User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2017/November

Thank you
I don't think I ever actually thanked you for all the cleanup work you've done at that Bulgaria trainwreck. Hopefully, now it's under long-term semiprotection (ant the next one will be permanent if the socks come back again when it expires), at least some of the "totally annihilated the military of Israel" nonsense and fictional battles won't return. &#8209; Iridescent 17:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * With any luck. It been a lo tof effort, really for a nothing page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is this source unreliable?
Why is the OFFICIAL website of the mosque unreliable (as a clerical source) for the mosque article? (Great Mosque of Kufa) this source: Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles says the cleric sources are reliable. So why some clerical publisher in Qum is reliable for Masih ad-Dajjal (unfortunately the source doesn't have any link) (Bilgrami, Sayed Tahir (2005). "6". Essence of Life, A translation of Ain al-Hayat by Allama Mohammad Baqir Majlisi. Qum: Ansarian Publications. p. 104.) but the accessible of a FAMOUS HISTORICAL MYTHICAL STORY OF A HADITH on the official clerical website of the mosque is not? Is there any double standard? If the users including you try to stay in a rational discussion I will do the same but why you don't have any reaction to the User:Pahlevun talking about summaries in the Wiki Fa (Special:Diff/800489013) (Pahlevun says why do I laugh to the holy source) as a prove to delete and vandalizing the content of the article?!! Is there any prejudicial double standard between me and Pahlevun? This is not a PA this is a clear question (if you read the article talk page accurately or if you are familiar with Arabic or Persian languages)-- IranianNationalist (Welcome) 18:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20130919075523/http://www.masjed-alkufa.net/news.php?readmore=203
 * It is not RS for information about itself. Nothing in Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles contradicts that (which as far as I can says nothing about clerical sources being unacceptable for all articles relating to Muslims or Islam (if I am wrong please quote it, as I cannot find it).Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You, I take it
are following the latest at List of Confederate monuments and memorials? I know that you thought I was a jerk when you first arrived, can you imagine what two months of this sort of thing does to one? It has not brung out the best in me. But stick around. Carptrash (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to comment on what I think of you, but I am capable of seeing problems with both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017
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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Reposition cmt?
Minor: Your “Why should I try to write something …” here was apparently a response to Bob, not me. Did you want to reposition? Humanengr (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is why it is in dented the way it is.Slatersteven (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stay off Darkness Shines' Talk Page
Darkness Shine will report you for anything, in a heart beat and posting on DS's talk page after they asked you not to does not sit well with Admin, in my experience. However, if you would like to contribute? 

I have had to deal with that one on more than one article and it has not been pleasant. Good luck. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * did not ask me not to, until my last post did he (in fact did he even then?, it would have been nice for it to have been obvious)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also editing an ANI archive is a policy violation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not realize the discussion was closed as no conclusion was reached. I apologize and I now know.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you forgot to sign
at Russians talk 17:04. SPECIFICO talk  17:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * bugger!.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

AE / ANI
Hi. I see where you suggested closing the AE thread concerning Thucydides411. I think that AE is a more effective and in general a thoughtful forum for this sort of thing - and in this case specific Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions are part of the issue. I am going to copy my comments from ANI to AE so that they are available in both places. I don't know of any reason not to do this. It has nothing to do with forum shopping, as one editor erroneously suggested. I forget how extensively you commented at the ANI or what you said, but perhaps you'll consider doing the same at the AE. SPECIFICO talk  13:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I fear that they will be used to close each other down. So it must be kept in one forum.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should ask an Admin for guidance. ?  SPECIFICO  talk  13:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I did not start the AE I have no issue with it being closed or not. As such I am happy to just continue with the ANI (and I think we can see where it is heading, but such is moderation).Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As everyone seems to want AE I have asked for the ANI to close, I will be interested to see what now transpires.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that was precipitous. But there are different authorities in AE and ANI as to what remedies they can impose.  I suggest we await Admin assistance in consolidating the two threads.  Consider waiting before requesting close if it could result in archiving and losing everyone's input there.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * o late I have already asked.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I should stay out of this now that I've "voted". :) Drmies (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was more the fact that a certain user had (in effect) demanded I ask for a close, and then (to a degree) misrepresented the reason. Hell I would even point out he did not change his vote, just the reason for it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

 * I maybe "knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" I am also (sadly) a firm believer in the law must be blind.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Slatersteven. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.