User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 6

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 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) 14:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Tag at David Wynn Miller
I've added a number of references since you added the tag at David Wynn Miller. I have not replaced the sample text with anything used by a reliable source and I might have missed something. Rather than unilaterally remove the tag, I was hoping to get your input and a second set set of eyes, at your convenience. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It still relies to much on primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Necessary?
Was this edit necessary? They have been blocked for breaching the topic ban so they cannot edit now. There is no need to continue to aggravate them (particularly as responding would technically breach the sanction anyway). WP:DROPTHESTICK comes to mind. I hope that attention can return to the article and reliable sourcing now. Woody (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This was only my second post to their talk page. Also it has been (what) only my 3rd or 4th interaction with them? Its hard to drop a stick I am not exactly holding.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken, ignore the DROPTHESTICK comment (though it was more about flogging a dead horse than the amount of interaction). I still don't think asking a topic banned and blocked user about why they made edits that got them blocked (and therefore invoking them to break the topic ban) is a particularly useful edit to make. Woody (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry my question was meant to be rhetorical, it was making the point that they had breached their TBAN and the hope that by answering that question themselves they might see what they had in fact done wrong (as their responsive clearly indicates they do not see what they did wrong).Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)]]
 * As to dropping the stick [].Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries about the question. It's best just to ignore them. If they continue as they are they will be blocked indefinitely and that will be the end of that. Woody (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its why i issued my "warning", an attempt to get them to see what they are doing wrong (and no I was not going to respond, they are not at the "its on your own head stage", if I was going to I would have done so by now).Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Thanks for your response regarding deletion of an article. That was really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My revert
Just to note this edit summary is not aimed at you, it's at the IP who added it (given the "this article written by liar, do not believe this article"). I just remove the time-wasting EC requests to hopefully prevent encouraging other users from continually adding them. Woody (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I figured that, I was umming and Arring about removing them myself, but thought I would at least give then a chance to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert of my edit on George Floyd protests
I had seen a bunch of Twitter posts claiming that the man beaten in Portland several nights ago had died from his injuries in the hospital, but I hadn't located a source - I just searched it up and it turns out that the man is actually recovering and was released from the hospital yesterday, according to this source. My mistake! Temeku (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why twitter is not a RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Beer?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Talk:2020 Delhi riots
The recent charge sheet by Delhi police indicates that the Delhi riots were pre-planned. There are numerous references regarding the charge sheets. But none of these news reports are getting included on the page. This is shocking. On this matter, recently you commented "A charge sheet is (at best) an RS for an accusation not a fact. And we go with what third party RS say." . There are numerous references given in the article which are not facts. In fact, most of them are not facts. Many opinion articles are also included as references. These articles are surely not facts. The entire article includes references that indicate that the riots were started by violent Hindus, especially by BJP leader Kapil Mishra. While the chief conspirator (according to Delhi police), Tahir Hussain's name appears only once. When it comes to the other side of the story (Islamists started the riots), you are saying its not a fact. Both POV references should be included regardless of a person's bias (WP:FIXBIAS). Quanta127 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:primary wp:blp and wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 2020 Delhi riots is the worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia. The high-handed attitude of few "privileged individuals", when asked to explain the unencyclopedic construct of the article, of washing their hands off by citing a one-liner WP policy instead of engaging in a discussion, is the icing on the cake. I've, in fact, taken a snapshot of the article in the shape it is as of today (and locked further till 27-Sep-2020), to keep as a memoir of WP spreading fake news, and later on, use as an artifact for sharing on social media, once the extent of fake news (includes 1. fiction presented as fact, 2. fact presented as fiction, 3. facts suppressed given they are not conducive to POV; most media portals when engaging in fake news engage only in the 3rd, but this article unabashedly engages in the first two also) on the article becomes so untenable that it cannot be supported even after defying WP:NPOV. isoham (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not have any one line polices. Nor do we engage in discussion that would mean making edits that violate our core polices, as there would be no point. Edit cannot be made that do not obey policy. But please feel free to publicise this, you have my user name you may mention me. Also it is not locked, you just have to be an experienced and conformed user. Also fell free to report me for libel to any court you wish, but before you do please read Draft:Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Truth will always prevail and no matter how much one can try to gag it. As you said above so using your own language definitely you are not dumb but don’t think others as dumb. None has misused WP:POV, WP:BLP and reliable sources game as you and few editors. DBigXRay has been exposed and was disowned by Jimmy Wales on Twitter though the clan backed his mischief. Truth will prevail as it has been since ages. Wait and watch. #FreedomofSpeech curtailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:4003:6DF0:8815:7D9:854A:63ED (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what you are talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

trying to add comment for first time so doing it on your talk page instead of article talk page. Regarding lede on 2020 Delhi Riot, I have serious concerns on credibility of article referenced from the guardian (number 12). I have checked Twitter profile of author Shaikh Azizur Rahman. I can see fake news being paddled on his timeline which, despite being proven fake, are still there on his timeline. one example is https://twitter.com/AzizurTweets/status/1284061838959767552?s=19 what is the process of verifying credibility of authors on so-called "reliable sources" platforms?? being 50 or 100 or 200 year old platform is good enough that anyone can write opinion piece on those platforms and it can be used as bible for Wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhapli (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think the guardian is not an RS take it to wp:rsn. I can tell you how it will go.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking back at Ukraine 112
Heya! You mentioned on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard RfC that, given the evidence provided so far, you saw no reason to reverse blacklisting/deprecation. I think I've new arguments, so it might be worth re-evaluating. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 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) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

First autopsy claim of homicide
Hey, I couldn't find the word homicide in the first autopsy report:

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

and

https://web.archive.org/web/20200604001830/https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf/

Could you show me where it claims it is a homicide, or alternatively, where an additional source reports that the autopsy reports it as a homicide?

Thanks.--TZubiri (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:primary, WE USE SECONDARY SOURCES [], "Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details".Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw the autopsy is already cited directly twice in the article. I think this is one of those cases were the source is a hybrid between primary and secondary, put in other words, the primary secondary distinction isn't clear cut. Something similar happens with judicial processes.

In any case, assuming that it's a primary source, and relying on then secondary sources, there's a couple of different takes that imply a conflict:

From the vice reference already present in the lede: "The medical examiner’s preliminary findings noted Floyd had underlying conditions like coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease, according to the complaint. The complaint also said that based on preliminary findings, there wasn’t any evidence to support traumatic asphyxiation or strangulation, and instead speculated that Floyd’s pre-existing conditions, the police interaction, and “any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”" And the cnn source cited in the autopsy section: "-- It says Floyd had underlying health issues: "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease." -- It says three factors contributed to this death: "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."

I think it's best to focus on presenting the two main POVs represented by both autopsies, instead of focusing on how some sources represent the conflict differently. In this case I think I accidentally avoided the 'homicide' contention in the second rewording by avoiding the use of the word homicide to describe the first autopsy. Thanks for the attention. --TZubiri (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No we present what RS say (see wp:or) not what we think might be relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course we only add content present in sources... What content have I added to an article or proposed to add to an article that is not backed by a source? I'm not sure I follow.--TZubiri (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say source I said RS. If RS say X and your interpretation of a wp:primary source says Y, you do not get to add it (see wp:or).Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

List of time travel works of fiction
There is already a discussion at the Talk page for the list; I initiated it roughly a month ago now and nobody responded. I don't see how it is reasonable to ask an editor to remove problematic entries with singular edits versus a single larger edit when the entries are combined into a list that makes individual editing difficult as-is. You are welcome to restore, with sources, any entries that you feel should be considered time travel works of fiction, but if you continue to restore entries without providing sources, when the article has been tagged for needing such long-term, then you are effectively violating WP:BURDEN as well as WP:LISTV. Please stop. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not mean a carte Blanche for mass removals. If you had removed (for example) only that films about dream, no issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As evidenced from my edit summary, I couldn't tell from the descriptions which films actually involved time travel and which did not. I invite you to bring your concerns to the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "allowing him to travel back in time to just before an earthquake created by Lex Luthor.", that does not tell you its about time travel, or "in the 17th century who has been sentenced to death for witchcraft, is transported to the 20th century", seems pretty clear to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said the issue is not that all of your removals were incorrect, just that some were.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, seriously, did you even read some of the descriptions or articles before decreeing "its not about time travel"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I filed a request for dispute resolution here: Your input on the problem is requested. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I messed up your Stefan edits
I didn't think anyone else would be editing besides me and didn't account for someone joining. I was trying to make the opening paragraph more concise. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * its relevant detail.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Feel free to revert my edits if you want. I was just trying to make the leade shorter.GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War
Looks like we are nearing a consensus. Won't you make a comment now? Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Indentation
WP:THREAD gives a very clear guideline for indenting comments. This doesn't fit with that. One very unnecessary revert. ( Somehow I feel that editors at IPA are pretty revert-happy already. ) Let's have a cup of tea in the name of better indentation in future. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you indent to reply to the post you are replying to.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute about Persecution of Christians is being reopened at the request of User:Jenhawk777. Your participation is voluntary.  (I know that you thought that the case had been resolved.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

bros article
hi their I noticed you commented on post, what are you not sure about and what can I do to improve source  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:rs, I am not sure any of those pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review
I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI
I came upon your page while surfing the 'pedia, and wondered if you knew about the semi-retired template/the term "semi-retired". This makes more sense than "MR SLATER IS RETIRED AND ON A WIKI BREAK, HE WILL KEEP EDITING, BUT HE IS RETIRED" --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a piece of satire, a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Just for information
Hello and Greetings,

I thought to include James Randi in see also of Superstitions in Muslim societies after I came across his mention in an Arabic news article of Egyptian modernist, who campaigns against superstitious  practices among Muslim societies.

Just wanted to keep you informed about how I gave a thought to include, although I do not insisting to retain it.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally see also are for oblivious links or very similar things.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Donald Trump, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Note: I was scanning through some pages, and I found out that your comment in revision 987527283 was undated. Since I could not find an appropriate user warning for undated comments, I will use the standard notice above; I dated it in revision 987529680. Ntx61 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — updated Ntx61 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler has an RFC
Parler has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Notifying all editors who participated in the informal discussion about removing the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not nonsense

 * Its not nonsense. If you do not like it that is your problem.178.148.109.252 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:or and wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Repairing format in Charlottesville article
I'm trying to sort out the mess that existed. Please refrain from reverts until I'm finished. I hope you didn't leave the "Bustle" source, which violated Wikipedia conventions, editing practices and copyright law, and extensive quotes. Activist (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK< as its a WIP I shall leave it, by the way, you should have left this on my talk (not user) page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry about leaving it on your User page. I started sorting out the article a couple of hours ago, and was distracted and confounded by the long quote and bizarrely formatted citation to the Bustle article. They were probably done by a new editor who was oblivious to editing practice I should have ignored that, and just proceeded with the other edits. I see you've made 26 edits and presume you've done an excellent job on the article. I'll get back to trying to sort out the remainder of the problems. I had started with removing errata such as the colors of vehicles involved which much have been copied directly from the police report(s). I've confused things by opening and working on two different edit pages at once. Thanks much for your patience.Activist (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Hopefully, that sorted things out. You are no doubt vastly more familiar with the situation, the sequence of events, and likely even a much better understanding of the locus of the episode. I absolutely defer to your judgment. Activist (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Just realized what "WIP" means. Thanks again. Activist (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Stay retired
If you are retired, you should not keep reverting proposals.178.148.109.252 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a joke, as I would have thought was quite clear.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want more jokes create art. on him.178.148.109.252 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What? On who?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians
Yes, that is persecution. See my discussion on the article's talk page. 216.14.157.170 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then wait till you have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

British Big Cats
Hi, not sure what went on there with the British big cats article because I had definitely tried to revert the edit that added those things, maybe the timing conflicted with your edit or something.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but if an edit is reverted it should not be reinstated, rather it should be discussed at talk. Just because we already have crap sources in an article is not an justification to add more.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ESPN
Please visit at |1 to join the discussion on the addition of ESPN in Reliable sources/Perennial sources and it's reliability. Thank You.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Proxy editing
Hi - please don't offer to make edits on behalf of a blocked user, as you did here. This may be seen as proxy editing or meat puppetry. Thanks. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, its not, as I would make the same offer to any editor who could not figure out how to right a proper article that is policy complaint. If they can show notability it seems to be we should have an article. Its not as if I have shown them any kind of sympathy. But if you think it breaches policy I wont, its no great skin of my teeth.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

nothing

 * What the hell?Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
Shame about the good ship 1RR being run aground by that naughty editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=989890899). In other news, I see that enwp's version counter should be adding another digit within the next few months. EEng 20:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

re: Nov 2020
Good evening,

Please notice how my action was right: actually I just corrected the wikilink (not the text shown), as usual, to the right page in order to avoid a link to a redirect. Thank you for you attention --80.116.94.166 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now it does. At first you changed the name, not just the link.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ya, but I was referring to my last edit (pardon, I thought it was obvious/assumed), as I was already aware of it thanks to your "instructions" you let me in the history page ;) Have a nice evening --80.116.94.166 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies 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/Superstitions in Muslim societies 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. Bookku (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please excuse my editing your comment in RfC about withdrawal vs violation terminology and POV
Good morning Slatersteven; Please excuse my editing your comment in RfC about withdrawal vs violation terminology and POV: I do realise that editing someone else's comment is not normally appropriate! It was simply to correct a typo in the spelling of my username, and I hope you will not mind. With friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusive Language
Recently a Ravi Mavi abused m3 om Talk page of Tomara As he couldnt counter with me with Relaible sources. Anyway I request you to block him as he is also a Caste Boomee who target me again and again. He abused me about My Race So kindly look For It i will not Tolerate Abuse from Such peoples on Wikipedia either block me.Samboy 01681 (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, I cannot block any one. If they made a wp:pa against you take it here wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

irresponsible and adamant activity by User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven
Notice for irresponsible and adamant activity. I will report to wikipedia admin for not taking the serious edit request seriously, not respecting the reader and edit requests properly. Misusing the editor power and working on nepotism and negligence towards fair and valid edit requests. Unilaterally blocking the edit request. You need to behave yourselves.
 * Please do so, here is the correct place to report a user wp:ani, note I am not however (for one things, there are othr issues with your "report") an admin. So before you report me make sure you have a valid case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump philanthropy
Hi, i responded in the talk section of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Foundation_%3E_Philanthropy. Not sure how to @ you in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.83.19.146 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

line in the lead
what does that mean? Are.u.sure (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It means the lead [Please read wp:lead.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

There is always a better option
Slatersteven, I understand that we don't always agree on content but I would hope we can agree that terrorism is never the answer*. So imagine my disappointment to see you have been hanging out with the wrong crowd []. Sigh... I hope a warning from random IP is enough to scare you straight! *If someone is trying to force eggnog into you then terrorism might be a morally acceptable option. Happy Holidays (and avoid eggnog! ;) ). Springee (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * having difficulty finding what you are referring to.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this got archived last night [] Springee (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers I may have been partially responsible for that, as I did tell them (as you can see above) to report me if they wanted, and to be careful if they did).Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't say it's homicide
You say killed

You used to title the article with the word murder Are.u.sure (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No killed does not mean murder.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Killing of George Floyd
You've stated that I have not made a case for any alterations to the article named above. I, on the other hand, think that I have and that the editorial 'consensus' is to preserve a murder myth. Can I start another page or will it simply be deleted if I do? Please advise. Are.u.sure (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not say murder.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

12k cited content deletion at 2020 United States racial unrest
Earlier, you violated WP:1RR to remove 12k of thoroughly-cited edits to the AP2-discretionary-sanctions-restricted article 2020 United States racial unrest, while mentioning only one fragment of one sentence out of the entire 12k in your edit summaries. On my talk page you wrote,But I guess you don't read the Wikipedia: namespace pages you link to either because BRD explicitly says,It's not incumbent on me to write an essay about the edits I'm going to make beforehand, as busy work because you don't want to bother to even read through the diff. See also which says:

You may not have liked a brief history of how we came to be spending tens or hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars on monuments and museums to a nineteeth-century violent insurgency, but you deleted stuff about, for example, the US wine industry too. Please restore my edits to that page and do the actual work of a Wikipedia editor to read and improve encyclopedia content; I spent a fair bit of time working on those edits and you haven't even taken the time to read them... Okay, you restored them while I was writing this, thank you. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 17:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:ONUS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you also violated WP:1RR, as some of your edits were undoing other editors' previous changes. I have started a discussion of the edits on the talk page: Talk:2020_United_States_racial_unrest. Stonkaments (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also self revert4d once I realized I had before this thread was started.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media


Hello, Slatersteven. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Working Group on Syria".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

more than musings
I do not agree with the characterization that my edits are "just musings". Nor even something more conservative like "mostly musings" if you were to reword it that way.

Is there a particular musing you take issue with? You have not given an example.

I recall observing a detail not specified in a timeline and asking if anyone knows of a source which has that detail.

How is it not a suggestion of substance to propose adding that if it were supported in a reliable source? WakandaQT (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Did Kueng stop kneeling on Floyd's lower torso when he checked the wrist? Just wondering what time." that reads like mus8ings, not substantive edit suggestions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer and opinion
Greetings regarding poreklo question there is other matter that wonders me, if the reason for asking this question is because of this [] and latest edits [] then we have I believe WP:UNDUE problem here and as far as I can see ongoing edit warring, replacing one questionable source with the other one, specially because origin of this scientist is disputed, we have some source claiming that he is of Serb origin, other ones of Bunjevac third ones that he is a Croat but every one is equally reliable or unreliable i.e. this is the source that user posted regarding croatian ethnicty [] and it does not specifically saying that. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 24. December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I did not ask it I have no idea why it was asked. I would say if its in dispute, you mention that fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing
G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

People's Daily
Hi. Just digging through RSN archives for People's Daily. It doesn't appear to have had an independent review, but lots of buried mentions in other reviews. Seeing you also edit there, what's your understanding on them as a source? Depreciated along with CCTV, or usable only for... weather reports in Beijing? Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally In would not use them for anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete text & ref when found, or just add a cn tag? Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

My Removal of your reply at Talk:Donald Trump
I'm just letting you know I removed the edit request and your reply because the request was pure talk-page trolling and didn't serve any purpose. Thanks and Happy New Year. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Flying Ointment : Teniers caption : Witch/Werewolf
Hello Slatersteven. Happy New Year (almost). Re. dangling paws : no, I don't think that is the bottom half of a familiar flying off to the Sabbath. Given the context, I think the artist is showing us a 'before and after' vignette concerning the use of the magic ointment. Familiars are usually spirits, and therefore, I would argue, not in need of hallucinogenic ointment to change their form. There is also the broomstick between the levitating animal's legs, paralleling the broomstick between the young witch's legs: there is some suggestion (e.g. case of Dame Alice Kyteler (q.v.)) that flying ointments were applied vaginally, using various kinds of domestic implements or sometimes the back of a greasy pig (!) I grant you that the putative werewolf transformation is unusual - while similar ointment recipes seem to have been used for 'flying' and 'shapeshifting', I can't immediately recall another image of witch changing into a werewolf in order to fly to the Sabbath. (I am, however reminded of the Livonian werewolf Thiess mentioned in Ginzburg's 'Ecstasies...' who went off to a 'Sabbath' of sorts with his werewolf pals to fight for Christ against the sorcerers). I think the unusualness of Teniers's picture is part of its interest. Furthermore, we're dealing here with several levels of belief / 'reality'. Teniers's is depicting what he he has heard witches get up to and also giving his imagination free play with his material. How much does he know of witches, werewolves and the flying ointment? Does he (naively) believe they fly or shapeshift physically, or is he showing us what the witch believes or perceives to be happening to her. Any thoughts? Stay safe (and non-Euclidian) with cuddly Cthulhu. Flobbadob (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:or, it does not matter if I think it's shapeshifting, a curtain, or someone in a tattered fur cloak. RS have to come to the conclusion, not usersSlatersteven (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop blocking edits selectively on 2020 Delhi Riots With selective usage of WP:BLP
Stop selective usage of WP Policies or I will raise a DR against you for biased editing. Take your reporting threats elsewhere. Reply to the facts and do not threaten other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that is a good idea go ahead, but I suggest you read our policies properly first, otherwise a wp:boomerang might head your way. I also suggest you read WP:NOTDUMB before you make any other threats.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who started the threats when I started a civil discussion with proper references. I have already Read WP:DEJAMOO which is the only WP i take seriously given the sort of editors i have seen here, So unless you reply to my edits with proper and verifiable references which you are blocking without any basis, I am ending this conversation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to take the policies I linked to on your talk page seriously, and not make idle threats. I have told you to read the article's talk pages, which list (multiple times) why you are wrong. I have linked to the policies that tell you why you are wrong. By all means, end this conversation, but (here is another policy for you) wp:consensus (and wp:ONUS is clear, its done to you to convince other edits, convince based upon policy base arguments, which is what you have failed to do. Also, read wp:indent and wp:sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of policies, Read WP:PRAM to reduce your usage of frivulous wp:npa allegations and wp:cabal to understand why 2020 Delhi Riots Article is so biased and why the editors are so hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a policy, this is your last warning, continue to attack the integrity of fellow edits and I will report you here wp:ani, you are wasting our time with this, if you can't be bothered to read wp:blp and understand it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

All i am asking for is an explanation about why my edit is being blocked. I have provided the facts, verifiable references(which are new developments and whatever was discussed earlier will not matter.) How does reading 3 months old archives help with new developments that occured last week. I suggest you be a little more open minded when looking at edit requests and not block edits based on an established pattern on a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.
 * A. wp:blp "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." that is a policy. We can't say someone is guilty until they have been convicted, not should we really include accusations against people unless they are significant public figures. This has all been gone over at length on the talk page, multiple times.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So why is Kapil Mishra so liberally named multiple times? Has he been convicted by a court? Why a different yardstick when dealing with edits naming Umar Khalid and co. Some editors are going as far as casting aspersions on the professionalism and integrity of the Police officers investigating. How can a editor cast aspersions on the credibility of a professional without an iota of evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again if you read the talk page you will t you answer, so I will repeat it here.
 * We do not accuse him of any crime, in fact, we do not accuse HIM of anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Similarly Umar Khalid did make a speech about "sending a message" when Donald Trump visited India. That was blocked without an explanation. Some editors have gone as far as call the Police "rogue" and "corrupt"! Any evidence, references to these allegations? Any court convictions to support these claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No it was not, it was discussed at length on the talk page. As I said I am not going over this all again., read the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I only see BLP as an excuse for not naming Umar Khalid and his provocative speech. Why can't his speech about sending a message when Donald Trump visits India be quoted on the same lines as Kapil Mishra's speech has been without allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple threads about many issues including sourcing. And again, this is a charge against him, it's a claim he organized the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Threats
If you see anything like that again, please contact an administrator and WMF emergency immediately. Don't use ANI or the other noticeboards. In the old days before the emergency protocol got set up, I'd be on the phone to the police.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)