User talk:Slatersteven

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

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "".The discussion is about the topic Talk:British Empire. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Diablo del Oeste (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You have linked to the wrong page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


What would you like to discuss? It is pointless to have multiple articles for different aliases of the same organisation. What is the nature of your objection? Ishbiliyya (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My objections is to merges that have not been discussed or justified in accordance with policy. This need to be discussed over at the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

summary is inherently wp:synthesis[edit]

Regarding this edit: I'm not clear that the point of David did hit on something there, summary IS inherently wp:synthesis. But that's a different policy page. :-) [1] is that creating new text can, but not necessarily, be original research. But in any case I think both your and my viewpoints have been adequately expressed. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)ame words" (successfully).Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I know what you may have deleted accidentally from your response, but I'll let you sort it out. (Looking at the deleted text, I don't think I agree with your interpretation, as I don't think the connotations are there for it in the two sentences, but we can agree to disagree.) I meant to also tell you that I think some wikitext got deleted at the top of your talk page. I went back a few edits to try to figure it out, but didn't go back far enough. isaacl (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I gave up trying to find it too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit made an addition that seems to have caused the problem. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem was (and is) this was after multiple attempts to get the damn archive to work, so I gave up.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This earlier edit seems to have made the archive box go away (presumably because the archivebox parameter was deleted). isaacl (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Restored comment

I think what is being said if that if you want to take the most extreme interpretation of policy literally it would be (indeed I seem to recall just that argument being used "well I know the source says Car, but this article is about automobiles, and they are not the seem words" (successfully).Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Facebook ad was from HPSCI website saved to Wikicommons[edit]

Please explain the issue you have or revert your edit. The source is Wikicommons, which has detailed info including why the source is public, in this case, US government public disclosure. If you like I can cite the HPSCI website directly, but the info is at wiki commons, which I think is how Wikipedia prefers sourcing to be done. I think if there is an issue with sourcing it should be handled at wikicommons where the file is archived. This is the Wikicommons page Geo8rge (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Then site it directly, I am also unsure what exactly this adds to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


Thanks to review Neelanjana Ray. Would you please make it available on google so that people can get relevent result from Wikipedia. I hope you'll surely do. I shall be highly oblige to you. Thank you for your co-operation. Do reply me back. Midbro (talk)

I have no idea how to make it available on google, sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

toy solders[edit]

“toy solders” or “toy sellers” or “toy soldiers” ? --Nomen4Omen (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

“toy soldiers”.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


There are some typos here I was going to fix, but I'll leave it to you!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


Hey there. I think you can get your talk page's archive box working again by applying this edit. Regards, – Þjarkur (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Except for the fact that I think this kind of thing caused the problem last time, a cut and paste where (to remove excess characters) something was altered. HBut thanks for the suggestion, frankly (frankly I just got right royally pissed of with trying to fix it) I gave up on it long ago. But I may give it a go when I feel up to it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Error on page[edit]

At the top of this talk page you have a section that is throwing HTML errors. For example, it currently reads:

| search = <yes|no>
| collapsible = <yes|no>
| collapsed = <yes|no>
| box-width = <#px or #em>

You need to replace <yes|no> with yes or no and <#px or #em> with a with a width in px or em. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That did not work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You wrote collapsible = <yes> and box-width = <#em100> Try collapsible = yes and box-width = 100em
The easiest way to set it up is to do what it says at Template:Archive_box:
"For actual examples of the use of this template, use the what links here link in the toolbox on the sidebar, near the top on the left side of this page."
Or you can go there directly with
I always do this when setting up a template. I copy and paste a working example from another page that uses the template (be sure to do both the cutting and the pasting from the edit box!) and tweaking it as needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I copy and pasted it, and I cannot be arsed with it now, I really do have better things to do..Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, why the fuck (as that is all I wanted) did I have to paste that wall of text, when about 4 lines if enough?Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
And this is what caused this in the first place, I had a working archive, it was just not searchable, and now that has gone. Last time I copy and pasted all my old stuff back into talk and let it get archived again. Now bollocks to it, its a convenience for other users, not me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I set up the box, but I need to figure out how to point it to your archive pages listed at
I will have it all sorted shortly. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
As to why all of this is so hard, there are certain individuals at the WMF who have zero clue about writing user-friendly software, and a bunch of editors who dismiss any complaints about usability with "hey, I figured it out. Why shouldn't everyone else go through the shit I waded through?" --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked for help at Wikipedia:Help_desk#HTML Error on a userpage. Just ignore me and any updates I post here for a while. I will make sure that it is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought I heard a noise?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Move along. Nothing to see here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be working fine now. Keep an eye on it when your next autoarchive happens and drop me a line on my talk page if it dooesn't show up in the box properly. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Some people can become scared about the most bizarre things. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really all that interested, as long as they treat me with the respect and assumptions of good faith they demand they can hide in a cave for all I care....Mmm this is really not a good thing to discuss, so lets stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Posted on my Commons user talk page 10 minutes before your post above: There are only two genders. "Singular they" is incorrect English. Fascist freaks like you should literally all be rounded up and shot.
The timing makes me believe that this is someone watching the Wikipedia discussions we have been involved with.
If you, or anyone else that reads this, can think of any information that may help positively identify the puppet master for User:Oisehuck, or other accounts that have made death threats directed at me in the last couple of months and made offensive claims about non-binary gender, I would appreciate a confidential email or you can contact m:Meta:WMF Support and Safety without talking to me if you prefer.
Thanks in advance for any help or evidence you can provide. -- (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Report it to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I have now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I normally just ignore them and an admin pops along and suppresses them. However the long term pattern is of concern, this is someone who uses multiple language Wikipedias to troll me, so they are not just a schoolboy. -- (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No one who makes PA's (or death threats) should be ignored, they do not (in my experience) go away, they just get worse until they end up pissing off even the people who keep on backing them (and then end up, with a great gashing of teeth and rending of hair) getting banned.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
As noted at ANI (now removed), the process outlined at WP:EMERGENCY is to email the WMF emergency list at Special:EmailUser/Emergency (I've already done that), and then to reach out privately to an admin, in this case a Commons admin, to seek further action. Publicizing the threat on a high-traffic page like ANI isn't usually a good idea (though eminently understandable). Writ Keeper  15:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
As I do not really edit commons I had no idea where to go or what to do. But felt this was serious enough to need some action take. Especially as it was raised (and indeed help was asked for) here and not at Wiki Commons.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be best if in future any issues over at commons are not raised on my talk page. I am not an admin, and any way what happens there is not actionable here (even if I were an admin here). The correct place to raise it is at Commons.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 14:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks but I am diabetic.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


Please review the page which recently I've created i.e. Ishita Vishvakarma. Thanks and please give your valuble feedback. Midbro (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson[edit]

Please don't add or restore tabloid journalism to articles on living people. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware it is an RS, I may not agree (and you may not) but that (as far as I know) is what the community has said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
If you are not sure, maybe ask at WP:BLPN? To me it's pretty clear that the Mirror is not a good source. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
BLPN is not where questions about reliability are asked, RSN is, and it has been discussed many times. If you want to start one up again go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No thanks, I am fine. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Then stop saying it is not an RS. Either take it to a noticeboard and get a finding in your favour or stop.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That isn't how it works. If you want to include it, you do the work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Err, that is about proving a source says something, are you saying this source does not support the text? It goers on to talm about RS, but the DAily Mirror has not been found to not be an RS [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If you're so confident that it's necessary to include it in the article, I don't know why you won't take it to BLPN. If you'e not confident, or have any doubts, it's right and proper to leave it out. I am fine either way, but it isn't just going to get edit-warred back in. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you now accept this was not a violation of policy, and was not a BLP violation?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not, how many people do you want to tell you its not a BLP violation?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand on how my original source on the page was "Un-reliable" considering that the Rebel were stating a FACT in a video buuuuuuut okay. I re-did the edit and added a link from their website. Wclifton968 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Wclifton968


Thanks for visiting and giving helpful advice. I am trying to make up with the editor. I do not like friction. I sent the editor my apologies. Lubbad85 () 15:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Its not worth a block. I get your frustration, we have had (that is to say me and the user) many spats over the years. But they have a lot of friends here, and what you did was just giving them ammo (and was wrong, anyway).Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

John Smelcer[edit]

Hey - Thanks for your work on the Smelcer article. My guess would be that you've made the perfectly understandable error of thinking that Canadian First Nations law applies to Alaska, when of course it is US law that matters. I was wondering if after considering this you might agree to revert to my original footnote regarding tribal enrollment across the US as well as specifically in Alaska? The Alaskan situation catches out even experts familiar with the operation of citizenship laws in the Lower 48, which is why I was trying to make it an expansive explanation in a footnote. I don't want to get into any kind of hostile revert situation, so won't roll back unless you agree.Vizjim (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been more clear, and that we should only have one nations law But you are right I did get a bit confused as to which nation.Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Maho Film[edit]

Slatersteven, you tagged the Maho Film page for speedy deletion nomination at 11:57, but @RHaworth directly deleted it just SEVEN MINUTES LATER! I mean seriously, just SEVEN MINUTES!!! I even didn't get a chance to expand the article or explain!!! -- Unnamelessness 12:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Well you need to talk to them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Slatersteven,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources in a foreign language[edit]

Hey, just a quick question. The article Açaí palm had an unsourced claim about the origin of the name açaí, fortunately the Portuguese Wikipedia had a good source! I decided to add it to the article, but the source is a dictionary from 20 years ago with no available copy online. When filling out the citation I wrote down its English name (Aurélio Dictionary) as opposed to the Portuguese name (Novo Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa). Was that the right call? Should sources be localized when possible? Alex.osheter (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say use the name people will look for in order to verify.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The English name has a Wikipedia page, and that page has the ISBN (albeit, of a different edition). Alex.osheter (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I would stick with the title of the one you are using, as any differences between editions will cause confusion and unneeded questioning of the source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
They all share the same name, just different editions (first edition, second edition) and this is stated clearly in the citation. I meant inside the article you can find the ISBN of one edition :) Alex.osheter (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I still think it is best to use the original name, that is what it will most likely be found under if people look.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. Thank you! Alex.osheter (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Update: it's done. Alex.osheter (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the appropriate scope of our timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG talk 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


... don't template the regulars. A template saying "Welcome to Wikipedia" to someone who has given this projects thousands of articles in eight years ... - shaking head. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I never look at who created the article, I should I now realize. I just always assumed that an experienced edd would not have posted such a small stub.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I often do, when I don't have time at the moment. I get away with it because I am autopatrolled. LouisAlain is no more, because some others templated him with moving to draft, often enough. Do me a favour: Before AfD, there's PROD. In both cases, before using a template, look at least superficially at a user talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This person is clearly notable, I easily found two sources via Google which I think everybody else could also find. I think to check that would be a minimum courtesy before AfD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I did a search and this was my first page [[3]], which as far as I can see does not include the hit you found, or in fact one hit I would consider established notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a hit on that first page, but perhaps you don't read German. In which case perhaps "What links here" is a better friend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Which is odd because I cannot find it on the lists of hits above. But then I am sure you know that not all users get the same hits.Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, probably not all user get the same. I wonder who will write that article now that it was deleted as copyvio. In the end it's me, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your third opinion on the language thing, but to be fair, the source does specifically mention Spanish. From the first paragraph of page 139: "The estimate 5,000 Falkland Islanders speak English, the official language of the islands, with many also speaking Spanish or other languages." OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the wrong passage which talked about "the major language is standard English". It might be best to leave as is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Ybsone[edit]

Hey Slater!

So, I sometimes lurk on AN/I to learn what the latest drama is figure out what disruptions to the project I should expect in the near future.

I wanted to comment that I do not think a 48 hour block is going to be the best solution moving forward. It's rather clear to me that Ybsone is here to build an encyclopedia and wants this mess to be over. They just don't seem to get the lingo nor some of our obscure internal processes. In all but naming the essay, they are trying to communicate that the reporting user is trying to WP:BLUDGEON the ANI thread by muddying the waters. Given the personal attacks made against Ybsone and Vauxford... My suggestion would be a one-way WP:IBAN to prevent further harassment. U1Quattro clearly has a checkered record [4] and listed themselves as semi-retired. One-way should end the disruption. –MJLTalk 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The 48 hour ban is just to stop the ANI war. I are there may be language issues involved, but I always dislike one way IBANS, and would rather any IBAN was two way. I am also somewhat concerned about the fact that neither user is dropping it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
A no-fault 2-way IBAN would be a bit more helpful than a 48 hour CBAN imo (because I am more concerned about the disruption to the mainspace). Just wanted to chirp here. –MJLTalk 17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You were kind to an editor who was struggling. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Bryna Kra[edit]

Since your wrote on WP:BLP/N that we should only use "third party reliable sources", I wondered if in your opinion this notice of the American Mathematical Society is a reliable third-party source for the full date of birth and place of birth? And if so, could you please edit the article accordingly? I won't touch that biography anymore. --bender235 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Pro tip: if you're going to complain that we're lacking AGF in overwhelmingly rejecting your attempts to rewrite Wikipedia policy to allow you to add irrelevant information to BLPs against the article subject's wishes, trying to get someone else to do your dirty work for you without making them aware of the unanimous consensus against doing so—and consequently putting them in a position where they will get in trouble for disruption on the basis of a good-faith attempt to help you—is probably not the way to convince us. ‑ Iridescent 19:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
IN a rather long and rambling thread I was not aware the subject had objected to their DOB being made public (and this sources seems to have done it anyway). Could you point out where they have objected?Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually I would like to know that, too. Iridescent, where did the subject (Bryna Kra) object to her DOB being included on Wikipedia? @Slatersteven: the reason I wrote you is because, by WP:3RR, I am not supposed to edit Bryna Kra anymore. But parsing Iridescent words, I assume the article is a landmine now. I don't want to put you in trouble, so ignore my wish from above. --bender235 (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Iridescent will ever bother to further comment on this issue. I presume we simply operate under the assumption that although Kra gave her full date of birth to the AMS to have it published, she somehow opposes to have it appear on Wikipedia. And we'll further convince ourselves that censoring Kra's date of birth on Wikipedia significantly increases her protection from identity theft, because obviously Eve the Identity Thief would not figure out to google her hame, where her full date of birth appears in the Knowledge Graph. --bender235 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


I mention you in this comment about the TeleSUR RfC at Juan Guaidó. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For excellence on WP[edit]

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
for being the voice of reason and editing excellently on Wikipedia Lubbad85 () 22:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You deleted your comment before I could reply[edit]

so might as well bring this here.

The exact quote was Can we please just not bring every tiny little thing here? Lubbad85 please don't do that anymore. That is a clear indication to Lubbad not to do what he had been doing, and a less serious urging to me not to rely on ANI as much as I had been. But given how reluctant I've been to take any dispute to ANI for years now, and how I have generally only resorted it to when the other party reaches a point of questioning my mental state and/or that basement comment, it is pretty difficult to take seriously the idea that I have been taking "every tiny little thing" there.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes post PA's, that is what the ANI was about.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but what about dog-whistles like the "D-Day's coming up -- but let's not forget about those sneaky Japanese!" suddenly appearing on the user page of an editor with apparently pretty poor English skills (hence the good-faith copyvio) and who therefore probably hasn't noticed that my user page clearly states that I'm not myself ethnically Japanese? And all the stuff at the Gould AFD and on the ARS "rescue list"? Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with that ANI, which was about making PA's. As to suddenly showing up on his user page...I suggest you drop this line of accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


I started the discussion on Wicka wicka. I forgot my tidles, sorry! GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, done it myself. But it made me think it was launched by him for a bit, it confused the hell out of me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


Hi Slatersteven. Please oblige me - why do you comment so much at ANI? I'm just curious and do not imply any wrongdoing at all on your part. starship.paint (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No particular reason beyond I do not like to see too much BS (for example calls for unspecific bans that users admit they are not even sure what they are choosing). It seems to me (too often) bad behavior is excused whilst not as bad behavior is punished (in fact I think I am seeing an example now, not on ANI I will point out) of a user who has figured out that if you make yourself really useful in one area you can misbehave in others), and yes I do mean punished which is not what sanctions should be about.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Slatersteven! Good luck with that. starship.paint (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

NPA note[edit]

"I summon you to comradeship in the Red Cross" - Woodrow Wilson LCCN2002712070.tif

Note though, I don't consider being called a socialist to be a personal attack. I'm quite open about my political POV and put those multitudinous infoboxes on my userpage for a reason. ;) But yeah, claiming good faith while using phrases like slander repeatedly in edit summaries, demanding Wikipedia engage local courts and threatening to canvas the subject organization don't make for a convincing appeal.Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Its not the calling you a a socialist, its the using it to dismiss your opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair. I just think it's amusing when people try to use that against me. Next they'll be saying, "how can you edit articles on the Tang dynasty when you're anti-monarchist?!?!?!" Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
That is why it is listed as a PA, where would it end "Ohh your Polish", "ohh you support the other towns team". I also have never understood why "socialist" is an insult, but then I am British (which may mean I should not edit articles about France).Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Julia Stewart (businesswoman)[edit]

Hey Slatersteven, I have been editing on Stewart's article and have been searching for about the last hour on her net worth ~ I can't find anything (on google ~ which is what I use) ~ google ~ except a lot of old news from her applebee's days ~ but wallmine is at the top ~ what do you suggest ~ thanks~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really a lot I can say other then that raises concerns as to her notability. Beyond that all I can say is keep looking.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis[edit]

You've now removed much more information from this article than it had before I ever touched it. I'll add some back while hopefully not setting off an alarm for undue weight. Keizers (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Do not, make a case on the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, just saw this and already made the edit. Look Steven, I just restored information that was there before I touched the page recently. I kept it succinct. Within the community interested in the content on the Location hypotheses of Atlantis page, these edits are uncontroversial. Remember, the revert that you did removed content that was originally there (content that I had removed to make the "child" article), and restored dead links. What I did just cleans it up. Keizers (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The material was removed as overly detailed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not attack me on your user page[edit]

This is a pretty unambiguous reference to me. I would appreciate you removing it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also this reference to User:Rdfox 76 (per your edit 25 minutes earlier) is probably also out of line. You should remove it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
You might be right about the latter, not the former. But neither name any one user (and I believe it was you who stated that if you do not name a user its not a PA). In fact whilst both were inspired by a given user (neither of them you) both (and especially the first) reference what I have seen on multiple user pages. But you are right, the second was clearly inspired the the actions of one user, and thus might be inappropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind disclosing the name of the specific user who claimed to be "RETIRED AND ON A WIKI BREAK" despite continuing to edit? I've done what you and others no doubt perceive as exactly that a number of times in the last few months, but always with mitigating circumstances like that I really didn't want to be editing but people kept posting messages on my talk page (what happened in mid-May), and so on. User:Hijiri88/Only in retirement does duty not to say "retired" end is an example of an appropriate way of addressing common trends without singling out a specific user, and while I'm sure you could go back through my user page's history to locate the moment I added that you could then look around at who I was conflicting with at the time to say I was talking about them, the fact of the matter is that at no time have I not had both "friends" and "enemies" who I could have been talking about with that user box, and it's just a statement of my sincere belief on the matter, regardless of who might be at the butt of that belief: yours is a sarcastic attack on either some specific individual you disagree with or some group of individuals you disagree with. And, again, it really looks like you're talking about me, so if you are going to claim that you are talking about someone else I would appreciate your specifying whom. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I also find it hypocritical to call me out for a vague reference that might apply to a number of users as an attack whilst your page is about a third is taken up with direct comments about other users. Maybe if you acted as you wished others to treat you would would not find yourself in these kinds of situation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Umm... citation needed? My user page is extremely long, and while I do have a lot of "pet peeves" and "random observations", virtually all the identifiable users specifically mentioned (or even linked through diffs) are no longer a part of the community as a result of their having been site-banned. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait... I just checked, and User:Hijiri88/Articles I wrote is currently 54,223 bytes (most of which is in space-consuming tables), while my main user page without that subpage transcluded is a little under 36,519 bytes (most of which is prose and so takes up less space on the screen) -- did you just scroll down to where the transcluded part began, look at the position of the scroll bar (roughly a third of the way down the screen) and assume that everything on my main user page consisted of "direct comments about other users"?? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant, as some of them are still active, and (as I say) if you do not consider it a problem as long as you do not name a user then why should it be a problem if I do it? As I said if you want to be treated with respect treat others with the same respect.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you even read any of what I wrote above? Your response does not make it look like you did. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
It does not matter if most of the identifiable users are no longer active, some are. It does not matter (in fact) if all the identifiable users are no longer active, the fact is the comment you claim is about you is not (it may apply to you, but it can equally apply to any number of users who I have interacted with in the last month. Thus is no different from all those comments on your user page where you do not name anyone, but if you knew the history of your conflicts might jump to conclusions about who you are referring to. Now you you want to refactor your user page so that it contains no comments about users (even indirect ones) you will have a right to lecture me about my user page contents that refer to user actions. But until then this conversation is over.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the second time you've dodged the question. You said it was inspired by a specific user, not me, and I asked you to name that user. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)

───────────────────────── 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Slatersteven, your problematic behavior continues, most recently at WP:ANI#IBAN violations by U1Quattro and then at User talk:U1Quattro after the editor was blocked. Consider this your last warning. To be safe, I strongly suggest that you don't post at all at any administrative noticeboards unless required to do so or you are starting a new thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
May I be permitted to ask what was wrong with those comments?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Slatersteven,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.


Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.


The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.


Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Regarding this edit: did you mean not only should a banned/blocked user not be able to use? (For simplicity I made the smallest change to the passage to say what I think you meant, but I would probably reword it to avoid the double negative.) isaacl (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

yes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Arghya Bose[edit]

Greetings, Slatersteven,

I was over at AFD and noticed a blue link on a supposedly speedily-deleted article you nominated for AFD, Arghya Bose. I don't know if this is a case of G4 or not, as I didn't see the previous version, but I thought that perhaps you could make a determination. Thanks! CThomas3 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Arghya Bose[edit]

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)

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)
also this seems to be your sole contribution of Wikipedia, do you have a wp:coi?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have a Cthulhu myself, I keep it in a local building[edit]

No, that is not mine, it's for everybody. But I do have one, not plush but worth £14.99 according to label. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A thank you[edit]

MediatorBarnstar.png The Mediator Barnstar
For intervening in LGBT symbols, putting in place a compromise, and helping to facilitate conversation on both sides. Edit warring could've gone on, but I feel you helped in providing the opportunity for either side to explain their side. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is obviously not-yet resolved, but I think it makes sense to award this anyways. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source[edit]

This portion of my website is based on data provided by manufacturer and everyone can verify it's values.
Alfa 147, 156, 159, 166, GT production dates
ePer programme provided by manufacurer to search for spare parts that also shows data about particular VINs, like production date. Please type in VINs from the site above to verify it for Yourself. VIN can also, and was, be verified by Centro Documentazione, but right now they ask for payment for each 'certificate'. This data is used on those 4 websites: Alfa Romeo 156 Alfa Romeo V6 engine Alfa Romeo 166 Alfa Romeo 159. Truthfulness of provided information seems to be clouded by the title of the website alone.
To not use this information would for example change production date of Alfa 166 from correct 1996 to incorrect 1998. Looks familiar? YBSOne (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Then we would use those websites, I could now post something here that is accurate (the sea is wet), it dies not make anything else said here as RS. Doubts have been raised about this source (and you yourself said you would remove it until it had been discussed at RSN). No such discussion has been started so until it has been found to by RS complainant it is in doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note, a paywall does not prevent a site being used as an RS, so the fact the information is behind a paywall is irrelevant, we still would use the RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I did remove most of the instances of this website's use, so not to give people ammunition, and left only those cites that cannot be removed because it would create false information. This portion of a website used as a source, first to that.. Please explain the 'paywall' reference. YBSOne (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That is irrelevant, if information is incorrect use the fact or CN tag, if you said you would remove all instance of its use that is what you should have done. Multiple users (and I seem to recall a couple of admins) have told you that your use of your own website for information you wish to add is iffy (at best).Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Paywall refers to this "but right now they ask for payment for each 'certificate'". I am not sure what relevance this site has, but if the issue is "paywall" it is a non issue. Again if an RS says X, we cite the RS, not some website that references it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Centro Documentazione is a historical institution created by Alfa Romeo, like Museo Storico Alfa Romeo. They handle all the historic documents etc. Fiat has Archivio Storico Fiat and so on.YBSOne (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So then they are the RS, and being behind a paywall is irrelevant, we use that as the source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
And its free alternative is the ePer site. Easy to use, same data, same source and free. YBSOne (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Now if RSN decides your website is RS, we can use it. If however it finds it is not RS all (that is ALL) instances of it must be removed, factually accurate or not. Until then its RS status is in doubt and so all instances of it (even if factually accurate) must (at the very minimum) be tagged. There is nothing more to say on this here, so suggest we close this. As to the new website, different website different issue, it is not relevant so take it to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[edit]

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

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)