User talk:DissidentAggressor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Thank you for taking a look, but the Wikipedia:Notability_(music) tag still shows on the article. Could you remove or offer direction please? Would it be better if I undid that myself? I'm still learning over here, so apologies if I'm misunderstanding something obvious. Rsmithing (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Sorry, I thought I did this. My edit must have not posted when I clicked "Save page." The Dissident Aggressor 19:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for your prompt attention. I addressed the linkrot issue also. Rsmithing (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the Webix article

Looks like we have a bunch of sockpuppets or canvassing friends who want to hide the fact that Webix started out as a fork of DHTMLx. 1, 2, 3. -- Dandv 01:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

indeed. The Dissident Aggressor 21:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

About WikiTree

Hi, DissidentAggressor, and thanks for your message.
I meant to contact you about the speedy deletion decline, but being a absent-minded creature, it slipped my mind.
The url included the 2006 version was http://www.wikitree.org, which now redirects (or whatever the correct term is) to http://www.wikitree.com.
I've emailed you the code for the deleted article, and as you can see, the 2006 and 2008 "WikiTree"-s were started by different people.
Q: Was the website established in 2006 in fact the same thing as the website established in 2008? A: I dunno. But the old article was different enough from the current version for it to not meet WP:G4.
Hope this helps! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. Good catch on the dates, btw. The Dissident Aggressor 13:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear: "a absent-minded creature"? I've added myself to that category.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I understand that. Your catch wasn't at all absent-minded. It was good. The Dissident Aggressor 14:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

RE:Andamanes etc.

Of the three accounts you tagged as possible sockpuppets: The user has requested that Jennchowdrey be blocked, and it has been done. The user Andamanes posted that they are an inactive account of jennepicfoundation so I have blocked that account also. That leaves the account jennepicfoundation as the sole account. Thanks for being on the alert but I think this case is resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie. The Dissident Aggressor 17:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Charles Royal

In being so cute by half to do a hatchet job on Royal s page, which it's clear you have a personal problem with, your edits have become arbitrary. For example you eliminate his "most definitive work" by citing there can only be ONE and then proceed to erase more important recordings such as Dream Come True instead of just changing the phrase Most Definitive....congrats on the goal seeking dude! Bethbar5 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That article has been a cesspool since 2006 when it was nominated at AFD by Ndorward (talk · contribs) because "it seems an obvious instance of using Wikipedia for self-promotion." It was kept because the musician is notable. However, the article was not only promotional as heck but it was very poorly written. It read like a resume, and was repetitive, saying both he played with the youth orchestra and met Blakely several times.

I've tried to remove your puffery and promotion and leave a neutral biography supported by reliable sources. What you think is daddy's (or uncle Greg's - haven't figured out what the relationship is) most definitive work has no place on this encyclopedia. It's your opinion (we work on verifiability and reliable sources) and you have no business writing these puff-pieces on your relatives - which it appears is all you are here to do. The Dissident Aggressor 13:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shavick Entertainment

Hello DissidentAggressor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shavick Entertainment, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being the producer of notable television shows is enough of an indication of notability to not qualify as A7. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean importance, I believe. The Dissident Aggressor 13:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy declined

I declined speedy deletion of Six Weeks Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), however there seems to be a walled garden of minor bands claiming notability by association with each other, and an omnibus AfD covering all of them might well be a good idea. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'll get around to that at some point. The Dissident Aggressor 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion nominations

Twice today you have nominated articles for speedy deletion based on criterion A7 ("No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events") – Martinus Brandal and Arne Hygen Tørnkvist. Both of these articles explain why the person in question could be notable, provide (presumably dead) links and there is no plausible reason for believing the information is wrong. A speedy deletion is not the correct venue to determine if these people are notable. Please see Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. A more appropriate venue for questions of notability is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Based on a quick assessment based on news searches, Brandal is almost certainly notable. Tørnkvist is another matter, and is perhaps a borderline case. Either way it is important that multiple people are given the opportunity to look into the matter—perhaps someone has access to offline sources which can establish notability. Criterion A7 does not apply here because both articles proclaim, correctly, that said people have been CEOs of major companies. Brandal has for instance led a corporation with 23,000 employees. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps taking a look at User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes will explain where A7 is applicable (there are of course places where A7 is in place). Although this is just an individual's comments, the page does specifically state that A7 should be avoided if the person "[i]s CEO or another high ranking employee of a notable company". Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Danny Winchell

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Danny Winchell 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 a band or musician, 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 14:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexandre Mars

You're welcome. But I really don't think this needs to be listed at Project Integrity. I think there are plenty of eyes on this article already. If you check the article's history you'll find that the article as it currently exists was written almost entirely by myself and User:Ritchie333; both of us are admins and highly experienced content creators. And as you could see, we keep a close eye on the page. The COI editor has disclosed her COI on her own userpage as required. She has tried to cooperate in the past, but she got carried away this time with her latest edits. As you can see I have warned her, and now she will have to do her editing through the article's talk page. If you think listing it with Integrity will help, fine, but it strikes me as an over-reaction. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. Thanks. The Dissident Aggressor 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I encourage you to join project integrity. The Dissident Aggressor 04:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Shavick Entertainment

WP:NOTINHERITED does not mean that no topic's notability can ever be explained in terms of its interrelationship to other topics (if it did, then no topic would ever be notable at all, because it's impossible to quantify any topic's notability in complete isolation from any other topic — for example, even New York City's notability can't be explained without making reference to the fact that it's in the United States. Steven Spielberg's notability cannot be quantified without making reference to the films he's directed. The White House's notability cannot be explained without making reference to its status as the home of the President of the United States. And on and so forth.)

What that rule means is that a topic is not allowed to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced article just because it happens to be related to another topic — but it ceases to apply if the article cites sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate that the topic satisfies WP:GNG on its own, which the article about Shavick Entertainment most certainly already does. It doesn't take forty sources to satisfy a notability rule; it just takes two or three. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. You said the company is notable because of its products:

"the basic notability of a production firm which has produced notable films and television series and owns a notable television channel is not up for debate"

As far as your examples, recognized geographic locations are notable in general. Spielberg is notable on his own via a number of different means -WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG and maybe a few others. However, he did NOT inherit notability from his products.

However, I think you know all that and were just caught being sloppy and don't want to admit it. The Dissident Aggressor 07:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Maryland Lynchings

Have at it my friend. I am busy trying to cite every police department in the US. (There are dozens of them!) This morning I discovered and was distracted by the MSA page on lynchings. It is a passing fancy. It is just so sad to think these people are forgotten. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I'm pursuing this. The Dissident Aggressor 05:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Chuck de Caro

You proposed the deletion of Chuck de Caro. Did you embed the proposal template correctly in the article? I ask because I would support your proposal if there was a link in the article to the deletion discussion, which I cannot find. Where is the discussion to which I can add my support? — O'Dea (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take it to AFD, so there's no link. It's a WP:PROD nomination since it seems like there is nothing worth saving in that article per WP:TNT and I don't want to prevent a real article from being written. If it goes to AFD, the discussion will be along the lines of "should we have an article for this person" vs. "there is nothing worth saving in the article." If someone objects to the prod, I'll try taking it to AFD or gutting the garbage that's there. The Dissident Aggressor 21:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If you start a discussion at any point, drop a note on my talk page and I will support deletion. I agree a reasonable article could be written, as de Caro seems notable, but the present one is inadequate, being merely an uncited vanity operation. — O'Dea (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexandre Mars

Hi DissidentAggressor. Thanks so much for your message! I just wanted to replace the first paragraph in the Alexandre Mars "Advocacy" section with what now appears as the second paragraph because it better aligns with what Alexandre is doing (which is working for children and youth, more than anything). In the future, I'll make sure to include an accurate edit summary. Please let me know if this makes sense and is ok with you. Thanks again. Jennepicfoundation (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Nawrocki

FYI, you Prod2ed this and it was deleted; it has now been restored by a user request. You may wish to AFD it. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle. Summer beat me to it. The Dissident Aggressor 18:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naill Nišić

Please don't interfere with the SPI clerks' work. Endorsing & self-endorsing CU requests is what they're supposed to do. They don't need you making extra work for them. Bazj (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No potential for abuse there. No indeed. The Dissident Aggressor 14:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite your tone, no there isn't. It's just asking for extra evidence. What's the difference between me asking for a CU, and an SPI clerk deciding that the behavioral evidence alone is insufficient and asking for a CU? I don't like wasting time and effort asking for CU evidence in my SPI complaints when it seems to me that the behaviour is evidence enough.

Have a look at the outcome of the CU - how abusive is "The two accounts are  Technically indistinguishable."? CU doesn't disclose any more than that. Bazj (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your wiki-haughty judgement got the best of you. I did not say that Vanjagenije was being abusive. The Dissident Aggressor 00:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor did I say you had. Bazj (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you ask how abusive the outcome was? The Dissident Aggressor 14:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I was (clumsily it would seem) inviting you to look at the result of the positive CU, "The two accounts are  Technically indistinguishable." and to see that contrary to the tone of your comment, "No potential for abuse there.", there is actually no potential for abuse. Nothing is revealed other than that the two accounts are related. Regards, Bazj (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Lotus Records

No fault on your part, it was very very marginal. I decided based on the length of time the article had been around and the (unsourced) marginal notability claims to convert it to a prod. Just thought I'd let you know!

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DissidentAggressor. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 04:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abusive harrassment of blocked editor

These related edits on Malik's talk page are inappropriate period, and right after he's been blocked are a violation of our policy against "dancing on another user's grave". I reverted them. I could block you, it's the standard thing to do when people abuse blocked editors like that, but I would much prefer you just not edit Malik's talk page again.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Admins stick together. Never talk back. I get it. Lots of shit.

You might notice the TB above inviting me to respond to his "shitty" message. The Dissident Aggressor 01:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find the grave dancing is found distasteful around here regardless of who is being mocked. Chillum 01:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I'll revert to the comments I made before I noticed he was blocked. The Dissident Aggressor 01:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You actually reverted to the most insulting version. You're blocked.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• DissidentAggressor, yes, I'm an admin too, and I'm sticking with Malik not because he's an admin but because he's a great guy and without him, this project would be worse off. So you were on the wrong side of some debate with him--well, it happens. (Sorry, but Malik was correct in his reading of "Selected discography".) Now you said some shit, and you caught Malik at a bad moment (and the rest of the admin corps), and you said some more shit, and now you're blocked for gravedancing. My advice to you: think about the situation in which all this happened, find the appropriate way to take back what you shouldn't have said, and get back to editing. I've seen you before, I'd like to have you as an editor more than as a former editor, so please take me seriously. And next time--but I'm sure there won't be a next time--you fall into a situation like this, take a deep breath. Ping me here if you have any questions. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Genmar Holdings

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Genmar Holdings 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Maestro Spinelloccio (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD

I understand you've been here for a bit of time now, about a year and some change, but don't contact users claiming adding a 9 article discussion is "irresponsible". That's the wrong verbiage to use on this site and it's highly confrontational. You claim that WP:BEFORE comes into play here; yet you go on to link two articles that require you to pay to view them. Come on now. I search every article in depth before I nominate them. The only issues I generally have are on foreign articles. These articles fail the general criteria to be notable under sports / athletic guidelines, as well as general guidelines. The ONLY team that would be somewhat notable to stay here, would be the team that actually won the championship; and even then, adding each and every individual underage athlete would only be helpful if each and every one of them was notable outside of the team's aspect. I.e, each and every one of them would require their own significant coverage. And that's the other thing. Significant coverage is just that. Not one source mentioning the name of the person in conjunction with the team they play for, that's multiple sources talking about that person. Remember, these are not professional athletes. If they were, this would be a different discussion completely. The Undead Never Die (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand WP:GNG. Move along now. The Dissident Aggressor 22:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

in reply to the creation of the page on Dominique Monfery:

yes, of course I have read every guidelines. I am very neutral, sourcing everything, only facts. You dont even read the article, and see how neutral it is. why is it less neutral than any of his colleagues, like Dave Bossert etc? you keep harassing me and blocking me from editing it because you are convinced that i will not be objective. I am. You are having a conflict with me, and this is a confrontational, not a correct attitude. All I do is writing about the facts that are all written in articles, IMDB, etc. nothing more.

I was reproached of not having provided enough source as to why this person is important. fine. now i did. and now i can write this article, that only resume on wikipedia (which is the good thing about it since everyone can know facts and filmography about a person without having to search hours on the web) the truth about it. Please stop thinking and treating me as a person who is trying to promote someone. Monfery's Disney colleagues have a wikipedia page, he worked in many films that have wikipedia page. He is on a wikipedia page in other languages. If you create this page, fine. But he should have a page, because it fits your guidelines. If i did not provide enough elements last time, it is because i am new at wikipedia. I would have done the exact same mistakes to create someone else's page. in fact, I write an article about films I did not even work on. It is fair that people reading articles about his films, categories about articles talking him and his colleagues, Academy Awards' page etc, click on his name and fine an article about him, like everyone can do with any of his Disney and french colleagues.

thank you very much for your comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpajot7 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 September 2015‎

Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure ? The Dissident Aggressor 16:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Woody Jackson

Hello DissidentAggressor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Woody Jackson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Aside from the Famous for bit "artist who is best known for" is in the first paragraph. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 19:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

How is being known for something equivalent to being important? The Dissident Aggressor 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FMC Technologies

Regarding your deletions to the FMC Technologies page: I refer you to this text from the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text." Smulthaup (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smulthaup: This was discussed on talk:FMC Technologies and there is no dispute to resolve. The WP:BURDEN is on you - per policy - and as discussed on talk:FMC Technologies. The Dissident Aggressor 20:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Integrity Project

I saw this on your page and it seems great. Can you tell me about it? Darknipples (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Integrity. There are lots of pages listed there that need attention - and thousands (if not 10s of thousands) that should be added to the list. Jump right in - we need the help. The Dissident Aggressor 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DissidentAggressor. You have new messages at Muboshgu's talk page.
Message added 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Response

Someone with a username of "DissidentAggressor" spends their entire time on Wikipedia aggressively nominating established articles for deletion based on spurious stretches of the speedy deletion guidelines, and I lose very little sleep about quickly hitting revert. All of these had claims to notability and I'm just glad someone spotted your shenanigans before any of them got deleted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? There are reasons multiple folks are involved in deletions. Now, per WP:BRD the burden is on you to discuss! I don't see the assertions. And you're restoring non-english content. The Dissident Aggressor 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion policy doesn't work that way. If your speedy deletion requests or PROD requests are challenged (in this case because they're nonsense and you're boundary-pushing), that option is off the table: both those processes only apply when a nomination is uncontroversial. I think you should better familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on notability and deletion lest you leave even more of a mess that other editors have to revert. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're declining a WP:CSD#A7, you should at least explain why you think importance is asserted. Obviously the nominator didn't see what you see. Especially when you're following an editor in seemingly bad faith. The Dissident Aggressor 01:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious. They're an established historical society with a tonne of publications and some profile. The others were similar: the CSD criteria are very specific and limited, and only apply where there is no claim of notability, and where that is uncontroversial. Otherwise, that process does not apply. Repeatedly nominating pages which you merely feel are insufficiently notable (let alone reverting their removal) is a flagrant abuse of CSD policy. You've demonstrated that you're someone with a poor grasp of the criteria, so I checked your recent ones - a minority of them were genuinely within the criteria and were left intact, but too many of them were outside policy and needed addressing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, this place works on consensus, not blind reversion. What's obvious to one person is not obvious to another. You're free to disagree and there's a reason it takes a second set of eyes to delete an article. However your hounding and blind reversion, refusal to discuss in a non-agressive, non-attacking mode speaks volumes. The Dissident Aggressor 01:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

B-language

Do you suggest I lie about C's predecessor ?. Do I need to take a photo of the book in question and translate ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@ChamithN: tagged it as OR[1] - not me. Cite a reliable source when you add stuff and you won't have issues like that. The Dissident Aggressor 20:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RFPP for wop

I was looking at your request for PP, and it wasn't quite clear what to make of edits such as [2]. I note that wiktionary mentions the incorrect derivation. Can you shed any light on this? Samsara 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the acronym is a false etymology. We generally don't list the incorrect stuff. Literally, the dictionary (a real one) is definitive - and it is noted in the article. 20:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've declined it as a dispute. I believe there are two sides to this, "generally don't list incorrect stuff" as well as "correct commonly held miscon ceptions", and there is no clear one-sided policy support for your position that I can see. Given that various similar edits have been made at least as far back as June 2014, I also do not think that temporary semi-protection is likely to "resolve" this situation. I additionally note that the papers explanation seems to have been part of an earlier long-term version of the article, and that another admin has suggested presenting both views, and the evidence, or lack thereof, for each. There seems to have been no substantial discussion on the talk page after that 2011 suggestion. Bottom line is, protection should not be used to nail down a particular version in a dispute. Talk page discussion should be the next step. Samsara 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. I think you're confusing racist vandalism with a content dispute. The Dissident Aggressor 15:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Upon further thought, when an admin like @Samsara: thinks disagreeing with the dictionary is merely a content dispute, our standards are permanently lowered. This is definitively wrong and it's been pointed out on the talk page. That's admin behavior at its most bureaucratic and degrades the project. The Dissident Aggressor 09:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

RE: November 2015 & Pegasystems

My apologies for not including edit summaries. I had removed reference to Alan Trefler's hometown as this is superfluous information that is relevant to Alan Trefler, but not Pegasystems. I then removed superfluous information regarding Chordiant/information that would be better placed on a page about Chordiant's history. I hope this helps clarify and apologies again for creating churn. Rosschive 07:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul B

Hi, Dissident. I see that you nominated Paul B for speedy deletion under criterion G4. The article doesn't qualify under G4, because it is nothing like the article of the same title, and it clearly refers to a different person called "Paul B". I had, in fact, already declined a G4 nomination from another editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

uhh.. sure. ok. [3] The Dissident Aggressor 16:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Autobiographical editing on Susan McMaster

Hi -- I'm from another post you sent me, about my posts on my own page, Susan McMaster poetry. I'm sorry but I'm quite confused about all this -- perhaps you can help? The page was not originally mounted by me, but has been up for about 10 years (?) -- taken, I expect, from the League of Canadian Poets "Who's Who" or possibly from some other poetry lists and references, including an entry on me (again, since the 1990s, and still current) in Canadian Who's Who. So the original author and decision about importance was made by someone else, I don't know who. Of course, my info has changed over time as I've published more, become the President of the League of Canadian Poets (2011-12), placed for prizes, had my work translated, etc. So from time to time I've updated the page. Today I tried to respond to a note about supplying secondary sources by adding some publications I have nothing to do with, except that they include me. But now, those have been removed, and the note about sources still exists. Can you please help me untangle this? Thanks a lot (ps -- I've been a supporter and occasional donor to Wikipedia for a long time). SusanMcMaster (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@SusanMcMaster: I didn't remove them - They're still there. However, I converted them to references. They appear as superscript numbers, with corresponding entries in the references section. For more details on how to do that, see WP:CITE.

That said, I did kind of a lousy job, converting them as naked URLs rather than using a {{cite web}} template, but I was at work and only had a few minutes. The Dissident Aggressor 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How is it a conflict fo interest when some has written a load of completely wrong facts about me ?

Hi So I signed up and finally got round to editing my page on Wikipedia. Aphrodite (musician) It has a load of rubbish on it and only gets a fraction of my bio correct. There is a stack of things missing.

If my editing is to be discounted as you say, then how can I strongly object to what is currently written and get it all removed ? Wrong facts about me on public display are no good for me, and surely no good for wikipedia either.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavaphro (talk • contribs) 12 January 2016‎

@Gavaphro: See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on Talk: Aphrodite (musician) if you want specific mistakes corrected. The email address is [email protected]. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. The Dissident Aggressor 21:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How do i get in contact with you about a page?

Hey, I recently made a page for the Brighton Record Label: 'Freshly Squeezed Music'. You posted two notices to have it speedily deleted, i've noticed its been deleted a lot in the past and wondered what i need to edit to make it significant enough? The record label has been established for 10 years and a part of the careers of artist's such as Caravan Palace and Parov Stellar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Electroswing770 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 January 2016

Here is how and why it was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freshly_Squeezed_Music. You'd have to establish clear notability to overturn that community decision. However, if you have a conflict of interest, you should consider working on something else. The Dissident Aggressor 16:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Hi, I started a page for the record label Freshly Squeezed Music, and you issued a take down notice. Could you help me better my submission? I believe the takedown was due to unreliable sources? I've compiled a list of further sources that i have found, and i believe they correspond to the notability guidelines. If you have the time, could you glance at them to confirm notability? It would really help.

Mentions of FS in UK national press/established publications:

THE INDEPENDENT http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/electro-swing-tonight-were-going-to-party-like-its-1929-2276174.html

Also The Correspondents, White Mink, Nick Hollywood

Paragraph 9

LONDON EVENING STANDARD http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/hail-the-kings-of-hip-hop-swing-6525511.html

Also The Correspondents, White Mink, Nick Hollywood

MIXMAG - Bygone Beats article is not online BUT:

(Journalist Rahul Verma’s Blog:) reproduces text: http://vermarahul.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/wot-do-u-call-it-bygone-beatsvintage.html

And there’s a magazine Scan on the WM site: http://www.whitemink.co.uk/mixmag1.html > > >

THE TELEGRAPH (Nick Hollywood, Freshly Squeezed, White Mink) http://www.whitemink.co.uk/page25.html

Notable radio play: BBC RADIO 6 - Craig Charles Funk and Soul Show: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BBC+Radio+6+Craig+Charles+Freshly+Squeezed Electroswing770 25/01/2016 11:25am

You should probably review WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:RS. WP:MUSIC does not apply. The Dissident Aggressor 16:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of disappearing gun installations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of disappearing gun installations 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/List of disappearing gun installations 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. Anmccaff (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of disappearing gun installations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of disappearing gun installations 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/List of disappearing gun installations (2nd nomination) 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. Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DissidentAggressor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is a valuable piece in lieu of Amir Efrati's new piece in The Information, "Google Reckoning With History of Interoffice Romance by Top Execs" Arthur P. Johnson 22:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Same sex marriage is legalized in all 50 US states. listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Same sex marriage is legalized in all 50 US states.. Since you had some involvement with the Same sex marriage is legalized in all 50 US states. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)