User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slatersteven. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Would you be fine with inclusion with the Siena College Research Institute expert poll from 2022 (Biden ranked 19)[1] alongside the Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey from 2024 (Biden ranked 14)[2]? KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The place for this to be discussed is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Aloha @Slatersteven. Regarding your undo of my change to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article shown in this diff [3] I created a new topic on the article's Talk page as follows Younger Dryas impact hypothesis a week ago and used @ with your user ID. I explained why I made these changes, which were quotes from secondary sources from a YDIH proponent and an opponent. So far no responses.

I have seen your userID in other topics in the YDIH Talk archives and would appreciate any background, clarifying comments and advice on how best to move forward. Thanks!

Dmcdysan (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you have recently participated in a discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. Consequently, I inform you that a new Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion (see here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Russo-Ukrainian War) was started about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. I think that a WP:RFC will be necessary to solve this serious dispute, but I believe that it should be organized by a qualified dispute solver via the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your opinion is welcome in the new discussion. -- Pofka (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, in the future, please try not to tell editors that they have been reported, per WP:DENY.

Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I did that as I went there to warn them, and had the edit window open...silly really I should have just reported them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Remember to change the |answered= parameter to yes after responding to an edit request. That's all. Happy editing! GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 16:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. You just reverted my edut in Southend on Sea. The link you removed from Garons, is to Moores Stores who purchased Garons in 1962, and who sold off the bakery in Sutton Road and opened Garons first supermarket at 113 High Street^[1][2][3] which can be see in the Echo [4]. I am in the process of updating Wright's Biscuits/Moores Stores to include its many purchases including Garons Post 1962. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article's talk page, but please read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I feel like Bush's condemnation of Iraq is very relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.

It's not a freudian slip. he says 'Iraq too' afterwards. this needs to be in there somewhere. It's highly relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEr7TayrmU CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Take this to the articles talk page, that is the place for this discussion, Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

okay CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

you seem to condone the invasion but okay CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Read both wp:agf and wp:npa is my answer to this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Condoning the invasion of Iraq is a normal political stance held by many people so it doesn't classify for a personal attack CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I have removed your entry from my talk page. I don't appreciate it being on there. I request you to not edit my talk page. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You really should take heed, but your choice. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

CalfRaiser150, Jimfbleak and Steven are trying to help you. Their warnings are not "hateful" or "vandalism". Those descriptions by you are considered personal attacks and can get you blocked from Wikipedia. Is that what you want? You must assume good faith. Please take their comments as good advice intended to make you a better editor who can then enjoy a long and constructive future here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would echo this. Slatersteven is a well respected editor and so is Jimbleak. They are giving you good advice, mischaracterizing those as attacks or hateful really can harm you more then you realize in the long run. Unbroken Chain (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I am? I thought i could be safely ignored. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Slatersteven

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This[5] removed reliable sources, put back a load of cruft, completely de-tagged the article, etc. You are taking ownership of this version and it's set the Project/Article back a long way. Bon courage (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It was the last stable version, the one before the first contested edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

This page should be created Nydv160 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh

This page should be created Nydv160 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it's a serious issues that why Bangladeshi Hindu population is not incresing.

Muslim population grew 5 times from 3.5 crore to 15 crore but hindu population remained around 1 crore. Nydv160 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it, source for this being the reason? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Also wp:not and wp:rightgreatwrongs cause me to question your motives (as do your personal attacks). Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't do, that's it. now don't message......... Nydv160 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I am asking you to do at least some work, not order us to do it, and then order us not to respond. Yiou need to read wp:civility, as cooperation gets you a lot further than PA's and sanrk. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok Bro, thank you so much for teaching me about civility. Have a nice ahead 🙌🇮🇳🇬🇧 Nydv160 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you think you just said. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this comment you made on a new editor's talk page. You suggest that the editor, whose account has only made edits in the last 24 hours and was relatively recently created, is a single-purpose account. This strikes me as somewhat biting, as editors often begin their editing careers because they notice something they are particularly interested in. Less than 24 hours of editing and no participation in any votestacking is indicative of a good-faith editor making their first edits in a discussion rather than a SPA engaging in disruption. Please remember that wrongly accusing new editors of disruption increases their likelihood of disengagement with the project and is uncivil. For what it's worth, I disagree with this new editor and find their arguments tedious; I think we can safely disengage from that discussion in the knowledge that the current consensus won't shift. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but given their vehemence of argument I thought it was a good idea to let them know about it, as I am getting a wp:nothere feel to their arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As does their user name. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I still feel a better response is to utilize one of the several welcoming templates available or to use the Twinkle options. I can see your reasoning for concern, but potentially problematic editors (rather than obviously disruptive ones) benefit far more from the aforementioned options and may be dissuaded for needlessly escalating a discussion. Additionally, it's generally inappropriate to write off editors for usernames that conform to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not, I just felt it best to warn them before it became a problem. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. 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) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey I just made edits to the Ed and Lorraine Warren page and saw you removed it. Is there any corrections I could have made?

Tess.studley (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

THis would be for the talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Just letting you know since you mentioned maybe also considered asking for admin help that I made a request for more admin eyes at ANI. I'm not asking for sanctions any specific user and just hoping an admin can help with whatever they decide on individually, so I haven't notified anyone else (also out of time today). KoA (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to hear your take as it applies to American politics. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Without context it's hard to answer, but in effect, we do not have to write articles Today, or tomorrow or next week. So we can wait till the dust has died down and WWE can get more than "SHOCK GASP HORROR probes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Slatersteven. You may need to take action in Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–present). A couple of editors there are accusing you of ownership issues and edit-warring, and have started discussing about reporting your alleged "bad behavior". Dimadick (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, and appear to have very similar interests. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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 and Nick-D look at a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

The references to venues was very out of date. You reverted the change based on 2 locations being pubs, which meant any reference to current venues in the city were lost. I amended it to account pubs not necessarily being major venues and you reverted the whole change. I don't understand the problem.

The place for this discussion is the article's talk page, but if reverted you do no re-revert you make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly reverted, but actually amended to take in your comment Defberg (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

please read wp:revert. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it." Defberg (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Given this guidance would you kindly reinstate my edit, please? Defberg (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Done Defberg (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ed Winters. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not close it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You were involved in the discussion though, so I figured I should let you know. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think in the Vietnam war infobox, we can change communist’s casualties from from “1,100,000” to “680,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead” (because we don’t know how many dead, thus we need the range of estimate, and 30-40% is signification rate). Can you help me?27.3.144.156 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, do you have any sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You can read here [6] - “ According to figures released by the Vietnamese government there were 849,018 confirmed military deaths on the PAVN/VC side during the war.[26][27]... Non-combat deaths account for 30 to 40% of these figures”2001:EE0:4A62:3AE0:400A:675B:670:D73B (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

849,018 is not 680,000, also that is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

ok, we can change communist’s casualties from from “1,100,000” to “850,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead”. Source: Moyar, Mark. "Triumph Regained: The Vietnam War, 1965–1968." Encounter Books, December 2022. Chapter 17 index 2001:EE0:4A61:8A10:2563:80AF:6AEA:D27E (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Or leave them unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, started a section on the talk page for us to discuss the recent edits Dan Wang (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Would prefer not to double RV, but I've finished opening the talk page topic on Talk:Tommy Robinson, if that was your sole reason to RV then the issue has since been resolved. BrigadierG (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

THen wait for it to conclude. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The two sources cited in that section do not make the claim that EDL supporters are hooligans. BrigadierG (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Again take this to the talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The emancipation proclamation was finally enforced when three-fourths of the remaining states ratified it on December 6, 1865. Thank you. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there, Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Which you should have done the first time you were reverted (per wp:brd) rather than waiting a couple of days before revering back, if you do it again you will be reverted again. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Just at the beginning I added the word “which” as it wasn’t Gordon granger himself that proclaimed it but the law from the order and then I just gave extra info that this wasn’t the final enforcement which you may agree. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also the present sentence doesn’t explain what the emancipation proclamation was for readers to accessibly understand its context I think. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

My last word here THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BPD says talk to you first as one person on your own talk page. Thank you. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

NO BRD says discus, discussions take place on the article talk page so as any involved party there can see it. Its a courtesy to other people who watch that page, this is my last one on this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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 the Tokyo war crimes trials

How do the addition i did to the memorial section be trival as I have put 3 references about it? and also if necessary and if it is not ref bombing I can insert more references. Faresian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

this is a conversation for the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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: Recent external reviews

what was written was objectively true, i am not sure why they were removed? getting one of the highest free speech awards and receiving it in the danish parliament is a pretty big deal NotQualified (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

oh i see you wrote "not in the lede", i disagree. this is again a very big deal and it warrants being in the lede but i do want to know why you think otherwise cause i might be wrong :D NotQualified (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Read wP:lede it is a summery of the article, this is not a major part of our article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

so if i want to add it to the lede i need to write a longer part for it in the article and summarise it above? i can do that but it would take an hour NotQualified (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, as it needs to be a major part of the article, and this is just one award, so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less). And this is not the place for this discussion, take it to the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

> so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less)

wait so i can undo the change and add back what i had written? NotQualified (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, and I have e said why already, I will not repeat myself here, take it to the Articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I was being bold. It probably wasn't a constructive edit. I didn't understand your question and why you reverted. Nashhinton (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Then ask at then articles talk page, where others can also see the question. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Nashhinton (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	While ultimately unsuccessful, please accept this barnstar for your work in trying to demonstrate Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines to this editor. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I just send this IP's nonsense to the trash, hope that is ok with you (your comment got hit in the crossfire). Looking at the other "contributions" it is unlikely they care about sources. Polygnotus (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

With regards to the edit of Joe Biden recently, I believe that decision was only on the infobox. Not the external links. I didn't see anything with regards to the external links on putting his position of the Newcastle County Council in the discussion page. It appears it was there for awhile before it was taken out without any reason back in March RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

MAbe, but its is trying to get it in by the back door, so make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The text for the Battle of Britain on the main WW2 page does not highlight the significance of the battle. As I said, 3 major AI programs all put it in the top 10 significance events in WW2. Can we work together to improve it? 117PXL (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

AI is not an RS, and what it does does not impact us. And this is for the article talk page, take it there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was the amount of content, I replace a sentence and explained what the Battle of Britain was, this is helpful for everyone. You seem to have the biggest problem with it reverting originally and again now, so it is helpful to find out what your main objection is? Thanks. 117PXL (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said, take it to the article talk page, and get wp:consensus. It is down to you to make a case, not down to be (see WP:ONUS}. 10:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)~~

Hi, could you tell me what is wrong with this source? [7]

That made by Hungarian Academy of Science, modern academic sources, an international award winning source [8]. It also attributed properly "according Hungarian historiography" + in relevant demographic research section

https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/en/home.html

https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/en/accompanying_text.html

In Hungarian related articles vast amount of Hungarian sources are provided, in Transylvania article the majority of sources are Hungarian and Romanian sources.

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talkpage, where others can see it and comment. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi mate, just thought I'd let you know this isn't correct. What you might be thinking of is that they're not allowed to removed declined unblock requests, per WP:BLANKING. Cheers. — Czello ^(music) 17:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, your edit summary said "maybe i am not seeing the full artigcel I I see nothing about drones not being used."

Maybe you missed these paragraphs:

"That dropped communication was one of several instances where technologies that might have protected Mr. Trump from getting shot on July 13 did not — either because they malfunctioned, were improperly deployed or the Secret Service decided not to use them in the first place.

The Secret Service, for instance, turned down offers to use a surveillance drone at the Butler Farm Show rally site. The agency also did not bring a system to boost the agents’ device signals in an area with poor cellular service. And some of the equipment the agency did bring, including a system to detect drone use by others, did not work when it was most needed. The result was that a 20-year-old gunman had a technological advantage over a $3 billion federal agency.". Please undo your revert. Thanks in advance! Forich (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

So no then it was not the full article. but please discus this on the article talk page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Sir Slatersteven,

I noticed you reverted my edit that added the line about the significant Irish contribution to the British military during the Crimean War. Your comment indicating 'UNure we need this undo' suggests you may have had some uncertainty about undoing this edit.

Notably, History Ireland is a reputable publication that provides well-researched articles on historical topics, often written by historians and experts in the field. It is considered a reliable secondary source, which aligns with Wikipedia's standards for citations.

I believe this detail is relevant and important to include, as it highlights the substantial Irish participation and role in the conflict. Could you please reconsider adding this line back in? I'm happy to discuss further and provide any additional context or justification for including this information.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, new comments go at the bottom. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Molyneux was on the Joe Rogan Experience three times (episodes #396, #436, #538).

https://www.jrepodcast.com/guest/stefan-molyneux/

You have no reason to edit it out. Hayden41 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

THis is not then place for this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Having listened to the LBC radio show again about Elon Musk, I can find no instance of Thomas Winsor, a lawyer, "claoing Musk a fuck knuckle", whatever that means. I quote from the article's history:

"11:51, 10 August 2024‎ Slatersteven talk contribs‎ 360,834 bytes −886‎ Undid revision 1239610475 by Richard Nowell (talk)uinsure we need every quote claoing Musk a fuck knuckle". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&action=history

After deleting my properly researched and credited quote from a senior British arbitrator, mediator, lawyer, consultant and economic regulatory professional 1 minute after my posting it, I can only assume you work for Mr. Musk.

Please reinstate the sentence. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The place to ask for edits is the article talk page, not here (and read wp:agf and wp:npa). Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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 two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

Even if it is thirty years ago, yes, it is important to have the BNP 1992 Manifesto so then we can read their policies right from the beginning. This is just a provision of extra research to know where they stood on the issues in relation to the then Tory government under John Major.

The correct place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I listed Talk:List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Donald_Trump#Georgia_Order_of_Excellence at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi MR SLATER, Thank you for your feedback on the talk topic. In my opinion, the Wikipedia Id: SLATER has a good meaning and plays a very necessary role in human society. Have a nice day. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The content that Imlochan (talk · contribs) had been edit-warring over is actually the one remaining area of dispute after cleanup work started by Abecedare (talk · contribs) back in June. Abecedare has been away from Wikipedia for almost a month now, and I don't think waiting longer for their return is a good idea. It shouldn't be difficult to put an RfC together, which will probably be needed. - Hipal (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And there had been no discussion, as such there tag was invalid. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Marjorie Taylor Greene, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As for your edit summary: citing WP:BLP is a moot point when you edit war against a long-standing consensus version. If you feel there is a BLP issue in the consensus version, the onus is on you to overturn the consensus on talk, not to edit war over it. Jeppiz (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Err, I did it once, on the last month, that is not edit warring (I suggest you read wp:editwar). Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello I read the wp:cir you sent me, and I feel uncortable that I received wp:cir on my talk page because I asked you about the reliablity of the YouTube sources - two different cases whether it is appropriate to use YouTube 1) However,I appreciate that you understood my intention to use YouTube as I am trying to use YouTube link as a clue to find several reliable sources. [1] 2) "Ahh thank you, yes that is a useful source, I fail to see why therefore you went on about a youtube video" 3) Although I feel uneay about wp:cir, I am trying to understand that wp:cir written on the talk page is WP:FAITH, so I give you wikilove. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Wdym "Still at it"? Talk pages are places where you can chat about the page and discuss your opinions about the page! 69.160.112.231 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

YOur posting policy breaching comments [[9]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The term "white" refers to Caucasian race. But this is not officialized by any State source. I saw that you have changed the denomination on George Floyd topic in the murder charge by Caucasian race police officer. But the official denomination is not the term "white", but Caucasian race, which fits the description of the perpetrator. Can you validate by any source that "white" denominates in the official Constitution and laws of the US, in the context of the George Floyd murder? BlackNoxis (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

But it is a widely used colloquialism used in most RS about this case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers I'd argue 62 is far enough away from 6 that six should be spelled out regardless Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks odd, personally, but the MOS seem to agree with you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not bait or taunt blocked users. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I was not, I was trying to encourage them to not do what they did go on to do, as the new IP is also clearly a sock, and being used for harassment and revenge edits. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For once admit you were wrong and move on. Read WP:CONDUCT WP:BEHAVE to understand how to be a Civil editor here 49.205.33.54 (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree I was wrong, as the subsequent blocks (I think) prove. Had they actively listened to me from the off they would not now have those bans. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I also noted you only have two edits (including this one), odd that you should know so much about policy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And the continued socking over on the IP's talk page, some people really need to read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop n take a deep breath and read WP:CONDUCT Avoid such aggressive behavior on a platform meant for collaboration and consensus 223.186.8.60 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Then users should avoid having to be warned, or arguing, and actually take heed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop taking things personally when someone disagrees with you. No one here has the time to argue. Please read WP:CONDUCT and tone down your unusually aggressive pitch on Talk pages. I said this in the most humblest of tones, lest you falsely assume it to be personal attack. 223.186.149.169 (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You refuse to acknowledge the importance of WP:BEHAVE WP:CONDUCT and try to turn it back on me. I am only here to collaborate and discuss edits that can help enrich the platform. At no point have I argued or been warned of high handedness 223.186.149.169 (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Then try editing a page other than this one, and show what kinds of edits you want to make. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I Will definitely continue doing so irrespective of aggressive behaviour. I believe in healthy collaboration and discussion. I really understand what WP:CONDUCT means 223.186.149.169 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting to edit other (as in not this one) pages is a good way of showing that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

OK My friend.hope Buddha helps you find peace and tranquility in life! 223.186.149.169 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL< any time soon would be OK. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So will they now actually listen do you think, or block evade again? Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

• PLEASE SEE HER TALK PAGE

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)