User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

G.O.A.T

	Award for being on wikipedia
	HI TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	thank you for your help TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump and NOTFORUM

So here's what I've started to post on some user talk pages per Talk:Donald Trump#FORUM. By responding to these people with anything but a WP:NOTFORUM link, you're being part of the problem instead of the solution. I totally get that forum talk is tempting.

Hello! Talk:Donald Trump is for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article, not for more general forum-like discussions about Trump, politics, and such. I hope you will keep this in mind in any future participation there. See WP:NOTFORUM for the relevant Wikipedia policy.

―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR sections in the article Shambhala

Hello Slatersteven, sorry for reverting your good-faith edit. I deleted those sections in the article Shambhala because they were completely unreferenced and tagged as WP:OR. I will try to expand the article with sourced content based on reliable references; it will take time. GenoV84 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

THe place for this discussion is the article talkpage. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump rv

Did you actually look at my edit? I fixed an EGG. The rest of my comment was about possible overlinking, which I didn't change. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You seemed to remove a valid link explaining the powers of the president. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed no link. I changed one linktext from "vetoed" to "He vetoed". ―Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I misunderstood your edit then. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945

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) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

British Army

Hello, you see the problem is, I don´t know which user to adress, therefore I decided to post a general question. But since you asked me directly here are some articles British soldiers in the eighteenth century British Army during the American Revolutionary War British Army during the Victorian Era British Army during the Second World War while some just need formatting or lacked of inline citations other are incomplete... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you just new here at wikipedia? Starex Night (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Mr Lovecraft has been a registered account since 2021. You (on the other hand) have been here less than a month. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR

If you cannot read a diff effectively, you should not be policing people who correct errors in templates. The unsigned template was filled out in error, and the hat template needs to be placed inside the section it covers, not outside, in order to work properly with archiving. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That was not the only refactoring you made. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Revert at Template : Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox

Hi Steven, I see you've reverted adding of North Korea in my last edit at Template : Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. To explain my move, I think the discussion has already run its course and the numerical and argumentation grounds, particularly considering that there were 16 support !votes and 3 oppose !votes, and both arguments were based in PAGs, firmly supports adding North Korea. I intend to revert your reversion because requiring an uninvolved admin close here is unnecessary and likely to add months to doing something that the community has already made a clear decision on. I think this may be a WP:1RR page since it deals with CTOPs, so please be aware of that. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You think that, and (as I stated) I disagree that it is a clear snow close, so wait until it is closed. |Slatersteven (talk)

OK, but that isn't a decision you can make by yourself - we don't have a "dog in the manger" veto on Wikipedia, where a small minority continue to block a change after it has clearly received consensus. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Nor is it yours, as you are involved, so wait for an uninvolved admin to judge it, I am willing to why are you not? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I've explained the issue - getting an uninvolved admin close could take months, meanwhile the result is now beyond question. But you're insisting on an uninvolved close - and it has to be an admin apparently? OK. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree it is beyond question, as it should be policy-based, and not just on the number of votes, and we are not uninvolved enough to make that decision. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

And it does not matter if it takes months, we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper, we can wait until the war is over if we want. There is no rush for us to add anything. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Rajiv Dixit RfC

Given the continued edit warring is strongly supported by the RfC, I think it's long past time we get it closed. Don't you agree? - Hipal (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No issue with an independent close. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

But I am unsure what view you think is strongly supported. Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have asked for a close by a third party. Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

IP edits to RfC

Just mentioning that an IP has commented several times on the North Korea RfC, and that those edits have been up for several days, in case you'd like to do anything about that Placeholderer (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Astrology additions

Hello you reverted my edit to astrology. I see its a protected article so perhaps I wasn't following protocol (should I just have added the suggestion into the astrology talk page?). On your substantive comment to the revert I'd say the reference is not definitive (of course!) but it is uptodate and critically contributes to the article by discussing forms of astrology from round the world usually disussed separately. This makes it notable/worth including I think. But I will leave it to your judgement. best wishes dz Dz3 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss any changes on the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Turbo

let's not help this guy get 500. I asked a question and now regret it. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Its why I said "I give up,", its clear they will not listen, next its ani. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 224, December 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franco-Prussian War Op-ed: Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum

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) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

MiG-21

Alright, so... we have any evidence that some of Syrian aircraft were evacuated before capture and eventual destruction? Are any airfields in control of Assad? From what I understand almost all of Syria is in control of rebel forces. If any MiG-21's are in control of the Syrian Arab Air Force, then those aircraft had to be evacuated somewhere, like Russia or Iran. From what I can tell SyAAF dosen't exist anymore.

Btw if you think that it still exists and operates those aircraft, flying them somewhere, then I recommend doing some fixing on This article. It states that all aircraft were lost by SyAAF, either due to airstrikes, or capture by rebels. Is this article wrong? If yes then should we fix it? Or are there like two parallel realities.

Sorry for bad English, I'am Polish and I'm exhausted and too lazy to check grammar. Blitzkriegfree (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Francis Dore

Hey @Slatersteven, if you have time, could you please review Francis Dore that I created a month ago? Sokoreq (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation

Would you please show me where in the citation it indicates that "Significant percentages of the global population" are impacted by this? Where in the citation does it say "victim"? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) (courtesy @MiracleDinner:) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

THis is a discussion for the artocel talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop Edit Warring

This is your last warning. I will report you. 2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You do not get to use your subjective opinion to consider everything vandalism. Stop edit warring or I will report you to the administrators. 2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Altering another users posts is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Deleting replys is not. 2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Make your reply without altering other people's comments, then. — Czello ^(music) 14:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Per to above, exactly, I had no choice but to revert all your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You should be aware this IP has started a thread about you but neglected to inform you. — Czello ^(music) 14:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Hi, I'm writing to you because, before me, you (rightly) deleted the IP's comment. They, unfortunately, are continuing without stopping. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I know, I am about to have a shower, when I come back they get reported. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hey there. In regards to this edit summary, my intended edit simply moved a comma inside of double quotes instead of outside of it. Not sure how it got garbled. Edit conflict maybe? My apologies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Typo

Fixed a typo here, please forgive me. Polygnotus (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

My bro, READ the British gov pages before you revert

You far right cockhead Micheal Paleologo-Oriundi (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

User warned about PA's and blocked from some pages for rickrolling. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk: Donald Trump lead sentence discussion

Hi Slatersteven,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about a consensus debate currently happening on Donald Trump’s page, as it mirrors a similar situation we encountered during Joe Biden’s presidency. Four years ago, we agreed on a consensus to keep the lead sentence format, which I believe was both fair and sensible. Specifically, the line for Joe Biden was: "...who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021." Looking back, I see that you were in favor of maintaining this as the status quo. Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

I believe we should apply this same structure to Donald Trump’s page, just as we did for Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him, to ensure consistency and clarity. This format clearly conveys the order ("47th"), incumbency ("current"), and start date ("since 2025"), which helps maintain uniformity across presidential biographies.

Given your involvement and support in that earlier consensus, your insights would be incredibly valuable in the current discussion. It’s important that we uphold the same standards regardless of the officeholder, and I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in, share your thoughts, and cast a vote. Here is the current discussion and vote underway: Talk:Donald Trump, Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Thanks a lot, and I hope you’ll consider contributing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

THis is a discussion for the article talk page, anything I have to say will be said there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

fair enough TimeToFixThis (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

hello

hello 71.223.94.48 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

hi. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Categories

The reason why is in my edit summary. Per WP:SUBCAT, Each categorized page should be placed in the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 226, February 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

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) 12:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:TAGTEAM and WP:BITE

Hi Slatersteven, I’ve noticed that you have posted several brief comments on my talk page, referencing policies such as WP:USERNAME and WP:SPA without providing clear explanations. If you have specific concerns about my edits, I would appreciate it if you could articulate them in a constructive, policy-based manner rather than leaving one-line remarks that do not contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Additionally, I am concerned that while you appear to have endorsed Valjean’s threats of administrative action against me, you have not acknowledged their repeated personal attacks and WP:AGF violations towards me. I would like to understand your reasoning for this apparent selective application of policy. I would also encourage you to review WP:TAGTEAM, which discourages coordinated enforcement of an editorial stance, as well as WP:BITE, which reminds experienced editors to be welcoming rather than overly aggressive towards those engaging in discussions in good faith.

Moving forward, I ask that if you wish to engage with me on Wikipedia, you do so in a constructive, policy-driven way rather than with vague references or implicit endorsements of others’ actions. Otherwise, I kindly request that you refrain from further unnecessary messages on my talk page. Thank you. Iispepsiokay (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I note you changed your user name, so in fact it was a useful warning to you that it might cause issues. As for SPA, it is clear what it means, you have only edited in one topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now read WP:SPA. It will be useful for you to read WP:TAGTEAM and WP:BITE Iispepsiokay (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So then you agree that you were in fact only editing in one (contentious) topic area? Also I am aware of them and would point out that I have not even commented in the thread where you are in dispute with Valjean (so hardly tag teaming). You might also therefore need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So you don’t apply WP:BITE to yourself? Good to have that clarified.

You endorsed an admin threat against me while ignoring repeated personal attacks and AGF violations from Valjean. That’s selective enforcement, not policy.

WP:SPA isn’t a policy violation. If you have an actual issue with my edits, say what it is. Otherwise, dropping vague policy references means nothing. WP:TAGTEAM doesn’t require direct coordination—consistent editorial alignment is enough.

If you want to engage, do it properly. If not, I’d appreciate you not wasting time with one-line policy drops. Also, listing the number of editors who’ve asked you to stop posting on their pages isn’t the best look. Iispepsiokay (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Nothing it that says that you can't be warned if you are (or are about to break) a policy. As to my user page, it is for my benefit to remind me. I also suggest you read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

And I note as well you have still not edited except about the one topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add that (in effect) daring an admin to give you a perma block, and asking they delete all your content, is not the threat you think it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

good evening

how are you? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks 71.223.155.247 (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia free? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

There is not cost to use it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Please consider using standard user warning templates

@Slatersteven: Please use standardized warnings such as those at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. It helps administrators such as myself to evaluate how many & what level of warnings a user has received.

I use Wikipedia:RedWarn & Wikipedia:Twinkle to semi-automate user warnings, although others seem to prefer Wikipedia:Huggle. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

DRASTIC

If you wish to delete the article on a notable subject with sufficient sourcing, you need nominate it for deletion as per WP:AFD, after reading WP:BEFORE. Since I do not believe the article should have been redirected, I removed the redirect, and referenced the policy in my edit . Your revert of my page restore asking me to nominate it for deletion is both puzzling and contrary to policy. Please undo your revert. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant, but as I recall there was a discussion about this, and the result was redirect. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such discussion. The policy for deleting pages on notable subjects is quite clear. I even added a new source from Le Monde, the most popular daily newspaper in France, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject. Please undo your revert and file an AFD with your argument on why the subject is not notable. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will afd it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how you misunderstood me now twice. You did not AFD it as I requested, instead filing it as a redirect for deletion, failing to link to the discussion where the MERGE decision was made. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That is because it is a redirect you altred. It is not in fact an article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No, an article on a notable subject with reliable sourcing was redirected to another article in what looks like an attempt to sidestep the community deletion process, and you have yet to provide a link to that consensus discussion. Please delete the REDIRECT discussion and post a proper AFD as I kindly requested. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You altred a redirect, by just adding content, it remained a redirect, so when I went to AFD it, it treated it as a redirect. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 227, March 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture Timeline: This month in military history

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) 11:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Kindly strike out or remove the false accusations of edit warring you made at my talk page SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I see (what look to be) edits by you on the 13th at least 3 times, undoing other user's edits and at least 3 on the 14th (including a straight-up revert). Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Please indicate which edits these were? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

[] first removal of content added by another user, [] second, [] Third. [] fourth, There are more. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Your characterization that these specific edits are part of an edit war is absurd. Please tell me what is objectionable or controversial about moving content to different sections/pages, correcting translation errors, and copy-editing? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Being right is not a justification, read then policy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.

All the content you objected to was added to the article no later than the end of August 2024. I performed a series of routine copy-edits on long-neglected sections of the page, which have since stood unchallenged. There's nothing warlike about it. I stand by my edits, since you seem to have such a problem with them I encourage you to contact the authorities. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And I stand by my warning you may have been about to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you refrained from baselessly assuming bad faith on my part. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. And with that this is my last reply. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Crossfit record

Please revert your change to my change. I actually wrote the original language, then discovered I had included her wrong placing and made the change which you subsequently reverted back. Please go to https://games.crossfit.com/athlete/65675 to see that MTG came 62nd in her age group in 2015 (and not 47th). Thanks Kransky (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Title of "Saint" edit warring

I've started a talk page discussion on the recent dispute for Talk:Simon of Trent#Title of "Saint" edit warring. Let's work together to find a solution there.

Vegantics (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Query for the removal of D. O. B. On Mangal Pandey

Hello @Slatersteven! Just saw that you had removed the Date of Birth of Mangal Pandey even though I had provided a source for the verification of the information. So, my question why had you removed it (obviously, it was not clear from the edit summary) and what should be done next.

Waiting for your reply. 16:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Amogh Tripathi (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the articles tralk poage. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't get you. Kindly tell me what should be done next and are whether will you remove the information again or not so that I can add it and improve the information on Mangal Pandey.

Seriously need a proper reply of yours. Amogh Tripathi (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page; ask this question there. If you are reverted, you ask there why. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You reverted me so I am asking you why you did it. Besides, I was not doing any type of "vandal work." The Date of Birth of Mangal Pandey which I added was properly sourced. Still, You. Yes, YOU. Reverted mey edit.

Why should I ask on the Discussion page if you were the one who reverted my edit? Anyways, on what condition will you let me add it again? The information is true, many sources say it but, I added Britannica Encyclopedia as a reference as it is very popular. So, tell me straightforward. I really need to add the D. O. B. To improve the page.

10:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Amogh Tripathi (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Becasue that is how we do things, read wp:brd, I will not fall into the trap I have seen others fall into of private discussions that then get challged by others, if we discus it there, otherss get to see it and join in. I fail to understand why you do not want to. And no you do not NEED to add it, you want to. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Handling of Trump bias complaints

Re:

Hi, please handle these per #61, as I did later. You could save my closure statement somewhere for easy copying-and-pasting. Or leave them for me, but the earlier they get closed, the sooner they get archived. In this case, there were nine hours between your comment and my closure. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added the suggested closure to the consensus item. Making it even easier to do this. (I don't know about you, but I can select the entire {{atop}} string by triple-clicking anywhere within it. Then it's just a simple "copy" operation and a simple "paste" operation, and adding the {{abot}} at the bottom. Making it easier yet to do this.)

I assume copies and pastes are easy for you. If not, I recommend you work on developing that skill; it's an important skill for any editor's toolbox. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

American Civil War

In case you didn't know, there has been a discussion on the American Civil War Talk Page about that sentence. I think that my sentence is an improvement. Would you please explain on the Talk Page why you disagree. I'd like to develop a consensus about it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Which does not seem to say you can add it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added another comment to the American Civil War Talk Page. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Kursk offensive (2024-2025). Link to ANI thread TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 228, April 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Borneo campaign of 1945 and warfare the South African way Timeline: This month in military history

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) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Santi book

Spamming fringe book, look at username and author's name. see Saint Thomas Christians Doug Weller talk 10:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

So why did you restore it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Korean war

What is the main reason for erasing other countries from the list? Hanyang.study (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ask at the article talk page, but for one, are they sourced? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

we can add source Hanyang.study (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

We? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You asked for it Hanyang.study (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat. Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is nowhere close to threatening. You asked for the source. Hanyang.study (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Then that is what you should have written, as your wording is open to misinterpretation. Nor is that an Answer to what I asked, what do you mean by "we"? Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I wanna ask the same question. what do you mean by "we?"? Hanyang.study (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we in trouble? Hanyang.study (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Where have I used the word "we"? 08:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Check the details I left here. The IP and rationalwikian are almost certainly the same user trolling us. Best to close the discussion. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you help with editing a page

In etymology section of Bhumihar. The use of its synonym term bhuinhar for the first time recorded in describing Battle of Madarpur 1528, between mughals and bhuinhars of Madarpur. Which is also mentioned in Kanyakubj Vanshawali / Kanyakubj Prabodhni. Sources;

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=zVmaEAAAQBAJ&dq=Battle+of+Madarpur&pg=PT46

2. https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/azamgarh-8981760.html?fbclid=PAY2xjawJ3ectleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABp9LzMVFCwSOt4ORMoHArj4s68ELO1ed09VH6Gxe_EjtrzzYrwq1j-OT2tUqG_aem_10IvJzAzX4198UQf3QFrqQ

3. https://archive.org/details/rDlx_kanya-kubja-vanshavali-devanagari-by-sri-pt.-lalmani-dharma-shastri-ji-shri-janta-book-stall-ka

Use the sources which you like. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, and wp:v source must actiakly say what you want to include. This issue has been discussed at the talk page, and there are differing opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

1st source discuss about battle.

2nd source is news article that discuss the same thing and include year(1528).

And 3rd is link to that Kanyakubj Vanshawali book. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

And i said repeated discussion at the talk page threw up other sources that disagree, we do not take sides, now if you wish to relitigate this take it to the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about editing a different page. Bhumihar $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I read that. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I have had no interaction with you on that page, so I have no idea what edit you are talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So can you help please. Mention Madarpur Battle. In bhumihar page. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to read wp:undue, and please make the case at that article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to groups of people or organizations

Just a shocking claim to see from someone as experienced as you... Just to be perfectly clear BLP does not apply to large collections of living people such as organizations, companies, or countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." And yes it can, just "not normally". But I stand by the basic point, we need good quality RS when there is doubt. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The size of Azov is not is doubt, we know its not small especially so small as to make individuals relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No, but its status as being far-right is, as to size? it is not exactly huge, having no more the 2,500 members. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

For BLP purposes more than 100 is large. "Doubt" in that context applies to the size of the organization, for example if we're writing about the company "Exemplar and Associates" but can't deterine if its an actual company with many associates or just Jessi P. Exemplar the owner. In that case there would be doubt about the size of the org which is when we would default to treating info about Exemplar and Associates as if it was info about Jessi P. Exemplar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is that an official rule? Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No its contextual, I've seen it argued and held that in some contexts five people is too many for BLP to apply. I've never seen anyone successfully argue that BLP applied to a group of more than 100 and the only ones I've seen be close were because the size of the org was in doubt. I haven't seen everything though, if such a case exists I'd be very interested in knowing about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at aspects of World War II Review essay: Nick-D on Osprey Publishing Timeline: This month in military history

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) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Undue?

Undue?, Indian minister has confirmed it that both sides have agreed for the cease fire and Pakistan's minister has confirmed the same, whats the point of removing that? I.Mahesh (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The undue part is the amount of prominence Trumpys announcement is given. Only the opinions of the two players matter. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

About EC edit requests

Hi,

It seems that you're effectively answering a bunch of EC Edit requests on Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict. Could I request you also mark the |answered=yes parameter whenever you believe the edit request is answered? ! There seems to be a permanent backlog of edit requests on that page, so any templates you handle is ones others don't have to. Thank you! Soni (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Slater

Can you please check the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, the casualties section keeps getting deleted and I requested the change to be reverted, they did revert it but now again after 2 days it's deleted.

Also i'm not sure who is doing this but whenever I scroll over Pakistan, it takes me not to Pakistan article but terrorism article, I don't want to name call anyone but it's very evident who is doing this vandalizing and I was requesting for you if you can please keep close eye on Pakistan related articles because it seems someone is vandalizing them. Ironman993 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Science

Science is good. 114.46.147.190 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Read my user page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Blank section at ANI

WP:ANI#New user POV pushing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, just have it enter by mistake, as about to file an ANI, but they are a new user so I felt I needed to tell them I would report them and give they a chance to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Slatersteven:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Blogs

Hi,

Just curious were it says that blogs (no matter who writes it) should be used. Wikipedia says like this:

"Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

I think it's important to use good sourcing and improving the article, that's all. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

wp:sps " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

Agree it says like this. "May," and that it is not preferred right. I'm just curious why the blogs are even necessary, couldn't we just use all the other sources? We both can agree a blog post is not optimal, I guess? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

They are no more necessary than any other source, but they sometimes contain opinions from relevant experts. Thus are the opinions we should want, not those of talking heads in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we agree that Wikipedia states that they are not preferred and that other sources are preferred? I'm just talking about the official policy, 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

No, as they are allowed. We do not have any kind of preferred source policy. If it is an RS it is an RS irrespective of what kind of source it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

So why does it say like this?

"Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources" 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Read the rest of it, we should exercise caution as to how we use it. Such as for information in wp:blp's. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean I agree that it's not completely forbidden, in this case I just argue that better sources can be used. But I'll leave it at that.

Another question, shouldn't the sources be properly represented in the article? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Occasionally, things are claimed in the article, that wasn't really said in the sources, like some of the examples I found before. I think that's a big issue actually. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a wp:v issue, and if that is the case a claim (or source) can be removoed as wp:or, though it is often best to tag if rather as failing verification. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

DanBritton

I don't believe there is much point in your engaging with the editor. As is often the case, even editors trying to help, get added to the conspiracy against the sanctioned editor. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hence why I said that was my last word. Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

War on terror

Hi, look, I have a question regarding the article on the war on terror. Why shouldn't the current de facto leader of Al-Qaeda, Saif al-Adel, be included in the infobox? Is the war on terror really over?

On the other hand, the information is quite ambiguous about whether this war is actually over or not. Aksel 5001 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place form this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

India Pakistan conflict 2025 Analysis section

Is there any reason you deleted this from Analysis section which is confirmed by Washington Post? what is the offense here?

The Washington Post, which reviewed more than two dozen satellite images, confirmed damage to at least six Pakistani airfields noting that some of the Pakistani sites hit were 100 miles deep inside Pakistani territory. It further noted that these strikes were the most extensive Indian air attacks on Pakistani military infrastructure since the 1971 war. Foodie 377 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was stated in the first edit summary when I removed it, why did you claim it was a mistake? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok fine you removed it on purpose. But I am asking why? it shows reference to an article. it is not WP:OR. what are the grounds for removal Foodie 377 (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Why did you say it was removed accidentally when it was not? And I have already answered you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely thought it was a mistake along with the other NZZ revert. But I am not clear on why you removed this one. I really am not clear why. Can you answer that? Foodie 377 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

What?, that is the only edit I made today. As to why I shall quote my edit summary. "NO per WP:ONUS it is down to thhose wantng to add something to get consneus.". You are expected to read edit summaries. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please try to add claims of John Spencer Tom cooper Michael Rubin and Damien Symon and Tom Cooper in Analysys and other places

Please add the claims of these in this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict

https://www.theaustraliatoday.com.au/indias-strategic-decimation-of-pakistan-resets-global-geo-political-military-matrix-despite-legacy-media-propaganda/

Before all these claims were rejected because admins says they are from Indian media. But now this is reported by a neutral media The Australiatoday So this should be added. Australia Today is a neutral media and every news published by them will be fully verified by the chief editors of Australia today before publishing. 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Also all these statements are clearly shown diverted to respective statement owners verified X posts.

Thanks 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

See thre talk page as to why these have have not been added. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)