User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/November

White privilege
Thanks for your comment, I look forward with working with you to improve the White Privilege page. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith
Please note the article is under these restrictions. I also made no edit warning.


 * Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The comments are completely off topic and are of a uncivil nature, they are also completely false.
 * At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.


 * It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. "Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018"


 * I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings". -72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018, Tuesday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)

It appears he is referring to your comments on denying mass shooting content. -72bikers (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And involved ed cannot hat a comment (see Template:Hidden archive top).Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

the log on the page clearly shows I threaded my statement immediately under yours as I was responding to you. You moved your comments when you hatted mine. I will revise my comment to make it clear I was not addressing. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the comment chronology has already been fixed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So then (72bikers) you were edit warring, and my warning was justified.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Clearly states his abuse is a violation. My actions are within policy, the comment as well as being grossly inaccurate are off topic. -72bikers (talk)
 * Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
 * Are you an admin? Do you not read what admins tell you?Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Unclear edit?
Hey Slatersteven. Two things. First, even though we don't often agree on the firearms edits, thank you for helping out with the compromise proposal this morning. Second, your last edit, was it incomplete? It appears to be referring to something I said but I don't know what. []. Springee (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

–Stephen Yaxley-Lennon AKA Tommy Robinson—

You insist that Tommy Robinson is the common term to use when relating factual information about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Four points

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was the person convicted of multiple crimes not Tommy Robinson. If you tried to check court records under Tommy Robinson you could not discover the cases against him.

No legal change of name or registered stage name has been accepted in UK law for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to be recognised as Tommy Robinson.

Wikipedia is not here to placate or mimic the press but deliver facts.

The article, as it was edited, made it perfectly clear in the first paragraph that he is known as multiple aliases including Tommy Robinson.

I will not be coerced into changing facts by threats of being banned.
 * You should sign your posts. Nor did I insist on anything, check what I refer to him as. But we go with what sources say, (read wp:v) not what we think. Sources seem to refer to him as Tommy Robinson.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Typo in talk page?
Hi, you said "But certainly only is RS have mentioned the incident." in a comment at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Did you mean "if" rather than "is"? I didn't want to correct it if I misunderstood. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I meant if.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hounding of MjolnirPants (and retaliative harassment of those who take his side)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

You were lucky 18 months ago to get off with a WP:TROUT because I was five hours too late to call for a WP:BOOMERANG and had an edit conflict with User:Writ Keeper's close.

Adding a claim to being dyslexic to your user page after someone pokes fun at a misspelling you made, then opening an ANI thread about how they are insulting people with a particular disability, and not mentioning anywhere in that thread that you only disclosed your dyslexia after the fact, is seriously bad form. That you are still coming after MjolnirPants (and, by extension, me, with a comment that, if take as a sincere, good-faith remark, shows a serious misunderstanding of WP:CANVAS) well over a year later is simply unacceptable. I cannot believe an editor who engages in this kind of disruption somehow has only one short EW block on their record.

Consider this a warning. If I see any more hounding/harassment from you, of any editor, I will request that you be blocked.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW: While searching for the above bogus ANI filing I noticed you actually opened another a few weeks later, and a few months after that you argued that someone on your side was not canvassing when they clearly were. So these are both serious, ongoing problems with you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not Hounding of MjolnirPants, I have not (as far as I know) posted on his talk page, not about an ANI about him in months (and the ANI you linked too last was not about him, or even launched by him. It seems to be more about me disagreeing with you). Nor have I come after you, in fact we are only involved in (what two or three) disputes mutually? In fact I dount we have had more then half a dozen mutual disputes this year, in fact I can say that I dounbt that we have many poages we edit together (or come to that me and MjolnirPants) As for the Dyslexic stuff, yes I posted it after it became clear people were not taking it in to account when commenting on my edit spelling (rather then ion actual content).
 * Nor have my interactions been repeated (except over a very short and specific time period all involving linked incidents), nor would I argue it is offensive, at least no more then telling a user to fuck off). You might argue that in the recent series of linked threads (yes linked) he has got repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention from me (but as I said that is because of a series if linked incidents, not unrelated pages, and annoying only in the sense I have disagreed with him). As to my interactions with you, again these are linked incidents and cannot be used as evidence I am harassing him.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You've edited WT:CIVIL 25 times in the last week or so; you had not edited it at any time previously, apparently because the inciting incident in this latest controversy involved your houndee, and you've been viciously arguing for it, even going me for opening a thread about how an editor on your "side" was canvassing. Yeah, maybe the latter is more WP:BATTLEGROUND than WP:HARASS, but it's still highly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What has me "going for you" got to do with MjolnirPants, you seem to be conflating two separate users as one in order to claim harassment against one of them. Of course I edited WT:CIVIL 25 times, I was being communicated (most of those were replies to other users, not even just you and MjolnirPants) with. Moreover not one of my replies was a response or reply to MjolnirPants, not one. I do not in fact even refer to him except in my last post, as a response to you raising his name. Nor is MjolnirPants mentions in the OP of the RFC, so why would I assume it was about him?Slatersteven (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You want to harass MPants, to the point of changing policy specifically to get him, and my opening that thread on DT's canvassing got between you and that goal; you may have also known that I have a historical good working relationship with MPants (maybe you even remembered the fact that I was the one who caught you out in the above lie about MPants going after you for your dyslexia), but that doesn't really matter. And the number 25 is not significant to my above point, as the point was that you clearly do not have WT:CIVIL on your watchlist, but instead showed up there because the discussion involved MPants, and specifically an issue you'd harassed him over in the past, and at the time you first posted his username (or the variant "MPants") appeared 11 times on the page; you could not reasonably pretend to be unaware the discussion was about him, nor explain how you happened across it having never edited that page before (you clearly did not see the publicizing in a vacuum, given your response to my ANI thread about the canvassing). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot recall how I cam across it, maybe the same way I come across many pages I have never edited before, I stumbled across it. Or maybe (as an RFC) it showed up somewhere that I was watching (this is the one I suspect as this was raised whilst I still had an eye on ANI). Maybe I was watching the actions of one of the eds, but as MPants was not the only uses who posted (and no I had not seen his names mentioned, I did not read all the posts, just the proposal) it might not have been him. And NO I do not agree the discussion was about him, he is not the only user (as ewas clear from the RFC) who says fuck off.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit posted just before I did [] (not him). Again it is odd that the only place I "harass" him is at a policy forum in a discussion not in fact directly about him. Despite the fact there were other places more directly about him I could have done so.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this is the one I suspect as this was raised whilst I still had an eye on ANI? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What I said, that I cannot recall what brought me to that RFC (it was after all an RFC, and may well have been mentioned in many places), but it was mentioned at ANI whilst I was keeping an eye on ANI (thus is one notice board I may have seen it on), so maybe it was the mention at ANI that attracted my attention. What else could it have meant?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Schutzmannschaft Battalions
User:Slatersteven, this is a statement which was added recently, and has no sources. The Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202 and Schutzmannschaft Battalion 107 were tiny (both containing 300-500 troops) and both were failures, to manipulate this fact and say "Poles served in Schutzmannschaft: 202 or 107" as to suggest this was some wide phenomena is VERY INACCURATE. Instead of blindly reverting, please look at the facts, and recall the original discussion on this section, which concluded that only major facts should be included in this high level article. Also, Poles did not serve in the SS, only members of the German minority in occupied Poland, so that statement is also incorrect. --E-960 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They were rather more successful then the BFC, and we have a whole seperate section on it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom wasn't occupied, Poland was occupied. Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, the point made was about numbers and failure.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

as an am din
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=868347488 lol Govindaharihari (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 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) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Consent for removal of deletion tag for the article ami sirajer begum
I am adding encyclopedic content including cast premiete dates synopsis and others, have already added some along with references so please undo the tag for speedy deletion kindly. From Ericranium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericranium (talk • contribs) 16:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I haveSlatersteven (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)