User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 4

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

One more fork
Hello, I see you suggested to delete the article "Orthodox Croats" (and you are right, I think). It seems to me that this is about the same case: White Croatia and White Croats. If the first article is relatively decent, then the second is a "POV fork riddled with OR and speculation". In the discussion of the article, the same Mikola was noted (he admitted that these were his comments under the IP). Perhaps this situation will interest you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe
You beat me to it. We're very quick to banninate these days, which causes me some unease, but this is not a hard case. We could let it run for years and the outcome would be the same. Guy (help!) 01:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ANI does not mean BANI, a formal and official warning is often all I am after. It is not my fault if most of the people I report then commit suicide by admin and frankly anyone who does just demonstrates we do not need them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"...they think they are considerably cleaver then we are"


Would that be Cleaver (The Sopranos), Cleaver (tool) or Cleaver (plant)? :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No cleverer, just misspelled.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

PragerU page
The link doesn't link to Youtube, but rather has Youtube in the title of the study.
 * Yeas I realize that now, but I am still not sure it is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

what is RS? Alainlambert (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A reliable source, wp:rs if you had clicked on the tag you are complaining about you would have seen that. Its why they are placed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

why did you delete an actual fact extremely important for context? Regards, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it is OR, and does not seem to be supported by the source, which does indeed give at least on e example.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

What is OR? He does not give an example, read the source. Stating an opinion that "he says that it contains anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric that would certainly be agreeable to white supremacists" without citing what constitute anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric is just his opinion. I find that too often on Wikipedia, editors put as source someone's opinion and then state that opinion as a fact. With your permission, given this clarification, I will reinstate the truth. OK with you? Regards Alain Alainlambert (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "thus committing “the self-annihilation of a culture,” alleges Murray." seems to be an example.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

btw
I forgot to thank you for your intervention at the Polish-Ukrainian War article. I think your comments really helped to diffuse the situation and allowed folks to find a compromise. We need more of that. If I wasn't so lazy I'd go and find one of those "barnstars" to award you.  Volunteer Marek  08:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats OK, if you notice I do not display them, frankly I have no respect for the "IUtterlyAgreeWithYourPOVPushingStars", which is what they mostly seem to be.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Drexler AfD
Hi Slatersteven. Just to let you know, the AfD you recently posted was malformed; I have fixed that for you. I see you used Page Curation to nominate it - I don't know if you want to check that's working properly for you and/or report a bug (I'm not familiar with the tool myself, so I'm not sure what might have caused that). WJ94 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, its happened a couple of times now for reasons I do not know as it should be automated.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Drexler article
Can you explain please what is wrong with the Drexler article, he was a very important person, see all his exhibitions, books over his tenure at the MoMA and see his obituary in the New York Times! Look forward to your comments. I am not 100% confident Wiki user but perhaps you can please help with the formatting or what ever else is wrong from that point of view rather than suggesting deletion if that is the problem? Mandarinrobotic (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you had read the first tag I left it would have explained what was wrong. wp:n makes it clear that to establish notability you need third party wp:rs to have covered him with more then just trivial mentions. This is why the notability tag was posted on the article, to alert you to this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why the whole book by Thomas S. Hines about AD's 35 year tenure at the museum, plus the NYT obituary, MoMA press releases, etc are not considered as 'third party'? Especially the book? Have you read the references I have posted please?Mandarinrobotic (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Third part means "no relationship with the subject", so no a press release (for example) by an organisation he worked for is not third party. Thus we are left with one book, which I am not sure is enough. And no I have not read the book, which you did not use as a cite.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have read the history of art and architecture you would have found Dexler in many references... I shall list as many as I can find if you think that one book so far is not sufficient, still I find it astonishing you believe that this author of so many books (not all are listed) and exhibitions is not worth a mention in the wiki, I will update the article in a few days time when I find more time... Mandarinrobotic (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said i left a tag asking for better sources, you removed it (and as I had said "leave it like this it will not survive an AFD"). We have a policy called wp:n, any one (not matter who they are) must pass that test.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said I am not that proficient in this, I thought you wanted more 'notability' and hence I have added a full para to give more information and a reference...How many wp:n do you need before you are satisfied? How many books do I need to list? Mandarinrobotic (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As wp:n says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." that means significant coverage in more then one third party source. They do not have to be books, magazine article or new paper stories will do, but they have to be about the subject, and more then a paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have now added many more references, articles, other online encyclopedia entries and the list of AD publications entered in worldcat.org which lists in his name over 1070 entries (not many wikipedia listings have that number achieved). You see from the comments on the deletion of the article that several contributors have voted to 'keep' the entry. I would be grateful if you agree to remove the deletion threat now in the light of the current addition and please help me to improve the post to the required standard, as I wrote before, I am still a novice in all the latest wiki techniques. Many thanks. Regards Mandarinrobotic (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Slatersteven, good afternoon, I see from the 'Articles for deletion' box that on December 1, you agreed that the entry has reached the necessary 'notability' status. Can you therefore please remove the box now? If not what is the procedure? Thank you in advance. Mandarinrobotic (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The AFD has to be closed it is still open.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, who is to close it? Sorry I don't understand who's responsibility it is to close it? Another user? Please explain, thank you.Mandarinrobotic (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know any uninvolved edit can close it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so we need to wait for some good soul who will just by chance stumble on this and closes the box if he/she likes it? How very odd, it could be there for years, could't it?Mandarinrobotic (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, in fact I am somewhat surprised it has not yet been closed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC
 * I find it very strange that the initiator, that is yourself, when satisfied, cannot close the box, which would be the logical sequence of events in any other situation. Are you sure you cannot do so? Many thanks.Mandarinrobotic (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a self imposed rule, its called "if I do not do it now I will not do it when its inappropriate". It is too easy to get caught up in the idea you are an arbiter of all that is right and good. Thus (even if I am allowed to) as an involved party I do not think it would be appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I cannot agree with your 'rule', once you start 'the ball to roll', and then are gently persuaded that perhaps 'the ball should not have rolled in the first place', your conscience should bid you to correct your initial action, because perhaps you were wrong? Otherwise you keep in theory creating problems on your way and then sit back asking others to smooth things after you ... sorry, but that is my perception what has happened here. Best wishes Mandarinrobotic (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)MandarinroboticMandarinrobotic (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may take it how you wish, I also suggest you read wp:m. This is my last word on this subject.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there- Sorry if I'm butting in, but I helped out with some of the refs, so the creator asked me if I could close the AFD. I'm going to decline, because by voting keep I would be "involved", but according to WP:CLOSEAFD as nominator, you could withdraw your nomination and close it. Fair enough if you would rather just wait for someone else though. Curdle (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn it but never close things I am involved in. It is a slope that is too slippery.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Gazala
Hi. I Appreciate your interest. If you are aware of other "Commonwealth" or "Dominion" troops participating here, then please let's list them as well by name. Wdford (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One reason to say "commonwealth" is that the desert air force consisted of squadrons from Oz, who may well have participated.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am happy to recognise them too. Let's add them into the lead by name. Wdford (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also there appears to have been a Rhodesian AT unit at the Retma Box.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, if you have a source I will add them to the article as well. The Eighth Army was a truly multinational effort, and the articles should reflect that. Wdford (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is not a reason to not lump then all under Commonwealth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But why do you want to "lump them" at all? Why not name them properly? Alternately, why not say "Allies" or "Allied", which covers everyone equally, and have a blue-link to an order of battle section? Wdford (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would actually agree it might be best to just have "allies" and "Axis", but it is not how it was done.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. So why not correct it, and produce an improved lead? Wdford (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have suggested it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that - very much appreciated. Wdford (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2019 (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. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pino Concialdi
Hi Slatersteven. I kindly ask you to check the voice on the Italian painter Pino Concialdi, i personally think that the encyclopedic relevance is missing. The article contains exclusively local sources linked exclusively to the places where this artist worked, that is in Sicily, region of Italy.--5.171.189.19 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The language leaves a lot to be desired.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Tabu ram Taid
You recently nominated Tabu ram Taid for deletion but then reverted your own edit. The deletion discussion is still there. Are you nominating the page for deletion or not? J I P &#124; Talk 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to but the AFD page was not created, like it should be when using the tool. But the discussion was red linked when I deleted it. Now the damn bot has created it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note
Please note that List of reported UFO sightings is now subject to a one revert restriction. – bradv  🍁  04:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

AN3
Alexanderjoshuadavis has reported me at WP:AN3 and while that's clearly the wrong venue, I thought it proper to notify you as you seem to have a leveler head on the dispute.--Jasper Deng (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
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) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!
AHHH Bum Hug!Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Happy Holidays
I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC) I like the sentiment, keep the skies clear of cyptozooalogical child minders.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはSlaterstevenたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Bahhh Humbug!Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

One thing
Please elaborate more (the proposal) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_claims I tend not to agree with the proposal, because I do not work in RL and on Wiki with my hands tied. There is no pleasure in that, and this is not work, but a hobby. Furthemore, just because I did a bit of edit warring with one rather stubborn and uncooperative editor, which was also confirmed by another editor, you think that it is okay to put us on the same level? It may sound arrogant (that is not my intention), but it's offensive in my book. I am here for more than 10 years and I do not plan to stay dragged on a level of people who are using facsists for sources and do not know what the project, or teamwork for that matter, are all about. I got x2 24h blocks because I reverted disruptive editors who denied the existence of a nation (!), in one way or another. I am not that sorry about those blocks, but I do understand that my actions were not per Wiki policy. Maybe this is a boomerang effect, and maybe the things went out of the proportion. If I understood well, If I wanted to edit, say Serbs or Bosniaks, I would need to ask for a permission on the TP first, like some child? Thank you,  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  15:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No I do not think it pouts you in the same level, I am just not sure who really was at fault over this. You both acted badly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct, but I thing that the proposal was too quick and not per all the content presented.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  15:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The pair of you have been wasting ANI's time over this spat for 7 days, this is not sudden.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When one wants to get rid of something, be it on ANI or in RL, the quick fix/solution is rarely a good one. cheers  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  15:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are preventative, they are there to stop disruption...not top get rid of anything.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I was mentioned, so I will speak out. It seems to me that the decision to “punish both” is not optimal. Offering equal punishment, you implicitly assume the same guilt. Is this really so, from your point of view? Otherwise, the meaning of the action eludes me. Why can’t you just stop a user with disruptive behavior? Why is it necessary at the same time to punish those who have encountered and tried to somehow stop this disruptive behavior?--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said its not about punishment, its about prevention. I saw both users being disruptive, both at the article and at ANI. I am not sure that if one goes away the other may not still have issues.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And what will it prevent? Mikola22 signed up recently, he just continues to do the same anonymously (and I can tell you how "willingly" check-users sort out such cases). Six months later, he will make a new account and check-users will say that "Mikola22, who should have been named as the alleged master, is Stale. CU declined." Now I see that one of the users is outraged by your offer, and the other feels encouraged to continue his Holy War .--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we do nothing?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would not leave him with the feeling that he is doing everything right and his Holy War is moving forward successfully (and now it seems to me there is such a feeling).--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think his reaction indicates that at all.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact he disagrees with this sanction implies he would not see it as some kind of exoneration.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding. I see that Mikola22 is not against going down to the grave taking an "enemy" with him. But he’s not going to change anything in her behavior, continues POV-pushing, tells story "Now you all see with which editors I must struggle" and so on.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If he is not going to listen to a no consensus no edit sanction (which will stop him, or he loses the ability to edit any article of any kind) nothing is going to. But we have to give them a chance. A no consensus no edit sanction means they will have to get consensus, thus they get a chance to show they can edit cooperatively. If they ignore (and breach) it then it will escalate to the TBAN if first sugersted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again you claim that "you saw me being disruptive", which is half-true. I do not care to add a bunch of diffs which would "cover me", I do not want to talk a lot about the fact that I acctualy do have the arguments, that I have been dragged into this under a pretense (I did not label anybody), that I even reached out to M22 on his TP, that I did not touch the article in question after the report and so on. I am able to see when somebody has a strong opinion over something. The current proposal is not good one, nor do I think that it is fair. The better solution, in my opinion, would be that we come up with a mutual agreement not to edit the article in question, for a month or two, and that any further big or bold edits on the article and other articles about Vlachs would NEED consensus. Plus to promise to stay out of each other's way with the realisation that this is in fact a yellow card. Not being able to edit all related articles is far too severe and such a decision would also cripple several articles related to the Balkans.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We can all behave ourselves when we are being looked at.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith? Yes, so can my cat, that was not the point. I still do not see any epic evidence of my misconduct, only severe and unconstructive idea/s based on general impressions.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  15:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at this talk page, that is what I am talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see it the same way and your answer is rather vague. I shall not continue with this ping-pong.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
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, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Satyric user page opener?
Hey, I've been meaning to ask you for a while, but who is MR SLATER IS RETIRED AND ON A WIKI BREAK, HE WILL KEEP EDITING, BUT HE IS RETIRED, ITS TRUE SO IT IS, it says so in black and white!!!! in reference to? I assumed at one point that it was me, but then I looked at your page's history and it seems you added it sometime before it would have made any sense to refer to me, so now I'm really just curious. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have said before no it is not, it satirises to any number of editors who have had wiki break banners and still edit (in fact I cannot think of any one edd who inspired it).Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

New message from Redalert2fan
Redalert2fan (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Planet Nine - in danger of getting into an edit war
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * Referring to your recent edits on Planet Nine, I do understand that you try to remove content that you deem unencyclopedic, and I agree with your attempt to bring it to the talk page. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have worked. I suggest to avoid a third revert, and rather move this issue to the article talk page. I am posting a similar note on the other editors page. Renerpho (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This has already been done.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Reported
After being warned on my talkpage, I have reported you. Please stop harrasing me, stop stalking me and stop your false accusations and personal attacks. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have in fact only edited half the the pages you have edited, that is hardly stalking.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did warn you (more than once) that your behaviour would lead to a block. Now you have told me you do not wish me to post on your talk page I cannot advise you now how to avoid the longer block I can see coming very shortly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I give it half an hour tops.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

time travel
Can you tell me the reason why you have deleted my contribution to the voice Time travel claims and urban legends?Bibarte (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

In wikipedia not all the info providen must be sourced, or at least you will add the tag "not sourced" instead of deleting. It also was unsourced because mine was the first source, and also because the picture was a proof itself, strong enough for a voice about "urban legends and calims". For this reason I think your deletion was not correct. (Bibarte (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC))


 * err yes all information must be sourced. A user may (if he wishes) tag an unsourced claim or remove it. Also the picture is not proof (read wp:or) of anything other then what you think you see. This is why we need sources to have seen it, not just you.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians
Can you tell me why you undid my contribution to the article Persecution of Christians? Article was well referenced from reputed newspaper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddsg (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because neither says it is persecution (see wp:v).Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also suggest you read wp:brd once you have been reverted you need to make a case at the talk page of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Assange/ANI
Hi, that ANI thread is stalled because it's too diffuse. I think that if we try to take up your new sanctions proposal before that ANI thread is resolved, we're going to get more crosstalk and confusion there. I wonder whether you'd consider striking that and raising your proposal separately. This could be done either after this ANI is resolved, or it could be done at ARCA as a DS amendment. FYI my view is that the crux of the problem on the Assange/Russia articles is a very small number of POV editors with behavioral deficits and that further DS/GS complicates things with no net benefit. The Admins who have become aware of Thucydides411's behavior have (with one or two exceptions) seen it for what it is. This could easily have been resolved through DS enforcement or AE. Unfortunately ANI is rather erratic. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ARCA?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * as an amendment or enhancement of the case remedies for AP2. The problem with ANI is it can get just as confused and overwrought as the article talk pages.  SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers and horrors. Thanks!  SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeking clarification
Hello Slatersteven. In the recently closed thread on “Use of racial slur” at AN/I you say this:
 * As this may not be "all that common" a warning for now, but I also think withing a month we will be back here (or at the least his "fuck you Admins" message on his talk page will lead to the usual chorus of "don't be like that"s until his reactions escalate to a full block).

I wonder could you possibly provide me with a diff for that message, as I can’t recall ever posting one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say you did, I said you will. I think you misunderstand the tense as being present when it is meant to be speculative.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I see. It's all just my misunderstanding? Yes, I understand that "will" is a modal auxiliary verb, that denotes the future tense. But it’s not conditional future, is it. That would be "may" or "might", for example. You are telling everyone that this particular event will happen, yes? That doesn't sound very speculative. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I am not the Doctor (not even an as yet unknown incarnation) anything I can or would say about the future is speculation. Yes (figuratively not actually) I think you have said "eff off I do not care what you lot think").Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't think that your comment at AN/I was ever so slightly pre-judging the case and giving a very firm prediction of what was going to happen? And when exactly did I say "eff off I do not care what you lot think", or anything remotely like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He stated a possibility. Do no overreact. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, hello SPECIFICO. He said something will happen. Perhaps he could tell us when, so we can all prepare properly? "Do no overreact" sounds a bit like an order. You didn't participate in that topic at AN/I, so it's hard to know what your views are. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have said "don't overreact" -- a bit softer. I don't think anyone took his statement as a prediction or a curse, just rumination, speculation, whatnot.  SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. I think I can now understand what he intended. Yes, it did sound a bit like a curse. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes of course I was pre-judging (as were all those who say "it will never happen again"), but I also said "A waning for now". And as I have also said I think your reaction does contain elements of "fuck you all", just worded more politely. To a degree it was also a warning, for you, it was saying "we have been down this road before and there is a fork ahead, don't pick the wrong one", and as I have said it look like you are turning in that direction. It always ends up badly when we have the final "do you know who I am" style meltdowns when they were not treated with the respect (read indulgence) they "deserved" (it is (for those who have asked more then once) partly what my "retirement" notice takes the piss out of).Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed I note that not only were you told to drop it, you have had to be told it twice.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Sorry about that I'll get a mop.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * :) That's not what I meant. This is genuine appreciation for what you did.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Displaying warning templates
Simply write out, for example (without the nowiki tags), and the template will automatically display. El_C 16:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to find a way to add it to my front page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure that I'm following you. El_C 16:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to paste that link onto my front page, and was looking up how to rem it out when you posted the very thing I was looking for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh your user page — cool. El_C 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With a new editor, I tend to use . Although the stronger version was certainly appropriate in this case given the rapidity of the reverts and nasty attitude. O3000 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, — that warning template is new to me. El_C 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
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) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

One Nation
I don’t disagree with the removal of the material at the NRA article, but can I point out to you that in Australia One Nation are not a “minor” (insignificant) party. More’s the pity. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So what percentage of the national vote does it have?Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hats off to you
I just wanted to tip my hat to you. You have received a lot of undue grief from a new editor and it's nearly dripping with irony that they would accuse you of somehow being an NRA POV warrior. Anyway, we disagree quite a bit on content but your principled stance here just reaffirms my appreciation for your POV even when they don't align with my own. Hats off, Springee (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Doxing
Thank you for the information about this topic. Appreciate your kind response. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RE: HD 182681
Please do not move this again without consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I am the one that created the page. It was moved without my consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskin (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, it is not "your page". We do not use fictional names for real things.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

UK Space Command
Okay, maybe I got that wrong, but the reference did talk about a UK Space Command, even though it also said "British Space Command". UK v British? Please do CREATE (or rename to) the appropriate page. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When we have more than one source saying this exists we can revisit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

HD 182681
RE: Please do not move this again without consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC) This is now a warning, do not try to make this about a fictional star again, if you do I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a real star. I wrote the article and did all the research. We have been using the name Yonmara for this star for almost 2 decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskin (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * discovered in 2218?.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Really. REALLY, . Drmies (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * [] "Discovery date:	February 16, 2218", stop adding fictional., BS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, please beware of OUTING. Thx. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Err they used it as a cite []. They are (literally) using fiction as a cite.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Err beware of OUTING. OK? Drmies (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chester and Wrexham Turnpike Trust
If you looked before you tagged, you would see the page has an tag on it because it was only created about one hour ago. It's really annoying that all some people seem to do is put tags while others are constructing articles! WPCW (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And I was telling you want needed to be done. I note that rather than address the issues you removed the tags.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because it is under construction or in use as per the template, and you have added a tag within minutes of it being created- It is very discouraging when you are disruptive editing / tag bombing. We can all tag all day long, but that will not expand Wikipedia or encourage people to contribute. I question if you are a suitable person to be a new page patroller--WPCW (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you AGF, I was telling you want needed to be done, and I would argue its still not been done.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now as it stands I am still not sure there is enough to pass AFD (read wp:n), and I suggest you listen.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

'I suggest you listen' - Is that acceptable? As for AFD, there are similar articles on Wiki.--WPCW (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, as I offered you advice about what you should have done (off and note the article move), I pointed out on the talk page exactly that issue. And please read wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Responses
I didn't want to drag out the conversation at WP:RSN, but please, for the love of god, read people's comments before replying to them. In nearly every single post in that discussion, you've claimed that I've said things I very obviously didn't say (or have in no uncertain terms said the opposite), clearly not out of any bad faith but because you just haven't bothered to read the individual posts you're specifically replying to. This is not a recipe for any kind of helpful contribution to discussion if every reply to you has to involve pointing out what you didn't read the first time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should try the same []. We all make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note

 * And that extends to making a case not refusing to, I suggest you take your own advise.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So stop with the dismissive and insulting attitude, and obey policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Note about 2020 Delhi riots
Regarding this message you left at another user's page: please note that the particular DS you mentioned expired on April 15. However the article remains under the 1RR sanction as described at the top of the article talkpage (which the editor breached despite your pointing them to the discretionary sanctions). In any case, I appreciate your effort in informing the editor of the applicable rules. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven
Well said. A thoughtful analysis of Wikipedia's role during these unprecedented times. Best, El_C 12:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well even a brocken clock is right twice a day (unless its a 24 hour clock, of course).Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't sell yourself short! Anyway, your statement really hit home for me. Definitely a worthwhile read. El_C 13:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for the complement, maybe we are not all as dumb as we think we are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)