User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 11

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit Reversion on 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes
Hi, I've reverted your revert. I agree including location is helpful, but here in this case it's unnecessary, as it's already in the title. And your revert reinstated the 90 charactered shortdesc, which is almost double the recommended size. Thanks. A hat e  d  ( talk! ) 10:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No its not, as Kashmir is divided between two nations. We need to be clear they did not drop bombs in their own part. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks for improving it further. It's much better than previous two. Thanks A hat  e  d  ( talk! ) 11:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, actually it is. Please see Kashmir (disambiguation). Pakistani one is known as Azad Kashmir and Indian one is known as Jammu and Kashmir. And secondly did you just violated the 1RR imposed on the page? I see there is an ARB imposed on the page, which stops us to do second revert. A hat  e  d  ( talk! ) 11:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is a quick description for people who have not read those articles. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I am unsure there is a 1RR limit. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact "Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes" might read like attacks in two places to anyone not up on the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Request
This Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan terrorist group banned in many countries, but only few are mentioned in article info-box can you please add remaining countries by importing from Designated as a terrorist group, I'm requesting you here because this page is Extended confirmed protected. 103.141.159.229 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please...
Could you please stop reverting me like this ? That feels a bit hostile. If you disagree, you may just manually undo what I did. Please note that I'm the one who put the "2019" date, as the page originally said June 22 2018. I'm pretty sure that 2019 is incorrect so I'm trying to fix this. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You being "pretty sure" is not enough, you need RS conforming it, please read wp:or and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said I originally put the June 22 2019 date, so allow me to feel responsible for what I think is a mistake. Psychloppos (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What does the fact that you name a mistake last time tell you? This is why we do not use OR, we can get things wrong. Also I doubt your source for this is an RS. Find an RS to confirm it, or remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was convinced that I had put the 2019 date, but apparently that was an IP and not me. My bad. Anyway, I found a source stating that he did die in 2018. As for his exact birth date, we do not have very reliable sources either (and this time, I'm pretty sure I had nothing to do with this) except a Youtube video in which he said that his birthday is September 17. Psychloppos (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but you can't use youtube videos as a source unless they are by recognized subject experts (and maybe not even then). Certainly not by a self-appointed judge. You need to read wp:rs and wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didnt' add that video myself. The video I did add today was the one published by his disciple about the date of his death, and I only considered using that one because I had seen that a Youtube video was used as a source for his birthday. Psychloppos (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say you did add it, I said it was not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I just removed it. And sorry about the above confusion: I have no idea why I was conviced that I had added the 2019 date of death. Anyway, now we have a source stating that he did die in 2018, and the June 22 2018 date seems to be confirmed by several clues: we just need to have a reliable source for this, and for his exact birth date as well. Psychloppos (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

wtf
excuse me, what the fuck is this? If not a mistake thats grounds for an indefinite blocking.  nableezy  - 16:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, must be some bizarre cut-and-paste error. After all I am agreeing with you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That edit would be very out of character for Slatersteven. It appears to be an inadvertent error. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how it even occurred, as I would not have edited his signature. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All good, if nothing ill intended nothing ill taken.  nableezy  - 21:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

WW1 article
Hello Slatersteven !

I wrote multiple long compound sentences which required even more references to became a fairly well supported text. Why did you revert my edits? Thank you for your reply! Cheers!--Longsars (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I was unsure your edits were supported by wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Authors are academically highly skilled economic historians. Check their names and their academic careers. Longsars (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take it to RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm just telling, the value of their texts have not even comparable weight with the opinion of an average (layman) Wiki editor. Longsars — Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to make a case at the articles talk page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The references are from these persons:

Stephen Gross: Associate Professor of History & European Studies Stephen Gross.

Prof Ágnes Pogány: Professor of econonomic history, Corvinus University of Budapest

Prof Martin Horn Professor in the History department at McMaster University

Assistant Professor Nicholas Mulder Cornell University Assistant Professor of Modern European History in the Department of History.

Mr. Slatersteven, May I ask you, which university do you teach at and what is your title?--Longsars (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would Slatersteven need to be a university professor to know the details of sourcing policy on Wikipedia? Why would it help him to be one? Wikipedia editors should not be evaluating the merits of sources based on content. They should be evaluating the sources based on the provenance and adherence of the source to WP:RS. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this needs to be discussed at the articles talk page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
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) 08:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas
Greetings.

I wanted to post some info at Talk:Project Veritas, but my account seems to be too new for that. I see that you have made quite a few edits to the article, so I thought you might be interested in this.

Apparently, PBS considers Project Veritas to be a reliable source. At least, reliable enough that PBS did not want to continue employing one of its lawyers after he was shown saying certain controversial things in a Project Veritas video.

In my opinion, this speaks highly in favor of the reliability of Project Veritas. PBS is usually praised by people on the political left, the very same people who claim that Project Veritas is not reliable.

I present these three sources, and ask that you consider adding to the Project Veritas article based on this content, if you think this content is notable enough to deserve being included.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-entertainment-coronavirus-pandemic-8f586d687ab332777a7a059457ff818e

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/pbs-lawyer-resigns-caught-veritas-sting-75208013

https://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/pbs-public-editor/pbs-addresses-project-veritas-video/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You really need to suggest this at the articles talk page. There other eyes can look at this as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see I just had to wait four days. Thanks for your feedback and comments. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert warning citations
Please specify by link the three revert examples you refer to at American Civil War that justifies sending me a Revert Warning with your threat to ban me there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't ban you anywhere, I can only report you if you breach 3RR, I posted the waning before you breached it, as it was just that, a warning you might be about to breach it. So it would give you a chance to step back. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's your notice. Bully.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A bit late, and this will be added, are you trying to get a block? Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS. YOU WIN.
You successfully cyberbullied me. I deleted MY topic on the qanon page talk. I deleted my PM page. And I'm closing this up and leaving. Because that's the only thing left to do with a cyberbully like you. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How? by asking you to obey our rules? Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within out guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me try it another way, look how I worded the question as Qanon. That is how you should have worded it. If you had done that you would have had no warnings, and it would not have been deleted. No you were not in a no-win situation, you choose to continue to act in a way you were told was wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hell I even warned you not to take it to ANI or the help desk. Maybe that should tell you something.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
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) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

De Jure
I have started a discussion on the talk page. The text I removed is inaccurate, so I have no idea why you would want to put it back as is. Please engage in the discusion instead of just blindly reverting to reinstate an inaccuracy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to make your edit you must get consensus, not just start a talk page discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

About the edit you have deleted about Joe Byden and the climate consueqences of the Inflation Reduction Act
I have posted a sentence about the ability of the law to help USA accomplish it pledge in Paris agreement. You deleted it saying: wait for they will do it! But several sentences before there are suggestions about how much the bill wil reduce the GHG emissions. These are also suggestions based on calculations, so why you do not delete them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden&oldid=prev&diff=1114029121

If you think my edit is based on my own proposition you are wrong: the same sources who are cited when talking about suggested GHG reduction several sentences above says it explicitly (page 1):

" If the IRA passes, additional executive and state actions can realistically achieve the U.S. nationallydetermined commitments(NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. "

https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Modeling-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-with-the-US-Energy-Policy-Simulator_August.pdf

The second source (below the second graph):

"This is a huge step forward towards the US climate target of 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030, though clearly more action is needed. No single action on its own will be enough to meet the target. Still the IRA changes the game, not just with the deep emissions reductions it generates but also by cutting the cost of additional action by the executive branch and states, which could put the 2030 target within reach."

https://rhg.com/research/climate-clean-energy-inflation-reduction-act/

I think this is enough important for being mentioned on the page of Joe Byden.

Can you please reinstall my edit?

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But until it happens it might not. So I suggest you make a case at the articles talk page why what might happen is relevant to the page about Biden (rather than say his presidency, where, even then, it might not be relevant). Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi
I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. You are one of the editors who has either used Xhufi as a source or expressed a concern about the use of Xhufi as a source. The place for the discussion is at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. Your participation is not required but is encouraged, and may be the best way to have your opinion considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
The material on Daria Dugina is on the Wikipedia page for her. Are you going to challenge that page as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * NO, as that page is about her. The other page is about an invasion she was not a party to. If you want to make a case do so at the articles talk page, and not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be editing without reliable sources to draw your conclusions. You are also not answering Talk page comments, while at the same time commenting on other threads on the same Talk page. You need to follow RS, and I have given multiple reliable sources for my edit. I request you explain why you are reverting without any reliable sources, when I am presenting multiple reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, are you saying then that those events (apart from the one you are trying to add) did not occur in the Crimea? And you have so far not provided one source as far as I can see that says any of these attacks were defiantly by Ukraine. What we have is "unnamed US sources", which is not enough to attribute an attack in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are multiple reliable sources taking this position in the international press. You have no reliable sources to state the opposite, and you are trying to draw your own conclusions without reliable sources. That's against Wikipedia policy for use of reliable sources. The international press and multiple reliable sources are not supporting your conclusions. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I am following policy, we cannot use an anonymous claim to attribute clear guilt in our words. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Apologies
I’ve been thinking about what you said and I apologize. -24.227.34.10 (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK,. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

And if your apology was genuine you would drop it now, and not continue it with a side of snark. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have. -24.227.34.10 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why did you remove that hat? That meant "conversation over", you reopened it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit on info wars
Sorry about that edit i was confused on the defintion of fake news. --Starman2377 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible copycat account?
I found something odd on an article on the Simple English wikipedia - Special:CentralAuth/Statersteven. Very, very few edits, but there's a bad smell coming from that. I think it's a blocked editor, but not sure which one. FYI.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, it ain't me. Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
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) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 articles
I notice that the COVID-19 articles are under discretionary sanctions from the Arbitration Committee. Putting your own opinions in Wikipedia's voice rather than quoting someone, as is required by WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYN would appear to me to be reportable under those sanctions. Before I do so, have you ever received any previous warnings or sanctions by the arbitration committee or an administrator? 152.130.15.129 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, but I would also advise you that making such accusations needs very good evidence to not be seen as a violation of wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have left a DS notice on your talk page relating to the DS sanctions for cCovid related articles. Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

John Campbell edit
Hello, you recently undid my edit on John Campbell (YouTuber), seemingly saying my edit was in conflict with Reliable Sources; I disagree with you, and in fact the current language on the page is in itself misleading, as it discounts as pseudoscience a range of theories that are in fact at worst questionable (FRINGE/QS). I am not saying that the article should endorse these theories, but the current wording is one-sided, I would be happy if you could take another look at it and maybe make a suggestion of your own. I am especially looking at words like 'descended', which are unnecessary and unhelpful. Timeless99 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the article talk page, and make a case there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously I did read the talk page before editing, but yes, I will go ahead and do that; Thank you for your time. Timeless99 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Read better
The reason I had to reply so much on that talk page is that you kept missing the mark, distorting reliable sources, and making recommendations that were unnecessary according to guidelines, the latter being very curious coming from someone who was ostensibly preoccupied with preventing bloating. If you don't want other editors to spend several posts explaining you what a source is saying and what Wikipedia's editorial guidelines suggest, try to become a better reader on your own. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am concerned the section on Twitter is bloated, it is one company (musk has only owned it for less than 2 months) and yet we have over 4 paragraphs on it. Thus any material must be highly significant, and the opinion of one RS. It is also easy to miss one line.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

F-16 Down
Alpha 2, an F-16, was shot down that day. While Wg Cdr Abhinandan may or may not have fired a missile at the F-16, radio messages intercepted by the Indian AWACS have recorded frantic calls to Alpha 2. We old-timers believe it was a blue-on-blue. Of the 26 PAF aircraft that comprised this mission, 25 landed at their home bases. Selective security can be irritating. In the attack over Balakot, villagers heard the sound of a few aircraft roaring past. This is on record everywhere. [I'm out of touch and can only revert next year.] That meant that aircraft flew past at a relatively low level. Bomb blasts were heard five minutes later. These first six were Mirage 2000I upgraded aircraft that swept the target area. Of the remaining twelve, only six dropped their munitions. Foreign agencies gave India the death toll-253. Forty more died in hospital. There was a film of a Pakistani JCO consoling villagers and relatives of some of the victims. As an ex-Mirage 2000 Sqn Cdr (1 Sqn), I was allowed to listen to the tapes and watch the assortment of films. We will have to wait 27 years to get actualities of a non-event. Moitraanak (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Dog
That is the wrong Austrian Hungarian flag 162.72.136.138 (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Kathakrèse edits : not Vandalism please Discuss
Hello, I edited the Wikipedia article on the " Sinpar " automobile, these were good faith edits as you wrote in your edit summary, so why did you undo my edits ? I used a citation and these were indeed good faith edits, could I put them back without you undoing them again ? By the way I am in no way angered or irritated, just confused ( I am relatively new ) :) Kathakrèse (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I could tell they were unsourced or sources that were not wp:rs. In fact the whole article is a mess. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok i will reference other source is that ok ?
 * This source :
 * https://www.gazette-drouot.com/lots/14498276-1905-demeester-voiturette-torpedo-8-cv Kathakrèse (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You would need to ask here wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But I doubt it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Muslim conquest of persia
Please join the “muslim conquest of persia” talks in the talk page regarding my contribution that you erased

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#Adding_the_fact_of_numerical_and_equipment_superiority_of_sassanids Amr.elmowaled (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a bit busy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of bad faith
This man is using his edits to obfuscate the number of confederate statues remaining in Maryland. He is using one article about statues at courthouses that is 3 sentences and a link and two of those sentences contradict what he's trying to assert, that all statues in the entire state are gone. I gave him the benifit of the doubt but I cannot when hes following after me changing it back without addressing that his source and the rest of the Wikipedia article hes editing contradict him. This man is operating in bad faith. 2600:1003:B135:9996:A0B1:22ED:9D21:33DD (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ONo I am yrrey9ing to paraphrase a wp:rs so as not to breach its copyright. And as you have only edited one page (see wp:spa) I can hardly be following you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are attempting to paraphrase, you are doing a very poor job of it. The "outside of" phrase in the source means that it is not speaking of all the public land in the state, and is an inherent suggestion that there are statues on public land that is not "outside of" those places. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not, I returned it to a previous version created by someone else. Then attempted to make it clear it was only a claim, not a fact. The source says there were not left on public land outside of cemeteries, we now (in effect) say they have only been removed from court houses. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nor was the edit made in bad faith or vandalism, thus (in a sense). Another reason for the revert is I felt the reasoning behind it was not good enough, and may have been a violation (and in fact still do) of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I would have preferred a much better argument than " I do not think this was an error made in good faith," Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't expect an IP editor to know the fine points of what qualifies as "vandalism" on Wikipedia, but yours is a bad edit. It is true that they have been removed from courthouses. That we don't list the multiple sorts of public land that they have not been removed from does not mean that they have not all been removed from courthouses. The edit summary where you claim "the source says the last on federla land" is false on multiple fronts, as the source says nothing about specifically federal land (it's focused on removal from a county courthouse, which is not likely to be federal land) and only makes the claim about public land with significant exceptions. The courthouse claim is made in the RS's voice.... even though as a headline, and thus not in the brightest spot of reliable sourciness. The version you're undoing is far more accurate to the source than the claim you prefer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And as I am not an American I am not always up on the finer points what iS "government land" in America. So yes that was a mistake, I should have said "Government land", as to the source, you should be aware we do not use headlines, we use what the body says it says things like "Workers on Monday removed what is thought to be the last public Confederate statue in Maryland other than those on battlefields or in cemeteries." (no mention of courts) and " "said to be the last such monument in the state on public property outside of a battlefield or cemetery."" (again no mention of court houses). So my edit here [] was an attempt to reflect that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And this is why we have wp:brd once reverted the user should have taken it to talk, and not edit warred to get their preferred version (which I do not think actually reflects what the source says) either. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note as well, I did not report them, I told them what policies to read wp:npa and wp:agf, before they posted here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello , The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day. won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
 * Backlog
 * 2022 Awards

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from  to  '''

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as and  have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Ukraine war truce section
Hello sir. I have noticed that you recently reverted an edit of mine adding a "2023 truce" section to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article in its "Peace negotiations" section, stating "let's see if it holds". In full respect of your choices, I suggest re-adding the section as "2023 truce attempt" or otherwise, since it's still a notable event during the invasion considering that it's been covered by multiple reliable news outlets in detail and has caused a bit of a rumble. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 19:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be notable, but we do not yet know if it has had any impact, or even if it has been accepted (as I pointed out on the talk page). Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
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) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Query
I don't understand what you posted at User talk:175.197.72.199. Would you mind taking a look and correcting it please? Otherwise I fear it's time wasted and worse, confusing for everyone involved. Mark83 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Poland in Allies of WW2
Hi, About our discussion that you didn't agree. You need to remember that Poland during WW2 was divided between Polish Underground State that was against Soviet Union and Polish Committee of National Liberation in 1944 that was against USA and against Polish Underground State. That's why writing just "Poland" is wrong and non accurate. DerekTDR (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to understand we go by what wp:rs say. Also, we do not say "Polish Committee of National Liberation" we link to Polish government-in-exile, not Polish Committee of National Liberation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:DENY
Hello Slatersteven,

I'm writing to request that you don't respond to grossly insulting WP:SOAPBOXing like this. It makes it significantly more complicated for someone else to simply delete it, which is the appropriate thing to do with grossly insulting soapboxing. As it stands, it's now a puzzle how to hat / retitle all the inappropriate threads started by obvious meatpuppets. In the future it would be much simpler to revert on sight (or let others do it). Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now started just removing them, but I always start by treating them like they are genuine requests, trolling only works if you get angry. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of War in Ukraine 2023 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War in Ukraine 2023 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/War in Ukraine 2023 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Fram (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible copycat account or accounts?
I found this on the hindi wikipedia - Special:CentralAuth/Statersteven Half-kratos21 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Its been blocked,. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weasel words, lack of NPOV, etc. on article: Gab (social network). The discussion is about the topic Gab (social network). Thank you. --~ Commandur (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
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) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and definitions
I understand your complete dependence on RS to defend your characterization of Project Veritas as far-right activism. However, I disagree on this characterization, and I would appreciate it if you could take the time to consider my position. My contention is as follows: 1) mass media sources cannot be considered RS when discussing a competing platform/source, and academic sources are not NPOV until proven otherwise; 2) the characterizations are based on flawed definitions (by all definitions, PV is gotcha journalism, not activism); and 3) PV itself has not actively engaged in or called for minimalist government or reactionary social policy, and while it does seem to associate with reactionary groups, it is not truly far-right (which, in opposition to things like totalitarian socialism and Communism, would advocate for minimalist or completely absent government).

I am, of course, discussing my position with you (and I will do so with other editors) in order to resolve a dispute amicably and reach a resolution, since my edits, which were in good faith, and my edit comments were categorically ignored by you and several other editors.Ecthelion83 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * NO, we address them in the edit summaries you were not ignored, you were disagreed with. wp:policy is clear, we go by what wp:rs say, and not our wp:or. If you have issues with the sources being rs take it to wp:rsn. And they can be all of these things, they can use gotcha journalism to push an agenda (as I believe they are) that seeks to impose their values on America (so christo-facist). But as my opinion (or OR) does not trump yours I also must go by how RS describes them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That in itself is fair. However, I note that the characterization of PV depends heavily on quotations from news media sources (see wp:newsorg), which given wp:rs, is reliable only for statements of fact (e.g. "police reports indicate x number parking tickets were collected on this block over the past 3 months"), and not necessarily for characterizations of competing sources/platforms. For example, if an article by a major Reuters journalist characterized the entirety of CNN as a left-wing propaganda machine, unless other neutral or opposing-view sources also agreed, the article in question could not be considered to be a RS.
 * This isn't wp:or but rather a detail in wp:rs that strongly refutes the characterization of several of the sources as RS. I should note that even the Virginia Law Review's article cites no supporting evidence to justify the far-right characterization. The Columbia Journalism Review's article bases its characterization of PV on articles from the Washington Post, whose position, per wp:newsorg, calls its RS status into question.
 * With regards to activism, none of those sources actually called PV activists, but rather outlets or groups, which would lend support to my position that PV is more gotcha journalism than activism.Ecthelion83 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You should make this point at the article talk page. Do any of them say "gotcha journalism"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note wp:brd if you are reverted it is down to you to make a case at talk, and get wp:consensus, not hose reverting you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)