User talk:Slatersteven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

August 2007[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Do not delete items from Talk pages. Rjd0060 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why was the post imidiantly before it (to which I replied) removed? (Slatersteven 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC))


Notability of Seems[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Seems, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Seems seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Seems, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair doos, I was not aware it would break the rules. [[Slatersteven 12:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Welcome![edit]

Thanks

War of 1812[edit]

I don't have much of an issue with either of the things you wrote in the article War of 1812 but you have to cite it to put it in. I'd think that there should be plenty of books that you can quote. Tirronan (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres[edit]

With regards to you comments on list of atrocities, I think you might find the talk and archived talk pages of list of massacres of interest, because that list has been in existence for a number of years and has run into many of the problems that a list of atrocities will have. There have been similar problems with genocides in history (it took a long time to remove all the entries that did not have third party citations to events claimed to be a genocide), but because there is a legal definition and several scholarly definitions it is much easier to build a less biased list for that subject. Regards Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)[edit]

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

It appears that nobody else has yet asked you about this, but this edit you made a few days ago on WP:RS/N caused a mass deletion of active threads that took a couple of admins, Haemo and Slp1, some fussing to fix. The edit itself, changing the archive timer from 28 days to 30, seems to be a bit odd in and of itself. Since this also happened shortly after I made a posting on WP:RS/N, which also ended up being included in the mass deletion, could you explain why you decided to make such an odd, undiscussed change in the first place on such a busy board? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware I had. I just appended at the end of an question. I can only assume that I inadvetantly delited some stuff, but I have no idea what I did to achive this. I appoligise. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Thanks for relying, but I'm still a little bit puzzled: are you saying you didn't change the archive timer from 28 days to 30? It sounds as though you were just doing normal editing, and from your edits here, it indeed looks as though you were. But if you go back to this edit change, you will see near the top how "algo = old(28d)" was changed to "algo = old(30d)". That's not at all a normal edit and one that would appear to be difficult to do accidentally. To clarify, are you saying you didn't make this change or at least don't recall doing it? I'm just trying to figure out the sequence and cause of this rather odd incident, and if you could be as specific as possible about what you remember doing or not doing , that would be immensely helpful and appreciated. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


All I rember doing was adding the comment on the part about Saul David. As far as I recal I clicked on the link to that part, clicked the edit button and typed. I did not intentionaly (and did not even know) I had changed any part of the top of the page (and to the best of my memory did not) I never play about with any of the top parts of the page (I am not too sure what the varius formating codes do).[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Thanks for the further info. I think I now have a rough idea what might have happened. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you enlighten me?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started[edit]

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I saw your comment at the RfC on DemolitionMan. Please note, that the RfC needs one more editor to certify it before it can be accepted. If you would like to do so, please consider adding your signature below mine in the section labeled Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hindi rendition of Indian Rebellion of 1857[edit]

Hi Slatersteven. Rereading your comments on the Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 I sense that you were mislead on the meaning of the Hindi translation. Was the translation misrepresented? If yes, please do let me know. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


“For those of us who are multi-lingual, it is very handy to know what the term for these series of events in Hindi is as well. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)”

“Too bad. What is your reasoning for suggesting that "it is hardly necessary to put in the translation" - it is an India related article and English and Hindi enjoy official status of the Federal Govt - while languages like Marathi and Bengali are official languages of different states but not of the Federal Govt. I am putting it right back. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) “

This clearly gives the impresion it’s a translation, not an alterantiv name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_5#Hindi_text

“Correct me if I am wrong. This is what Wikipedia policy states: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do." We have stated clearly in this article that there is no commonly used English name for these series of events. So based on the policy, shouldn't the transliteration of the name in the original language be used? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)” This states that it is a translation, not an alternative title. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Thats OK .[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wit's End[edit]

Hi there, Not sure what to do with user:Desione who is making unhelpful edits on a number of British India history pages. He first appeared on February 14 on British Raj, a page I have been editing since October 2006. His talk page diatribes are full of words like "evil" etc. He has made a few edits, but his writing is so poor and the citations so unreliable (here is an example), that I don't know how to proceed. Upon my return to Wikipedia in March after a longish winter break, I made my first edit in Indian Rebellion of 1857, since it is a parent article of one of British Raj's sections. The very next day, he appeared for the first time on that page, and you know that history. Then, when I went back to editing the Raj page (during one of "Indian Rebellion"'s lockdowns), and subsequently began to work on another section, he appeared on the parent article of that section, Company rule in India, for the first time, and has been confronting me there. Here is my last version of the page and here is what he has been reverting to. Compare the writing. Compare the quality of the references. And I am being accused of POV. Very frustrated. What should I do? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ihave to admit to some doubts about user:Desione, His style seems familiar, especially his use of ‘thank you’ when he believes he has made cutting point. But by that same token I have to assume good faith. So until I can see definite proof of wrong doing I shall do nothing. There is also the fact he seems to not be able to tell the difference between himself and DM.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Thanks. He seems to have backed off for now. We'll see. Have my fingers crossed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)[edit]

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)[edit]

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

1857 conflict book link[edit]

Hello Slater, I have undone the edit you made deleting the disambig link I put in the article. Although I did not clearly understand what you meant by "not a clean up an addition, and is it a likely re-diection any way? N other book is listed in this way on the page", I am assuming you were under the impression this would be a redirect to the mutiny article itself. If this is correct then I'll point out that a seperate article exists on the book, which itself has some notabillity, and since it shares the name that a lot of Indian do use to describe, I believe a disambig is neccessary. I have reinstated the link, albeit slightly differently, but this should be satisfactory. Please leave me a message if you disagree. Thanks rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slater, thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I think that matter was addressed in the article talk page, although I invited comments on a related but somewhat different issue. Please do leave your comments on the talk page. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Slater, I am afraid dont understand what you're trying to say. I was initially disappointed that you deleted the link without notifying me, and I also felt the link deserved to be there. I thought your deletion was unjustified and confrontational and not notifying me either in the talkpage or on my talkpage somewhat discourteous. If that has offended you then it certainly was not my intention. I hence (initially) reinstated the link and left the first message on you talk page. This happened once more with another editor, who reverted without notifying me or giving a reason I thought was weak. After I had undone this second revert, I left a message in the talk page of the article, explaining why I added the link and why I felt it should be there. However, the editor in question subsequently explained in the talk page why the disambig link was inappropriate, and I accepted his argument since it made sense to me. I therefore think this matter is now resolved. I suggested subsequently that a seperate section on literature and commemorations be included in the article, on which I haven't recieved any comments so far. Please do have a look at Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not say I didn't want you to communicate with me :), I am merely reasuring you that the matter's been resolved. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations, use of template[edit]

Hello Slater, thanks for the message in the Talk:Hindu-German Conspiracy page. The name, date and page links to the ==notes== section which through the {{reflist}} template lists the author, publication date and page number. This is in turn linked through the harvard ciation templates to the literature section. It is a part of the {{citation}} templates designed for use to cite references consistently. I realise this is a bit hard to understand, but you can see how it works in the main article page, as opposed to the editing version you're seeing. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:ref[edit]

Hello slater, thanks for the message and for taking the time to check the refs, I have now added the missing refs, which I thought I had added, but evidently hadn't. Thanks for your help, please let me know if you have anymore comments rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)[edit]

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

apologies[edit]

I must apologize. I thought you were using a sock-puppet to basically patronize me. My apologies. I also apologize if I said anything out of line, I get carried away a lot over these kinds of things. I wouldn't mind continuing our debate, and I will try to be a little more civil. I just really love my country and I think that sometimes gets the better of me and I don't think before I say stuff. Sorry.Prussian725 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We all get a litle heated sometimes. [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)]]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)[edit]

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)[edit]

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

hello[edit]

hello! I lived a washington!! I don't like obama. obama is crazy!crazy!crazy!crazy!! hahahaha

I assume this has no point[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)]]

how?? Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)[edit]

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)[edit]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)[edit]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)[edit]

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.-Binary TSO ???

I though I was in sandbox sorry[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Karnow[edit]

Replied YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)[edit]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn[edit]

I'm sorry, I was curt in my last response. I disagree, first, that I was shouting, and that saying anyone is "anti-American" is an insult. Furthermore, you "templated the regulars" by copy and pasting rules; we know the rules, thanks, you can treat us like equals and discuss them rather than throwing them at us. I am trying to discuss his edits; you're the one who came along mistakenly thinking we weren't. --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouting is captualisation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=next&oldid=295405350 as here. I said it was debatedly an insult (a lot depends on intention. but your use of the pahrase3 Ant-American pap does seem to imply you meant it to be a billitaling of his edits on the grounds of lack of imperic value. If you know the rules then why did you (and others) breach them?[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]
Shouting, in internet parlance, tends to mean typing in all caps. Capitalizing a single word out of a hundred doesn't qualify. Yes, calling him an idiot was bad; I did not do it, but your comment was directed towards the whole thread. Perhaps instead of using an article talk page to discuss an individual, you should have taken it to their talk page. That said, I apologize for my reactions to your post. You're right, in general, but I would disagree that this is a new editor who needs to be coddled. My rudeness was purely a response to his; I had intended to stay silent on the whole thing until he came to my talk page first. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We can all get carried away in the heat of debate (I know i do sometimes).[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I don't get it[edit]

Monarchism is more democratic than political parties? Also your signature has too many brackets =/ 92.0.138.3 (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No just far less corrupt.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Charles II--Streona (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell, the man who marched into parliment with solders. All systems are flawed but as a largley symbolic head of state with few constitutional powers a Monarch is as good as any elected leader, b ut without the bagage.[[Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]]

United States[edit]

G'day Steve. The reason I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more United States edits from me!!
Thanks for the entertainment, buddy. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn  Talk  20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Viet Cong killing schoolteachers[edit]

See this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Thanks Slatersteven. B. Fairbairn  Talk  9:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

your signature[edit]

I'm just guessing, but it looks as if you're typing your signature by doing ~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">~~~~ (cmd-click)">[[~~~~]]. Just to let you know that the brackets aren't necessary; typing four ~s is sufficient. Then again, if that was the effect you were aiming for, then disregard this. :) --Golbez (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin[edit]

I think you'll find that there is now nothing in the article that is not referenced from a reliable source - whereas only a few days ago, most of the article was entirely unreferenced. If the article was GA or FA I would understand your concerns, but as it was when I came across it? Please. I have no desire to maintain the poor quality of articles. I will shortly be nominating it for GAN. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Nick_Griffin#Loss_of_eye this discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Your behaviour is becoming a problem. I see no alternative but to report your continual reversions, your inserts of unreliable sources, your failing to use proper citation templates in a WP:GAN, to an administrator. You seem to revel in picking fault in the slightest issue, when no real fault is present (for instance, your failure to understand how to read Harvard Citations). Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[1] reported. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
the eye part says according to Nick Griffin, then does not use his version (and the sources you referance in one case and you cite one as making a source unreliable. I have no idea what proper citation templates are, perhps you would care to show how thet are supposed to look. I am aslo trying to improve the article, and make it accurate, I will admit I did not know how to read the Harvard citations, and admited my mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Read page 63 of the source used. Then come back and tell me that the two are unconnected. Do you know how to read page 63 of the Ryan book? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see the exact quote that states the two are linkedSlatersteven (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so Carlile reports The Rune to the police, and the CPS then prosecute Griffin, who is found guilty. Griffin also is secretly recorded saying some pretty nasty things about Carlile at about the same time. Even though the two may not be linked in terms of Griffin's prosecution, you don't think that they should be mentioned together? Are you kidding me? This is becoming a joke. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not about the same time a year before. So you admit then that they care not linkied with regards to the prosecution (the section you are putting them in), well thank you for that. They may have a link, but it is not for use to draw a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in the sources. It may be there is a link, but if so the link should be in the-semitism section, not in the scetion about the trail (which you admit has no direct link to the Cook film)Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not drawing conclusions. You are. Firstly, the difference between 1997 and 1998 can be as little as 1 day. Secondly, the source used (I'm glad you finally understand how to read them) explains fully the contextual link between the two.
Maybe you should create a heading and a section for every tiny facet of Griffin's life. Or perhaps you could show me what large-scale notable additions you've made to the page? I'm in the business of writing interesting articles that are based on reliable sources, articles that make sense to those who read them. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no real idea how to do this. Frankly I find your behaviour and your arguments childish and puerile. Both Griffin's comments about Carlile, and the trial (which Carlile prompted) are inextricably linked. They belong together, in the same section. I've had it with this behaviour, and I've had enough of explaining myself to you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless the souces say some thing like 'and the 1997 TV show and 1998 trial are linked' then you are drawing conclusioins you cannot say that becasue source A says x and Y that Z is true the source actualy has to say that Z is true. How many days differance were there? lets see May 1998 Mr Griffin was prosecuted in May 1998 Mr Griffin was prosecuted, so at the vey least thats 8 months, which is why wikipedia insits that you do not draw colcusions tyhat are not expresly mentioned you stated it could have been as little as one day differance when its over 200 days. In the issue of Spearhead published in July 1997 griffin writes about the dcoumentary. So we are now in the region of over 12 months.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reported[edit]

for the second time. Do not edit my talk page again, I am not interested in what you have to say. I have better things to do. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I will reply to you or comment if I wishSlatersteven (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No, if you have been told to stay off someone's talkpage, you should stay off of it; period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom/sandbox3 - Nick Griffin[edit]

I'm in a position now where I'd be happy to see this version replace Nick Griffin. If you have time, have a read through and let me know what you think. In addition to my comments on the Griffin talk page, I've substantially expanded his early NF career, corrected some mistakes (a Telegraph profile incorrectly stated he started the ITF in the early 80s), and moved some bits around. I still don't know what year he graduated, it should have been a 3 year course but I don't know yet. I think the [[unreliable source]] tags are very simple to remove, but that's probably best done once (if) the article is copied across - so other editors can see the source in the history. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've removed that unreliable source now, with the exception of one part - security for Irving - which is now backed up by another published source. As the article is pending a WP:GAN review, I'm going to move it across at 10pm tonight, if no objections are received. I've also added much much more about his debates, and his time at the NF. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)[edit]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Following a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring I have blocked you for a period of 1 day for edit-warring at Anti-Americanism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I'm not impressed that you actually drove someone to actually swear at you, due to excessive badgering. Because of that, you got a 1-day, and they got 5. Not a very impressive display. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
They swore om the talk page long before that (and long before I appeared. I just asked them to stop. But perhaps I should have been less badgering (But if some one continues to be abusive what should I do?).I just felt that the user was not only not interested in compromise wasa but was dilliberitly pushinig the boundries. He was trying to be insulting Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I see it seems that my initlal offence was wrong, a user is allowed to swear, just not at someone (I am not too sure were that line is drawn but tehre we are. however the user did repeatedty Belittled contributors because of their language skills or word choice, which perhaps is what I should have complained about. but thats all in the past, although I have to admt that I am, not sure that it wil not raise up again.Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As I can't edit I can't appeal, but I would like to point out I was never informed of any 3RR report. I have thus been banned for an offence I was not informed off.Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right ... you should have advised of the belittling. Just to let you know, 3RR is only justified by actual vandalism, and not other justification is permitted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow you I was not aware that my edits were vandalism, I was editing according to what had (it appeared to me) been agreed on the talk page, but additional material had been inserted (that had not been agreed upon) that esentialy said the same thing (and was not supported by the sources) that had caused the origioanl disagrement. I think I may have mis-understood you point, are you saying that I can only revert three times if its vandalism, or that my edits were vandalims?Slatersteven (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that if you were blocked for 3RR, then the only possible unblock reason is because you were distinctly reverting vandalism done by someone else. Otherwise, there's no need for a warning - personally I give warnings before the 3RR if I see it, but since not everyone can be watching the history on every article, you cannot always be warned in advance - you, as an editor, has to know better. Hey, it's only 24hrs, unlike the other party, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I am not sure that I can honestly say that the edits I reverted were vandalism, POV pushing I do think, but not vandalism. I am not sure that how long the other bloke got is really the issue (In fact its not something that enters into the equation), its just that the block came totaly out of the blue (I had not even knowwn that the other editor had been reported. I just suddenly found out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Slatersteven (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I was never informed of this, and have had no chance to explain my actions, I also o9nly reverted 3 times (mainly becasue of the 3rr game play by another editor).

Decline reason:

Note that no warning is requisite when blocking for edit warring. If you want unblocked, read the guide to appealing blocks and formulate a proper request, though on the face of it you were edit warring and personally I'd learn the lesson and wait out the 23 hours or so left on this block period.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Nja247 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that I read that a warning is required if the person has never been blocked before. I'd encourage an admin to undo the block. If you haven't dealt with WebHamster, it's really impossible to know how much trolling and insulting he does. He leaves you no choice: you can't work toward consensus with someone who's abusive. Noloop (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you read wrong. See my post above the block :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that I thought I had read that before making a 3RR report you shouild wearn the user, but this was was not a report about me so that would not count even if I do recall the correct rule.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It's courteous to be warned, but it's not required. Again -- warnings are not a prerequisite to blocks that are used to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Edit warring, whether or not it is a 3RR is disruption. It's best to simply move on and get back to building an encyclopaedia at this time. Nja247 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Your message[edit]

Please give me some diffs. I am very busy and don't have time to type a whole message. I will later.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not Webhamster. It's just an annoying troll who likes to make users look bad after they have been blocked. This is the fifth time that I know of that this has happened. I think that I will file a sockpuppet report about, as this seems to be happening often. Thank you for telling me.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither can I. :) Let me get the SPI open so you can add to it too.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)[edit]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Sorry for the delay, I hope you don't mind me moving your comments, it was making the whole thing much harder to read. Soxwon (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's not Thursday yet... Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop RFC[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoloopAbce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just telling the parties involved.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I got some more stuff on the RFC, do you have anything else?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have said my peice, as I have said already this is sailing a bit close to the wind with regards to canvasing, so I shall leave it now.Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked over the canvassing rules and this isn't canvassing.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but its no worse then Nollop did, and therefore I feel that its best if I say no more at this stage. If the situation deterirates any further that may change.Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Perhapes I'm tired of being called a stalker, troll, and other crud, beacuse I'm may have gone overboard with the diffs on the RFC. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it may be the caseSlatersteven (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was shocked when Noloop filed that ANI. Although I knew that would happen, I didn't think it would be soon. But I slept and I feel better now. And sometimes I just like saying the word filed. Filed, filed, filed. Cheers, Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for Arbitration Noloop and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You have new messages
Hello, Slatersteven. You have new messages at Doc Tropics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I reported the mass deletion here. I'm not going to respond to his discussion on the talkpage; he's spouting nonsense and it's a waste of time. Doc Tropics 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. It provides a good overview of the process. The case was accepted to look at the conduct of all parties involved. Hope this helps. KnightLago (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop case extended[edit]

As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm leaving you this note to let you know that I've extended the deadline in the Noloop case for the posting of the proposed decision. You now have until 13 September to present further evidence, or start presenting evidence. I've explained further here. If you have any questions, please ask there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert?[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? The names on the article were incorrect, and redirected to the correct ones anyway. TheoloJ (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

good call[edit]

on the birthday because the piece that ngo monitor is using as a source gets that info from us.[2] Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin[edit]

Hi there. I just wanted to say that I'm glad we were able to put that bad business behind us, and both work constructively on this article. I think I could have handled things better than I did, so for the sake of future efforts I'd like to apologise if I ever caused any offence. There's no motive behind this other than a discussion I was reading about another, unrelated topic, which may descend into the type of argument we had. I've changed my working practices of late, I tend to write in my sandbox now and then invite criticism.

Anyway, I'm glad of your suggestions to the article, I think its improved massively over the last few months, due in no small part to your help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

we both could have acted better, I should have discused mky concearns more clearly. No offence was taken. I hope I haqve inproved my practices too, but sadly can only tell when its too late. I thin the Nick Grfiffin artciel is comming along fine, much credit to you for that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Garlasco Photo[edit]

I placed the photo there myself, with the original caption, if you'd care to get specific. For what it is worth, I have placed your edit of the actual shirt's caption back in there. A Sniper (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the version of 12th September as this seemed to be the only stable version (it had sat for about a day unchanged, thus seemed to have achived some kind of consensus).Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

web sites vs. print edition[edit]

Just fyi, when you see a note like this "Published July 29, 2005, issue of July 29, 2005" at the top of a news article, it means that the article was published in the print edition.Historicist (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

so if its in the articles section and hasd a publishing date it was a published article?Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It's the second part of the phrase that is key: issue of July 29, 2005. In sub-heads of this kind, an issue is a printed thing. But there are now web-only publications that are WP:RS. And some newspapers, the Wall street Journal and the New Republic , come to mind, that publish web-only material that is regarded as being on an equal plane with their printed material, i.e.. not blogs and not mere opinion but news articles, that are published on the web only, as I understand it, both to draw readers to the website and to provide a venue for significant articles of less than general interest.Historicist (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
AHH I see, thank you for taht clarification.Slatersteven (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

on telling opinion columns form news stories[edit]

The Loeonard Fine piece in the Forward is an opinion column. I have an edge here because I subscribe to the Forward, and know that Leonard Fein never writes news article, but has a regular column. The way you (or anyone) can tell the difference is by scrolling to the bottom. Reporters are given bylines at the top of the article. Opinion columnists and op-ed writers also get little bios at the bottom of the text.Historicist (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thats an OR advantage, and as such not admisable.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it's really not. It's just how newspapers signal that a piece is an opinion column, not a news article.Historicist (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you proved some sources pleae?Slatersteven (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No, just years of experience reading and writing occasional pieces for newspapers, both op-eds and features. It's not my day job. There must be sources, if I had them at my fingertips I'd share them.Historicist (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The by the definition of wikis rules this is WP:COS & and WP:OR.Slatersteven (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Leonard wrote an article here it appears, but usually when biographical information is included it is because the writer is not on staff and is providing an op-ed.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
But not allways?Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a rule of thumb that tends to be true, but I'm sure there is a counterexample I can't think of. Fein's piece specifically is called an op-ed by NGO Monitor and a mirror of AI's wiki article which is offering defense to AI, so both sides seem to be in agreement that it is indeed an op-ed. I think it may be worth pointing out it is an op-ed, and also worth pointing out Fein's credentials as a former Professor of Politics and Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies at Brandeis University (a school with a strong Jewish history).--69.208.131.94 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is more about Leonard Fein's biography here. He is not on the staff of Forward, but he is a very prominent writer (800+ articles), teacher (taught Political Science at MIT, where he also served as Deputy Director of the MIT/Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies), lecturer (lectures have taken him to more than 400 American communities, 60 college campuses, and more than a dozen foreign countries), etc. So his background as an op-ed writer should be acknowledged, as should his prestigious background which takes him beyond just writing for the Forward. We would want to include this just like we want to include the fact that NGO Monitor's director has worked as a consultant for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and thus that him getting at one point getting a paycheck from them may influence his view of how they do things.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Stork[edit]

So add the info to the page. That's how Wikipedia works.Historicist (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have. The popint is you should have created a balanced page to start with, not just a reapeat of the accusation that are already on Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc Garlaco[edit]

I believe there ought to be a way to briefly include NGO Monitor's main purpose as an organization as background information to the reader.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started![edit]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Stork[edit]

If the sentence you recently added is a direct quote, then put it between quote marks. Thanks. AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

DoneSlatersteven (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Halloween[edit]

I just replied to the Halloween comment if you want to discuss? Of the forest (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Section header proposals[edit]

Could you list any other proposals you might be comfortable with as well? I agree that tieing it to the controversy was important, just trying to gauge the opinions on a few versions from a few people. Thanks, --68.78.0.78 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that alleged Nazi fits the bill nicley. That i sentialy whhat its allbout people alledgin that he olcts Nazi kit, not Nazi era kit. The Nazi era/period ect came about becasue of lack of real evidance for any real wrong doing (at least that is what I suspect), beyond the fact he collected WW2 kit.Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to dismiss Noloop arbitration case[edit]

As a party to the Noloop arbitration case, I'm notifying you that I've made a proposal here to dismiss the case. Discussion is here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)[edit]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Brigade patch[edit]

Hello Slatersteven, I saw that you removed the image of the Berlin Brigade patch from the Berlin Brigade page a few weeks ago. I just googled around a bid and to my surprise, it looks as if there are various versions from it. USAREUR got a different one than flickr. BerlinBrigade.com's version looks like the flickr version again. Which is now the real version? Ot were there more than one? Although I'm a Berliner, I'm from Spandau in the British Sector, so I can't really know. Would you eventually like to upgrade the image? BTW: The whole Berlin Brigade page is not accurate as the Berlin Infantry Brigade was never part of the US Berlin Brigade nor was it called Berlin Brigade once. What do you think about seperating the article into two? I got a lot of material here about the Berlin Infantry Brigade, I'd like to contribute, including a conplete list of the various earlier names of the Berlin Infantry Brigade. Kind regards --BajanZindy (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The US army version (according to them) is here [[3]]. There is this [[4]], and this [[5]]. The same site also has this [[6]] It would seem that all of the official sites have more or less the same badge, and its not the one I removed, that seemes to be based on (but an alterd version of) the Berlin distrcit badge. As to uploading the image, I am not myet a member of Wik-commons. As long as any added material can ve verified then there is no problom expanding the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm a member of WikiCommons, but I don't have the right software to change the image. In the meantime the image at commons could be renamed simplified Berlin Brigade badge. I will try to come up with an image of the correct badge in a while. Regards --BajanZindy (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Sadley its not simplified it adds colours. As I said it seems to be the Berlin District patch, but with district removed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Slater, I just uploaded an image of a real US Army Berlin Brigade patch to WikiCommons. If you don't mind I'd like to exchange it with the other image and also add this one in the english Wikipedia Berlin Brigade article. Regards Joerg--BajanZindy (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
OK as its a real one I see no reason not to use it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop[edit]

In light of the absence of Noloop (talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster (talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster[edit]

I would welcome your input here regarding the Google Earth section of the Loch Ness Monster article. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

repliedSlatersteven (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

BNP fascism[edit]

I see you've reverted my edits on the fascist nature of the BNP. Unfortunately, what you have done has gone back to a section which is inaccurate and not particularly informative. For example, despite what some disruptive editors argued in the talk page, the BNP has NOT been described as a "recalibration and modernization" of fascism in any of the sources quoted, or anywhere else for that matter! This was a deliberate misreading of one article's abstract by someone who never actually read the article itself! Further, to quote just one politician (Cameron) as calling them fascist is disingenuous - dozens have - and then to give three quotes for BNP denial is just pointless when one would do. This in itself suggests a distinct lack of balance. I can agree that a proper section on Fascism is needed in this article; however the current one is not it. For this reason, I have reverted to my version which I would ask editors to accept as a temporary measure which at least covers the issue until such time as we can come up with a decent section and not this nonsense.

You wrote on the discussion page: "As the fascism label is n the info box this deserves the same level of importance as racism or Anti-Semitism, its fundamental to those who oppose them". I agree, and think it also needs a mention in the introduction. After all, what most people know about the BNP is that it is condemned as fascist, so this should be up near the top. I think my intro para does this without going into detail. Let's get a good section where the detail can be expanded at the appropriate length. I've started a new section in the discussion where this can be discussed. Emeraude (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

Is it really a rule that you only archive after 7 days? I've never come across it.  Francium12  00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest![edit]

Henry Allingham in 1916.jpg

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)[edit]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No Cussing Club[edit]

Hi there. I see you've added the 2008 AfD for this article to today's log. I've deleted the entry - if you want to re-nominate the article, please follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO, using the afdx template (rather than afd1) on the article. Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK.sorry about that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BNP[edit]

Just for the record I agree with your amendment. I was happier with that but other editors wanted the judgement phrase. --Snowded TALK 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure it should be in the lead, but if it is it should refelct accuratly what the source say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuidado[edit]

Please take care on the BNP article stephen as you have broken the 1RR condition and if the topic is so emotive to you that you would risk being blocked simply to replace caucasan then perhaps you should consider not editing the article as that would be preferable to a block. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I did?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes Stephen, you did, any revert of another editors good faith addition is a revert, please take a little time to read the revert article, to become aware of what editing under a 1RR restriction entails. If you can't find the link to revert article ask me and ill look for it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to look at your edits today to help you understand? Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
He is talking nonsense Slater, IRR means edit waring, not going through a series of modifications to achieve consensus. That is encouraged. --Snowded TALK 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have asked for clarification --Snowded TALK 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, excuse me if I was wrong to ask you to take care, it seems I have been coming from a mistaken position, sorry, tweak away. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Removal of very old material would be considered a revert if it was raised although you did it in good faith, If you want to remove old material I suggest a comment on the talk page to see if there is any objection and wait for others to comment and that will cover you back. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steven. You are just mistaken as to what constitutes a revert. Per WP:EW it is "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". It doesn't necessarily mean going back to a version identical to an earlier one in the edit history. Any time you remove text that is there, even if you replace it with alternative wording, that counts as a revert.
However, don't worry about it. Let's leave the text as it is, but please try to abide by the 1RR from here on in. --FormerIP (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thats not how I interperiate it, I did not reverse your edit, I alterd it. However I shall seek further clarifiication to avoid any futher confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steven, just to let you know I posted at WP:ANI about this. Your mentioned in what I put but only as "an editor". I'm not asking you to do anthing unless you want to (in which case you're also welcome to), but I though I should let you know. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some context, hope you don't mind.Slatersteven (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My question re reversion[edit]

I hope my long addition to your question at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#When_is_a_revert_not_a_revert.2C_please_add_puchline this page doesn't divert attention to your question. I came to the talk page intending to ask about the definition of "reversion" and I was delighted to see that you had asked. I thought it would be best to piggy back on your question, but if respondents address mine and not yours, I'll help make sure they address both. I think your question is a tougher call, but I think it is not a reversion.--SPhilbrickT 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Its OK.Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Halloween[edit]

Pl don't revert my restoration of the stable version. It is hardly arguable that Haloween is a "religious" occasion - it may have derived from a pagan religious festival. The onus is on those wishing to change the stable version to "take it to talk". Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war[edit]

You are involved in a slow edit war here. Your insertion of material on the apologia for not fighting the course case was, per WP:BRD reverted as duplication. You should then have made the case for the change on the talk page, instead you have reinserted the material several times without that discussion. I tried for a compromise, but your response has been a reversion. I suggest you revert to the original and make your case on the talk page. If you don't I will. --Snowded TALK 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a comment on the talkm page explaining why I bleive there is a differnace (I aslo put the same explanation in he edit summery).Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That does not mean you have consensus to make the change - the comment and recommendation above stands --Snowded TALK 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
So you tell me that I should have done something (which you have not done) I inform you I in fact did do this. Did your reversions have consensus, or is it a one way rule? Moreover I did in fact raise the issue with you, and you chose not to respond to the point about this being differing issues[[7]].Indead even here you make the same point that’s its duplication of the material about why they dropped the court case, ignoring my point that the information is about both that issue and why the membership will accept the new constitution.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Get your facts straight[edit]

Kindly do not post any more false accusations on my talk page, or ideally do not post there for any reason at all. 2 lines of K303 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

here[[8]] you say "partial RV of changes by editor with COI" I was the last person to edit this section [[9]] prior to youjr edit. Moreover most of the material you alterd was my text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. As I said get your facts straight, and stop making false accusations. I will not retract what I never said in the first place, and if you feel the need to reply do it here and do not post on my talk page. 2 lines of K303 14:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Fir enough ext timeyou are uncivil I will not take it to your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Last warning not to make false accusations of incivility. 2 lines of K303 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
So are you satying it was not my edits you reverted, or you did not say they were by a " editor with COI"? Or are you saing that accusing some one of a COI is not incivility? If you were to clear this up for me it would make it easier for me to apploigise if I am in error.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

bit long[edit]

Indisputable though, I am occasionally checking what is going on at the article but it is such a vomit pit that it hardly seems worth the energy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is why it needs policing. Bu8t I don't think its that bad, and has improved a lot, but it still needs work.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I see your good efforts there but it is clear that there are many editors there that dislike the subject of the article, so its a bit, or a lot actually, like a bunch of Manchester united fans editing the Manchester city article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I assume that most of them are in fact trying to edit the article in a non POV way, its just that sometimes they get a little caught up (witness the recent spat between me and Snowded, which was worked out more or less amicably in the end). I also do not bleive its all one sided, that there have been occasions when the other side has also gone a bit too far. Sadley this will be a problom on any page of this nature. It might be best if Wikipedia found a way to only allow those uninviolved (such as nationals of countires unaffected by a political party) to edit a page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, with this situation, the article will continue to be a vomit pit, I would close an article like this and allow quality neutral editors to create a decent article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Browser[edit]

Hi Stephen, I notice your spelling or typing skill are almost as bad as mine, I enjoy the assistance of a spell checker on my browser, I recommend it to you, what browser do you use, IE or Firefox ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Hopkins[edit]

Hi, the following sentence feels like it's missing something: "Through out his career on King James' Daemonlogie, and it has been suggested this indicates that one of his motivations was that he believed in the reality of witchcraft". The part before the comma doesn't seem to link to the part after. Nev1 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Does this convey what you meant accurately: "Because of Hopkin's use of Daemonlogie throughout his career, it has been suggested that one of the motives behind Hopkin's work was a belief in witchcraft"? Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Works for me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

signatures[edit]

hi, thanks for telling buddy ..... i will do it from now.الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

thats OK, always glad to help.Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)[edit]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary[edit]

I wondered if you could take a look at this. I've completely re-written it in the last week, and I'm trying to find good things to write about him. I can't. I can't find, anywhere, anyone who has something nice to say about him. Do you have any ideas? Parrot of Doom 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks Parrot of Doom 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Not easy, is it? Frustrating if you ask me. I think I'll start looking at Muslim/Islam sources, to see if there's any support for the more noble aspects of his character, although what those could be I'm not quite sure. I'd like to add something to the article also that demonstrates a majority Muslim view against his actions, but am not sure where to look. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Depends on what yhou mean. I have seen some stuff writen by Muslims that says he does not represnt the wider muslim community. The problom is it seems to be mainoly media pundit types. But I* shall have a looksee.Slatersteven (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that source, its been extremely helpful. Its gone a long way to resolving this, although now, apparently, someone believes that tabloid newspapers haven't been vitriolic about Choudary. Amazing. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

EDL[edit]

Please do not add weakly cited controversial content to the EDL article, this is a continuation of your previous attempt to link the BNP to the EDL with blogspots and weak citations. The threads are still available if you dispute this at the reliable source noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A new source has been added , and no objection raised to it, also the new section is using a police handout as a source, are you saying that not reliable for what the police are sayiing? By the way non of this says they are linked, it says they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one would like to discuss any content that continues to be added that is weakly cited that enlarges the section that connects the two organizations. Feel free to add your desired additions on the talkpage for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did add the new source to the talk page, and no objection was raised[[10]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Regarding the fact that we disagree about everything, I want to request you, please do not post on my talkpage again, thank you. I have a feeling that I have politely asked you this before, however I will make a note of this in my records and look forward to you respecting my wishes. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of No Cussing Club[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is No Cussing Club. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Cussing Club (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

unrelated comment to above[edit]

My talk page is NOT comedy central. Haiduc (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I mearly ask you not to make accusations of homophobia (or of conspiracy), and to treat others with the same respect you would like to be treated, how is that funny?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

www.debating.net[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but at the moment I am more concerned with the large (or very large) sections of both European Universities Debating Championship and World Universities Debating Championship that seem to be drawn from this one domain. Codf1977 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)[edit]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

George Chapman[edit]

Sorry, I had to revert your edit as the article is not to be edited until the copyvio issue is settled. You can put it on the talk page if you like. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats OK, I have started an new vrsion on talk.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in this[edit]

During a heated debate (no pun intended) on Talk:European Universities Debating Championship I had reason to suspect a bit of Sockpuppetry going on so filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singopo cue one amassing confession. Codf1977 (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

All very childish, but one of the accunts has never voted on an Afd which is also odd.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I did not see that you had added a comment to the Talk page of the new names - just done it again Codf1977 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL thats OK.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


War on Terror[edit]

Since I have a dynamic IP, I'm taking the discussion to the talk page. --79.167.189.239 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)[edit]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened![edit]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I[edit]

My apologises, I had an edit conflict, and accidently removed your comment, which I see that you have re-inserted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning over the addition of fraudulent references[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg Do not add fraudulent references, as you did in in this edit to 1989 Dewsbury race riot. Edits such as that have already contributed to one editor being community banned, and I will be happy to ask for admin action to be taken against you if you add another fraudulent reference at any point in the future. 2 lines of K303 11:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I presume then that the source does not support the mmaterial it is being used as a source for? If it does I would ask you not to make false accusations against other edds. I would also ask you to not make threats based on false accusations. I also note you have not raised objections to this source on either the talk page of the articel not the RS notice board. It seems that it is only your opinion that this is a fraudulent reference. I shall ignore this threat untill you can provide some reason to bleive that this is a fraudulent reference.

Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi Slatersteven, we had worked together on an article last year and I recall that you had were a stickler for details on references and sourcing, which is why I supported you recent changes. However, I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled at this point. 3 other editors have reverted the material you added, and while 2 of the reversions appear spurious, the third editor states that he has read the book you cite and that your additions are not supported by the source. Unfortunately I don't have easy access to the book in question. Is it perhaps possible that you have either misquoted or taken something out of context? Or even just cited the wrong page number? Maybe when paraphrasing from the source you unintentionally veered into OR? I started a discussion on the article's talkpage, so please feel free to respond there too and we'll try to clear things up. Thanks, and happy editing, Doc Tropics 16:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
When I first restored this material (like you) I could find no reason why this material was considered falsified. There was no explanation on the talk page, as such I resorted it in the expectation that any objections to it would be raised. I then checked on One Night In Hackney assertion that he had indead raised concearns about this, abd eventualy founf it here [11] the quoted text is as follows.
“In contrast to the innovation of the NF in the 1980s, the BNP represented more of a continuation of both the issues and the methods of the 1970s. The combination of a sizeable immigrant community and government attempts to foster a multiracial society enabled it to present the native white population as an oppressed people in their own country. The BNP's 'Rights for Whites' campaign, which took off after a major demonstration in Dewsbury in 1989, marked the behinning of a more active approach. 'The real watershed', as John Tyndall observed, 'signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990”
I bleived that my edit here[12] refelcted better what the source was saying then the origional text better.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note[edit]

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on Excessively Brief's talkpage[edit]

Can you explain what you mean by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Excessively_Brief&diff=359066099&oldid=359060210 this post?] I'm not sure what you meant by "without possible knowing it's false." I'm assuming you meant that the account wasn't necessarily created by the one who make the case (me) but I'm not sure. Can you clarify for me? Thanks, Auntie E. (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant (by the way I did not kn ow who made the case).Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, why do you think I should apologise to Mk? Auntie E. (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I felt you should appoligise for making a false (albut possibly in good fatih) accusation of sockpuppetry.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pershing[edit]

The variable "nickname" needs to have a small "n" on it - it won't display with a large "N". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Vichy France[edit]

Bonjour,

Please go to article talk page [13].

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384[edit]

Hi. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support when it seemed like everyone was against me. I realise that you don't agree with everything that I said, and I will admit that in my frustration, I may have let my emotions get the best of me on occasion. Still, it was very refreshing to see someone speak out against the attempt to get rid of me, at any cost, simply because I disagreed with others. Also, I would like to clarify why I did not answer the question that you posed to me on the Pershing talk page. Your question was, more or less, my statement, rearranged as an interrogative, and there wouldn't have been any need for you to ask it, were it not for the uncivil behaviour of another editor. I had stated that whilst I continued to disagree, the majority seemed to be against me, and that there would be little point in continuing to carry on with it. Dave, interested in the drama, and not the article, couldn't bear to see this, and attempted to lure me back into the fray with a completely innapropriate post. I didn't mean to disrespect you by ignoring your question. I just didn't want to "feed the trolls", and figured that it was best to not give him the satisfaction. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of George Lee (British politician)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is George Lee (British politician). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian fake parties on wikipedia[edit]

I think that these 2 pages should be deleted: Lega Padana Lombardia and Lombardy Project. As i've written in their "discussion" these parties don't exist actually and never existed in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.133.92 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Genocide_of_Ottoman_Turks_and_Muslims. Pcap ping 02:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I cited page where is the majority of that personalities but sometimes with Slovak version of name[edit]

I agree that not all personalities are there, but I have other sources. try to read this short article about Petofy its good example: http://epa.oszk.hu/01400/01462/00019/pdf/181-189.pdf --Samofi (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What your sources needs to do is show that there is some kind of an issue with their identity as Hungarians Vs Slovaks (As I assume that is what your page is about), not that they may have Slovak roots (as I have pointed out at least one is in fact of Polish decent). Nor does your new source indicate any problom. It seems to say that Mr Petofi identified him slef as Hungarian, no where does it seem to say that his Slovak roots were ignored or played down. The only prolbom it seems to highlight are Slovak nationalists resentent that A man born in Hungary considerd himslelf Hungarian. So it might have some value in a balanced articel about how many Slovaks consided themsleves to he Hungarian, and about how some have had thier Slovalm origions ignored, but it would need to be demonsttrated that this is a widely recognised issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-scholarship[edit]

Thanks for the input; what's your opinion on requiring a citation for the list in the article? Eugene (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If its not sourced it is OR, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to what you said about wether or not the Vietnam conflict was definetly part of the cold war[edit]

The Soviet Union and the Chinese were not that interested in Vietnam, they provided weopons in an attempt to weaken their enemy American, but they were saw it as vital part of the cold war. Indeed, when America eventually "lost" the USSR and China had not won, indeed they ended up fighting the communist government for Vietnam a very short while later. It is very easy to argue that it was a war of independence, nothing more. Witty Beast (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think thats the point, the USSR and China saw it as an extension of the cold war. As such it is part of (by proxy) the cold war. Which i belive was my point. Moreover the stated US aim was to stop the spread of Communism, again making it part of the wider US war against its 'communist' opponents. It was in part a war of independance, and in part a proxy war betwen the USA and the soviot block (including China of course). Much like the Spanish Civil war before it it was an internal strugle upon which out sode politics imposed itself (without regard for the realities on the ground).Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was merely stating that it isnt as clear cut as that as not all parties involved saw it as part of the Cold War. However you may be right. Witty Beast (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh there is no question that the local participants felt it was either a civil war or a war of independance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

is it right to describe it as part of the cold war then? Diem was a puppet of France then America, but Ho was never a puppet of the USSR or China by any means. Witty Beast (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Whilst its true that Diem was a puppet of the west, and ho not so much a puppet of the communists. it is also true to say that both the USA and Russia were only intersted in the Vietnam was as a proxy war between themsleves. As such yes it is part of the cold war.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism[edit]

Do you belive that anti-Americanism is only relevent if it can be proved irrefutably that the anti-Americans are soley motivated by hatred of the USA with no extraneous considerations? I.e. it is not any thing or qualities the Americans have but just their being American? Is anti-Amercianism only relevent if the anti-Americans have an essential hatred of a putative "americanism" uncontaminated with any (possibly false) qualities they ascribe to the Americans? I am English by the way...and drink tea...I know there are some misguided people who are anti-English but is it it just the tea drinking they are against? What I mean is - that can one divorce hatred of a particular nation from whatever (putative) qualities that that nation posseses? For instance if one says that "I hate loud mouthed Americans" - does that mean that (putatively) there are soft voiced Americans that one might love??? Colin4C (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

NO i bleive that articels should reflect what RS say, not what eddds interperate them to say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For your dispassionate and policy-based comment here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Made_bold_edit_to_lead RomaC (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Edit Warring on Anti-Americanism[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Americanism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Noloop (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3#User:Slatersteven reported by User:Noloop (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Since it appears this dispute has more than two participants, it could be worth opening a WP:Request for comment. Either way, if you can reply at AN3 and propose how you think this could be resolved, it would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Astrology software[edit]

Thank you for your reasoned additions to the page. By the way, it's "grasp" not "crasp". (I felt the need to have a go at someone else's spelling :D ) Verbal chat 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL you are of course correct.Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A Sound of Thunder (film)[edit]

Hi. In order to avoid subsequent misunderstandings, I want to know your opinion (since I was engaged in a debate whether or not film falls under category of apocalipticism with you last time). In the article itself there's no mentioning that it's a post-apocalyptic film, well the term still and then wasn't that popular. Anyway, if your answer would be negative - I will reject it till you don't watch the film, and even after watching the film you will still keep your ground - ok, I won't add it to the article. Don't read the plot, like I said, you won't find any mentioning. But be sure, in the film there's an idea of post-apocalyptic world where the humankind was totally changed. If it's not an apocalypticism, then what (or is it necessary for the humanking to transform into zombies so only then it would be considered as post-apocalyptic film)? Besides, the film is pretty good. Userpd (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matrer what I think the film is about, the page has now agreed that only films that have RS saying they are apoclayptic should be included. Not whether you or I think it is, nor does the quality of the film make any differance to its inclusion..Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

Please read WP:BRD and just allow a little time for discussion - all you are doing is polarizing a debate when we should be having a discussion --Snowded TALK 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What it is not "BRD is not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it. Researching first, then citing sources, may reduce the likelihood of a reversion or, if one takes place, help keep the resulting discussion constructive." You wer already aware that there were interested parties, and had been asked fpr sources baiing the statment. You had failed to do so (over a year ago). "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." So I am not required to follow it. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." I has attempted a re-wording (supported by sourcesa) which you had reverted to text (not supported by any source). "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." You had indead already reverted to your prefred version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you have a better understand of WP:3RR before filing admin requests to deal with edit wars. You might remember the story about a boy who liked to call "wolf" ... there's also a story of some football player with a pistol in his trackpants ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Explain how I ere. The user has reversed 3 edits and essentail reworks a fouorth time (and reverrs my actions i the process. I do not see how I am mistaken, but would welcome an exlanation if I have.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Their comments on the 3RR noticeboard, and on their talkpage appear to hold to be true. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen people blocked for similar patterns. Making minor changes while not engaging in the talk page is held to be 3RR in most cases. --Snowded TALK 16:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
They were not minor changes or substantial reverts: I added new content and made a new edit including both wordings (and added quote marks). Verbal chat 16:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't take the risk --Snowded TALK 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You restored wording four times that had been rejected by consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
BWilkins perhaps you can explain how Verbal has not breached 3RR is says (if I read it correctly) that an edit that undoes the work of an other Edd, it does not ahve to actualy be revert. He definatly undoes my work 3 times, and the fourth time is a rewording to include his version thus effectvly re-doing his version, restoring content I (and others) had deleted and thus partialy undoing previous edits. I may mis-undertsand if I do please explainSlatersteven (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly: one of the edits made by Verbal incorporates both editors preferences - this means it's a whole new edit, and is a clear attempt to include a consensus-based edit by coming to a clear middle ground. Counter resets. Pointe finale (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Then why did the edit only include quotation (which are an addition) marks around the word he did not agree with? that implies to me that this was an attmept to still include his 'fact', not to compromise, thus was a partily revert to a previous version (his preferd version). Noe I may be wrong i that interpritation, so why was the comrpmise not sugested in the talk page?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Far right[edit]

is a political designation. Please do not remove sources while there is ongoing dispute. Also be aware of the 3RR. Verbal chat 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also be aware that you are not alowed to say sources say something they do not. If sources do not say tha=ey are a politcal organisation then we cannot use tyhem aas a source for that. You are also going against consensus, and material should not be added against consnesusSlatersteven (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The sources explicitly support the text. There is no synthesis. Verbal chat 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
So please provide the quote where this soucre http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8303786.stm uses describes them as "political".Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that says anything even remotely relevant in the text is "Within the organisation a debate is under way about whether it should stay as a street based protest movement or something more organised and political." (sic).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop[edit]

There is a ban/topic ban proposal at AN/I. Obviously anyone who has worked with him should have a chance to express themselves here. Aside from people working on the Jesus article, I am not sure who else has worked with him, but if you know the right places to announce this please do. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Its on ANI there is no need top go announcing it all around, take care not to canvass. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

you can inform interestd parties with out it being canvasing. Its the tone as much as anything else that counts, as well as only inviting one side of the debate.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Just a wrong click. As you probably saw I immediately reverted that revert. Garion96 (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom[edit]

Thanks for your comments. Just to let you know that I've now come up with some draft text to include in the article, which I've posted on the NPOV noticeboard. Comments are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Do you think I should add the material discussed here to the article now (I mean my latest, slimmed down, suggestion) or wait longer for further opinions? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Give it a day or so.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, will do. I just want to get this issue over with really. There are endless reliable sources documenting this issue and I really don't see why it is a problem to mention it in the article, especially given my attempts to make sure the text is balanced by considering research evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!1![edit]

This edit made me smile. I wonder if anyone will actually suspect a conflict of interest? TFOWR 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, there's a conflict of interest! Alfons Åberg (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
from the sounds of thins Mr Slater has an interest in conflictSlatersteven (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
At least he got a couple of free beers out of it (allegedly) ;-) TFOWR 11:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
One story I have heard (no source as yet) is that he actualy sat at the back of the aircraft during the flight and got drunk. I may not have the time today but will try and find a sources for thisSlatersteven (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Call the police! Mr. Slater has fled the country and escaped to the UK!

Mr. Slater, you may be a folk hero but in the future, do not destroy company property by opening up the slide. At the very least, you should pay for repair. You could have waited for the jetway, like other people.

The press is calling you bisexual. Did you know that? Notslater (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

AHH the fools did they think that any bail could hold me, MUhaara, do they no relaise I am a master of escapology. I have no wheels how can I be a bisexual.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Were you drinking Blue Moon and sliding down the slide while you were typing this? "Another passanger, Howard Deneroff, has said that he idi not see Slater with a cut on his head. He has also dais he saw slater arguning wiht a women over her bag, which sllater was saying was too big and had to be checked." LOL –BMRR (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No my keyboard was playing up (I sent an e-mail about the4 saem time and half the message disapeard. In addition I am dyslexic, which only adds to the problom of a wonkey keyboard.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Understood. I hope you know I was just joking around and not actually criticising. Thanks for your work on the Slater article. :-) –BMRR (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Slrubenstein[edit]

Slater, please do not continue to alter or add to your comment at the RfC/U. As you can see someone agreed with your initial summary and now were forced to post that they do not agree with some of your additional points. If you need to make additional points please post a second summary or seek other advice on what to do. Once people start to post agreement with your summary it should not be edit as you are then changing that which someone might have agreed with. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Vote on AfD[edit]

Sorry it took me so long to answer, I had a couple of RL issues plus the copyvio issue that took my attention. I did not intend to delete your !vote, I had no idea I did so. My apologies. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

blocks[edit]

are never meant to be punitive. Not for me, not for Noloop, not for anyone. The purpose of a block is either to defuse a heated conflict or to encourage someone who flagrantly violates policy to observe how effective editors work together and to read up on policy. But blocks should not be thought of as punitive. I have been blocked, and i have blocked others, and I have never thought of it as punishment and I or whoever blocked me also made this clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that as of late I had asked for any one to be blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the last time you equated blocking with punishment. here Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find I said equal to or greater punishment (A bad choice of words but we all somethimes make that mistake), I did not say Block. Whilst I was replying to a stament that noloop should be blocked I also made it clear I agreed only with the statment that you an noloop both have issues, I do not say you should both be blocked. Moreover the post which I agreed to does not say he should be blocked only that if he (Noloop) does not moderate his actions he should be blocked. now of course I should have said (And I assumed that it would not be that hard to figure it out) was "I feel that to give Sluber a lesser (or even equal) sanction ignores the fact he is supposed to uphold" I shall of cource amend it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for my confusion and thanks for the clarification. I'll just say: I have never called for Noloop to be punished, and, as was true in the past, do not think she should be punished, for anything. And leave it at that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Rubbers and Sluber[edit]

Slater, please stop coming up with new and obnoxious ways of referring to Slrubenstein. These are indeed insulting and indeed nothing but veiled name calling. In American English a "rubber" is a condom, and I've already told you that "Sluber" sounds like "slobber". If you do not stop doing this you deserve an incivility block yourself. Stop being so childish.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Or its something you use to rub something out. Or a material that is used in many manafacturing process. AFGSlatersteven (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven, I think you should take Griswaldo's comment more seriously than that. A number of editors over there already seem to be demonstrating a lack of patience and I don't think calling people things other than their names is a good idea. I appreciate you are not Mavis Beacon (which I am not criticising you for, and wouldn't), so maybe shortening a name is okay, but not coining nicknames. PS: "Noloop" also only has one l. --FormerIP (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please edit your comment now that Slr has asked not to be called "Rubbers". Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Or its something you use to rub something out. Or a material that is used in many manafacturing process. AFG" Slatersteven, can you please explain to me what "AGF" means in this context? What is the "good faith" interpretation of you callimg me Rubbers? Are you saying that you wish to use me "to rub something out?" Or are you saying that I am "a material that is used in many manufacturing process" (sic)? I am quoting your own words, so I assume these are your explanations for calling me Rubbers. But what kind of "good faith" could justify your identifying me with an eraser or a material used in manufacturing? Why do you call me Rubbers? You want us to assume good faith? Well, I am assuming good faith by asking you, politely, why do you call me Rubbers, or Sluber? Slrubenstein | Talk 07:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

it was a shortaning of a rather long user name (as in slater above) done in a way that would enable me to remeber it without thinking when typing (which is why Slubbers was used, based on a mis-reading of your user name, and I just got used to using it). AFG is you should assume I was not trying to be insulting. You will also note that I stoped calling you by either of these names after I was aksed not to 9abnd before you decided to take offence). So the fact I hae stoped using names that I have been told could be sulting clearly indicated acting in good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Slater[edit]

please stop edit warring , thanksOff2riorob (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salamat Sadykova[edit]

Hiya. Someones found a fair few sources for this now. Do you still want to keep your delete vote or are you happy for the AfD to be closed as keep and save the bureacracy? Quantpole (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Salamat Sadykova[edit]

Is there sufficient assertion of notability at Salamat Sadykova now, in your opinion? If so and you withdraw your delete !vote, we can WP:SPEEDYKEEP the AfD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please self revert[edit]

Your removal of the Hefferman material when there was clearly no consensus for the act is a disruptive edit. Further, since you previously added to the material in the lede when you believed a source existed to portray it in a negative manner, then suddenly removed it entirely when the source was shown false, a case can be made for intentional bias, as well as disruptive editing.

There appears to be consensus to move the material from the lede to the body, but not to remove it entirely. Please self revert, and restore the material. Fell Gleamingtalk 21:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume tht this material should be in the lead. She is not a sciwence wroter but this is a science blog. lso ther is no consensufor its inclusion either, contested material should not be in an artciel, not the otehr way around. I would also susgest that you assume good faith. I inserted material to restore balance then decised to check who this persoon was, and found that she has bno background in science or in climate study, she appears to be an arts writer. So I changed my m ind as to its suitabiltiy for inclusion (and by the way I dispuyte that tghe source has shown to be false). Nor have I seen any consensus for its inclusion. There appear to be four persons involved two asking why this is here, yourself (who wants its inclusion) and another (who wants additional material you object too).Slatersteven (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You are confused about policy. Regarding potential BLP violations, contested material should be excluded until consensus evolved. This is not true for normal editorial disputes. You block removed content in the middle of a talk page discussion over it. Further, as you yourself have contributed to the discussion, you cannot claim lack of knowledge of the discussion. Your prior edit to make the material appear negative-- based on a distorted reading of a source -- further reveals bias. Restore the material or I will immediately file an ANI for disruptive editing in a climate article. Fell Gleamingtalk 21:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The material I added was a direct quote from the source (hence the quotation marks), please file an ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

[14]. That's how we know it really was her. It's a confirmed Twitter account. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

'Indian freedom struggle'/1857/template[edit]

The relevant discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars#.27Indian_freedom_struggle.27 Zuggernaut (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Typographical errors and legibility[edit]

I appreciate, as I think all readers do, your effort to clean up your quick first draft and repair your inadvertent typographical errors. Please note however that your most recent(1) effort appears to have removed some errors only to replace them with different errors whilst neglecting others. This was just a friendly note of thanks, as a reader, for your efforts - combined with an observation produced to support and improve your work. Thank you. 99.144.248.213 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Edits on talk:Amy Elizabeth Thorpe[edit]

Hello, I introduced an article to Wikipedia on Amy Elizabeth Thorpe. You wrote on the talk page words to the effect that the sources indicating her role in WW2, (especially where Enigma is concerned) should be included even if others dispute them. I agree with you. I am in a long discussion with another editor, Nihil Novi, who seems obsessed with making sure none but Poles take credit for helping with Enigma in WW2, while I am fine including both the sources that mention Poles and sources that mention other Enigma help.

Could I ask you to revisit the talk page on Amy Elizabeth Thorpe and offer your opinion on this again, perhaps in more detail? My belief is that all sources should be included, another editor seeems to want to exclude sources with which he does not agree. Thanks.

Leidseplein (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This could be seen as canvasing, as such I shall take a look but may not reposnd.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

I appreciate the assistance in Challenger Deep. More so, I appreciate the integrity you've displayed. I've seen many editors (including a couple of admins) who have conflicted with me in the past choose to "take the other side" in such debates, merely to do a past opponent one in the eye. Fell Gleamingtalk 13:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Challenger Deep, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, I've already formally warned you regarding harassment and personal attacks. Putting a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on the talk page of what is obviously a long-time user is clearly another violation. Fell Gleamingtalk 13:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I do not see origional research. A sources say the US wants to dump in the Deep and anotehr sources says that tyhe US has not ratfified the treaty that would make this illegal. How is say that synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FellGleaming. Thank you. —Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

link=User talk:--CrohnieGalTalk 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Slatersteven. You have new messages at [[User talk:--CrohnieGalTalk 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)|User talk:--CrohnieGalTalk 17:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why full protection is only used when normal editing degenerates[edit]

I'm taking this discussion off the talk page of the climate change arbitration and onto this user talk page because it's a peripheral matter that by its nature is unlikely to be actionable (the kind of protection proposed is against our policies) and because you seem to have misunderstood me and you sound quite angry about what you think I mean. My fault, I should have been much clearer. We don't normally fully protect articles for a number of good reasons each of which is rather persuasive on its own.

Firstly, the Wiki is open to all and every article without exception benefits from edits added in passing. Bad edits and vandalism are quickly identified and easily removed, so the articles improve. Phrasing is polished,emphasis and balance tweaked, sections are added and expanded, and so on. It's easy to overlook the fact that this happens even while disputes are discussed on the talk page, provided all editors avoid edit warring. (to be continued) Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment read like sarcams, which I felt was both inapropriate and displayed the kind of attitude that may have led to Arb in the first place (my edits are better then your edits). Nor do I see how a a wide page lock is agaiinst policy, tehre are plenty of pages that are locked. Not admitadly whole subjects. Next I mhave not been widely involved in CC articels si can only jugde the limitted amount of actions I have witnessed. I see this is more a content dispute then some vast conspiracy (though I think there might be small conspiracis on both sides looking at some of the mentality being shown). As such (I.E. its all about imposing a version of the 'truth' on the articels in question) it is best if rather then allowing edit wars 9and rising temperatures) it might be best to force users to talk. Most of the objections to this seems to come from the 'truth' sayers who are defending 'climate credulity'. Also the fact this has gone to Arb implies to me that its already fgone beyond the stage of polite discusion and reached the stage of open warfare. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Conversely full protection forfeits those benefits, and when done in the absence of edit warring no benefit accrues to the article to make up for the loss of open editing. Open editing may seem like a recipe for chaos but in practice you end up with pretty good articles, most noticeably and perhaps surprisingly in science topics where our quality has been highly praised by expert commentators comparing us to the best non-free encyclopedias. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do of course think it's good to protect an article over a dispute if edit warring breaks out (though as a matter of policy I tend to favor blocking the warring parties in an isolated dispute in the hope that others can continue to edit the article harmoniously.) Again, apologies for a sarcastic retort that failed to take into account the differing levels of experience on Wikipedia. The crucial advantages of open editing have been made clear by the experience of offshoots like Citizendium that adopted a closed or deferred model, as well as similar predecessors like Nupedia and H2G2. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm is Sarcasm, it should not be engadged in in the frist place (regardelss of levels of experiance). It demonstrates excaclty the sort of thing that can in flame an already tense situation (and I bleive is discouraged on wiki). As I have said there are many locked artciels, none of whome seem to really suffer from this. Given that this has gone beyond polite discusion and has bro0ken out into oipen warfare (with accusation of conospiracies and attempts at imdimidation) I don't think that bannig edds based (it seems to me) more on thier POV then actions can have any real or lasting benifit (and can only refelct badly, especialy if the science does prove wrong, on wiki)Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On the nature of the dispute, basically it's an extension of external conflicts by other means. That doesn't have to happen--if you look at the evolution articles you'll see that despite the widespread public controversy over evolution in the United States and to a lesser degree elsewhere both the science articles and the articles about the disputes are not subject to the same level of torment. We'd like to get to the point where the same applies to climate change. It's no more a content dispute than evolution versus creationism. Wikipedia can only follow scientific consensus, it can't and shouldn't level the playing field. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are any permanently or long-term fully protected articles anywhere on Wikipedia it's news to me, but I'll investigate this before commenting further. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The evolution articel is semi-protected. So I think that nicley demonstrates that locking the CC artciels may be the best way forward. You yourself say that its an excelent example of the way wiki should work. Its clear that edit warring was a prolbom, and partial protection was the only answer. On CC the situation seems to me a bit worse, but I could be wong. Libertarianism fully protected untill 2011Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with somebody who doesn't accept that semiprotection is very different from full protection. Assuming you do recognise the distinction, I think there is probably a good argument to be made for semiprotecting all climate change articles either indefinitely or for a long period, but as the argument has never been made the attempts to do that have failed. I could probably successfully argue for that but I don't see it as a sensible long term strategy. The articles are watched so closely that semiprotection is largely redundant.

The recent switch of the libertarianism article from long term semiprotection to full protection with the same period is intriguing but not persuasive as to policy or wisdom. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct you on one matter. Semiprotection is no use against edit warring. It's only effect is to force unregistered editors to register an account, make a very small number of edits, and wait a few days. Malicious editors have been known to register many accounts months or years in advance in a futile attempt to overwhelm Wikipedia's immune system. It doesn't work in practice because they get blocked for sock puppetry, but the same principle applies to all editors. Register an account and within a few days anybody can edit every semiprotected page on the Wiki. The assumption is that most casual vandals will go elsewhere to get their jollies. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My point about the semi-protection of evolution was to show that the claim you appear to make that we do not need a lock on CC pages is because we don’t have them on evolution pages and there is less trouble there is false (as is your claim its against policy, policy in fact says that locks can be indefinite). Its clear that there are still regular and ongoing vandalism, perhaps less then CC articles at this time but still present and that any decision that allows the edit warring to continue will not work because on your chosen example vandalism was, and remains, a problem. Your point about semi-protection not working surely is an argument for full protection as all of the accounts casing trouble are not IP’s but actual user accounts. Semi-protection of CC articles will not stop the current edit warring, that either leaves us with blocks or full protection. The CC articles are not vandalised by casual editors but (in many cases) by long term POV pushers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the distinction between full protection (which is used to stop edit wars on articles) and semiprotection (which is used to stop casual vandalism). Nothing productive can come from this until you understand they're different. --TS 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I do understand the difference one stops IP's from editing (not the issue on the CC pages). And one stops all accounts from editing (the problem on the CC pages is not with Ip's but with user accounts). If there is edit warring on the CC pages only banning users (and if the accusations of off wiki plotting is true it won't work) or full protection (which would make creating new accounts to replace banned ones ineffective) will stop the edit warring. I fail to see what I do not understand about this (or how its not clear what I mean from my comments above). I did not raise the evolution articles, I just pointed out they are still subject to attacks, but not the same kind of attacks. So the argument that we do not need full protection of CC articles because Evolution articles have worked fine without it is not true, they are just attacked in a different way (and there would be nothing stopping the same kind of attacks being launched against CC articles in retaliation for any bans). I see nothing to indicate that view is wrong, or that such long term locks are not used when edit warring become excessive. What I do see is a request to not have a lock so we can continue our campaign to have the truth told. Is the objective to stop disruptive editing or to get opponents banned?Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games[edit]

Apologies, my computer had trouble loading the page, so my edit somehow got submitted twice. In case you got the wrong idea, since your edit summary sounds a tad sarcastic. Which from my experience on WP, can be provocative at times. Just wanted to point this out. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. Maybe... ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 04:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for any offense. Occasionaly I have seen materlail placed twice in an article for reasons of 'making it clear'.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure I'm fine. Just take note... since I've seen people igniting over edit summaries before. Haha. Regards, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 06:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857, Nomenclature rationalisation[edit]

I have started a new section on Talk: Indian Rebellion of 1857headed Explanation for large variety of Nomenclature. Please comment there on my proposed alteration. I have taken on board that you "preferred the old version" from your edit summary for your revert, but I would prefer a less subjective response if you are able. I have reinstated my new version, which will be subject to revision in the normal way once I receive your more substantial reasoning. Please reply at Talk: Indian Rebellion of 1857. Regards. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

I did reply 10 minutes ago. I find it odd you have not seen it yet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Hi since you were involved in the discussion, I thought you might to see this and vote:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranshenasi --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaplin's Circus edits[edit]

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the bit about the time traveler kerfuffle will always be in the article, even if disproven, shown as hoax or - lol - actual proof of time travel. Once something is reported on by reliable notable media, it becomes notable forever. I get the impression that you feel that if you denigrate the reportage of the topic enough, it will simply be removed from the article. You need to understand that that will never happen, in accordance with wiki policy and guidelines. If you are unclear on this, ask an admin, or use one of our many fine noticeboards to seek out additional input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why will it always be in the articel?Just becazsue something is reproted does not make it notable. Also ther is them issue of Undiue wieght and fringe. Is this a major part of the films nortabiltiy or just some loony thoery (like the idea the USA did not land on the moon. That is how wiki works, things are discused.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, notbility is not temporary; it is forever. As tis matter is related to the film's premiere, it will always be part of the article. the only reason that anyone has mentioned the issue of undue weight is because the rest of the article is anemic - you could spend some time developingout the other aspects of the article, instead of focusing solely upon this part which is never going to vanish. Fringe only mattes if the article were about a time-traveling woman and her magic cell phone, which the article is not about. And while things are indeed discussed in Wikipedia, no amount of consensus is enough to circumvent policy and guidelines. That is the way Wikipedia works.
And btw, the example of the hoaxed landings on the Moon? A particularly example on your part, since the article abut the Moon landings also include a section on the hoax theories. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
But its does not take up about 25% of the articel, nor is it mentioned in the lead. Also notability may be forever, but it has to be established, and just being repoprted dioes not auitomaticly grant notability. The coverage has to be notable. One of the probloms is that hte coverage has been fairly trivial. And by the way fringe does coem into any material not just artciel subjects. So if consensus is that this is not notable (or is ringe) thyen that is what it wuld be.Slatersteven (talk)
I wasn't gong to mention this in article discussion, but could you take the time to use Spellcheck or something? It's kind of hard to follow your posts when i don't understand what you are trying to say. Slow down - there is no hurry to post, and we'll all be b ether off with a more relaxed, thought out and well-spelled post. :)
As for the content of your reasoning, I unfortunately have to pot out that it is flawed from the start. The coverage and sources are not trivial. The subject matter (time travel) might be, and fringe science as well, but it doesn't lose either its notability or reliability because of it. Consensus cannot call something unreliable or non-notable when it isn't. It can call it bullshit, and post opposing views from equally reliable sources, but it doesn't get to extinguish dissent because it disagrees with it. That's a tactic from chat forums; we don't do that here.
If you are at all unclear about our policies - and I believe you are misapprehending at least some of them - you should ask those with experience that you trust to help you understand them.
Lastly, you should probably seek to refrain from reverting over and over again. It's seen as edit-warring. use the talk page to hash it out, and once discussion is complete, go with a consensus result that follows policy and guidelines. If you disagree with that outcome, utilize the noticeboards to get further feedback. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thought I'd point out that you are at 3RR for the day. One more revert and you can be blocked. I'd advise you to stick to the article discussion page. I am constantly astounded that people think that edit-warring actually works. The only thing it can actually do is get you blocked. Please stop reverting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ading unsourcrd mterial is against the rules, as is claijming a source says something it does not, you can also get banned for that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Precisely what "uncited material" re you suggesting has been added, SS? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The claim that this has received notable media coverage (I cannot find this in the referances for the claim). I suggest you self revert.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Er, 2.5 million internet hits and 20,000+ comments is considered notable coverage by any measure, especially when you look at the sources of the citations, SS - CBS News, CNN, etc. Are you concerned that the use of the word 'notable' confers some sort of legitimacy to the theory? It doesn't; notable only refers to the level and amount of attention it has received. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
AGF, and no 2.5 million is not a lot (Its about 1% of the US population, a tiny franction of just one country). We do not determine what sources arew saying, we say only what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, SS; I've made a cited change to the text. Remember what you said about sticking to RS; I'm thinking that comment is going to come back to haunt you. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks for that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments[edit]

I know you are relatively new, but going to another user's talk page to talk peaceably and then accuse that user of gaming the system is bad form, and I take exception to the accusation. I've purged your comments from my talk page. If you feel like apologizing for the bad faith remark, you are welcome to post again. Otherwise, you need not post to my talk page anymore. thanks in advance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I bleive you have and 'I'm not apologizing for recognizing it; perhaps I don't need to point it out'. If you beleive that you have not then feel free to open an ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to dismiss it as incorrect. I don't think you actually understand the nature of the noticeboards; again, that's probably because you are new. I'd advise you to seek out a mentor who can help get you up to speed before you burn any more bridges by misunderstanding our policies and guidelines.
Since you don't wish to apologize for insulting me, you don't need to post to my usertalk page anymore (if you do, I'll just delete it). I won't post here again, in deference to my decision. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You're the one whose behavior needs to change, not Slatersteven. You've been warned by at least four editors that you need to stop lording over other editors with sneering and incivil comments, especially comments that denigrate other editors for being "new," when you are editing against both consensus and policy. Slatersteven's use of the fringe noticeobard was entirely appropriate. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also add it seems ill informed as I had an active account since 2007, thats three years longer then Jack had admited editing for. Now of course he may have had other IP accounts before that, but I can only judge on what I can see. I also find his belittaling of bad spelling a bit of a dououble standerd.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure by what you mean when you say 'burning bridges'. By as you have asked me not to post to your talk page I will of course comply.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Slater, but Scotty felt the irresistible need to take one more swing; I shan't post after this. Scotty, you are working my last nerve. I chastised Slater for accusingme of gaming the system, which is patently incorrect. When he failed to apologize for the accusation, I asked him to not post to my page again. Not sure how that involves you, precisely, but maybe you should seriously consider not stalking my edits - people get blocked for that. I've proven you dreadfully wrong on matters of both policy and behavior. You can't admit it. Got it. Now, kindly stick a cork in it and go edit something. I hear The Circus (film) could use some help. Full stop,
Again, I am sorry, Slatersteven, for using your page to respond to Scotty's continuing little rant. He can stay off my page, too. And I'll point out that since you took a little more time to check your posts, they have been pretty easy to read. Thanks for the effort. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

perhaps it might have been better to reply on Scottys talk page as you seem to be replying to him. On the subject of Burning bridges, a good way of doing that is asking users to to post on your talk pages any more when you don't like what they say. It measn that any future disputes (which you do seem to have threatened to engage in) will be harder to resolve. More importantly it measn that if in the future we were to agree it would be that much harder to offer support.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
He was just warned by an administrator. If he disregards, that's no concern of mine. And by the way, it's not "stalking" to watch the edits of a problematic editor. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I find that too bad, so sad. He seems to believe (as far as I can tell) that he has some special ownership over wiki (or at least one day will have). I don't know if its because he has an older relative whose an admin or if he is just so convinced of his own brilliance that he will one day be the master of wiki. I do believe (from my brief interaction with him) that he will become an increasingly problematic edd, and his influence (and I don’t think I have been this convinced about any edd before) will be immensely damaging.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Time will tell. It's hard to gauge his editing history because he edits out warnings from his talk page. That's permitted (actually, not permitted for administrator warnings), but makes it hard to ascertain past problematic behavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Halloween[edit]

I'm getting really tired, but maybe it's because I went to the dentist today. I don't mind a good debate, but this is going in circles. The guy doesn't even get it when we agree with him. Eastcote (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I don't think this is in good faith. It seems he just intends to push his POV (that Halloween is Chrisitan) and dose not care what tactic he uses.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOVN[edit]

Hi, I answered your question on the NPOV noticeboard here and was hoping I could get your opinion. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

linking[edit]

Just as an aside, you've used odd linking in this thread - Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF. if it's a link within wikipedia, use doubled brackets and delete the first (http:// through 'wiki') portion of the link [[Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF]]. if it's an external link, use single brackets and the full path [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF]. see help:link

UAF[edit]

Slater - I have asked you again to provide diffs to support your statement that "We have multtiple broadsheet RS calling them left wing". At the moment my count is one. --Snowded TALK 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

BNP - Fascist[edit]

We have to fight this labelling. It's preposterous that they should be given this labelling on an open encyclopaedia! Alexandre8 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of non-self applied labels [[15]], and shall wait the outcome. If you feel the page is bias I susgest you put a tag on it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, it really heating up on the BNP page, thanks for your help i can see that you have made attempts to try for reform on this page before, if you can try and get as many people to comment that you knopw are in favour of cleaning the article up then that will be much appreciated, i fear that certain users will soon overpower the page and use the 'consensus' argument against blanced reform quite soon. Thanks U6j65 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

I'm sorry if I undid any of your edits to English Defence League as I was undoing the removal of a section performed in an earlier edit by JzG. __meco (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Accidents happen.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
They do, and then we try and piece it together as best we can. __meco (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LMK[edit]

Let me know what comment you want removed and I will strongly consider it (probably remove it).

Are you related to the Jet Blue flight attendant that blew his stack and slid down the slide, quit his job, and got into trouble? MVOO (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to what page?Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reawakening.[edit]

The creator wishes to compromise with you about the small section of "Reawakening" listed on List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction Pandemic = Comics and Manga.

Thus, I have created this section on your page - I myself do not have anything to do with this.

--216.99.102.172 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.102.172 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC) 

Hello I'd like to contact you about my comic "Reawakening". I do not know why many people are thinking it is dead when I make weekly updates on the comic's progress on Facebook. Second I'd like to compromise to see If I could possibly make a page regarding "Just what is Reawakening?" I will provide refrences to sites that ahve featured my comic(3 in total), and photos of pictures I have made for it. Thoughts? Daspletosaurus 5000 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not that its dead, its thats its not been released. As such it fails wp:crystal. When it is released by all means include it.Slatersteven (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


I am 216.99.102.172 --TeensOfTheDownfall (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I will hereon agree to the deletion of my page Epidemic (Novel) until the writing stage is complete. In the request that User:TeensOfTheDownfall/Epidemic_(Novel) remain up for personal edits. (It will not be linked to on any other page here on Wikipedia)

As far as I am aware pages in user space are OK. But I wouls sugest you ask an administator for confirmation.Slatersteven (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, the pages in user space don't have any tags for deletion, So I believe it shall be okay for the time remaining untill otherwise noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeensOfTheDownfall (talkcontribs) 00:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I've closed the AFD and deleted the article; per the above, I'm leaving the userspace draft in place. If you plan to take a while to finish the writing - maybe more than a month or two - you might consider copying the draft off the wiki (I just take the code and paste it into a plaintext document, but YMMV). Userspace drafts are technically for, well, drafting articles, rather than for long-term storage. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


Sod all to do with me I was just offering advice.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just followed the conversation linked from the AFD, sorry. I coped that note to the author, as well. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Name calling"[edit]

This editor has repeatedly called me a liar during this debate. He has been sanctimonious and sarcastic throughout, and has been warned about this kind of behavior before on previous debates by other editors. If he wishes to report me he is welcome, any reasoned look at the exchanges will implicate him as well.

Regardless, I'm off to cool down and I appreciate the guidance. V7-sport (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Its best that if you start to lose it and name call back to leave it a bit. its not worth getting a block over.Slatersteven (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry??? Which comment are you referring to? V7-sport (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This one[[16]] Wher you alter the message of an Edd wiht whome you are in serious dispute. Its not actualy altering what they say but its ot a good idea all, the same.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was cutting and pasting his message to rebut and something got flummoxed. It wasn't intentional and I'll go back and un do it. Thanks for pointing it out. V7-sport (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: He said she said[edit]

Er, take what to AN/I, precisely? Are you talking about the differences of opinion in The Circus? If so, you might be confused with the differences between mediation, noticeboard discussions and actual user conduct complaints (for which AN/I is reserved). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

NO the accustions and counter accusations between you and Viriditas.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't recall soliciting your opinion on how to proceed where Viriditas is concerned. I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't really do so, considering your past commentary regarding me. Where it concerns any disagreements between Viriditas and myself, please know that you have no part of them, as much as you may wish otherwise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but your spelling makes some of your comments hard to understand.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for such, which makes at least one of us willing to apologize for typos, even small ones. (btw, I've taken the time to correct the misspelling of 'much' from "nuch", as I wouldn't want to add to your confusion). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps as you are so fond of telling others to check spelling and grammar it might be a good idea to do so yourself (especially as you are a self confessed ‘Conan the Grammarian’).Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Guilty as charged; I am a stickler about spelling and grammar. I think that - 9 times out of 10 - my spelling and grammar are exemplary. As for yourself, perhaps you should keep in mind the biblical passage Matthew 7:5, the bit on removing the beam from your own eye before counseling me on the splinter in my own. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that was what I was saying to you. As far as I can see out of 3 posts here two contained either spelling or Grammar errors (and from what I recall it's actualy closer to 50% of your posts contain one or the other). So I would ask that untill your posts are error free do not pull me up on mine.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I would invite you to please feel free to point out where you feel i have made a grammar mistake, Slatersteven; I am pretty confident about my skills in that area. An occasional typo will happen, because I am not a gifted typist. But grammar? To use the British vernacular, 'not bloody likely.' Go a single week without any spelling or grammar errors, and then I think you'll be on better footing to criticize my (non-existent) grammar issues. Thanks in advance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing your post[edit]

Sorry Steven! I don't know which post you mean, but it must have been an error. Please restore it or tell me where it is and I'll restore it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

January, 2011 - 3RR warning for two different article[edit]

Currently, you are at 3 reverts in the Time travel urban legends article, and 3 reverts in The Circus. Please be aware that any subsequent reverts on your part will result in you being reported for edit-warring and 3RR. Please consider this your sole warning on this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC) As previously noted, these two edits place you in violation of the 3RR rule prohibiting excess reverts. You might want to self revert your last two edits in Time travel urban legends in a timely manner. I will wait a very limited amount of time before reporting you to AN/3RR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On time travel urban legends I have made two revision (unless you can provide differences proving otherwise). ON The circus I can also only see two revision, perhaps you could provide diffs for these as well. I also note that you have in fact made four revision on the Circus [[17]][[18]][[19]][[20]] So in fact you are, not might be in breach of 3RR. I would be more then happey to take this to the edit war boeard if you wish. Or would you rahter I did it?.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You might want to look at the page history more closely. I sought to self-revert but was precluded from doing so by another editor, who reverted before I could self-revert, so no 3RR or edit-warring.
I would suggest that we try to reboot how we interact, because this is not helping us or the project. If you are amenable to doing so, I would suggest we seek to offer more in the way of the AGF. Let me know if you are interested. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You have accused my of edit warring and of breaching 3RR, and have said that you will take this to the edit warring board. Are you withdrawing both the accusation (as incorrect) and the threat? If not then I suggest that you take this to the board. thano you for informing me you had in fact reported mee. I have of course raised you own actions there as well. I would have had an easier time accpting your olive branch but for your dishonesty over this matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it seriously your argument that you weren't edit-warring, and that I am the sole reason your behavior has been so bad of late? Really? Dude, you've spent the better part of 3 months trying to marginalize a notable, referenced piece of information - and anyone looking at your edits can see that. You were reported because you cannot seem to stop yourself, even when presented with the opportunity to self-revert. My offer of a reboot (and not a "truce" as you have noted elsewhere) is to give you the opportunity to correct your editing behavior before you get yourself stuck on a course that won't end well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Should such an offer have been made before and not after takinig this to an AN? Also I had not breached the 3RR ruke (I would susgst you read it). Also could you check you indentation from now on please.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Such an offer was made for you to self-revert. You chose to ignore that and continue editing (and please avoid the argument that you didn't see the message; you've managed to respond to every one of my posts within minutes of them being posted). If you choose to self-revert now, I will withdraw the complaint, but if you wait too long, an admin will take away that opportunity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(ported over from my usertalk page; consolidating conversations)

You might want to read that bit that says a revert is an edit that undoes antothers work. Many of the edits you claim are reverts re-wrtire material I had added and do not infact alter any one elses material.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We both know that to be false, SS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
SO you added the material about the circus film to the Time travel urban myth page did you? Please provide the diffs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Email[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you would email me. I'd email you but your email is not activated. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I thinkk it best if my e-mail remains iinactive for now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Time travel urban legends for deletion[edit]

The article Time travel urban legends is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th[edit]

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png




To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

bnp wikipedia article[edit]

I just wanted to let wikipedia editors know that the British National Party has a new logo that has replaced the former logo still being shown in the British National Party wiki article.92.25.150.186 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know User:Red Deathy has set up a template page on the BNP located here: User:Red Deathy/Sand3, if you are interested in contrabuting. 94.192.142.38 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

from your profile[edit]

Airfix, Atlantic or Britains? 1/32 or 1/72? :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

6 thru 28mm dozens of manafactuers..Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm 54mm with a few odd 60mm. Mostly Conte, Marx, Barzso...some older Atlantic, Jecsan, Reamsa. Collector, not so much a gamer as you are. Its very addictive as I'm sure you know. I did castings for a while but don't fool with it much anymore.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too, but its been a while.Slatersteven (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Spell check[edit]

Hi. Is there anything I can do to help you utilize the spell check features of your browser? Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Its OK, I just forget most of the time. I don't allways relasie there are spelling errors.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I use several different browsers. Like you, I don't always check either, but in Firefox, misspelt words appear underlined in red, and right-mouse clicking will allow you to correct it or add a false positive to the dictionary. Have you tried using Firefox? Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Besides many of my 'misspelloings' end up becasue when I do type in word it presents me wiht the wrong word and I don't pick up on it. Better my illiteracy then Microsofts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Word though, I'm talking about your browser, and the spell check doesn't automatically correct it, it just underlines it. What type of browser are you using? Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I.E. I would add that the problom is not always auto correct, I sometimes change the word untill its accepted its just not allways the right word.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversal needed[edit]

I would like to bring your attention to your error here. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no error, it has not been proven that ther were any erics before erik the voctirious, there are in facft conflciting royal lists for seeden at this time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not disregard the academic source in this case in favor of non-academic POV! I am asking you again cordially to reverse this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not I am refelcting that ther is a debate, not wording it to make it seem like there is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Acceptable wording now, but if you are at all interested in how discouraged I feel re: language, you can see my last comment there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

founding statement[edit]

Hi Stephen, where is the UAF founding statement that those people signed? Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have linkied it in the RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Slatersteven. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battles_in_Vermont#Battles_in_Vermont.
Message added 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Battles in Vermont[edit]

Hey, I appreciate your enthusiasm concerning this article, and I do agree with your points, but I'd try to be a little more cautious of making your points and edits a bit clearer on the page, especially during a tumultuous time like this. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: ANI[edit]

But I also note that Viriditas not only does not provide any evidence but also now seems to be using the same kind of weasel words to avoid making black and white statements. I begin to believe that in this case not only are both users not acting in strict good faith but also both are in fact being disingenuous.

In case you haven't been following the discussion(s) close enough, evidence has been provided,[21][22] however, it is not acceptable to put it on-wiki because the identity and privacy of the user comes first. My attempt to protect Jack Sebastian is a far cry from "disingenuous". Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but those are not evidence they are claims you have evidence. That is not the same. As I have aid both you and Jack have given evasive answers. If you are not willing to actually provide the evidence then stop wasting time by repeating the accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't out editors on-wiki, Slatersteven. The fact is, Jack has been referring to his other account before I even commented on it. For example, he referred to his extensive history on Wikipedia at 21:16, 6 January 2011[23] while I only commented on the subject on ANI at 02:53, 7 January 2011.[24] I correctly provided evidence of my concerns to an arbcom off-wiki, as you are supposed to in this situation. I hope this clears up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You implied that the user may have been in breach of Freshstart. As such evidanceof mis-demenours is not outing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

T'ru Menilek[edit]

Please forgive my error, if I have put this in the wrong place. This is a difficult posting format, both to navigate and to edit, especially when one is more used to forums and discussion groups which use more standardized formats, controls, commands and functions,(IE: PHPbb, email, etc). I am simply addressing you to ask if I am allowed to directly give my input on the ANI discussion to give firsthand answers to the questions you put to Gyrofrog, since some of those questions can only be accurately answered firsthand on points where Gyrofrog, for lack of intimate knowledge of me and my motives, can only presume. for one case in point, it is true that I have (deliberately) not tried to re-insert reverted edits because I have learned that to do so is against established protocol, which I am trying, as best I can, not to violate. I have learned that when a point is challenged, debated and/or reverted that it must be resolved and permission granted BEFORE it MAY be re-inserted. My refusal to re-insert was meant as a sign of genuine good faith. After reading what you have said thus far, I am very grateful that I was notified of the ANI Discussion or else I'd not have seen that you seem to genuinely try to be fair and open to the possibility that perhaps Gyrofrog misinterpreted or misunderstood something, such as my intent, etc. I tried to explain in my first response to his reversion notice (on his talk page) that I had already given third party sources which cover not one but multiple points made in my edits and that I did not insert a ref link for each point, thinking that such redundant cites of the same source might be against protocol and unnecessary, when the reader has already been referred to read said sources already. If I was being overly frugal, I apologize. Another thing is that when I told him "I myself AM a source" the interpretation he tells you on the ANI page shows clearly that he has eisogeted a false meaning into that statement. I did not say "I am THE source" but just "a source", because of the fact that I am intimately familiar with my own people and my own faith and the joint history thereof both. It was no different than if one of the 50 translators of the King James Version had said that he is a source on how the job of translation was done. It is not a claim of exclusivity and this is why eisogesis is a bad practice. I always tell those whom I tutor that the practice of eisogesis (to read your own interpretation into a text) is never an acceptable method for interpreting any non-fictional text. It is contrary to the rules of proper hermeneutics because to do so instantly turns the context into a pretext and all too often a false pretext at that. I also could not help noticing from your profile, that we are both monarchists. I have been lobbying for the monarchy to be restored in Abyssinia patterned more after that used in the UK, which has proven to be a most successful model,(as monarchism goes). Had that been the case under Emperor Selassie early on, perhaps the Marxist regimes of Mengistu and Zenawi might have been avoided. Selassie did try to model his monarchy more like Britain after WWII, but by that time the seeds of discontent were already being sown among Ethiopian school faculties and in Eritrea. But I am digressing from the subject at hand. I'd be willing to discuss politics, if you like, some other more appropriate time and forum. But it does show me why, perhaps, you seem to be more reasonable and fair minded when examining issues, for which I am grateful as I have not encountered that on Wikipedia before and it is quite refreshing.

So I will not input anything to the ANI discussion until you tell me that it is permitted. I'd much rather you email any questions you may have and I'd be glad to address them. But please, remember, sometimes you get better information from inside, rather than outside, observers and scholars, because of their familiarity with the subject matter. One would expect an Anglican Bishop to know his own faith better than,(just for example), a Pentecostal from rural Kentucky, might know the Anglican church. Hands on experience does indeed make one a valid source of knowledge than someone far removed and much less familiar. If that were not true, then one may as well trust one's local auto mechanic to perform one's dentistry. I do not intend that in a flippant way, it is just a statement using the same logic that would deny that an Messianic Aksumite Jew would know more about his own than one who has little familiarity.

Lastly, for now, it is not an illegitimate practice to use more commonly understood terminology when trying to explain something to the outside world, especially since the outside world have already decided to use the incorrect terminology. When I allowed "Kes", used by someone else, to remain in a given text instead of using the more correct term "Kahane", that is most likely what I had in mind, because for one thing, Kes is how outsiders spell it, not the correct transliteration, which I always do as "Qes". I rarely will use a K instead of a Q to transliterate the Ge'ez character ቄ because Q is technically the only correct English equivalent and that is why there is more than one character in both languages with the same sound, more specifically the English letter K would correspond not to the Ge'ez character ቄ , but instead to the Ge'ez character as is properly used, for example, at the end of my surname. I also understood that ቄስ (Qes) is one of the two most understood terms meaning "priest" among my main target audience, Habesha people. The other being አባ (Aba, usually mistransliterated as Abba). The difference being only that Qes is a married priest and Aba is a celibate priest (IE: a monk). But when trying to explain something so that even the most simple person in one's target audience can understand, sometimes one has to make concessions or else one would need to write an extensive glossary, especially when the target audience is from a nation that speaks EIGHTY languages as we have in Abyssinia! That is yet another reason to allow for more common terminology even if it is not the most correct. One needs to not be too petty when trying to reach a widely mixed audience. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, who "took great pains to strain at a tiny gnat but had no qualms about swallowing a [whole unkosher] camel" (paraphrased to show intent). The unfortunate fact of the matter is that things are rarely transliterated 100% correctly between different scripts and the only way to fix this is to correct it but sometimes that can be a distraction from the real point, thus making one feel it may be better to let it pass to maintain focus upon the real point at hand. So I am admitting to being inconsistent for the sake of convenience and for the sake of not digressing, in the Kes vs Kahane issue which Gyrofrog has seized upon. I knew what I was doing when I left Kes in the text. I was more concerned with the facts and context. So on that one I must plead "guilty with an explaination".

As for credentials to show I am called to the position I assert, I have the same credentials Shmuel received from Eli, that Natan received from Shmuel... a lot of scented holy oil smeared upon my head by my late predecessor, Yohannes Anteneh YeFat'ari. Sorry if anyone was expecting to see some parchment with an embossed seal, but that is not how it works for us. We are a bit old fashioned that way. We are the kind of people who think that a mans word and handshake trumps a stack of affidavits and yes, we also think that the bible is really all true, which itself certifies us as "peculiar", to put it politely, though the liberal media would prefer the term "nuts", I am sure. But I just deal with such negative criticism as water on a swan's back and am more interested in that which is constructive and productive.

Amasaganalu (Thank you). [Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A few of points.
1: Try to be more concise, there is a lot of material to read much of which is unnecessarily verbose.
2: You are permitted to comment on the ANI and put your side of the sotry (but see above).
3: Wikipeida works on the concept of verifiability as such any ‘fact’ inserted into an article must be verifiable by other users. Thus whilst you may have intimate knowledge of your people and its culture I cannot verify any of what you say is true by my own research.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful answers and advice. Unfortunately, my busy duties do not permit me to be on here every day and I've lost the whole ANI discussion when it went to the archives. Also, as a head official in a globally scattered faith, I'm very busy with such duties and seeing that this Wikipedia thing is proving to be much more of a work burden than I have time to cope with or than I bargained for, I may need to set it all aside and get someone else to submit edits on my behalf who is more familiar with how this all works. I just do not have the time and my health is not well, so the info I wanted to contribute may well even be lost soon, when I am replaced by the oncoming generation. But I will try to produce records with references even if it all just becomes shelved and must be handled and finished by others in the future. I must look after my more immediate duties to my people while I still can do so. Again, thank you for your attempt to help. [Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 13:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Valery Shary shenanigans[edit]

Thought you should know User:Epeefleche (not unexpectedly) has removed the disclaimer you added after my WP:RS noticeboard report on Valery Shary ([25]), claiming the disclaimer to be "non-notable" (whatever that means). He also added two more sources which both use Eisen's list as their source (as can be viewed in the appendix of each book) and makes it seem like they're three separate sources by using the words "in addition." It's such a worthlessly small article that I really don't feel like bringing it back to the WP:BLP noticeboard... but I figured this is a good way for people to see the tactics this user constantly engages in when editing Jewish BLPs. Bulldog123 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Thanks for running it by me, and apoligies for not running it by you: WP:AN/I#Hauskalainen--FormerIP (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats OK. I felt that I should give Hausk a chance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out[edit]

You've been asked by administrators to avoid reverting my edits, considering the rather inhospitable nature of our past interactions. Please respect that request, and stay away. This is a gentle reminder, not a warning; with any luck, such will not become necessary. Thank you for your cooperation and use of spellcheck. I do not need a response, as this is not an initiation to discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That was for a 7 day period a while ago. As far as I am awrw it does not still stand. And being told to saty away is not a gentle reminder, please choose your language with more consideration in future.Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not find a compromise name? Neither that is being fought about is very good. I have no opinion myself. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course you don't Scotty. Pull the other one; it offers skittles. Last I heard, compromise is usually sought on the discussion page, and not via edit-warring.
One cannot help but note the timing of your edit, Slatersteven. You are away from the article for two months, and your first return edit to the article is to revert me. You want good faith? Earn it by using the article talk page to argue for a change. Otherwise, you are simply issuing an invitation to the dance, and you will not like the tune. Bet on it.
Lastly, considering the very long list of optional remarks I could have made regarding your clearly petty little edit, asking you to stay away is absolutely the most gentle you were going to get (and you are welcome for my exercising restraint). I think we are done here, unless you wish to continue? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought you were not going to enter into discusion.I would also ask you that if you do wish to comminicate with me to moderate your tone. Also please do not make threats valed or otherwise.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually I had a brain storm and came up with "1928 cell phone user." ScottyBerg (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Actauly that seems to prety much sum it up, I'll rasie the idea on the otehr page as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Barking[edit]

Why does the BNP have so much interest in the borough of Barking and Dagenham? It seems to be their most valuable council, but i fail to understand their strong interests. There are hundreds of councils in and around London. There are several countries all over Britain. Why Barking and Dagenham? Telegraph: BNP in Barking and Dagenham Pass a Method talk 09:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. I wuld assume its something to do with precived support.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion sought[edit]

Hi. There currently is a dispute and I was wondering if you could please chime in with your opinion on the matter to help get an idea of consensus exists for this rather big change. I see you are an active editor on the article. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Very_long 67.169.68.203 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution[edit]

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, I shall have a butchers latter.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

typos[edit]

You missed a few here. I'd fix them, but don't want to intrude. Figured you might want to know since you came back to get the one... --Nuujinn (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Taiwan, you may be blocked from editing. Per long-standing consensus, Taiwan is the island, ROC is the nation damn it. If you revert twice more, I will be adding your name to AN3 as well.HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I was not aware of the consensus. Also I saw the initials ROC (as my edit summery susgested) and did not relaise that it sadi Replublic if China in teh info box.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You are off the hook now. It was just that I really did not need something else to aggravate me after WP:POINTy edits by an IP range in violation of the consensus I referred to above. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's OK.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation[edit]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik Manifesto[edit]

The manifesto was emailed in DOCX format. All the DOCX formats floating around are 1,516 pages. The PDF made by Kevin Slaughter from the original DOCX and which became popular was 1,518 pages. That PDF was notably missing the table of contents found in the original DOCX and added additional blank pages. Pristino (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have RS for this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik zionist?[edit]

Why do you feel the need o mention breivik is a zionist in the lead? His video upload did not mention zionism or anything related to Israel. His police report did not mention anything remotely related to zionism. His activity prior to the attack did not have anything related to zionism. The article already states he is pro-israe. Doesn't yor edit conflict with WP:UNDUE ? Please don't revert me until you have explained your edit - i will be watching closely. Thanks Pass a Method talk 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Because an RS (the Jerusalem post) said it. Moreover they say it in the headline of the article. I fail, to see how it violates Undue as it does not disagree with any one lese. However your objection does violate synthesis. I have explained you edit, and please refrain form veidl thretsSlatersteven (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not made veiled threats. I was polite using "please" and "thanks". If you add "zionism" to the intro, then we have to add two dozen other political affiliations to the lead as well. breivik supports the International Freedom Alliance. He supports EDL. he supports Ayan Hirsi Ali. He suports Winston Chrchill etc. Do you really want to clog the intro like that? Pass a Method talk 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We also do not cherry pickj sources, the source for that whole li9ne is the JP article. So we incldue all the affiliation that hte JP articel metion, in terms of political direstion. Gruops like ernational Freedom Alliance,EDL, Ayan Hirsi Ali are organistaion not ploitical philosophies. Churchil, is a peron, not a philosophy. So we eitehr remo9ve all the political directions he supports or we mentio them all.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay lets try to get consensus in the tlk page. Pass a Method talk 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Typos[edit]

See [26]. Less typos give comments more weight in a discussion. ;-)   Cs32en Talk to me  13:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It should not, what should matter is the point not how it is writen (as long as the meaning is clear).Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by September 3, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Falklands[edit]

At RSN, one editor asserted that Polar Review republished the book making it not SPS <g>. Problem is, his cite is for page 384 of the Polar Review which is the review itself. This has muddied the SPS fact a bit, alas. You might wish to look t the discussion again, as the one editor pushing the book has basically simply resorted, IMHO, to ad homs now. Cheers - I do not expect to edit that article after this sort of muddying of the issue. Cherrs and thank you. Collect (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ood argument.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tit for Tat[edit]

[27] You do realise I was asking for advice about my own use of the source? How is that tit for tat and where is your presumption of good faith? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No I dod not, OI apploigise.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

Do you agree this edit is ungrammatical and improperly formatted? If so, should someone revert it? Pass a Method talk 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA[edit]

As someone who strives to follow NPOV, I find his remarks very unhelpful but rarely feel strong enough about such remarks to go to WQA - this time I did. Not confronting edits that raise tension unnecessarily is a mistake IMHO. BTW stroll by Talk:War of the Pacific. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Slatersteven. You have new messages at Richard BB's talk page.
Message added 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Richard BB 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Innuendos, etc.[edit]

Re [28], it's best to either raise the issue directly with the editor on the user's talk page, or raise the issue at Wikiquette Alerts. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a plite request toc stop, if it does not them a wikiqueste alert will be actioned.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

err, what?[edit]

Hello! Have you ever heard of grammar or spelling? You see, I would try to take on board what you're saying if I could actually understand it! Why don't you have another go and see if you make yourself more understandable? And remember, punctuation is your friend!4567treminater (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Its simple enough, don't vandalise pages.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Eurgh! A comma splice and a missing apostrophe! How hideous. 4567treminater (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I presume that you have nothing to actualy say beoynd PA's. You have been warned about your activites and if you insist on vandalism you will get reported. The ball is in your court.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord, I love self-important people on the internet who dish out warnings as if they actually matter!4567treminater (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to get repoted? If so I susgest that you call me an offensive name, it will make the proccess easier for you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Call you an offensive name? Sir, I would never stoop that low. At the risk of contradicting myself, only morons resort to that kind of behaviour. No, I can do much better than that!4567treminater (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I shall ask at ANI about yoour actions if you wish.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're making the mistake of thinking that I care.4567treminater (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK< I will [[29]] hre it is..Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

what next[edit]

4 people agree with a redirect, Me, you, Sean and verbal. What should i do? Pass a Method talk 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If we have consensus you act.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your input nat WP:NPOVN[edit]

Hello, you seem to be a regular contributor at WP:NPOVN. I respectfully request your expertise in the matter described here: [30] We seem to be deadlocked. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution[edit]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited British Freedom Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BNP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Whilst I don't agree with everything you suggest, I appreciate working with an editor willing to discuss until a mutual consensus is agreed. Sadly too rare these days. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Appritiated.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Slatersteven. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reversed edit on Black Helicopters[edit]

In case you didn't know, NATO is having their host Summit in Chicago. They are having exercises through the city (i.e. flying Littlebirds and Black Hawks). I cited the source; I am confused on what you are objecting to. Please iterate. --True Skepticism (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

First;y the lead is supposed to be a summery of the saliant points of the articel, not a respitory of all pf the articel, but mainly as I said. What exercise. The way your edit read it made no sence. It sis not state what exercise, or when or its realtion to the other 'accusations' it was an alternative too. Also the articel does not say that NATO was invloved in an exercise (indead the articel says that officals have stated there is no link to NATO), It makes no mention of Black helecopters at all.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for input[edit]

Hi Slatersteven, I'd really appreciate your input in the Falklands sovereignty talk page. I really trust your criteria so, even though I truly feel that my edit is far less convoluted than Wee's, if you think his edit is more convenient I'll end my involvement in the discussion. Thank you! Gaba p (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do think your version os more concise, but would advisde a less confrontational approach.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input Slatersteven. I'll try to be less confrontational. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you again Slatersteven, but the discussion has gotten to a point where I seriously don't know what else to do. I added the disputed sentence that Kahastok and Wee argued needed to be explicitly said. It does now, I explicitly added it to the article but Wee continues to claim that my edit removes information (he won't say anything else) and Kahastok simply won't address the issue anymore despite my repeated requests to do so. Regards, Gaba p (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
An RFC is required at this point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC[edit]

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Operation Pillar of Defense[edit]

Hi Slatersteven, just letting you know I made some minor corrections to your edits in the Ceasefire of 21 November section. Cheers! Gaba p (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands dispute[edit]

Hello Slatersteven. I notice you have commented at Talk:Falkland Islands#Sovereignty dispute - Change in sentence, so I picked your name as somebody who could give me an opinion. It seems to me that a lot of article reverts have happened recently. It seems very worthwhile that people are having a structured discussion to agree on a solution. If the continued reverts are a discouragement to the efforts at compromise, do you think it would be of use to put the article under full protection until a conclusion is reached on talk? Thanks for any comment, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Much as I dislike locking pages it is getting a bot OTT, so yes it may need locking.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands units of measure[edit]

Hi Slatersteven,

A courtesy note to let you know that I made some minor changes to your posting to make it more readable. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Spain's position - Falklands[edit]

Hi Slatersteven, since the discussion over at that article has taken other paths I though I'd ask you here. Would you like to propose an edit for the position of Spain? As I said, I'd have no problem in moving it to the "neutral or calling for negotiations" section. Would that be ok to you? I believe the mention of Gibraltar is of most importance given the similarities and the importance of Spain in the Falklands conflict; do you think it should be removed? If you don't want to get involved in this argument I'll understand. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will reply on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Spain and summits[edit]

Hi Slatersteven, I see you reverted here the remove OAS and UN. I added them because they are directly mentioned in the quote by the Seretary of State (translated): "Spain shares with Argentina its position over the Falklands. It has done so for a long time and this is expressed in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OAS and United Nations" (bolded by me). Wouldn't you say my edit is a fair representation of this quote? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It says IberoOAS Also it says well expressed not that Spain has expressed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "IberoOAS", was that a typo?. The quote explicitly mentions "Cumbres Iberoamericanas, la OEA y Naciones Unidas" as three separate entities. I don't see how you are interpreting the quote, the Secretary is obviously talking about Spain and its position on the issue, what do you mean by "not that Spain has expressed"? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry missed the comma. As to your other point, what I mean is that the source seems to say is that Spain has not supported Argentinian in the UN, the source says they have said that Argentina (as I read it) has put forward it's case for negotiations well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem. The source, actually the quoted excerpt from the Secretary, mentions 1- that Spain shares the Argentinian position, 2- that it (Spain) has done so (meaning: shared the position with Argentina) for a while and 3- that this "sharing of the position" is expressed in the Ibero-American summit, the OAS and the UN.
Perhaps your confusion stems from using Google Translator or something similar? If you are not comfortable with the translation I'm presenting here we could ask for some other editor's opinion, preferably one with English as a mother tongue but with good knowledge of Spanish. What do you say? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Thats appreciated, Just an idea of what the source is would be fine, ie a major Spanish/SSpeaking paper, website, body, etc. And title of the source. Nothing excessive Irondome (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
@Irondome (moved your comment a bit so as to not disrupt Slatersteven's answer): the source is Ámbito Financiero, one of the major Argentinian newspapers. The title reads: "Support of Spain on Malvinas; about Repsol only between the lines". The quoted statement by the Secretary of State reads: "Spain shares with Argentina its position over the Falklands. It has done so for a long time and this is expressed in the framework of the Ibero-American summits, the OEA and the United Nations. Spain -he recalled- is part of the European Union and has always been consistent with this position". The rest of the article deals mainly with Gibraltar and the Repsol-YPF issue. Tell me if something is not clear or if you think the source is being misrepresented in any way. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Press Play on Tape[edit]

Hi! I've restarted the article Press Play on Tape WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

List of official languages by GDP per capita[edit]

What function does this topic serve? I need a sense of which languages to translate my client's website to first. My client would prefer the most "affluent" languages. Bugloaf (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the official languages of the wealthiest counties would be your first choices.Slatersteven (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So do I Just Wait? Re: My Falkland Islands Insertion[edit]

I have already addressed the editors and would-be editors by explaining to them my revert. Does it even sound biased? I have explained there that I have worded it in such a way giving benefit of doubt to my insertion.

Pcbyed (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have to wait, and no it is not biased as you have not addressed any of the concerns raised on talk, just stated you must have your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

14-16[edit]

please see talk ww1- I think you mistyped. Gravuritas (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)