Jump to content

User talk:Slatersteven

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreerwin (talk | contribs) at 15:34, 16 October 2019 (→‎Pinehouse Photography Club). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)


talk pages

You seem combative, Steve. And intent on shutting down this line of discussion by labelling it inappropriate. You didn't seem very interested in discussing improvements to the article yourself, more like pretending Wikipedia is freely accessible from China, which I don't believe it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.66.1 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that Wikipedia status in China is not relevant to an article about Taiwan. If China blocks access to Wikipedia we as eds can do nothing about that (nor can admins, and I doubt WMF could, what are they gona do withhold service?).Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this is what I am talking about [[1]] everything you posted was in relation to Chinese censorship, yet that is not what you want to add.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to claim to have have mind reading powers. To know my intent when I've actually said very little. Yet you don't even seem able to read and comprehend my comments properly. Claiming that I said China prevents Taiwan access to Wikipedia which I did not. You're very close to coming across as acting in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.66.1 (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All you have said is stuff about china blocking access ""blocked in China"", you have made no other point. As such that is what I assumed you were talking about. I am not acting in bad faith (if I am report me) I do not understand what point you are trying to make if it is not about access being blocked in China.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram

I see from comments above that you are still having problems both parsing what other people are saying and actually responding with things that are (a) comprehensible, (b) relevant, and (c) not obfuscatory stirring of often already muddy waters. Our recent tete-a-tete at the FRAMBAN page is another example. Should I ever return to editing, I think this stream of problematic commentary across a wide range of discussions needs itself to be discussed at WP:ANI, perhaps with a view to some sort of topic ban restricting the extent to which you can contribute outside of articles themselves. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you prerogative. I hope you return to editing soon, rather then not participating in the project, you silence is defaning.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sitush. You need to spend less time in project space and Talk space. Your comments at ANI, for example, are either wholly unnecessary or reflect little understanding of the issues. At a minimum they are irritating, but often they are disruptive. The threads would almost always be better without your participation. Others besides Sitush have pointed this out to you, but it seems not to make a dent. I'd rather you dealt with this voluntarily, but, if not, you may find yourself at ANI defending a proposed topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have the same feeling. Please stop following the latest drama and focus on article space instead. You can improve your English writing and communication skills with practice. Keep trying, but avoid heated disputes because participation in these may annoy people. Look for calmer waters, so to speak. Jehochman Talk 23:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a not untypical example of you managing even to create problems in article discussions. If you cannot be bothered to read it all, say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the need to address anything other then the fact he needed RS to back any claim he was making about what someone had said. The rest was just a rant that added nothing to my understanding of that basic point (and now I have read it still does not, nor would it have changed my response, as the rest is irrelevant). If I write "I disagree that X is a letter and RS say so. But I think you are all a bunch of self confessed cat molesters that drink the blood of virgins". Why would I need to do any more then read the bit (and comment on) about how we actually do things. Surely the best way to not feed trolls, it is act as if they are not trolling and only bother with the parts you can treat as such? And then wait for them to push the trolling to far?Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I could have give him what he wanted, and gone into a whole thread about how we are all not leftist Nazis or whatever (or even deleted it with a "no fucking Nazis" edit summery), what would that have achieved precisely (apart form giving him the self satisfaction of knowing he had got to me)? What I did was to shut it down with a basic policy point, no need for any drama (and no need to resort to "fuck off" in the hope he responds so I can get him banned, all I have to do was wait for the "I did not here that" response, and then report him for PA's, without me being in any way at fault for provoking him).Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "best way" of dealing with such issues is to read them in their entirety in order to ensure that you have the full picture, and then to respond if you feel that you can do so in a manner that benefits the project. Treating discussions as some sort of cat-and-mouse game while admitting that you are not in full possession of the facts is very poor, imo. (And, in any case, someone telling someone else to "fuck off" would not usually constitute a personal attack, nor would someone claiming that "I did not hear that".) It reminds me of the umpteen items of poor advice given at the talk page of one particular somewhat problematic contributor, including in this section. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was in enough possession of the fact to have seen that the rest was nothing but an off topic rant. I addressed to point they raised, that is all that is required of me is it not, not to use article talk pages as a forum to discuss wider issues?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also here to encourage you to voluntarily disengage from AN/I and every other hotspot. This is not because of you putting me on your shitlist, I'm on your radar because I agree with the comments above (and I'm from "foreignistan"). cygnis insignis 12:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are not on my shitlist, I do not have one, and cannot recall the last time I even interacted with you. It seems to be there are far too many users who want to make everything about them. Sorry I forgot that was still on my sandbox, I see what you mean now, I have now removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was you casting aspersions about me, at AN/I, at a spurious and misplaced thread about which I had not been advised, a opportunity on to say to the complainant that you agree with his distaste for me. Do you want me to find the link, or do you remember all the shit you fling at others. cygnis insignis 13:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I have no idea what you are talking about. I really think some of you people need to let go of whatever sticks you are holding.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you incapable of reflection, did you start typing the second you saw a reply? You go to talk pages a demand that someone provide a reference for what you are contesting, and when provided you say why did you present that to me first, and the response has been on several occasions that is was in the article that you clearly had not read. Everyone is accountable to you, but you remain unaccountable. cygnis insignis 13:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked if I wanted you to link to something and I said yes, I as I have no idea what you are referring to. I am not demanding anything, I am accepting your offer.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May I be permitted to ask what was wrong with those comments?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to analyze the inadequacies of your comments for you or the fact that a non-administrator should not be spending so much time patrolling administrative noticeboards. You need to spend less time in project space and on Talk pages--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, I've been mulling this over, and I think that my warning/comments comes too close to unilaterally imposing a topic ban against you posting to administrative noticeboards, something I am not permitted to do. I have therefore struck the warning above. Notwithstanding, my comments about your editing and my strong advice as to what you should do in the future stands. If you choose not to heed my advice, I may request a topic ban. The only reason I don't do so now is laziness (all those diffs, sigh).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would still like to know what was wrong with my mast series of posts at ANI? What did i SAY THAT WAS PROBLEMATIC?Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it goes on. Just back off all centralised discussion noticeboards, please. I anticipate you saying that you self-reverted so it is not a problem but, alas, it is. You're not competent to get involved in such things. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am directly involved in that incident, and note I picked up on my mistake and removed it. We all make them mistakes that is and have to either alter or remove mistakes).Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certain users time might be better spend telling the far more disruptive U1Quattro and Ybsone and Vauxford to stop wasting ANI's time and shut up, rather then singling me out for special attention for one comment in how many weeks that is "problematic" after I removed it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arghya Bose

Hi Slatersteven,

Thank you for your feedback with regard to the page Arghya Bose which you nominated for deletion. The last time it was deleted in March 2018, it was a case of G7, and the deletion had a point. The article this time had at least 5 third party sources which proves notability beyond doubt. You are more experienced than me in Wikipedia, without doubt. I am from Calcutta, and know the notability of Arghya Bose in the academic circles in Bengal. Hence I thought I should ask for your advice and your discretion in this regard. Thanks a lot in advance! BChakroborty62 (talk)BChakroborty62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to judge as I also see at least three CSD notices, it may be for the same article, or a recreation. You need to read wp:n, at the very minimum (and at its most basic) you need independent reliable (see wp:rs) sources talking about the subject in depth. Not their own work, not brief mentions of a sentence or two.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
also this seems to be your sole contribution of Wikipedia, do you have a wp:coi?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slatersteven,

Thank you for your feedback. The previous 3 CSD notices have all been done in accordance with G4 with reference to the previous non-substantiated article. Two deletions previously have been done by myself previously following G7. However, the present article was heavily referenced with many reliable independent sources (The Telegraph, The Indian Express, Eisamay, Bongodorshon) talking only about the subject - this was the first article that was quite heavily developed by several people's contributions.

Can I request you to please check the references of the presently deleted article for your determination? Thanks a lot! BChakroborty62 (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also one other CSD was for a double page created by someone else at the ame time as this one. Thanks for taking note. :) BChakroborty62 (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot check as it has been deleted, but it is bad faith to assume that neither I (not any of the other edds) checked it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bozhdynsky.com/

HI, why you been marking this site as unreliable, when it clearly is very reliable? -->Typ932 T·C 18:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the user who uploaded the link stated that they would (as multiple users had questioned its reliability) would take it to RSN and remove all instances of it. Thus doubts have been raised (which the uploader acknowledged) until the RSN thread is resolved it remaines in question.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
be careful when you edit, you seems to removing vital info when so keen removing good references -->Typ932 T·C 15:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced information can be removed. However at RSN it was decided that the site is not a good source for factual information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no it cant, you should add ref needed if you want it , if there comes no ref maybe couple of months you can remove it, -->Typ932 T·C 15:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not reinsert dubious sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and they are not dubious, that guy has well told sources, they are really good ones -->Typ932 T·C 15
53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Not according to the RSN notice board consensus, which is how we determine things.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stop edit warring you are very close to 3rr and dont remove data, if you need ref ask it. If we would remove all unreferenced senteces here in wikipedia maybe 80% of content from wikipedia should be removed.
What data have I removed?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you removed production year from one car article, be more careful -->Typ932 T·C 16:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfa_Romeo_159&type=revision&diff=907960472&oldid=902700812 , if you cant figure it out -->Typ932 T·C 16:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you could also use your energy much better than removing refs, instead you could find better referecnes, removing refs doenst help anyone, you just make more job to others especially when that ref is good enough -->Typ932 T·C 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So could you, rather then reinstating dubious refs. As you are clearly an enthusiast you would have more luck replacing dubious refs then me. I taged those refs days ago, and the tags were ignored (and in fact you even reverted one, rather then finding a better source yourself).Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that reinserting sources (dubious or otherwise) is never a minor edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Your Edit War.

It is against wiki policy to simply delete relevant article content. Do not simply do another reversion on the Korean War article, or I will call upon the community to discipline you. If you are having trouble with such an obviously relevant content, YOU are responsible for starting a discussion about it on the article's talk page. It is not OK to delete meaningful political historic facts that affected thousands of people, creating an international incident, from articles about history, no matter how much you hate them or are embarrassed by them. 09:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

it is also against policy to reinsert material once it had been challenged (see wp:brd. You are supposed to make a case for it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the reference in regards to afd Michael Z. Williamson. As you can see im new to all this and tried to be clear i was expressing an opinion and concern as an out sider. Based on the behaviours going on and how that reflected on Wikipedia rather then wether or not the article in question was valid.

So again thank you for the ref i will read into it.

I hope this is in the right place. WardedOne (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes user talk pages are for this kind of thing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for self-reverting your edit to Fascism. The RfC is moving in the direction you prefer in any case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, please see [2]. He states that he is the one making the comments there on that Facebook post by Williamson after being prompted to do so there. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No he does not, he did not even post in that thread, the only occurrence of his user name is your outing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Havana syndrome

User_talk:77.100.55.21/Meroitic starts out obscurely and then veers off into conspiratorial rant. Another WP:NOTHERE I think. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jew with a coin has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Slatersteven. Jew with a coin, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 10:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do your research when talking about science fiction

Despite what you said during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Kratman, the late Mack Reynolds was a DeLeonist, raised in the Socialist Labor Party tradition, and no kind of right-winger at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was I had not nominated or voted him him to be deleted as I thought he was right wing, being wrong about that does not invalidate the point. In fact I think it rather reinforces it, as I do not tend to know or care about a writers politics. But it does now mean that I realize that Galactic medal of honor is not as god awfull as I thought it was at first because it is now clear it is satirical.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

books

you can't just reference a page from a book that it virtually impossible to verify and consider the reference clear and not open to a challenge. Prove your citation. I don't beleave the book says what is proposed so I am asing for it to be clarified 86.11.51.106 (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can I suggest you read WP:SOURCEACCESS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't comment WWII, you don't have any idea

"if you held Polish citizenship at the time (in this case between 1939 and 1946) you were Polish" Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So Poland ceased to exist on January the first 1939?Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bardhyl Selimi

Dear Slatersteven, In the span of 30 minutes, you forwarded me with 4 notes on how to improve this article, and then with the notice for deletion. Is it not a bit rush? Articles based on sources from multiple languages take a bit to mature, especially if the aforementioned languages are not too well known or represented in the west. Sincerely Hyrdlak (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

No, as in those 30 minutes you made no real effort to address the notability concerns, rather you began a process of using dubious sources. Moreover the articel is not only 30 minutes old.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just realized, you still are using only primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slatersteven,

1. Yes, it was only 30 min before you called for an improvement, and then slated this article for deletion. It is not a good practice. There is no Wikipedia document providing improvement must be done within half an hour before the proposal for deletion is applied.

2. I wonder whether you know Albanian and Esperanto languages and cultures. I see no articles of yours on this fields. Hence, I propose that your notability concerns in this regard be adjudicated by an editor with a command of both languages and with a good background knowledge of the fields.

3. On the same basis, you are not competent to judge whether the sources are 'dubious.'

4. I do not know about what primary sources you are talking about, apart from the statute of the Albanian Esperanto Association.

5. If people's dates and places of birth unsupported by citations bother you, I'd propose you start with William Shakespeare or Boris Johnson.

6. In light of the aforesaid, you are inexplicably biased and combative. Hence, let us have a competent third editor to decide on this piece and its merits.

Hyrdlak (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak[reply]

Read wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jew with a coin

On 3 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jew with a coin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in some Polish homes, an image of a Jew holding a coin (example pictured, left) hangs to the left of the doorway, and is customarily turned upside down on the Sabbath so that good fortune may fall upon the household? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jew with a coin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jew with a coin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Slatersteven,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account for ‎6YearsTillRetirement

Slatersteven, since my question to 6YearsTillRetirement was erased here [[3]] I thought I would ask you on your page. Did 6Years ever answer your question regarding possible previous accounts? Springee (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have actually not been active for a few weeks. As I recall yes he said he had had not previous registered accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 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 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AAH and editor interaction

I know that you and I haven't had the best interactions in the past, and you haven't a lot of reason to AGF towards me. In any case, I am asking that you do so in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article talk and specifically where it concerns User:CEngelbrecht2. I am trying to point out the obvious outcomes of his behavior - the patterns of which you and I are both all too familiar with. Please give me a chance to work with the user and help them to see a longer view of the cross they have nailed themselves to.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it will de-rail any conversations into tit for tat accusations. Yes his behavior is not conducive to cooperative editing, but the best place to complain is his talk page (or ANI, as I threatened to do if I saw any more PA's from him (another reason as well why I asked everyone to stop at the articles talk page, if he can scream "provocation" or "double standard" it weakens any actual report)).Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, Slatersteven. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my request. Have a good day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Devil Coaster

Hello! You haven't nominated the article properly, since your 2nd nomination merged with the first one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Devil Coaster. You will need to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey Devil Coaster (2nd nomination) manually. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known bug with Page Curation--it can't handle re-nominations. I've made the necessary reverts on the article, the original discussion page, and the daily log. If the article doesn't get G4-speedied, I recommend retrying using Twinkle (or by hand). Thanks for your understanding.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sòrcha Carr

Hello. You haven't nominated the article properly. I've read some of your previous edits, and it's somewhat obvious you seem to delete various wikipedia pages without doing any research (Which is what I can see here). As the page you want to delete has being sourced and clearly follows Wikipedia's rules, I'll be deleting the citation you put on the wikipedia page. Please make sure to do your own research on particular individuals! (Obvious you didn't read the sources, you flagged in less then a minute after the page going up). Many thanks, [User:Foxterria|Foxterria]] (talk) 1:27, 9 October 2019 (NZT)

I read every source, the most any of them say is "...and high school climate change activist Sorcha Carr.". wp:n says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.", less then a line in a photo caption is not "Significant coverage". The only other mention of her is less then this. The two other sources do not mention her by name. This is why it did not take long to check the sources, they do not say anything about her.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/920364865

Just so as to not leave you in the dark regarding Special:Diff/920364865, instead of going into a lengthy decline reason I've just removed it per Wikipedia:Deny recognition. The request is a reference to the perceived magnitude of a subscriber race between PewDiePie and T-Series on YouTube, the former of which was helped in his efforts by another YouTuber, MrBeast. It's become a very dead and quite tiresome meme at this point. Hope you don't mind the removal, of your follow-up question but that's the long and the short of it. Obviously not encyclopedic so as I say, removal and denial of recognition is best or apply user warnings through Wikipedia:Twinkle for recidivists. SITH (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just had no idea what it was, so was not sure if it was a genuine request or not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS

Hey there. I think it was fair, and not tendentious, to note that my original question about due weight of perspective, and when we should use particular language, had been misinterpreted. I haven't replied at the thread and I didn't intend to. Vashti (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting tendentious because its not an MOS issue (which two users have pointed out now) and its drifting way off topic into a discussion about the general rights and wrongs of CIS gender as a term and users conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

If you are referring to the section on territory seized by the Turks, I did not cancel out or revert anybodies edit. Almost everything stayed the same. I just rearranged the words (which remained the same) to give a better flow of the sentence. The only thing that was changed is the number of areas taken from 41 to 39 as per the cited source which counts Tell Abyad and Suluk among the 41. How did I violate 1RR? EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are insistent that "41" needs to remain in the sentence then it can be rearranged that the TAF and their rebels captured 41 towns and villages, including Tell Abyad and Suluk? EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Between, KasimMejia, whose text I rearranged, just sent me a "thanks" for the edit. So he's approving of my edit and I don't see a problem here. EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
changing 41 to 39 is " "An edit...that undoes other editors' actions" this [[4]] also undid another users edits (maybe more then one). Such that looks to me like a 1RR violation. You know thre is a solution, and its not to charge though 1RR "because of accuracy".Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask @KasimMejia: himself if he thinks my actions constituted an undoing of his actions or rather an update of the information to be more precise as per the cited source. As far as the other edit goes, I just used the same source, which was unnecessarily being used twice, to cite it more properly once for the same information. The remaining info that I added (in the notes section) wasn't there to begin with so it was an addition rather than a cancelation of anybodies actions. Between, KasimMejia, whos actions I have allegedly undid, thanked me for that edit as well. If we look at every minor change that has been made to this article in the last 24 hours such as the actions that I did, then you would have to accuse more than half of the article's editors of violating 1RR. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of Ekograf's edit. And Steven, you are reading 1RR wrong. See your message to me today. User talk:KasimMejia#edit war. KasimMejia (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my comments on the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can also ask @El C: who has administrative powers and knowledge of Wikipedia policy if I violated 1RR. But again, I did not undo anybodies actions with the intent of changing the meaning of what they wrote and the editor whose actions I allegedly undid thanked me and approves of my edits. 1RR is not a policy that stops an editor to make more than 1 edit of a sentence that was previously in the day edited by another editor. Multiple updates of the same sentence based on new incoming information is common and encouraged on Wikipedia. Otherwise, if 1RR was implemented in such a way, we would have hundreds of editors blocked on a daily basis. EkoGraf (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is (to my mind) irrelevant if they agreed with your revert, its about even approach. And we do in fact have a policy that says you should not do that, its called wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Dude wow, like what's even the point of this? And @EkoGraf:, can't we just ask an admins opinion on this whether this indeed breaks a rule or not? KasimMejia (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, its an issue that you already voiced on the article's talk page and most editors agree (including me) that irrelevant individual daily information should not be included, but that a summary should. This falls in the category of a summary (how many locations the TAF captured in the operation), especially since its in the infobox. In any case, I have reedited the text so the figure of "41" is in the sentence again, but it clearly notes, as per the cited source, that Tell Abyad and Suluk are among the 41. I would ask that you rather use the article's talk page for any concerns that you may have instead of assuming immediate bad faith from editors like KasimMejia and me. That way, we may resolve any disputes that may arise and find proper solutions to the situation with the participation of the whole community that is contributing to the article. @KasimMejia:, as noted above, I have already pinged @El C: for his opinion on the situation. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that can still be added, the next day when we know what has happened, we do not need half hourly updates. As I said, this is about what happens when the POV pushers really get going. We lead by example, that means we must obey 1RR, else we cannot enforce it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updates of older information with new information during a 24 hour period is not a violation of 1RR/3RR. At least, I have never seen it practiced in such a way since I started editing Wikipedia many years ago. And I have watched many disputes of this kind. If an administrator deems that an update is also a revert/undoing then fine, you will see me make only one edit per 24 hours on the article. PS I do agree that 1RR or 3RR has to be inforced on highly volatile articles such as this one so edit wars can be avoided. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR does not preclude one from making bold edits, such as changing a number to another number. The change has to reverse something to a previous version. El_C 15:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So (and to be clear) whilst changing to a new number (say) would not be a revert, changing to an old one would be?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another (tougher, and more pertinent) question. In a fluid situation like a war events can change hourly (such as who blocks a road). How do we tell the difference between a genuine "update" (as in the situation has changed) and just someone edit warring (because they do not like what they see)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring has to, by definition, involve reverts — which themselves pertain to a reversal of an edit to a previous version. Yes, changing to a new number would be a bold edit, whereas changing back to an old number would be a revert. El_C 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Slatersteven, you have been amazingly patient. Kudos, it is appreciated! starship.paint (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinehouse Photography Club

Good morning. Thank u for your opinion on the page. Your comment about nobility; WP:NOTTEMPORARY wp:NTEMP This is my first page created - sucks having it up for deletion when when it was, it barely had ant content or references as it has now. I want to reference more but user who put it up for deletion is proposing coi Wondering if you can supply me any insight or help on the matter please :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreerwin (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see a number of users have said there is no COI, and you have denied it. As such you can ignore this, but if you do and there is A COI you could get a block. One answer is to suggest any edits and sources on the articles talk page, and just let other edds add it. wp:rs and wp:n would be worth a read, as (due to the allegation wp:coi).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I first joined, I created my own personal page - didnt add anything and didnt know the rules. Same user been on my case since then. I even linked the Pinehouse Photography Club to me, obvious coi but like I said, I didnt know the rules, I was just thinking I needed to put down the truth. I wish I could go back and read the rules first and never add me to it, and this discussion would never be happening. I'll take your advice thank u for your time :)--Dreerwin (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&oldid=921579310"