User talk:Slatersteven

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Why are you deleting syntax and grammar edits? it wasn’t better before. Do you work for the DOJ Jack Smith?

“Baselessly” is an opinion. This is not a one-sided issue. You like communism?

To be fair and neutral, please revert it. Furtivead (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wp:agf and the place to ger wp:consensus is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may also need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already blocked them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, I did not even get to warn them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have already stated my case - in length - on the MBE talk page. You can read for yourself. I found it perfectly legitimate to remove the "sources may not be reliable" note from May 2023, as it has improved since then, has both sided biographers (for example Peel is pro-mary baker eddy, and Milmine is opposed to Mary Baker Eddy) - and they are all known biographers spanning over a century. I even had the users that were conversing with me stating that they feel I could remove it as well. I have worked really hard on this page, and for it to suddenly be reverted for a reason that I cannot see and that I have proven with my work, I am at a loss. Can you please let me know what the problem is? I really do want to understand so it can be fixed the right way. Greg (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make your case (and get consensus) on her page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PLEASE SEE HER TALK PAGE

Greg (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No? That isn't how Wikipedia works. WP:BEBOLD is an important guideline: it is not necessary to seek consensus on a talkpage before improving an article. You should not just revert someone's BOLD edits without a substantive challenge to them. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate this - man, i feel completely and unjustifiably bullied on this - I mean why am I spending so many hours trying improve it if someone can come along and just delete the whole thing with no explanation or reading up to date info on the talk page? Greg (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregorcollins: Yeah, getting reverted without a good explanation can be very frustrating. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read the user comments on the bottom of MBE page to get up to date with what I'm referring to. thanks Greg (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MBE was what confused me as we have no page called that. Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your way of going about this is in complete contradiction of WP:BOLD and is incredibly discouraging to fellow editors. If you have an actual disagreement with their edits, indicate that in your edit summary. If it's a massive overhaul of an article that has been debated endlessly, that's one thing, but for 99.9% of articles, there is no necessity to seek consensus before making significant edits. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are no good. They were all written by Christian Scientists apart from the Britannica source. Its violates WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV etc. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then Slatersteven should say that! That's a perfectly good reason to revert. "lack of consensus" is not. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to frustration as I had in fact tried, and kept getting edit conflicts due to the number of edits they were making. In some cases each edit worse than then last. Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the Talk:Atlantis page, and just wanted to thank you for the time and effort you put into answering all the crank claims by IPs. I remember doing this about a decade ago, and I don't miss it. Hats off to you! --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a wikipedia used named Remsense is harrasing me. they are deleting my comments on the talk page even though I provide referenses. I added something to the mao page about how mao was influenced by abook called the water margin in his peasant struggle. Remsense removed my comment. Sorry to bother you.

I am not an admin. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irony. The link is in the article, not the lead. Number 16 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not for your initial version, this is why you discuss it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a lot of typographical errors in your recent interactions with other editors. Some affect your intended meaning and some affect wikilinks. Please proofread more carefully and correct your errors. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding North Korean involvement in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Rc2barrington (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

	Award for being on wikipedia
	HI TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	thank you for your help TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So here's what I've started to post on some user talk pages per Talk:Donald Trump#FORUM. By responding to these people with anything but a WP:NOTFORUM link, you're being part of the problem instead of the solution. I totally get that forum talk is tempting.

Hello! Talk:Donald Trump is for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article, not for more general forum-like discussions about Trump, politics, and such. I hope you will keep this in mind in any future participation there. See WP:NOTFORUM for the relevant Wikipedia policy.

―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slatersteven, sorry for reverting your good-faith edit. I deleted those sections in the article Shambhala because they were completely unreferenced and tagged as WP:OR. I will try to expand the article with sourced content based on reliable references; it will take time. GenoV84 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THe place for this discussion is the article talkpage. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at my edit? I fixed an EGG. The rest of my comment was about possible overlinking, which I didn't change. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to remove a valid link explaining the powers of the president. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed no link. I changed one linktext from "vetoed" to "He vetoed". ―Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood your edit then. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945

Hello, you see the problem is, I don´t know which user to adress, therefore I decided to post a general question. But since you asked me directly here are some articles British soldiers in the eighteenth century British Army during the American Revolutionary War British Army during the Victorian Era British Army during the Second World War while some just need formatting or lacked of inline citations other are incomplete... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just new here at wikipedia? Starex Night (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Lovecraft has been a registered account since 2021. You (on the other hand) have been here less than a month. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot read a diff effectively, you should not be policing people who correct errors in templates. The unsigned template was filled out in error, and the hat template needs to be placed inside the section it covers, not outside, in order to work properly with archiving. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the only refactoring you made. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, I see you've reverted adding of North Korea in my last edit at Template : Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. To explain my move, I think the discussion has already run its course and the numerical and argumentation grounds, particularly considering that there were 16 support !votes and 3 oppose !votes, and both arguments were based in PAGs, firmly supports adding North Korea. I intend to revert your reversion because requiring an uninvolved admin close here is unnecessary and likely to add months to doing something that the community has already made a clear decision on. I think this may be a WP:1RR page since it deals with CTOPs, so please be aware of that. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think that, and (as I stated) I disagree that it is a clear snow close, so wait until it is closed. |Slatersteven (talk)

OK, but that isn't a decision you can make by yourself - we don't have a "dog in the manger" veto on Wikipedia, where a small minority continue to block a change after it has clearly received consensus. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it yours, as you are involved, so wait for an uninvolved admin to judge it, I am willing to why are you not? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've explained the issue - getting an uninvolved admin close could take months, meanwhile the result is now beyond question. But you're insisting on an uninvolved close - and it has to be an admin apparently? OK. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree it is beyond question, as it should be policy-based, and not just on the number of votes, and we are not uninvolved enough to make that decision. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it does not matter if it takes months, we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper, we can wait until the war is over if we want. There is no rush for us to add anything. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the continued edit warring is strongly supported by the RfC, I think it's long past time we get it closed. Don't you agree? - Hipal (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with an independent close. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I am unsure what view you think is strongly supported. Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a close by a third party. Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioning that an IP has commented several times on the North Korea RfC, and that those edits have been up for several days, in case you'd like to do anything about that Placeholderer (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you reverted my edit to astrology. I see its a protected article so perhaps I wasn't following protocol (should I just have added the suggestion into the astrology talk page?). On your substantive comment to the revert I'd say the reference is not definitive (of course!) but it is uptodate and critically contributes to the article by discussing forms of astrology from round the world usually disussed separately. This makes it notable/worth including I think. But I will leave it to your judgement. best wishes dz Dz3 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss any changes on the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]