User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2017/January

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Slatersteven. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War
Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles
Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I
Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I can play this game too

Please do not accuse other users of bias or assume bad faith. it is against policy and can lead to bans. Would you like to send me to Siberia as well? Boab (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Have I, when?Slatersteven (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reported Boab at ANI. He has been completely useless since August 31. If his behavior at the Snopes.com article is any indication, he's gone WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the ANI yet, as I want to give him a chance to withdraw this tit for tat accusation and prove he can edit in a non contentious way. Also I have not been involved in the Snoopes article, so I feel it would be wrong to link that to my disputes with him.Slatersteven (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't involved either until today, but looking it over, it's all the same behavior we're seeing at Alex Jones and more. It's nice of you to want to try to fix him, but several other editors have been trying for months. It's fine if you don't want to comment, letting you know. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather moot now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Essex: 'ceremonial county'

Hi, I noticed that you made a comment on the Essex talk page, but then deleted it, saying 'still not sure'. I thought I'd reply here as you have deleted what you previously wrote there. Essex County Council used to cover the entire county of Essex. As a result of recent changes, Thurrock and Southend have been made into unitary authorities, with councils that in each case is the equivalent of a county council. However, that doesn't mean that Southend, for example, is no longer in Essex. It seems sensible to me that the article refers to these matters and explains how governance operates within the county. There was a similar issue with Kent and the new unitary authority of Medway. Thus, Rochester is still in Kent (ceremonial county), but for the purposes of governance it is in the Medway unitary authority. While unitary authorities operate like county councils, they are not in themselves counties in the traditional sense. Dubmill (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason I am still not sure (yes I am aware of what you said) is that the article also refers to the political make up (such as who run what) and thus does not "only talk about the ceremonial county). If the article is about the ceremonial county why are matters of governance in the info box (such as who control the county council). I was going to drop the issue, but do not like the implication I do not know what a unitary authority is.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, but I thought maybe you weren't sure of the distinction. I don't understand what you mean about the infobox. It contains information about the county including its governance. Why do you consider that to be a problem? Dubmill (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Because it is not about it's governance, it is about the ceremonial country, as it reads an uniformed reader might think that Southend (for example) is also conservative controlled (after all they are part of Essex and it is run by the torries). We need to also include southends and thourcks governance in the info box (as the article is not about Essex the political body) or remove reference to who runs Essec CC as it has nothing to do with the "ceremonial country".Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the infobox isn't at all satisfactory. It is divided into sections, including a small section on the unitary authorities that is separate from the section above it on the non-metropolitan county (county council). I agree that it is problematic that the county council's administration (Conservative) is given, but which political parties are in power in Thurrock and Southend is not stated. I think that's because the section within the infobox for those unitary authorities has been added as an afterthought. It should probably be expanded to include the information about political affiliation. Either that or, as you say, remove the mention of political affiliation of the CC. Dubmill (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we are in general agreement, I think all reference to governance in the info box should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Tit for tat ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if you act like that you will get mocked. That is life. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Result.

No. This is clearly an attempt to "trade punches" and is on the verge of violating WP:POINT. ANI is not a game, and we're not going to play. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Closed (no action).

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works
Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I
Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

talk page is there to talk right?

thats what I am doing, I am not trying to "push" anything, I am pointing out why it is wrong to say "its debunked" while it clearly is not. you can write alleged child sex ring, which would be more fitting instead of "debunked". debunked means clearly fake theory without any reasonable doubt. that single creepy email which I copied is more than enough. and there are hundreds more similar to that. and dont threaten me with block because I asked questions on the talk page.

Lets look at your logic, why would someone tell someone else they had left a handkerchief behind.

Well for a start "Look I am a sales person who really cares about you as a client", and yes I happen to work for somewhere that would contact someone over lost property for that very reason. That is far more logical then "map of a Pizzaplace" being code for "buggering children". And remember I am not talking about supposition here, I am talking about actual personal experience (and thus this is a fact). The E-mail was not creepy, it was just overzealous, but then they were trying to sell him a house.

And yes RS have no doubt this is a fake theory (with very good reason), the only thing that has not been proven beyond any doubt to be false are claims that words like Pizza, Ice cream and cheese are codes (would you want the police to read your e-mails if they assumes the use of any of these words were code pedophilia?). that (however) has also not be proven to even a slight degree of believably (see above).

And I did not threaten you with a block, I said you might be blocked if you continue on the course you were taking (and you did indeed end up with a warning).Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

there are a lot of connections in the smoke. and obviously you cant easily prove it as they probably own the media you want to hear from. but I am looking forward to the day when this will be public information then we will yet again witness how unreliable wiki is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the email? It clearly say (and I quote) "The realtor found a handkerchief" note realtor (a person who sells real estate) not "pizza guy" (and the same e-mail contains this "yorus"). So as to the second e-mail, ever heard of typos? Hell you may well be right, maybe it is a code so can you show how this has been decoded? For all you know it may be code for a political campaign, or underhand bribe, or a typo. How can I take your claims seriously when you ignore your own evidence.

The simple fact is you (nor anyone else) has provide more then a claim it refers to pedophilia. I have provide equally valid explanations. So until someone comes up with some actual evidence we can asses it is not a valid theory. Thus all that has to be debunked is the actual evidence provided.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)