User talk:Slatersteven

Stating facts is not taking sides

The international border between India and Pakistan is well-defined. It was demarcated on paper in August 1947. It is accepted by India and Pakistan and the UNited Nations. Read literature on it. What you say "disputed" is the line of control in Kashmir. India crossed the international border and entered Pakistani airspace. It did not strike in any part of Kashmir. It struck within Pakistani territory. Do not obfuscate the hard facts under the euphemism of your "neutrality" by referring to line of control because the airstrike was in a province of Pakistan. It was not in Kashmir. You are taking sides by trying to avoid hard fact of international border.Rao Ravindra (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are not well-read (and obviously you are not, judging by your ignorance about what is an international border and how it is defined by the UN), you may not know that Indian warplanes have crossed the international border between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 when Pakistan attacked India. The Indian warplanes attacked and destroyed Pakistani airbases, troops, tanks, oil refinery, bridges, etc. without flying over Kashmir. The international border between India and Pakistan is over 3,000 km long. Indian warplanes do not necessarily have to fly over Kashmir to enter Pakistani airspace.Rao Ravindra (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 You are fond of deleting what you do not like and then asking the other person to go to talk page. I undid your "revert". So why don't you go to talk page instead of preaching to me that I should go to talk page. Are you a preacher or an editor? If you are an editor, stop preaching others on Wikipedia and stop inserting your wrong "facts" in articles. If you are a preacher, go and preach in a church. Decide for yourself what you want to be in life. Regards. Ravindra Rao Rao Ravindra (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Archives (Index)

s/2016/December s/2017/January s/2017/February s/2017/March s/2017/April s/2017/May s/2017/June s/2017/July s/2017/August s/2017/September s/2017/October s/2017/November s/2017/December s/2018/January s/2018/February s/2018/March s/2018/April s/2018/May s/2018/June s/2018/July s/2018/August s/2018/September s/2018/October s/2018/November s/2018/December s/2019/January 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s/ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

BUt it crossed over into Kashmir first, which is what you removed "crossed the de facto border" and replaced it with "crossed the international border between India and Pakistan". It is not a fact it is the international border between India and Pakistan, it is a claim, which both sides dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop blocking edits selectively on 2020 Delhi Riots With selective usage of WP:BLP

Stop selective usage of WP Policies or I will raise a DR against you for biased editing. Take your reporting threats elsewhere. Reply to the facts and do not threaten other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think that is a good idea go ahead, but I suggest you read our policies properly first, otherwise a wp:boomerang might head your way. I also suggest you read WP:NOTDUMB before you make any other threats.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who started the threats when I started a civil discussion with proper references. I have already Read WP:DEJAMOO which is the only WP i take seriously given the sort of editors i have seen here, So unless you reply to my edits with proper and verifiable references which you are blocking without any basis, I am ending this conversation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to take the policies I linked to on your talk page seriously, and not make idle threats. I have told you to read the article's talk pages, which list (multiple times) why you are wrong. I have linked to the policies that tell you why you are wrong. By all means, end this conversation, but (here is another policy for you) wp:consensus (and wp:ONUS is clear, its done to you to convince other edits, convince based upon policy base arguments, which is what you have failed to do. Also, read wp:indent and wp:sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of policies, Read WP:PRAM to reduce your usage of frivulous wp:npa allegations and wp:cabal to understand why 2020 Delhi Riots Article is so biased and why the editors are so hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not a policy, this is your last warning, continue to attack the integrity of fellow edits and I will report you here wp:ani, you are wasting our time with this, if you can't be bothered to read wp:blp and understand it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

All i am asking for is an explanation about why my edit is being blocked. I have provided the facts, verifiable references(which are new developments and whatever was discussed earlier will not matter.) How does reading 3 months old archives help with new developments that occured last week. I suggest you be a little more open minded when looking at edit requests and not block edits based on an established pattern on a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

OK.

A. wp:blp "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." that is a policy. We can't say someone is guilty until they have been convicted, not should we really include accusations against people unless they are significant public figures. This has all been gone over at length on the talk page, multiple times.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So why is Kapil Mishra so liberally named multiple times? Has he been convicted by a court? Why a different yardstick when dealing with edits naming Umar Khalid and co. Some editors are going as far as casting aspersions on the professionalism and integrity of the Police officers investigating. How can a editor cast aspersions on the credibility of a professional without an iota of evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Again if you read the talk page you will t you answer, so I will repeat it here.

We do not accuse him of any crime, in fact, we do not accuse HIM of anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Similarly Umar Khalid did make a speech about "sending a message" when Donald Trump visited India. That was blocked without an explanation. Some editors have gone as far as call the Police "rogue" and "corrupt"! Any evidence, references to these allegations? Any court convictions to support these claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No it was not, it was discussed at length on the talk page. As I said I am not going over this all again., read the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I only see BLP as an excuse for not naming Umar Khalid and his provocative speech. Why can't his speech about sending a message when Donald Trump visits India be quoted on the same lines as Kapil Mishra's speech has been without allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple threads about many issues including sourcing. And again, this is a charge against him, it's a claim he organized the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Threats

If you see anything like that again, please contact an administrator and WMF emergency immediately. Don't use ANI or the other noticeboards. In the old days before the emergency protocol got set up, I'd be on the phone to the police. Acroterion (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Flags?

Explain how come for literally any other article involving Military History can have flagicons but yet for some unknown reason, there just can't be any in the Indian Rebellion of 1857? Again refer to the MOS since you don't bother to address that at all, again I don't want a edit war but I'm just asking why there simply can't be flags in this one article discussing military history when it doesn't break any guidelines or MOS's. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

THis discusion should be had at the articles talk page as I am not the only user who reverted you, and thus it will make it harder for them to also tell you why they also reverted you. Please gain wp:consensus at the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

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) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan has an RFC

Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Missed your edit on WP:REDNOT

When I was editing Southern Cross of Honor, I missed the notice that you had removed a non-existent category I had just added and was in the process of creating. When I went back to the article I just assumed I hadn't added the category yet (which would have actually been the correct order for me to take.) Didn't mean to steamroll over your revert and, if you still have any concerns about my change to the article, I'd be happy to discuss. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice tit for tat, you need to read wp:brd, you were reverted you need to make a case, not just edit war to add it in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to make a proper case for why you reverted, not just random, discombobulated statements. I have given you my reasoning. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, see WP:ONUS, its you that needs who to make the case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you cast your eyes a few lines above, you'll see that I have made my case already. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And I objected to it, thus you do not have consensus. The policy is not "make your case" its "get agreement".Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You just said that I needed to "make the case" and now that I don't. I think you're getting a little confused and muddled up over there. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you need to make a case, and then convince others its valid, read the policy. "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." I said "make a case (as in "Discuss"). Just making the case is not enough you also need wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I clearly made my case. Your case was so weak and barely understandable and you never made a reasonable argument that the consensus was pretty clearly in favour of keeping the content. If you're so keen for consensus, why did you originally revert just four minutes after I added the content? It seems that you didn't want consensus and just went straight to deleting, which was very battleground like. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Because I did not agree with it, consensus means agreement, you agreeing with yourself is not consensus. You made a bold edit I reverted as I felt it was unnecessary detail (and still do). All it does its adds content that really tells us nothing about what he did beyond triva, and I stand by that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust in Poland

[1] <-- This is one of the sources some people are claiming doesn't meet the sourcing requirements in this topic area. I think it's borderline but since it's not necessary (there are two other citations there) I removed it. I'm letting you know just in case someone tries to drag you to WP:AE over this. Volunteer Marek 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Voris nationality

Per your request in the edit summary of your reversion of my edit, I started a topic at Talk:Michael_Voris#Nationality regarding inclusion of Michael Voris' nationality in the infobox. I invite you to share your views on that over there. Thanks. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you want to offer your thoughts on this over at Talk:Michael_Voris#Nationality? – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No I have decided to drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Titfortat notices and wp:point, is never a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to follow me around Wikipedia, reverting and opposing the edits I make. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is also not generally not a good idea to make ill-founded actions based, either report me or stop making false accusations of stalking. I will continue to undo any edits I do not agree with, regardless of who makes them, and that includes yours.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You're the one rolling up to me with your gun fully loaded, slamming the revert button. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What has that got to do with you making unfounded accusations, now stop or I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please lock Jovan Rašković

The reported user continues to edit war and violate revert rules despite warning and under report investigation. Could you please lock article Jovan Rašković from further edits immediately? I told them to open discussion on the talk page. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah thought you were when mentioning locking the page. Sorry. OyMosby (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In reply to "And can you explain this. . ."

@Slatersteven:, you made this post accusing me of doing a promotion of a company.

And can you explain this [[2]], which seems to be using your user page for promotion of a company that makes paid contributions to Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"And can you explain this. . ." Interesting you start your post with the conjunction "And" which implies "in addition to other things". Is this a logical, continuing part of the BMK incident? Why is this "can you explain" posted there? I don't mean to be glib, but if you think this accusation that I am "promoting of a company" is part and parcel of that incident, you are beating a WP:DEADHORSE, so please WP:DROPTHESTICK on that incident.

I am curious as to why I have to provide an explanation about what this "seems" to you? Are you stalking me to see if I will do something to criticize and perhaps claim an incident? Seriously, why are you doing this?

Here's the short answer: It is not what you seem to think it is. I am in no way promoting a company.

Here's the long answer:

You were looking at a page called Osomite/Stuff. It is one of my sub-user pages. If you look at it, it is my collection of "references" and things that I don't want to forget and might want to check out at a later time. I have a lot of stuff there I use while editing as I have difficulty remembering the details of things like the content of the various "CITES". Although it is accessible to all, I don't really expect to have an editor be interested enough to look at it much less be critical of the "stuff" I might happen to save.

Apparently, anything one editor does could be considered suspect to another editor if you what to infer something. True, Legalmorning is undoubtedly considered to be antithetical to Wikipedia's editing policy and philosophy, but in the real world of commerce, it is just a company that provides a service that undoubtedly Wikipedia does not appreciate.

I saved some LegalMorning stuff as it is about something I thought interesting enough that sometime in the future I might want to look into the subject for more detail. There is a lot of this type of stuff on my "Stuff" page.

In holding stuff in a place that undoubtedly does not receive much traffic, in a "backstage" area, am actually I promoting a company? It isn't covert advertising.

I have reviewed the Wikipedia page Subpages with special attention to "Disallowed uses" and the Wikipedia page Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. I don't see a violation concerning my saved stuff.

If doing this innocuous save of stuff (at least it is to me) is in violation of Wikipedia's policy, please specify what that policy is, and I will make my saved stuff comply.

If this explanation is not adequate, please clarify what is needed.

And again, why are you doing this?

Osomite ^hablemos 00:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Why I am "doing this" is explained in the ANI. You had a wp:battleground mentality over an issue that appears to be informed by wp:or and using wp:wikilawyering to remove a blatantly obvious fact for unidentifiable reasons that led you to make a number of wp:PA's you are still yet to unreservedly apologise for (see wp:wikilawyering, again). In addition, you ignored the ANI whilst making rather trivial changes (and some that almost can be read as deliberate slaps in the face) to your user page. All of which implies you do not (and do not) take what you did seriously. As to promotion, "Legalmorning is a full-service online marketing agency. We offer content writing, Wikipedia editing, media outreach services, and more. Founded by Mike Wood in 2011" reads a lot like promotion to me (see wp:not Esepcvolkaly as it is in a section called "‎The Rise and Fall of the Wikipedia Empire" which seems to just be a collection of links to how crap Wikipedia is. Also, your walls of text do not help, you could have explained all of the above in one or two lines (maybe see wp:bludgeon). Simply put I am getting a whiff of wp:nothere and wp:Ididnothearthat (the latter others have also mentioned) so what I am doing is trying to tell you what not to do to give the wrong impression. Also you need to read wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

March 21

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As are you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Andorra and World War I

Hope you don't mind if we talk directly instead of getting into an edit war, haha.

I believe mainstream Andorran scholarship actually does support the idea that Andorra was never part of the war. Here's a screenshot of a translated section from the article I mentioned. It has multiple cited sources you can check for yourself:

https://imgur.com/a/28QsWMg

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And again Wikipedia (and this is obviously a wiki page) is not an RS. I suggest what you do is go to the respective article talk pages and make your case. My take is that one newspaper article (which does not even say it's a fact, it attributes the claim to one person) 100 years of scholarship does not overturn. But others may disagree (see wp:consensus), but wp:brd is clear, you have made an edit, and it has been reverted. You now make your case on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The Catalan wiki article cites eight different sources, and that article was just one of them. Like I said, you can check out those sources for yourself.

But yes, I will continue the discussion on the talk page.

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Osomite

I don't believe this is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, but I think it's only fair to let you know that Osomite has included you on their list of editors to "check out", here, along with myself, Drmies, and Fram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that, but as no one seems to see what he is doing as an issue I am going to crop it for now. His user p[age is a violation of policy, and that alone should have led to sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this now before you get a boomerang for not dropping it. I did warn you to read policy before you launched it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope as well you make no more bad-faith accusations of hounding.Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think I would get a boomerang? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you read what has been said about the is no case for me to answer and you need to stop it? Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are very lucky it was closed before you dug a deeper hole.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Please check the article's history. The material was added, with a reference, and Snowdad refused to explain why they think it's "citation spam", I might agree if they presented evidence of any kind, but they have not done so. Yur edit to the article was not helpful, Please consider reverting it and asking Snowdad to provide evidence of why the edit in question is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

2 days ago, and it was reverted within a day. This is not (and was not) long-standing content. It was a new addition, and this wp:brd applies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

BRD

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The content was long-standing, so BRD does not apply. The STATUSQUO was the inclusion of this material. And (as I said on your all page) you violated the 1rr restiction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The category was not. It was added by AllegedlyHuman within a day. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the cat on Trump has been there for longer than a day, and given the 1rr rule on that page I self-reverted. My comment stands for Paul. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Really? when? here is the version from 6 days ago [[3]] and here form 2 months ago [[4]], so when did he add it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

See second comment above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

And I have seen it has been there for at least two months, not a day, do I need to go back further?Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

For Rand Paul? It was just added today. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahh crossed wires, as you have been doing this over a few articles. It would have been nice if you had said which page this related to.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said "Looks like the cat on Trump has been there for longer than a day, and given the 1rr rule on that page I self-reverted. My comment stands for Paul." So I had self-rvd on Trump, but meant that my comment still applied to Paul. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, you will note I have not undone your revert over at rand Paul.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

PragerU

any objections? Acousmana (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

see talk, I have suggested an alternative.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump edit

Hi, Slatersteven! I'm Dswitz10734. I'm writing this message regarding my edit and your revert of my edit. I just want to make it clear that I am not offended in any way by your action, but I just wanted follow up and explain why I did made the edit that I did.

The word "march" makes it seem like Trump encouraged the violence. I'm sure he didn't want violence nor deaths, but the light he is in seems to get that message across to the reader. I wanted to make it clear in the article that Trump didn't encourage deaths, but he said to "peacefully and patriotically" [5] express your feelings.

I do my best to be neutral on this encyclopedia, and with so many people with so many different backgrounds editing, making this whole encyclopedia neutral is a hard task. I didn't want the article to convey that Trump wanted the violence without a reference; this article should be neutral. I noticed when I referenced that site that it was citation number 1. That means that the entire intro is citeless! (I made that word up because it makes sense ;-) ) Please tell me your thoughts so we can work this out. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon! Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It is best to make your case over at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is disputationism getting erased?

Why is disputationism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Because I have never heard of Islamic terrorism being called this, and its root would be "dispute", which is not solely about Islamic terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is coagulationism getting erased?

Why is coagulationism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Because it is not a term used for Coagulation, as an ism is usually a movement, not a condition.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

To prevent any more of your questions, as I said "they sound made up", words you are using in ways that do not (assuming the words themselves are not made up) in ways that differ from everyday (or even dictionary) usage.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"they sound made up" is not a rationale. The word suggests "a pathological condition", another sense according to my Oxford. Please add the targets of these redirects at your listing of these in RfD. ~ cygnis insignis 11:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

But redirects are there so people looking for a term are directed to the right article, this (assuming it is a made up word) will not be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

To illustrate what I mean, trying to figure out which pages these redirect to is very hard, because they do not in fact have a connection in terms of word construction, what has Objectionism (root objection) got to do with objectivism?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is concentrationism getting erased?

Why is concentrationism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

See above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is objectionism getting erased?

Why is objectionism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

See Above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is collectionism getting erased?

Why is collectionism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

See Above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell me the terms used in English ending with ionism? How many do you have?

Can you tell me the terms used in English ending with ionism? How many do you have? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Words that end in Ism.

professionalism.

photojournalism.

intellectualism.

interventionism.

humanitarianism.

neoconservatism.

If you want I can link to dictionary definitions, can you?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not say -ism, I say -ionism. You know, expressionism is like impressionism. Ending with the following letters IONISM. Whatever brain I have, I bring -ism to the end of every word that has -ion. --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You bring?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Tell me the words that end in IONISM used in English. --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Military Disasters RfC

Hey Slatersteven. I saw your edit at the RfC here and was confused as to what you meant. There have been more one sentence votes simply saying “I agree with Slatersteven or xx editor” without any self explanation as to why. Are RfCs just popularity votes or are the opposition required to make an actual case? Otherwise 2+2 can equal 5 if majority says so, haha. This RfC seems to have been open for a bit. Not sure what you meant to remove as you said you now don’t want to vote? Your vote is still there so wanted to verify with you. Thanks! OyMosby (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason was I did not realize they were saying I said it, I thought they were voting on my behalf, and thus I decided if that was the case I would not vote. see [[6]] for an explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha! Wanted to make sure with you. Will remove my incorrect assumption. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Though what is your take on my question about RfC protocols? OyMosby (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be up to the closer to decide who made the best arguments, but if someone agrees with another user there is really no point in rehashing what has been said. I would suggest you ask for a close from an uninvolved editor.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it just figured since often Balkan RfCs lead to a sudden appearance of voting blocks as seems odd after my comment yesterday, often various groups would just write agree or disagree with a user without explaining why in their own mind. Good to hear that an uninvolved admin makes the decision on arguments not vote numbers. So one sentence agreements with another editor don’t real add or subtract from the RfC. Reassuring to know! Thanks Slatersteven (or do you prefer Steven?). :) OyMosby (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not care what you call me as long as its not 2 in the morning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lol OyMosby (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Note

this see what I mean? Acousmana (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

What? why are you showing me this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith

Hello, I reverted an edit, I did not introduce something. Check the history before making false assumptions. Secondly claiming that anti-Semitism needs verifiability is quiet a proof of bad faith. You are not really willing to be constructive, this is very low. Are you coordinating your militant activity with the second user? I don't understand why you became part of the user actions as you are not showing your willingness to present your arguments... I can wait, but then don't act out of bad faith and do reverts on false pretexts. Thanks for understanding the message, if not reread.--Vanlister (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You falsely accused a user of edit warring. You then edit warred yourself. By the way [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. You need to stop the false accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

on lesswrong edit

I don't see why the percentage of users of lesswrong who identify with neoreaction is notable (which is less than 1%), but the percentage who identify with effective altruism isn't notable (over 20%). The source is the same 2016 survey so verifiability isn't a concern. Either both statistics should stay or both should be omitted. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the difference is the statement "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LessWrong", which makes it historically significant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The effective altruism movement mostly grew on LessWrong as well, probably to a much greater degree than the neoreactionary movement did. For example, in the 2014 EA survey, LessWrong was by far the #1 source that led people to engage with effective altruism (31%, with the next source being 14%). I admit that there aren't as many secondary sources talking about the connection between effective altruism and LessWrong as for neoreaction, even though the two are much more deeply intertwined, so I won't push the issue further, even though I stand by my edit and believe it merits inclusion. Have a nice day. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You would need a source that says "The effective altruism movement mostly grew on LessWrong", as you say there seem to be few RS saying anything of the kind.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

From the book "The AI Does Not Hate You", chapter 38:

It's impossible to talk about the Rationalists without mentioning their conjoined twin, the Effective Altruism movement. They're so intertwined that I have a bad habit of using the terms synonymously, but they are in fact distinct. [...]

The links between the Rationalists and the Effective Altruists go back pretty much to the beginning [...]

Certainly, the LessWrong Rationalists provide a large proportion of Effective Altruism's support. In 2014, 31 per cent of survey respondents said that they had first heard of the movement through LessWrong; by 2017, that figure had dropped to 15 per cent, presumably partly because LessWrong had shrunk while Effective Altruism had grown, but a further 7 per cent had heard of it through Slate Star Codex. And a large fraction of LessWrongers are Effective Altruists: according to the 2016 LessWrong diaspora survey, 20 per cent of respondents identified as Effective Altruists, and 22 per cent had made 'donations they otherwise wouldn't' because of Effective Altruism.

Is that enough to justify inclusion? 72.209.38.247 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Do RS make this connection?Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

BY the way, it might be best to raise this on the articels talk page, and give others a chance to join in.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I made a WP:BOLD edit and will mention it on talk page. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)