User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/August

Talk page

 * Please do not post on my talk page with unsubstantiated warnings. Because of this I will ask you to not post at all on my talk page. Please keep all comments to article talk pages. Thank you -72bikers (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As you did with mine? Maybe you should start treating others how you expect to get treated. Could you get anymore disingenuous?Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You actually have made a habit of making false warnings on people's talk pages for some time, Slatersteven. 72bikers is not the disingenuous one. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bruttius Sura
Hello Slatersteven. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bruttius Sura, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: If someone is still known about after 2100 years, we can safely assume there has to be some coverage about them. Thank you. SoWhy 13:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is we have a few on e line mentions in works about Sulla or the first Mithridates war. Nothing to establish independent notability. But if you do not think this should be CSD fine, It has so many issues I am not sure there is enough to warrant any attempt at rescue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about WP: Noticeboard for Reliable Sources
How is a person to know that a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has been closed? Is it permissible to continue an edit in the area of conflict even before a resolution has been passed?Davidbena (talk) 04:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally anyone can close a discussion, but there has to be some period (not sure it is defined) of inactivity (personally I do not). There is no reason why you canto continue to edit, but bare in mind that continuing to edit whilst a discussion is ongoing can be seen as tendentious editing, especially if the discussion is not going your way. It is (very) good practice to wait till discussions are over. At least that is my (rather poor) understanding.Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this advice! Have a good day.Davidbena (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail
You've got another mail. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi I am contacting you in regard to the Lancashire Post updates that were on the Wikipedia page for David Icke. The first one in regard to my review of an Icke show was not put up by me so it has been mistakenly removed when I added my own update in relation to another article I wrote that covered an interview I had with Icke. I understand there is a conflict of interest in regard to the update I added as I wrote the article but the other Lancashire Post update was put in weeks before by someone unknown to me. I would ask that the first part (which I did not add) be reinstated. Let me know if I haven't made myself clear :) Cheers Henry

Rao Kadam Singh
Hi. Hope you are doing good.

Rao kadam singh or chaudhari kadam singh was a notable leader during the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

Please read the section "The Revolt" under "Rebellion of 1857" page. May also refer to "Kadam Singh" page.

Please let me know if the history of Rao kadam singh is wrong or i am updating without documented stuff

Hope you will be agree.

Thanks Gewingewin (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this matters, you are edit warring. Even if you are right that is wrong. You need to take it to the talk page and make your case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

re. Appearing to be a mass delete
I've split off the section by copying due to how long it was. Would it be possible to summarize the section and link to the new article?— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would have been best to have discussed this first on the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have created a new section on the talk page for the proposed split. Any comments would me much appreciated. Cheers!— Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Subconscious Biases
In non-structured interactions, uncommonly good and uncommonly bad results will happen. In the process of editing information, people specifically stop what they view as "falsely positive" impressions about bad things and "falsely negative" impressions about good things, on the grounds that those impressions aren't proper, but they don't realize that they are actually putting their thumb on the scale and creating a situation where only the randomly bad impressions of what they dislike get seen, and the randomly good impressions of what they like get seen. This is one of many ways that subconscious biases sneak into the behavior of people who are supposed to objectively interpreting information. But because it is subconscious, information is largely garbage since "Labour voters" and "Trump fans" will color it, unless someone on the other side has open access to speak as well and counteract with their own biased information. This is why Fox News, CNN and the New York Times are laughably bad sources of information. You need editors who are biased both ways, no matter how crazy or foolish "left-wingers" think the "right-wingers" are, or vice versa. because anything without the other side will inevitably become slanted. I don't appreciate you doing this to a source which is supposed to be objective, and which uninformed readers are led to believe is objective. You can take this to an administrative page and waste your time trying to silence one of my IP's as you and your other simple-minded left-wing friend have tried. But you should consider actually reading it and considering it instead, because that will actually lead somewhere productive for you. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I will.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a small world
I see you also ran afoul of Tom Kratman. Is there any SF/F people in the world that guy didn't alienate? I mean besides the other RPs of course... Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Upset puppies.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny but true story, dunking on the puppies in public has made me more money than my novel ever did. LOLSimonm223 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would that not make the tea taste funny?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny tasting tea or not, that colloquium appearance paid for my new TV. LOL. Anyway, on happier matters don't suppose you know Rob Shearman? Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He's an SF/F writer based out of London IIRC. Really good guy, would probably never sully tea by dunking puppies in it. Wrote the Dalek episode of Dr. Who.IF you get the chance to meet him, take it. He's awesome. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I here he does not belong to that kind of club either.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Naw. I mostly know him through the Toronto SF/F scene - he visited Canada a few times and was semi-regular at the Chiseries events there - and those weren't particularly puppy-friendly. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant the kind of club that would accept me as a member.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, THAT club. Okay. You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)==

Talk page
Please do not post on my talk page, I have requested this more than once. Your warnings are not legitimate based on your misunderstandings, this is exactly why you were politely asked to not post there based on you inability to discern legit reasons. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said the next time you move a post of mine I report it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

How is including Pliny the Elder considered an "unreliable source" or "original research"?
Please explain your bias against him. If Livy and Plutarch's ufo accounts can be included how is it possible that Pliny's can be excluded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.145 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY. Livy and Plutarch are not included in isolation on the basis of editor opinion, but because there are non-primary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This, they do not describe them as UFO's, The other material sources to Livy and Plutarch's have secondary sources analyzing their accounts and going "look UFO". What you are doing is wp:OR (because you are reading it and saying "Look UFO", when another reader might read them and go "Look flock of birds".Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI discussion
I thought we decided to "draw a line under this". (?) -GDP  ⇧  07:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad. Someone just pinged you and I thought it was you who commented. Just ignore it. Cheers, -GDP  ⇧  08:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)