User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/January

3RR
Seriously man? The article was just unprotected and you hit 3RR already? There is clearly consensus for the content in the poll Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And you restored the contested material. And no there is not clearly consensus, ans the poll was incorrectly worded. I count 5 yes and 2 no's, I would not call that clear consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored content which clearly has consensus, perhaps you will have luck with your new poll. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said I do not think that just under 50% saying no is a clear consensus (especially given the faulty wording of the poll), and I think my choice of wording was both better (it managed to say more with fewer words form a start, what the lead is supposed to do). But I cannot revert so your version sticks for now. But if this is how you want to page to read, well that is how it reads for now.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

DRN 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. The thread is "Talk:British Empire#Afghanistan". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Nihlus 01:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Youngnoah
you wrote understated but meant understand. Why he thinks the Portolan is peer reviewed I have no idea. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * LOl, idiot( that is I am).Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Announcing my un sockpuppetness
This is my only account. The fact that I did not bother to log in does not make me a sockpuppet. IF you see me making unwarranted edits, please revert. See WP:BB 82.181.119.173 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sequence on talk page
Re your talk page points A and B: A. Apologies, but SPECIFICO’s interjection and your outdented response to that suggested that a continuation below might be more appropriate. B. To respond to this, I’d like to amend my suggested edit, which appears below your {A,B} post. Given the current state, should I continue at bottom or respond immediately below that post? Humanengr (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Outdent and start again might be best, but make clear what you are replying to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx. I just realized that I can ask a question for clarification at your last post, so will continue for the moment there. Humanengr (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

3RR
Once again you are on 3RR Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And once again you have breached BLP which does not allow us to claim something a source does not say about someone. We can only say what sources say, not what we wish them to say. Thus is a source says "X has claims Y has said" we cannot say "Y has said", that is a breach of BLP. Especially when what they are accused of saying is illegal or seen as controversial.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is not illegal in the UK, and he has not denied saying what he said, your crying BLP when editwarring is tiresome, just stop editwarring. He said freedom of speech should protect the right to ask “Holocaust: Yes or no?” Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And you will note I did not just say illegal, I also said controversial. I did not edit war, I undid vandalism which is the repeated addition of OR that breaches BLP rules. Nor does it matter if he denied it, we say what sources say, and if sources do not say "he said it". Now if you want to write" According to the hufington post" go ahead. But this is a serious allegation that needs more then just one dodgy source (the DM) and one OK source (the HP) to say he said it. Also he does not say "we should be allowed to discus if the Holocaust happened" he say "discuss every issue, whether it’s the holocaust, yes or no, whether it’s Palestine liberation - the entire spectrum.", which is not the same thing. If you want to actually quote him fine, but interpretation of what he said must be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As requested
diff Happy now? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * NO, you have edited a ton of pages he has not looked at, and besides did he edited that page? Stalking is not (to my mind) going to a page you have looked at.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya right Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes right, after a months absence you fetched up there, after he had edited the page, and withing a week have accused him of stalking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's five days man, are you looking at the dates right? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first diff is dated the 14th, you second diff is dated the 14th, the diff I posted is dated the 13th, so what five days are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Between my last edit, to reverse the split, and his last edit? That's five days. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But he had edited the page before you, after you had not edited it for over a month. So as I said he edited a page you had not edited in over a month, you then edit it and less then a week latter you report HIM for stalking. As far as I am concerned it is not stalking to edit a page someone no longer appears to be editing. It does not matter if he then edits after you, only if he edits immediately after you having made no previous edits, that is not the case here.Slatersteven (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You are not being honest with yourself, ask, how did he get there to begin with, how did he get to 1576 Cocoliztli epidemic, and a fair few others? Obvious stalking is obvious cheers and goodbye Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Artemis fowl (film) nomination
Apparently page curation doesn't understand doing a second nomination - can you redo it with twinkle? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never used it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI
Hi. I think you forgot to sign your latest post at the Humanengr thread.  SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)