User talk:Slatersteven

August 2007

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

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

Notability of Seems

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

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

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

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

War of 1812

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

List of massacres

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

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

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

Your edit on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

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

Milhist coordinators election has started

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

RfC

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

Hindi rendition of Indian Rebellion of 1857

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wit's End

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1857 conflict book link

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

Hello Slater, thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I think that matter was addressed in the article talk page, although I invited comments on a related but somewhat different issue. Please do leave your comments on the talk page. Regards[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I did not say I didn't want you to communicate with me :), I am merely reasuring you that the matter's been resolved.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations, use of template

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

Re:ref

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

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

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

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

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

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

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

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

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

apologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

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

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

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

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

May 2009

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

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

Karnow

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

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

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

B. Fairbairn

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

Shouting is captualisation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=next&oldid=295405350 as here. I said it was debatedly an insult (a lot depends on intention. but your use of the pahrase3 Ant-American pap does seem to imply you meant it to be a billitaling of his edits on the grounds of lack of imperic value. If you know the rules then why did you (and others) breach them?[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Shouting, in internet parlance, tends to mean typing in all caps. Capitalizing a single word out of a hundred doesn't qualify. Yes, calling him an idiot was bad; I did not do it, but your comment was directed towards the whole thread. Perhaps instead of using an article talk page to discuss an individual, you should have taken it to their talk page. That said, I apologize for my reactions to your post. You're right, in general, but I would disagree that this is a new editor who needs to be coddled. My rudeness was purely a response to his; I had intended to stay silent on the whole thing until he came to my talk page first. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We can all get carried away in the heat of debate (I know i do sometimes).[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I don't get it

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

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

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

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

United States

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

Viet Cong killing schoolteachers

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

Suggestions

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

your signature

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

Nick Griffin

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

Please see Talk:Nick_Griffin#Loss_of_eye this discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour is becoming a problem. I see no alternative but to report your continual reversions, your inserts of unreliable sources, your failing to use proper citation templates in a WP:GAN, to an administrator. You seem to revel in picking fault in the slightest issue, when no real fault is present (for instance, your failure to understand how to read Harvard Citations). Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[1] reported. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

the eye part says according to Nick Griffin, then does not use his version (and the sources you referance in one case and you cite one as making a source unreliable. I have no idea what proper citation templates are, perhps you would care to show how thet are supposed to look. I am aslo trying to improve the article, and make it accurate, I will admit I did not know how to read the Harvard citations, and admited my mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Read page 63 of the source used. Then come back and tell me that the two are unconnected. Do you know how to read page 63 of the Ryan book? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the exact quote that states the two are linkedSlatersteven (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so Carlile reports The Rune to the police, and the CPS then prosecute Griffin, who is found guilty. Griffin also is secretly recorded saying some pretty nasty things about Carlile at about the same time. Even though the two may not be linked in terms of Griffin's prosecution, you don't think that they should be mentioned together? Are you kidding me? This is becoming a joke. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not about the same time a year before. So you admit then that they care not linkied with regards to the prosecution (the section you are putting them in), well thank you for that. They may have a link, but it is not for use to draw a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in the sources. It may be there is a link, but if so the link should be in the-semitism section, not in the scetion about the trail (which you admit has no direct link to the Cook film)Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not drawing conclusions. You are. Firstly, the difference between 1997 and 1998 can be as little as 1 day. Secondly, the source used (I'm glad you finally understand how to read them) explains fully the contextual link between the two.

Maybe you should create a heading and a section for every tiny facet of Griffin's life. Or perhaps you could show me what large-scale notable additions you've made to the page? I'm in the business of writing interesting articles that are based on reliable sources, articles that make sense to those who read them. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no real idea how to do this. Frankly I find your behaviour and your arguments childish and puerile. Both Griffin's comments about Carlile, and the trial (which Carlile prompted) are inextricably linked. They belong together, in the same section. I've had it with this behaviour, and I've had enough of explaining myself to you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the souces say some thing like 'and the 1997 TV show and 1998 trial are linked' then you are drawing conclusioins you cannot say that becasue source A says x and Y that Z is true the source actualy has to say that Z is true. How many days differance were there? lets see May 1998 Mr Griffin was prosecuted in May 1998 Mr Griffin was prosecuted, so at the vey least thats 8 months, which is why wikipedia insits that you do not draw colcusions tyhat are not expresly mentioned you stated it could have been as little as one day differance when its over 200 days. In the issue of Spearhead published in July 1997 griffin writes about the dcoumentary. So we are now in the region of over 12 months.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reported

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

I will reply to you or comment if I wishSlatersteven (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, if you have been told to stay off someone's talkpage, you should stay off of it; period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom/sandbox3 - Nick Griffin

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

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

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

Blocked

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

I'm sorry to say that I'm not impressed that you actually drove someone to actually swear at you, due to excessive badgering. Because of that, you got a 1-day, and they got 5. Not a very impressive display. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They swore om the talk page long before that (and long before I appeared. I just asked them to stop. But perhaps I should have been less badgering (But if some one continues to be abusive what should I do?).I just felt that the user was not only not interested in compromise wasa but was dilliberitly pushinig the boundries. He was trying to be insulting Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I see it seems that my initlal offence was wrong, a user is allowed to swear, just not at someone (I am not too sure were that line is drawn but tehre we are. however the user did repeatedty Belittled contributors because of their language skills or word choice, which perhaps is what I should have complained about. but thats all in the past, although I have to admt that I am, not sure that it wil not raise up again.Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I can't edit I can't appeal, but I would like to point out I was never informed of any 3RR report. I have thus been banned for an offence I was not informed off.Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right ... you should have advised of the belittling. Just to let you know, 3RR is only justified by actual vandalism, and not other justification is permitted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you I was not aware that my edits were vandalism, I was editing according to what had (it appeared to me) been agreed on the talk page, but additional material had been inserted (that had not been agreed upon) that esentialy said the same thing (and was not supported by the sources) that had caused the origioanl disagrement. I think I may have mis-understood you point, are you saying that I can only revert three times if its vandalism, or that my edits were vandalims?Slatersteven (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that if you were blocked for 3RR, then the only possible unblock reason is because you were distinctly reverting vandalism done by someone else. Otherwise, there's no need for a warning - personally I give warnings before the 3RR if I see it, but since not everyone can be watching the history on every article, you cannot always be warned in advance - you, as an editor, has to know better. Hey, it's only 24hrs, unlike the other party, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am not sure that I can honestly say that the edits I reverted were vandalism, POV pushing I do think, but not vandalism. I am not sure that how long the other bloke got is really the issue (In fact its not something that enters into the equation), its just that the block came totaly out of the blue (I had not even knowwn that the other editor had been reported. I just suddenly found out.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Slatersteven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nja²⁴⁷ 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Unfortunately you read wrong. See my post above the block :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I thought I had read that before making a 3RR report you shouild wearn the user, but this was was not a report about me so that would not count even if I do recall the correct rule.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's courteous to be warned, but it's not required. Again -- warnings are not a prerequisite to blocks that are used to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. Edit warring, whether or not it is a 3RR is disruption. It's best to simply move on and get back to building an encyclopaedia at this time. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Your message

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

It's not Webhamster. It's just an annoying troll who likes to make users look bad after they have been blocked. This is the fifth time that I know of that this has happened. I think that I will file a sockpuppet report about, as this seems to be happening often. Thank you for telling me.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither can I. :) Let me get the SPI open so you can add to it too.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

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

AN/I

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

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

Noloop RFC

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

I am just telling the parties involved.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I got some more stuff on the RFC, do you have anything else?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have said my peice, as I have said already this is sailing a bit close to the wind with regards to canvasing, so I shall leave it now.Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the canvassing rules and this isn't canvassing.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but its no worse then Nollop did, and therefore I feel that its best if I say no more at this stage. If the situation deterirates any further that may change.Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Perhapes I'm tired of being called a stalker, troll, and other crud, beacuse I'm may have gone overboard with the diffs on the RFC. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be the caseSlatersteven (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was shocked when Noloop filed that ANI. Although I knew that would happen, I didn't think it would be soon. But I slept and I feel better now. And sometimes I just like saying the word filed. Filed, filed, filed. Cheers, Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

You have new messages

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

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

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

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

Noloop case extended

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

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

Revert?

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

good call

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

Nick Griffin

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

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

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

Garlasco Photo

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

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

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

web sites vs. print edition

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

so if its in the articles section and hasd a publishing date it was a published article?Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

AHH I see, thank you for taht clarification.Slatersteven (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

on telling opinion columns form news stories

The Loeonard Fine piece in the Forward is an opinion column. I have an edge here because I subscribe to the Forward, and know that Leonard Fein never writes news article, but has a regular column. The way you (or anyone) can tell the difference is by scrolling to the bottom. Reporters are given bylines at the top of the article. Opinion columnists and op-ed writers also get little bios at the bottom of the text.Historicist (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats an OR advantage, and as such not admisable.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's really not. It's just how newspapers signal that a piece is an opinion column, not a news article.Historicist (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you proved some sources pleae?Slatersteven (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just years of experience reading and writing occasional pieces for newspapers, both op-eds and features. It's not my day job. There must be sources, if I had them at my fingertips I'd share them.Historicist (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The by the definition of wikis rules this is WP:COS & and WP:OR.Slatersteven (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Leonard wrote an article here it appears, but usually when biographical information is included it is because the writer is not on staff and is providing an op-ed.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But not allways?Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Stork

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