Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Italo-Dalmatian languages

added links pointing to Neapolitan, Tuscan, Sicilian and Corsican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Italo-Dalmatian languages may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• cilentano)'' is spoken in [[Cilento]], which is the centre and south of the [[Province of Salerno]]) in the Campania region.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Languages of Italy

added links pointing to French, Moribund and Corsican

Italo-Dalmatian languages

added a link pointing to Abruzzese

Italo-Western languages

added a link pointing to Cantabrian language

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're undoing the removal of unsourced material, the WP:BURDEN to provide citations with reliable sources is directly on you. The Dissident Aggressor 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Look at the info box, are you going to remove that too?

Are you going to delete all the articles you find without sufficient citations? That is not WP:OR.--Mrjulesd (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Of our policies, WP:VERIFIABILITY is perhaps the most important. If you're not going to cite reliable sources, your contributions are wasted and are considered by most to be disruptive. Rather than getting defensive, perhaps you could take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners to better align your efforts with our behavioral norms. Adding references as you add material is not very difficult, but it is required. The Dissident Aggressor 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are you serious? The info is the same as in the info box. Answer my question. Are you going to delete that too? If my article is wrong so is that. You cant just delete articles which you feel have insufficient citations. I could quote a hundred textbooks which would give the same info. If you can't tell the difference between OR and ignorance please stop deleting in bulk article contents. There is no policy on wikipedia were you can delete in bulk article contents which you feel have insufficient citations. It is against policy. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.^[1]

...

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article."

— source: WP:BURDEN

The Dissident Aggressor 23:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also a burden on you to stop bulk deleting content on subjects you don't have any knowledge about. WP:OR ? Any linguist would roll about in laughter. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DissidentAggressor is right in what he/she says about policy relating to removal of unsourced content, but arguably not right in his/her aggressive application of that policy, while ignoring the context among other policies. I have written a longer response at User talk:DissidentAggressor, and rather than repeat the same things, I refer you to my message there. For the record, however, I will mention here that that message includes a notification to both of you that you need to be aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed your transposed comments on Talk:Italo-Dalmatian languages as they are not in line with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

• Be precise in quoting others.
• When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.

You made it look that JamesBWatson posted that block of text in response to my comments on Talk:Italo-Dalmatian languages. In addition you added emphasis that was not there. That is completely misleading and inappropriate.

Beyond that, I would encourage you to cease with your ad-hominem attacks. I get you don't like me. If you don't like working with others here, find something else to do, but your continued ad-homenem attacks may find you blocked from editing.

The Dissident Aggressor 12:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italo-Dalmatian_languages&oldid=627455014

This is the text:

I support the deletions that JorisvS has made. This whole article is a mess. Kudos to JorisvS for attempting to improve it. The Dissident Aggressor 17:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:DissidentAggressor: Thats because you don't know any better. You have already said "I don't know crap about languages."?. --Mrjulesd (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is fair comment. You said "I don't know crap about languages."? not me. I don't believe you have any knowledge of languages. You've said it, and all your actions suggest it. If this is true your comments are irrelevant, especially as you give no reasons why you think what you do.

Also I would like to explain the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=627229647

[[User:DissidentAggressor|The Dissident Aggressor]] On more than one page where you removed content because it was not sourced, I found that less than a minute on Google produced far more than enough sources. Yes, I know that by policy the burden is not on you to find sources, but while it would be unreasonable to expect you to do extensive searching through academic texts not readily available, it is not unreasonable to suggest that nobody should ever remove content merely because it is unsourced when a minute's work would enable anyone at all to find sources. Bear in mind that the ultimate objective is to improve the encyclopaedia, not to follow some set of rules, and it does not improve the encyclopaedia to remove good content, just because nobody has added a reference which can easily be added. I also saw cases where you removed a sentence which was tagged for sources, but left intact other sentences in the same article which included the same claims, sometimes without references, but sometimes with references, which served perfectly well as sources which you removed. It looks rather as though your only criterion was "someone tagged this statement for sources a while ago", rather than "someone tagged this statement for sources a while ago and I have made a careful assessment, and concluded that it is indeed true that there is no reference in the article for this statement, that it is not easy to find any, and that the content is sufficiently dubious that it is, on the whole, better to leave it out of the article". It may be helpful to reconsider your approach to dealing with "citation needed" tags. The editor who uses the pseudonym "User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

--Mrjulesd (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, you're a smart guy, but you've got to be comfortable working with other folks and following our conventions. Please use diffs rather than pasting comments verbatim or entire passages of articles. It makes it a whole lot easier. Also, this obsession with bolding text is really rather unconventional and not helpful. Threading posts with conventional indenting, normal formatting and diffs will make your positions much easier for folks to understand and agree with.

Beyond that, wikipedia is filled with folks of all types and you don't get to choose who edits articles. The general principle is that if folks are making a good faith effort to try to improve things, it's OK. You may not agree with each edit, you may find folks pedantic and sometimes beneath you intellectually, but you have to treat folks with more respect. We have folks that range from significantly along the autistic scale to the folks with little ability to focus and all levels of differently-abled folks. As long as folks have basic competence, we have to work together. We can't just dismiss folks like you seem to want to do.

I hope this helps. The Dissident Aggressor 23:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well what would you do in my place? Seeing unwarranted edits continually been made. References being ignored. Logic being ignored. OR being assumed, even with references. My reporting of you wasn't because I dislike you, I don't even know you. I was concerned at you editing. I only know people from their editing, and I am sometimes disturbed at what I see. And vandalism being claimed against me! All my hard work undone, with seemingly no justification. No valid reasons given. I expand and improve articles to see it all deleted. I can't help but see it as vandalism.

I have a lot respect for some. JamesBWatson for example, you should look at the quality of his edits. Extremely constructive and accurate. If everyone was like him I would only enjoy this place. Instead I am caught in unending conflict. I have almost given up editing, to see my work treated the way it is is extremely demoralising. Why can't people use talk pages before contentious editing? I will never understand why not. Some do, and it avoids most conflicts. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the way it works here. You can think of it as an "unending conflict" or approach it differently. There are certainly true malefactors about but they're relatively far and few between and we have antibodies that weed them out pretty quickly. If you can't stop approaching it like a conflict, then those antibodies will likely deal with that as well, or as you say, you may choose to stop contributing.

However, I'm optimistic that you'll soon be able to approach editing differently and stick around for the long haul. I think we (the wiki community) could benefit a lot from your participation if we can move to a more cooperative engagement model.

Just my €0.02 worth. The Dissident Aggressor 03:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• They are not WP:Battleground, they are conflicting views! They mainly takes place on the Talk pages. When people disregard logic I feel no other course but to disagree. And when people can't answer your points properly, I point out their errors. But this seems to be endless.

Look, why don't you explain the points raised by JamesBWatson? I'm really tired of you criticising me when you can't answer your own criticisms. --Mrjulesd (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• The issue James was concerned about has not recurred. There are no outstanding questions. Are you looking for blood? What do you expect to happen? The wiki-cops aren't coming to take me to Guantanamo. James gave me constructive feedback and the issue has been dealt with, but you can't let go.

Not only can you not let go, but it seems to be one of only three responses you have to any comment I make - the others being that since I'm not an expert on a subject, any opinions I have on article mechanics are irrelevant or that I (or anyone else who disagrees with you) am a vandal. None of these responses of yours are constructive or in line with our fundamental principles.

This is a perfect example of your tendentious approach to editing. I urge you to take this feedback seriously and make changes. The Dissident Aggressor 12:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stop your personal attacks. That is because you won't answer me! Until you explain your actions to me or JamesBWatson, my opinion of you will remain the same. Since you are so keen on diffs, they are the following:

The text above beginning [[User:DissidentAggressor|The Dissident Aggressor]] and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DissidentAggressor&diff=626872390&oldid=626844083

--Mrjulesd (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have revert a few of your edits with some of the help pages (see here) I think its best we dont send our new (lost) editors on a wild goose chase to many pages that have the same links. I like what you did at Help:Getting started ...but so you know... I tried to add all thoses links before and there was a talk about how the page should be as simple as possible...but again I like what you did and I hope its stays. At Template:Help navigation I restored the top header ..again it was simply overwhelming for someone looking for help. Would love to see you over at Wikipedia:Help Project ...see what other ideas you have. I recently wrote Help:Help that explains the problem here with the help pages. -- Moxy (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your change, because I do not think it is an improvement. It's true that WP:Don't cite WP42 at AfD lists some other occasions when it advises not citing WP:42, but "or at other times" implies it should never be cited, and if you make that more accurate we would end up duplicating most of WP:NOT42 here. WP:42 should be kept simple; it's enough to link to WP:NOT42. If you disagree, please propose the change on the talk page for discussion. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough John. Thanks for your explanation. What do you think about adding to see also:

• Wikipedia:Everything you need to know: a similar guide in the same style.

? --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen that one before, I'd like to take a little time to look at it. Reply later today. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not - you could propose it on the talk page, or just add it and see if anyone objects. I'm surprised to see no entries on its talk page, there has been fairly furious argument on WT:42 from time to time. Perhaps people aren't aware of it. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK then. I think I'll be bold and try adding it, but I won't alter anything else. One look at the talk pages and I can see it might provoke controversy; I find it all a little strange really, that that has been so much disagreement, but sometimes that seems to be the case over rather unlikely topics. I don't think anyone knows about "Everything..." which I think is a shame, but I had to fix it a little. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5