedures through which outsiders can confirm permissions etc. I did not believe we should accept that this individual, who had shown signs of deceit, really was 14 years old, unless they or their legal guardians, used the confidential OTRS system to prove their age. But Jimbo Wales thought he could cut out the red tape, and rule that the individual was a poor 14 year old victim of bullying, without requiring any documentation.

So, wikipedia 2.0 would be best if it had no role for Jimbo Wales. Even when he tries to participate just as an ordinary contributor he is surrounded by a bevy of fan-boys, so no discussion he enters reaches a genuine consensus, as his fan-boys rush to agree with him, without regard to the position he takes.

How welcome should the wikipedia's current contingent of quality control volunteers be at a wikipedia 2.0 rebooot. Some quality control volunteers are barely literate, and simply aren't competent to participate in quality control decision making. I'd like to see a restriction where the software kept track of when individuals tried to participate in quality control decision-making, without ever doing any work adding new material. It might hurt the feeling to proscribe quality control volunteers who were unwilling or unable to make a positive contribution to voice opinions on the deletion of material, but I think it would be a big step in favour of over-all quality.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a catalog

I believe you may have overapplied WP:NOTCATALOG in edits like this one at Kellogg's. It's perfectly normal for an article about a company to contain a section on the company's products, with links to those products if an article exists. What NOTCATALOG is saying is that Wikipedia shouldn't provide "product pricing or availability information". Ibadibam (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement going forward. Thanks for the feedback. The Dissident Aggressor 22:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I also want to say that some of the edits where you've applied this guideline are 100% right on, like this one on Setanta College, which is the kind of thing that WikiProject Universities has specifically called out in their article guidelines (under "Academics", I believe). So thank you and please keep it up! Ibadibam (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:Fake Four

The mere fact that there are labels with very large rosters of musicians is not a reason to remove listings from more manageable articles. (A full listing for Sony would, in fact, be wonderful; it's just difficult, because there's never been a central listing of them. It'd be no more a catalog issue than, say, towns in California or people who played for the Pittsburgh Pirates.) I don't see WP:NOTACATALOG applying here, since this is not a "sales catalog"; it's a listing of artistic output, which is the lone thing that makes a record label worthy of inclusion. I have no idea how an alphabetical list of artists constitutes a copyright violation. If you want WP:BURDEN satisfied...sigh. This is totally pointless, since the information is not controversial and adding citations adds nothing worthwhile, but if you want a raft of them, your wish is my command, and I'll get down to it. Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Merrimack Valley

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --TimothyDexter (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha F Ha. The Dissident Aggressor 05:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion on Blac Elvis

I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know I declined your speedy deletion nomination on Blac Elvis. To be eligible for deletion under criteria A7, the article must make no claim of significance or importance. The article in question does say why the subject is important, and is thus not eligible for speedy deletion under A7. This is a much more lenient standard than the Notability Guidelines which are applied in deletion discussions at WP:AFD, and you should feel free to nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. Monty₈₄₅ 03:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

SubHuman

Fair enough. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Andrez Bergen page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Calibre (musician)

Hello DissidentAggressor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Calibre (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's enough there and in the sources to be a crdeible indication of his imporance. Take to AfD if required. . Thank you. GedUK  12:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please curb your CSD tagging

As someone who leans towards deletionism myself, I know where you're coming from. But you have to respect an article's history and the work that went into it-- especially when our criteria for inclusion aren't all that high. Rather than waste time (both yours and ours), you might want to consider listing longstanding articles at WP:AFD instead of throwing a CSD tag on it. The beauty of a successful AFD nomination is that it will be that much harder for the article to be recreated! --Hadal (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DissidentAggressor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Galleriared.
Message added 20:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Venu Govindaraju

Thanks for your comments and suggestions for cleaning up this page. I have tried to revise the content and edit the language to remove puffery. I've also removed links to external websites. What further edits would you suggest to warrant removal of the cleanup and advert content tags? Esobczak (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User just removed the tags without significant modification. It still reads like a publicity page.--ADrakken (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has been more significantly modified, including the removal of the 'publicity page' content. Esobczak (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies

Hi - i appreciate your encouragement. Want to tell you that I felt under attack and honestly believed you were simply retailiating for another edit. I misjudged your intentions and now have a much better understanding of the issues you objected to which has improved my own approach to BLPs. I do think that there is somewhere in between a spartan, pared down page and one that has more detail and color, but understand also that if that detail includes puffery, etc., it needs to go. Can agree to disagree on the nuances there - truth is probably somewhere in the middle and bottom line is whatever is in best interest of the page to the user should win. I think we both feel the same way about that. In any case this is a long-winded way of saying I owe you an apology. Best, Wintertanager (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Cheers. The Dissident Aggressor 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

KU:PALM

Hello. I noticed your edits to KU PALM. Thanks for your work to improve the entry. I have since included secondary sources to establish notability. If you agree this meets the criteria, would you remove the tag, please? If not, please offer further direction. Thank you. Rsmithing (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done The Dissident Aggressor 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Óró sé do bheatha abhaile page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. Thanks. The Dissident Aggressor 02:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Chisa Kobayashi

Hi. The reason why I removed the persondata from the above article is because of the outcome of the discussion on the Village Pump which has agreed that {{Persondata}} is going to be deprecated per RfC. I had previously also changed the infobox from athlete to swimmer as it fits in better with the overall description of the person. --ChicXulub (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. It did seem strange. The Dissident Aggressor 19:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

El Gran Carlemany

WP:NPS: "If out of copyright, shorter texts ... most national anthems — are usually included in their article". What exactly are you claiming here? @DissidentAggressor:.--Zoupan 15:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I claim I missed that part. The Dissident Aggressor 15:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Then you should look through your many recent edits.--Zoupan 16:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You might have noticed I've already done that. The Dissident Aggressor 19:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

changes to Dúlamán

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi. You reverted some changes I made recently to the Dulaman article, deleting the photo and the plot summary I added, as well as the lyrics which had been there before with the edit summary WP:NOTLYRICS. I can't see anything on the NOTLYRICS page against photos or plot summaries. I don't want to get into a revert war so I ask you to reconsider your edit and restore any bits that can stay.

I would also ask you to be a bit kinder to good faith editors like myself. If you left a note on my user page explaining what you did you would be less likely to scare off editors. filceolaire (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Partly done I restored the photo - I bit off a bit too much. However, the lyrics posting conflicts with WP:NPS and WP:NOTLYRICS. Your analysis of the lyrics appears to be just that - your commentary or WP:OR. If you can come up with some WP:RS for that analysis, we can add it back. If you want to discuss further, we should probably move to the article talk page. The Dissident Aggressor 18:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think my words are a plot summary. Does that really need a need a reliable source apart from the text itself? There are two translations which are already linked from this article. Was my 'analysis' really so 'original' that you had to delete it rather than working with me to fix it or just tagging it as needing a source?

Even deleting the lyrics is a bit heavy handed. WP:NPS says to move them to Wikisource. If you don't want to do that yourself shouldn't you just tag them as needing work and leave them for someone else to transwiki?

I'm sure you mean well but I'm feeling bitten. filceolaire (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you're feeling bitten. That was not my intent. Feel free to restore that exegesis as you can find sources to back it up. The Dissident Aggressor 15:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the big concern about moving to Wikisource? There are 3 different links to the lyrics for that song already in that article. The Dissident Aggressor 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just that WP:NPS says to move lyrics to wikisource. It doesn't say to delete them.

Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations says that plot summaries can reference the primary source. Is there some other requirement I need to know about?

I'm glad you didn't intend to bite me. I humbly ask you to spend an extra few seconds to be kinder in your interactions with other good faith editors in future. Thanks again for your time. filceolaire (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that you restored a bunch of the material that we've discussed here, and is clearly against policy, we can close this discussion with the warning issued on your talk page. The Dissident Aggressor 22:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed deletion of James Allen (murder victim)

The article James Allen (murder victim) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. No lasting coverage in reliable sources beyond the initial news article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of James Allen (murder victim) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Allen (murder victim) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Allen (murder victim) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Hi

Just wondering why you removed recently added AFDS from the list? Amortias (T)(C) 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to unscrew my screwup, I apparently screwed up worse. Looks like you fixed it. The Dissident Aggressor 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ging Gang Goolie, NPS and NOLYRICS

An article in a respected Swedish ethno-musicological magazine was the basis for the recent revamp of the WP Article on the song “Ging Gang Goolie” (GGG). Now the lyrics of the WP Article have been deleted with reference to NPS and NOLYRICS. I do not agree with these deletions. A longer version of the comments below is found in the GGG Talk: “Ging Gang Goolie, NPS and NOLYRICS”. I suggest further discussion should take place there.
Before updating the WP Article I studied carefully three principles in particular: NPV, NPS and NOLYRICS.

NPV NPV lead me to present in short the different views of the ancestry of GGG.

NPS “If out of copyright, shorter texts – such as short speeches (the Gettysburg Address), short poems ("Ozymandias"), and short songs (most national anthems) – are usually included in their article. Longer texts are best summarised with the full text placed on Wikisource, or given as an external link.”

NPS lead me to let the lyrics stay included – they are short and not burdened with any copyright. Further they have been there for 9 years without adverse reactions.

NOLYRICS “Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style”

The reason for presenting the two lyrics variants of GGG was presented in the Talk prior to the inclusion: “the very earliest 1905 and the earliest English one 1957 (for comparison in a table)”.

The song is short. The comparison of the lyrics has two purposes:

a) It shows that the two variants are very much the same, although they differ in time, geography and spelling. Thus it helps to disprove the now 9 years old WP propagated myth of Baden-Powell as author/composer of the song.

b) It shows what is song gibberish

Thus I understand that the lyrics facilitate discussion and illustrate the style.

Ergo I feel these reasons are still valid, thus I would return the WP Article on “Ging Gang Goolie” to its former state including the two variants of the lyrics. I look forward to comments on the "Ging Gang Goolie" Talk page Brommabo (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Ging_Gang_Goolie#Ging_Gang_Goolie.2C_NPS_and_NOLYRICS. The Dissident Aggressor 21:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ecstatic Peace

I find [1] to be a little concerning. Please ensure that your interpretation of WP:A7 is in line with policy. An indication of significance, which is the criteria for A7, is present in the article in 3 main respects: the label is founded by Thurstone Moore, the label has several notable artists signed to it, and the label signed a distribution deal with Universal. All three by themselves would indicate a "credible claim of significance/importance". The correct action would have been to prod it, or to list it on AfD. —Dark 01:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Likewise for Rosy Parlane, which is linked to a notable band he was in. Also note that he is a person, not band. Its best to avoid speedy deleting pages ten years old as many of them are not referenced to the same standards as newer articles. -- haminoon (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Likewise with Dion Workman. -- haminoon (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_119#Speedy_deleting_old_pages from when you speedy deleted the other member of Thela. -- haminoon (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You guys seem pretty "concerned" as Haminoon DarkFalls put it. I'm not an admin. There's a reason proles like me don't have delete privileges and you admin-types do. It's only a nomination. That's exactly why only admins have the delete button. Is there a minimum success rate that nominators are supposed to hit? I may have missed that. 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dunno but often admins trust speedy deleters way too much (as happened with Dean Roberts). If in doubt please AFD or PROD. -- haminoon (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So you two are busting my chops because admins are incompetent? The Dissident Aggressor 06:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not busting your chops! But yes. -- haminoon (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are expected to have an understanding of deletion policies before tagging an article for deletion. If you are not confident with deletion policy, then please stop tagging these articles for speedy deletions. It just creates unnecessary work for everyone. —Dark 08:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You're free to disagree with any nomination you review and decline it. I don't need your permission. All work here is unnecessary and if you're not pleased with the duties, do something else. What the heck are you so "concerned" about? You might try lightening up a bunch. The Dissident Aggressor 21:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall asking you to get permission to tag an article. All I'm asking you is to be more careful in the future, so that you won't cause unnecessary work for others. I trust that consideration is not too much to ask here. —Dark 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)