User talk:Slatersteven

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)

Why am I getting involved in this? I am being blocked from editing for no reason?!

What are you talking about, this was 4 months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 1 May 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 [[1]], 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 [[2]] and here form 2 months ago [[3]], 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" [4] 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 [[5]] 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 [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]. 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)

Mangal Pandey date of birth is incorrect. Actual DOB is 30th January 1831

Hi Slatersteven,

Mangal Pandey DOB is 30th January 1831, not 19th July 1827. We raised our concern to the Indian government and acknowledge them. They agreed that the actual DOB is 30th Jan 1831 and we are celebrating the DOB on 30th Jan 1831. We are trying our best to people know the actual DOB. I am from the same place where Mangal Pandey was born so I knew the actual story from his relatives. If DOB is incorrect in any popular website t's our duty to raise a concern. He is our first freedom fighter and everyone should know the actual DOB. Please try to understand the importance of this issue.

Please find the below link to see what's published in the Indian newspaper for your reference and another link also.

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/will-observe-mangal-pandeys-birth-anniversary-on-jan-30-from-next-year-up-minister/1899615 https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey

I translate some of the websites into English for your reference.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hi&u=https://www.patrika.com/varanasi-news/martyr-mangal-pandey-untold-story-on-independence-day-news-in-hindi-1-1716560/&prev=search&pto=aue https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hi&u=https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/varanasi-city-questions-raised-on-mangal-pandey-birth-anniversary-ballia-people-say-tampering-with-facts-birthday-is-30th-january-jagran-special-20529379.html&prev=search&pto=aue

Let me know if you have any concerns.

Thanks, Manish

And we have sources that contest that, so we do not yet have an authoritative dob.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullors

Do you think I am I going too far in my removals or possibly misapplying the BLP rules? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that now there has been direct criticism and calls for investigations, yes and no. I think we can say "there have been called for investigations into her finacies", but this may still be undue. So am very much in two minds as to including this or not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your advice even though you are *understandably* not sure. I am not sure if the has been direct criticism, I may have misunderstood you... Newsome is not affiliated with BLMGN and the BLMGN have denied any wrong doing. No need to reply if you would prefer to wait for better evidence etc. Thanks again. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Exasperation

Just wanted to let you know I see your exasperation on a bunch of those edit requests you respond to, and I totally feel you. I used to try to talk to people who posted like that but I found it was never worth it, and now I just close with a template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 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 Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit

With this edit you removed a lengthy section of text, and in your edit summary wrote, "this is all we so far have consensus for". I read the article's talk page and didn't really see a consensus. Perhaps I missed it. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well the only text there was any agreement to was what I added (2 people) apart from that none of it has any consensus of any kind. So your argument is in fact for total removal, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I should have added more detail. The text that was removed was sourced content, and did not seem a BLP violation. I don't know why you removed it. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Because there was no consensus for adding it, it is still being debated. We have not yet agreed on what can (or should) be said or how to word it. If there is an ongoing discussion about adding content that content should not be added until there is clear agreement to add it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roko's basilisk

Hi, this AfD is not properly set up and might be speedily closed. I recommend WP:TWINKLE to automatically generate correct AfDs. Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought I had, maybe no.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Cryptic comments

You left some brief cryptic comments on my talk page. I have no idea what you are on about. sbelknap (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I asked you to read policies you did not seem to be aware of as this [[9]] might well violate wp:npa and does violate wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware of these policies. You are making vague assertions without any evidence, much like the critics who call Tucker Carlson racist. Please be specific. How have my posts violated wp:npa or wp:soap? sbelknap (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

NO I am not, as if you are aware of policy your recent comment linked above is a know violation of them. It attempts to undermine the credibility of editors by making assertions about "Progressives seem to be more successful at embedding biased content into wikipedia as well", this is a violation of NPA (to my mind). It violates wp:soap as it does not make arguments based upon policy, but presumed bias and affiliation (as well as containing wp:or, it is your interpretation of what Carlson has said, RS interpret it differently). I am waring you to be more careful as this article is under DS< and that means users are expected to use a higher standard of caution when editing it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Michelle Remembers = canada?

Hi, one little problem I have with the edit on Satanic ritual abuse: I don't remember any of the best WP:RSes on the topic asserting that the SRA panic itself originated in Canada. Only Michelle Remembers' author Lawrence Pazder did. (Even the book was published by a New York publisher, and our WP article seems to say the book was mostly promoted in the US.) So I'll make that change to the article now, but if you want to discuss you can revert and ping me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Our article says it did, the lede reflects the body. So unless an earlier example from the US can be presented we have to assume this was the first example.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The book is not an example of a panic, it's an example of a fictional story. (A "moral panic" is very strictly defined in social science literature.) IIRC (it's been a few years) the major sources consider McMartin Preschool as the first mainstream SRA panic; Pazder did contribute to the broader panic in the US as a moral entrepreneur, but mostly did that work in the US where fundamentalist Christianity had already built a popular narrative about evil Satanic forces. Really, if you're interested in the topic, the sources listed in the article's bibliography (basically Victor, Nathan & Snedeker, deYoung, and Richardson Bromley & Best) are definitive and exhaustive about the origin & development of the SRA panic and should be the basis for the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It may well be fiction, it was not marketed as such at the time. It was the progenitor of the whole sillines.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GulayAta (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Not sure most people would say what does? --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That any large number of people would associate anti-Americanism with discrimination, in fact, I would argue it's practically going to be the opposite, they associate Americanism with discrimination.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

If you really want it can be removed. Do you have any other problems with my revert? --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you make a case at talk, not here, as I am not the only person who reverted you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean you're not the only person who reverted me? My edit was a manual revert of NaviNews. --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, I should have said I am not the only person who disagreed with this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You voiced your disagreement with the inclusion of the discrimination sidebar, nothing else. I have already said that I would be willing not to include it, at least for the time being. So why should the rest of their edit not stay reverted?

Also, I did some searching and would like to point out that many other anti-national articles (e. g., Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Russian sentiment) include the same discrimination sidebar. --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

And I often also undo larger edits if other users have objected and they are reinserted. As I said, make a case at talk, not here, as everyone has a right to know there is a discussion and to join in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Does that include longstanding edits? --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say generally yes, if the content is long-standing and I can see a valid objection I would say "make a case at talk".Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

New section

"...if you do not wish to donate to the project, fine. But do not use the threat of doing so to try and force your POV onto an article." Oh, I have your permission to not donate? Thank you so much!!! That right there is why I hope Wikipedia dies. It's not a threat, pal. It's what I'm doing, and I don't need your permission. Not only am I not going to donate this pathetic website anymore. I'm donating to projects that are working to destroy and replace this horrible site. People like you are cancer. You don't care about anymore except yourself. Your articles are heavily biased propaganda, not even pretending to be objective or balanced. You routinely censor anyone who reverts or corrects your misinformation, play little admin-tag on reverts, even when editors provide sources from sites YOU approve. If you want to purge all factual opinions from the articles, fine. But don't you dare tell me what I can say on talk pages or threaten me, you insecure power-tripping troll. Keep your snarky self-referential "help" pages about how not dumb you are to yourself. No one in the real world cares about your pathetic little fiefdom. Wikipedia is a joke and people like you have turned it into a bad one.

I am telling you we are not going to alter our policies just so you will still donate to us (assuming you actually even do). I would also suggest you read wp:npa asa the above violates it. I did not say you had to have my permision, I said we are not going to care.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 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: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Delhi Riots

Hi. I tweaked your comment on the delhi riots talk page. The spelling you used could be considered derogatory (and I know that's not your intention). Hope that's ok. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, I can never get the word right (too much reading of period literature I suspect).Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1029046331&oldid=1029046123

soibangla (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry hit enter before adding the reason, which is WP:ONUS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Greetings,

Came across your recent edits. If you are further interested in topic may be you would like to join a discussion @ Talk:Superstition#Definition in lead besides I am also looking for article expansion help @ Draft:Irrational beliefs if you find topic interested in.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube. It was discussed a bit at Mark Dice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

New section

The edits that I have made are not radical ones. There is no evidence that he spoke up against legal immigration. He has, though, been an active opponent of illegal immigration. Also, the other changes were just realignment of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshit 3110 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are, as theey radically change what we say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No they don't! There is no concrete evidence of his opposition to legal immigration. He has repeatedly denounced anti-racial discrimination being used as a tool to combat past discrimination. Reflecting on these changes is neither radical nor incorrect.

That is irrelevant to "they are not radical changes". A radical change radically changes what our article says, and that is what you did, and you did not only alter his stance on immigration.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what an article should say. The changes I made did not state anything untrue. Just because it doesn't match your view, does not make it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshit 3110 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:brd, you were reveted so you should make a case at talk, not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 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: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Some = weasel wording?

I saw your revert here and I think this does fit the definition of weasel wording - who exactly made this claim? It seems Sherri Tenpenny would be one person that we can name. --hroest 15:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

MAde what claim, that some think it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wisdom of Relevance

You suggested the One is not irrelevant to a certain university. I beg to differ.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=655932674
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=5131023

See this as a starting point. Apply diligence in plunging the depths of Wikipedia, and the wisdom of relevance will become yours. Perhaps the One is closer than you think. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The one what?Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Juneteenth Sources for edit on Black women's history

Hello! On the neutrality board, you asked me to provide you with RS on the subject of Black women in the history of Juneteenth and Juneteenth celebrations. I'd like to post them here, on your talk page. Would that be ok with you?

AmorLucis (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really as they are part of the discussion there, and others need to see them too.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

They already are on the talk page.

I was offering to repost them here so you would not have to read through the whole thread over there to find them. I have been repeatedly warned not to "repeat myself" on the talk page, so I can't repost them there to answer your question about sources.

AmorLucis (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have posted them there already then they have already been rejected..Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. They had already been posted and discussed before you asked me (on two different talk pages) to post my sources. If you are now withdrawing your request to me for my sources, I will no longer attempt to provide them to you.

AmorLucis (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What I asked was "Do any RS support any of this, directly and qoatably?", I did not ask you for sources, I asked for sources that explicitly support your edit. As I pointed out on your talk page we have policies called wp:v and wp:rs, your sources are not compliant (as multiple users have told you) with those policies. So I asked you to produce ones that were. Rather than ban users from your talk page, you should read and understand what they are telling you. You asl need to read wp:bludgeom and wp:tenditious, all you are doing is rep[eraging already rejected arguments referring to already rejected sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You also wrote: "Do any RS discuss the topic you wish to add, so any RS say black women were not emacipated and thus Juneteenth is not about them?"

Correction: at no time did I state or imply that Black women were not emancipated from chattel slavery (they most certainly were) or that Juneteenth is "not about" Black women (of course it is). Can decisions being made be valid, if they are based on arguments that are not mine?

Correction: I did not ban anyone from my talk page for giving advice on editing. I welcome editors' advice on editing. I set a boundary about editors on my talk page implying that I am acting in bad faith.

AmorLucis (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I asked you to read a policy as I felt you were coming close to violating it. In the same way, I might say (if you are driving at 39 in a 40 zone ) "a bit close to the speed limit". Yes Do any RS "discuss the topic", in other words "Do any RS support any of this, directly and qoatably" That is what it means As wp:or says "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.". In other words the sources must link Junteenth to these women, directly. Yy have to have a source (for example) that says "honored in Juneteenth celebrations include Sojourner Truth’s "Address to the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association", You have had this explained multiple times.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That is what we do, we warn users before, not after, they may be about to breach a rule. There is not a lot of point in telling you about a rule after you may have broken it is there? The way you are going you will get another block, you really need to start reading and understanding our policies (and why you were actually blocked).Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Yy have to have a source (for example) that says "honored in Juneteenth celebrations include Sojourner Truth’s "Address to the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association"

I am aware of that. That's why I cited Juneteenth sources that mention Truth's 1867 address and others that included Pauli Murray's "Jane Crow" law review article.

As I said, I welcome advice on editing, including an editor asking me to read a policy because they believe I am coming close to violating it.

AmorLucis (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Lets keep this simple, give one source (just one here, just the link, no preamble) to one of your sources that link as Jnneetneh and Sojourner Truth.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

wp:v is clear, I have to be able to see (without being told by anyone) what it is I am looking at. If you have to tell me what it says, it may well fail wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC).

RS from my original reverted edit directly connecting Juneteenth to Sojourner Truth. The page suggests to "Celebrate Juneteenth" by honoring "The Women of the Movement" and directly references Sojourner Truth's historical speeches on women's rights, specifically.

To save you time, the relevant quote on the page (under the section on Sojourner Truth) is:

"Her most famous address, given in 1851 at the Women’s Rights Conference in Akron, Ohio, challenged prevailing ideas about racial and gender inferiority."

The source, The Chisholm Leadership Academy, boasts an impressive Board of Directors of Black civic leaders. Their mission statement is "The Chisholm Leadership Academy is a Georgia 501(c)(3) organization that cultivates a pipeline of middle and high school girls of color to become catalysts for change and to be inspired for bold careers in public service."

Thoughts?

AmorLucis (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no mention of the word Juneteenth in that quote. Which part of "Do any RS support any of this, directly and qoatably" do you not understand?Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP Juneteenth article covers, in detail, how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth. This is a source on how to CELEBRATE Juneteenth. The RS of this article is CELEBRATING Juneteenth (the title of the article) by honoring "The Women of the Movement" (a section in the article) and Sojourner Truth (a woman in that section) and her speeches (mentioned in her section).

There is already precedent in the Juneteenth article for noting "female-centric" CELEBRATIONS--the "Miss Juneteenth" contests.

What part of "this source directly and quotably connects CELEBRATING Juneteenth with Sojourner Truth and her speeches" do you not understand?

Explain to me, please, the difference between the WP Juneteenth article including how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth with breakfasts, re-enactments and beauty pageants and including how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth by "honoring the women of the movement."

AmorLucis (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since we are going to have to agree to disagree on the relevance of Black women leaders of history to Juneteenth commemorations, I'll end our discussion with this point of clarification on your earlier analogy:

"I asked you to read a policy as I felt you were coming close to violating it. In the same way, I might say (if you are driving at 39 in a 40 zone ) "a bit close to the speed limit".

There was, in fact, two parts to your statement to me on my talk page. Advice on WP policy AND commentary on my motives. So an accurate analogy would be that you told me that I was driving "a bit too close to the speed limit" because I "had to get there before everyone else."

You commented on my motive when you said that I was going to different forums to "get the answer I wanted." I was going to different forums for clarification, which is what those forums are for. Fortunately, other editors are continuing to work with me on that clarification.

I was clear that what I objected to was not your "advice" about WP policies. I objected to your comment about my motive, because commenting on the motive of other editors is a violation of talk page guidelines. I was (erroneously, IMO) blocked because my setting a boundary for myself about you discussing my motive was deemed "disruptive."

AmorLucis (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You had been given the same answer every form you went to, the same answer you are getting now. It was clear from your statements you would (as you are) continue to make the same points over and over again. So I told you what policy you would breach if you raised the same issue, using the same arguments in another forum, and why it would be seen that way. NO (by the way) commenting on motives is not a violation of policy (and no I did not question your motives, I questioned how you were going about your arguments (see wp:tenditious)) when issuing warnings, even informal ones. And no you were not blocked for "my setting a boundary for myself" you were blocked for making personal attacks (so I will be commenting on "your motives" again, keep on misrepresenting why you were blocked and you may get another), and by the way "my setting a boundary for myself" would be boundaries for you, not boundaries for others in their behavior towards you. I am going to make another, it is clear to me that at this time you are wp:nothere you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue (Juneteenth, and now your block) and you will continue to fight your case (see wp:battleground ad infinitum. This may leed to longer blocks, as it is a wait of users (and admins) time to have to deal with the same issues over and over again (I have pointed to tendentious already). I am (and was) warning you what the behavior is that could cause you problems and lead to blocks. I would point to this talk page discussion as an example of what I was talking about, as instead of forums you are now discussing this on three or four separate users talk pages. wp:dropthestick before it is too late.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

SPA

Hi - Could you please clarify the issue with adding factual information?

SPA has nothing to do with that. It is about the fact you are only editing a single article. Nor is "factual information" how we work, we work with "verifiable information (see wp:v). If we have sourced content you can't alter it unless you produce a better source to support your new edit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

commenting

The user can't comment at ANI because they're currently blocked. If you're interested, at Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance there's a box you can check that will strike through the username if an account is blocked. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If they are blocked they are blocked, we should not post on behalf of blocked users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 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: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

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) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for an apology

You have repeatedly accused me of removing sources and statements from the Elections in Cuba article. I have proven this to be false, will you admit your mistake and apologise? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is why edit warring is bad, you have made so many edits it's hard to see what you have been doing. it's when why reverted you should go to talk. It looked like you added CN tags to sourced statements, Rather it may be you add CN tags to statements you had added (whilst moving the sources). If you did don't remove any sources I apologize, this does not alter the fact you edit warred, you added unsourced or poorly sourced content whilst attacking the reliability of RS. |And that you have refused to accept when multiple editors have told you this. Rather resorting to background language about Cptaoslit sources or Western sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed a comment of yours

Hi Slatersteven, you responded to that brand-new account that commented at Talk:Ivermectin just for an ad hominem argument against Alexbrn. I removed that comment, and your since it was solely a reply to the other. I hope that's ok, and feel free to revert if it's not. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As it was indented as a general comment (rather than a specific reply to a user) it should not really have been removed as there is a tad too much soapboxing going on there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Restored, with my apologies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, it I was that worried I would have restored it myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

MCS discussion needed

I have defended your concerns with Brackenheim's behavior on procedural grounds, not because I have any (current) interest in getting involved at the MCS article. (You can read my recent comments.) Bbb23's comment at AN is on point, and I'll let you and ScienceFlyer take the lead there. I may join in later. -- Valjean (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

IP sock

Hi, Slatersteven. As you've noted, it would appear Pipsally has begun resorting to IPs. [10] Here's another IP that has made multiple reverts back to Pipsally's edits and should probably be included in the SPI. [11] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Slatersteven/Archive 1

Hello,

I'm working through a list of orphaned talk subpages and came across this one you created in Wikipedia space. I'm not sure what you intended it to be used for, whether you wanted to move it to User space or tag it for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Newbie edit war

As a newbie myself to Wikipedia, can anyone enlighten me as to what a newbie edit war is? Slatersteven uses this term in his profile page. I know what an edit war is, at least I think I do, but not a newbie edit war. Redaction101 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It was a less severe warning to give to newbies, but I believe it is now defunct. It is not a type of edit war, just a type of warning.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. BTW, I'm impressed, if I might say so, with your George Orwell literary allusions on this page. Wikipedia seems to me to very often darn serious (disputatious), and it is good to see some humour.Redaction101 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

All based on accusations made against me (in some cases, not the Orwell references, as such) cut and paste quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Undoing revisions seen as vandalism

Slatersteven Undoing of revisions seen as vandalism: why do you deliberatly delete a voice from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis&action=history

If my english is wrong, please you can correct it. If my sentences are lies, please tell me which one and you can remove it (after you demonstrate me that it's a lie, which is not, because all my sentences are verified). If you have a particular problem with an author, you can not administer this page because of self-interest. You didn't even have the time to read the contribution, that you immediately deleted it: this makes me think you have a personal interest on deleting that contribution. Please, I gently report you here and I gently please ask you to change this behaviour. Please restore the contribution and tell me which single sentences are lies.

If you think it was Vandalism report it here wp:aiv, and before you do read wp:npa and wp:vandalism. I also suggest you actualy read wp:coi and wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have said all of this on your talk page, read it please.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC at Persecution of Christians

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I am trying to keep things as simple as possible. Thank you again. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please undo your edit on Assange page

@Slatersteven: Could you please explain why you undid my last edit on the Assange page here ? You should be aware that the defence used more than one “psychiatric expert” in the 2020 extradition hearing – as well as Kopelman, Dr Quinton Deeley gave testimony for the defence on Assange’s autism. As stated in my edit summary the wording: “Assange's psychiatric expert” clearly implies Assange’s team only used one psychiatric expert – it’s just wrong to say otherwise - so could you kindly revert your edit on my completely innocuous and accurate wording. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I did on the talk page, the inclusion expansion of this is still under discussion. It does not matter if he has more than one. What matters is this one's testimony was questioned.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: That is simply not reasonable – you have reverted a correct statement replacing it with a wrong/misleading one – there is no justification for deliberately including misleading text in an article – it’s no better than Vandalism - kindly revert your edit. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

How is it misleading, we do not say all of the medical evidence was dismissed, only his. And read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who followed Assange’s 2020 hearing may be confused to read the phrase “Assange's psychiatric expert”. “Could have sworn Assange had two psychiatric experts” – they will grumble – or “which psychiatric expert is being accused of giving unsound evidence, I’m fogged.” - or– “It’s rubbish this Wikipedia, always printing unreliable info” they might add (ruefully whilst making a mental note to themselves, not to contribute to Wiki fundraisers). So be a good chap and revert you edit. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet they can figure out he worked for the defence based upon the same information? However, I have now named him, end of confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

As you requested, There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 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 Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

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) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sputnik V

You recently removed claims about the effectiveness of the Sputnik V vaccine on the grounds that the material was from the the company (lab) that produced the vaccine. Actually, the material was presented by a separate source, which was citing the company. Instead of not including the claims, might it not be better to state that the secondary source reported the lab's claims? It seems that's what's usually done in English Wikipedia.Kdammers (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, it cited the company, so to include it we would have to make it clear it is the companies claim (the edit did not do this). I am also unsure the source is even an RS. I would like a better source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent revert

In the edit I made removing the word “crazed” from and Assange quote I said in my edit summary “please see talk page” – I can only assume you missed that because - had you done so - you would have seen the following explanation for my edit:

“As I mentioned earlier I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources...”

As explained: you can either have the “crazed” word included or the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” you can’t have both and stay true to the source - so please could you remove one or the other. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As I explained one of them used the word in its headline.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The Tinmes "Julian Assange referred to the two Swedish women who accused him of sexual assault as “treacherous” and claimed that the allegations were the result of “crazed radical feminist ideology”, it has emerged.". The other source goes on about how he has said Sweeden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism, so they do not use the exact same wordage, the sentiment is the same. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Slatersteven,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't ever disagree with him

Or he'll threaten a ban, trying to justify it by saying you have an attitude even when you don't. Pyromilke (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not threatening to ban you, I am not an admin. I am warning you I have seen others banned for doing what you are doing. And to make it clear the attitude I am saying will get this user banned is that it is a fact there are only two genders.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Russian Armed Forces

What's wrong with pravo.gov.ru? It's official source of Russian legal acts (laws, decrees, orders, etc.). Why do you consider it's not reliable source? It's the most reliable source, other sources aren't. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Because it is a wp:primary source, and one with a reputation for dishonesty. At best you could use it for "Russia claims".Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the revolt of 1857 article, for saying that it sounds better that way, but I think you didn't see below it because I had written a HUGE paragraph about the doctrine of lapse and you stated no clear reason for removing that. So I will undo your revert and may replace them with the older 1st para lines. I hope it is clear. Regards, WikiSilky (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Or you could just add the paragraph. But if undone you should make a case at talk, and not just revert the revert.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I mark my edits as minor by default, I sometimes forget to uncheck that box. --31NOVA (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not the only reason I objected.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, have you read the latest source I put? the anti-Americans are more virulent since this event, I don't see how this paragraph has no place in the article. --31NOVA (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

---

So my understanding is that if several Wikipedia editors pronounce Taiwan a country, regardless of a huge global debate, then a handful of Wikipedia editors can determine Taiwan's disputed status, tell the world on a popular encyclopedia that Taiwan is definitely a country (never mind the United Nations refusal to seat Taiwan as a sovereign participant; never mind the US State Department's one-China policy, never mind the claims of a country of 1.4 billion people that Taiwan is a break-away province), lock the editing, determine all discussion over or irrelevant and impose a moratorium on debate that lead to changesMarcywinograd (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) for two years. This is disappointing and suggests Wikipedia, on this topic, chills debate and violates its own neutrality pillar whenever it suits the agenda of those who previously reached consensus.Marcywinograd (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, see wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

White privilege

Hi Steve. Thank you for your recent message. Unfortunately, I think "Righting great wrongs" actually supports what I said at "White privilege", eg "that which is verifiable". White privilege is not verifiable, because it is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. If you say it's a verifiable fact, you are descending into the murky world of opinion, which is not appropriate for WP, no matter how PC it is (and Political Correctness is what we are really dealing with here).

Another point is that the guidelines talk about "giving appropriate weight to the balance of opinion". If you say that White Privilige is OK the way it is, you are ignoring the balance of opinion, because the opinion expressed in the article (and it IS an opinion) is just one side of the issue.

I could go on and on, because I have looked at the dubious statements expressed by you at your Talk page, for example your opposition to the idea that there are only two genders, which just happens to be scientific fact (but you PC types were never interested in science).

A quick reading of your talk page is fascinating. You have a history of clashing with other editors, edit warring, Osomite, ANI etc etc etc. Quite frankly, Steve, I think you should be barred. Sardaka (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is where to report me wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 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 Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion re Assange RFC

Regarding the RFC on Assange talk - In acknowledgment of a valid point raised by Geogene I would like to alter the wording of option F to the following:

“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."

As this alteration is merely consists of clarifying a detail and also substituting “continued to confer” for “conferred” as approved by several editors I hope this suggestion will meet your approval and that you can substitute the new wording in the RFC that you initiated (or approve my doing so). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I would not change something that users have already voted on, add it as a new susgestion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

RS

What does RS stand for? Sardaka (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

wp:RS, reliable sources. You have been here for 14 years and you do not know that? frankly, I find that unbelievable. It is one of our most basic concepts (if not (after wp:v with which it kind of links) the most important).Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks Steve. You won't be hearing from me anymore. I know when I'm wasting my time. Sardaka (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, but if you do not start to learn how we operate you may well have that choice taken away. Please read WP:PILLARS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Assange Sundin paragraph

Looks like you inadvertently restored the Stundin paragraph that was removed per the close of the recent RfC. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said I just reverted back to thew last version I could find.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Aleksandar Lekso Saičić

He meets notability per WP:ANYBIO. Highest award and included in the Montenegrino standard national biographical dictionary. If I had not edited in the article I would do a speedy WP:NAC. I suggest you revert your deletion nomination. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Did he, which one is the highest (and note any claim of awards seems unsourced in the article).Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

moreover, samurai in 1904, they had been outlawed 40 years previously. In fact, much of the story seems highly dubious, so I question the reliability of the biographical site.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at AUKUS, you may be blocked from editing. Not following WP:BRD: the bold edit was removal of the content, that was reverted and now it should be discussed before removing again. Whizz40 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you added the contested content back [[12]] so per BRD I removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of WP:BRD. Citing from the page:

1. Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information.
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a VIP [Very Interested Person].
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a consensus. Apply the consensus. When reverts have stopped and parties all agree, you are done.

Since the material previously had consensus, due to a number of editors contributing to it over time, it's removal is a bold change. An RfC is a sensible way of establishing whether or not there is explicit consensus to continue to include it in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Did it? The article is only 14 days old, so the argument this is long standing content is not valid (if that is what you are arguing). And again, WP:ONUS, it has been objected to so it is down to you to make a case for inclusion. Also it had been reverted before as far as I can tell as this edit [[13]] restore it, in violation of BRD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment edit

I edited your comment for clarity. If that is not what you intended to link to, feel free to WP:TROUT/digitally castrate/ fire at will. Cambial foliage❧ 15:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You should not really edit another users posts, but I will let this pass you you were correct. Another user might not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, way to be ungracious. And wrong - Fixing links Cambial foliage❧ 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said you were correct, but if you had not been you would have linked to the wrong page. As you seemdeto be unsure yourself with "If that is not what you intended to link to," and what you linked to says " If in doubt, ask the editor in question to update their own post, or add a follow-up comment of your own suggesting the alternative link." an ungracious editors would have said you should not have altered it if you were not 100% sure.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Nudge nudge?

What does the nudge nudge in

As I seem to recall that one of the points made here (more than once) is "ahh look at how the mainstream media are ignoring this, nudge nudge" I think wp:undue is has relevancy here.

signify please? What are you trying to say? NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I said it on the talk page earlier, the idea that there has been some conspiracy among RS to not report this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So that was in relation to the mention of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Lens erlier. Do you think that mentions in those decrease notability? NadVolum (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No it was in relation to a claim that the material met wp:undue despite a claim it's actively being ignored by mainstream RS. Either it's being ignored or it's not important.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So you agree they do support notability? I still do not understand what nudge nudge was supposed to convey, could you express it in simple terms please. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

NO I am not saying that I am saying the fact they do not cover it does not support inclusion. As to "Nuge Nudge", it's a reference to the idea of implying something without saying it directly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is better to just say what you mean rather than leave people to try and work out what you're saying. And those actually covered the story, they don't magically decrease the coverage. They aren't top notch sources but can be used to support that there was little immediate coverage. As to conspiracy I'm not saying a DSMA or NSL or similar gag order has been issued but corporate media do seem to have a cozy tit for tat rule with each other probably more on the lines of Self-censorship#In media. NadVolum (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I did, its called humour.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V8KdGqUfek

Using humor to disparage other contributions could be considered bullying and at the very least can turn into a nasty habit. I'd advise against it in such circumstances. NadVolum (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't you first admonish the editors who do it repeatedly without humour? Steven is a constructive collaborator who was delivering the message as lightly as possible. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not, it's using it to make an argument based upon previous statements they have made. But yes, we should disparage conspiracy theories being used to justify the inclusion of material. IN fact it may even be against the rules (see wp:or) so if anything those who tried that need to refrain as it can lead to blocks. So as you are so concerned about good behavior, the next time you post a conspiracy theory screed I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well the attitude that conspiracy is a nonexistent problem certainly explains your response to what FAIR said or to the Stundin article or that Yahoo article. And if you want to go and report me for saying that then just go ahead. NadVolum (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I will wait until you repeat in on an articles talk apge.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

So stupid threats like SPECIFICO. NadVolum (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum, I suggest you redact your preceding post about me. Steven has just given you fair warning of an enforcement report and adding personal attacks to your file won't work out in your favor. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No redaction. I say exactly what I mean. And if I made a threat I would almost certainly carry it out in the specified circumstances. NadVolum (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anyone's threatened you. While we are here, I would like to ask: Have you ever edited under another ID besides NadVolum? SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, my talk page has (as far as I am concerned) rather less strict rules or what is and is not allowed (see wp:talk). So if a user tried to use BS argument that may not be an issue (as in a ruloes infraction). If however, they try to use wp:or (and wp:blp violating) conspiracy theories to sway a talk page discussion that is against the rules I would warn them (I have) I have if they continued I would report them (I will). That is not a threat it is a promise. It is to make sure that if I do report you it will defiantly be an infraction of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why

Why are you so damn difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.222.34 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We have never interacted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Maths

I look forward to your explanation of how two edits nearly 48 hours apart breach 1rr restrictions. Do try to keep up. Cambial foliage❧ 15:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you are correct, I misread the dates.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Templates

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. This includes templating users for 3rr that you have reached first. Cambial foliage❧ 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not, I issued one to them, I have to issue one to you in the name of fairness.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You may want to clarify the last sentence here (presumably "one IP is an SPA"). I think I understood correctly but it was not clear. Cambial foliage❧ 15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the IP's has only edit in this one topic, the other has not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity

To start with, I am sorry I didn’t respond to your reply to my discussion in the Project Veritas article, I only learned how to reply after it was locked.

You seem to be a very passionate and dedicated editor, but I have a few concerns. From reading your posts in the discussions, it appears you would have a conflict of interest in editing the page due to your personal opinions on the subject matter. I in don’t want to assume you are biased, but I think it would be important for you to assess whether you are objective on the subject matter.

I hate to be this critical of someone who is putting a significant amount of effort into editing, but I want to make you at least aware of my concern in the case it is valid. Otherwise, keep up the good work. GigaDerp (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"personal opinions on the subject matter" is not a COI, we all have "personal opinions on the subject matter", the fact you are here shows you have, after all, you are expressing a "personal opinion". But we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Your recent editing history at Julian Assange 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 being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please self-revert to avoid sanction Cambial foliage❧ 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And so were you, but I did not add duplicated material, I reset to the last consensus version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I made three consecutive manual reverts removing opinion pieces without secondary sources (both supportive of and critical of Assange) and removing SPS supportive of Assange. What is so were you supposed to mean? Cambial foliage❧ 15:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You also partialy reverted me by adding back material I had removed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact your addition looks very wp:pointy and rasies concearns about wp:CIR as you do not even seem to have checked what you were adding aagianst that I had written. You just did an info dump.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Note you have now reverted me again (as in removing content I added), which is totally out of order as you are waring me about edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You were the person who brought that duplication to my attention. I used your content when I was editing, and expanded upon it (note that I used the exact same quotes you selected). Do you want me to put it back? That's a rhetorical question, apparently that needs saying. Cambial foliage❧ 16:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant, what you should have removed was your inccorrectly added material, not reverted my addition (which is edit warring, as you are well aware). Ig you had reverted your edits (rather than mine) it would not have been.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of what is or is not irrelevant is cause for much more serious concearns about [[wp:CIR}]] than a copyediting mistake that would likely have been corrected had you not decided to start reverting to your preferred earlier version. Cambial foliage❧ 16:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring is when you undo another users edits, that is what you did, as a result of your own cock up. The mistake was yours, it should have been your mistake you removed, you did not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mooreover I had the decency to self revert, rather than making excuses.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you settle the matter and point to these reverts with a diff. I took your content and expanded it - I did not delete any of it. No reversion or undo in sight. Cambial foliage❧ 16:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

[[14]] this was the content I added, you removed it. this [[15]] is you altering content you claim is mine.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Southend

Thanks for your work on trying to stop the page being vandalised. A Fresh Start and I have asked to a temp block. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure I would categorise it as vandalism, so much as overzealousness.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)