User talk:Slatersteven

BNP Manifesto 1992

Even if it is thirty years ago, yes, it is important to have the BNP 1992 Manifesto so then we can read their policies right from the beginning. This is just a provision of extra research to know where they stood on the issues in relation to the then Tory government under John Major.

The correct place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"every quote claoing Musk a fuck knuckle"

Having listened to the LBC radio show again about Elon Musk, I can find no instance of Thomas Winsor, a lawyer, "claoing Musk a fuck knuckle", whatever that means. I quote from the article's history:

"11:51, 10 August 2024‎ Slatersteven talk contribs‎ 360,834 bytes −886‎ Undid revision 1239610475 by Richard Nowell (talk)uinsure we need every quote claoing Musk a fuck knuckle". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&action=history

After deleting my properly researched and credited quote from a senior British arbitrator, mediator, lawyer, consultant and economic regulatory professional 1 minute after my posting it, I can only assume you work for Mr. Musk.

Please reinstate the sentence. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The place to ask for edits is the article talk page, not here (and read wp:agf and wp:npa). Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 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 two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

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) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:141.170.15.23

Please do not bait or taunt blocked users. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I was not, I was trying to encourage them to not do what they did go on to do, as the new IP is also clearly a sock, and being used for harassment and revenge edits. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For once admit you were wrong and move on. Read WP:CONDUCT WP:BEHAVE to understand how to be a Civil editor here 49.205.33.54 (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree I was wrong, as the subsequent blocks (I think) prove. Had they actively listened to me from the off they would not now have those bans. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I also noted you only have two edits (including this one), odd that you should know so much about policy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And the continued socking over on the IP's talk page, some people really need to read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop n take a deep breath and read WP:CONDUCT Avoid such aggressive behavior on a platform meant for collaboration and consensus 223.186.8.60 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Then users should avoid having to be warned, or arguing, and actually take heed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop taking things personally when someone disagrees with you. No one here has the time to argue. Please read WP:CONDUCT and tone down your unusually aggressive pitch on Talk pages. I said this in the most humblest of tones, lest you falsely assume it to be personal attack. 223.186.149.169 (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You refuse to acknowledge the importance of WP:BEHAVE WP:CONDUCT and try to turn it back on me. I am only here to collaborate and discuss edits that can help enrich the platform. At no point have I argued or been warned of high handedness 223.186.149.169 (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Then try editing a page other than this one, and show what kinds of edits you want to make. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I Will definitely continue doing so irrespective of aggressive behaviour. I believe in healthy collaboration and discussion. I really understand what WP:CONDUCT means 223.186.149.169 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Starting to edit other (as in not this one) pages is a good way of showing that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

OK My friend.hope Buddha helps you find peace and tranquility in life! 223.186.149.169 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

LOL< any time soon would be OK. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So will they now actually listen do you think, or block evade again? Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Notification of third opinion (3O) request

I listed Talk:List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Donald_Trump#Georgia_Order_of_Excellence at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hi MR SLATER, Thank you for your feedback on the talk topic. In my opinion, the Wikipedia Id: SLATER has a good meaning and plays a very necessary role in human society. Have a nice day. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Rajiv Dixit

The content that Imlochan (talk · contribs) had been edit-warring over is actually the one remaining area of dispute after cleanup work started by Abecedare (talk · contribs) back in June. Abecedare has been away from Wikipedia for almost a month now, and I don't think waiting longer for their return is a good idea. It shouldn't be difficult to put an RfC together, which will probably be needed. - Hipal (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And there had been no discussion, as such there tag was invalid. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Voting for coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Content removal and edit warring

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Marjorie Taylor Greene, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As for your edit summary: citing WP:BLP is a moot point when you edit war against a long-standing consensus version. If you feel there is a BLP issue in the consensus version, the onus is on you to overturn the consensus on talk, not to edit war over it. Jeppiz (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Err, I did it once, on the last month, that is not edit warring (I suggest you read wp:editwar). Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hello I read the wp:cir you sent me, and I feel uncortable that I received wp:cir on my talk page because I asked you about the reliablity of the YouTube sources - two different cases whether it is appropriate to use YouTube 1) However,I appreciate that you understood my intention to use YouTube as I am trying to use YouTube link as a clue to find several reliable sources. 2) "Ahh thank you, yes that is a useful source, I fail to see why therefore you went on about a youtube video" 3) Although I feel uneay about wp:cir, I am trying to understand that wp:cir written on the talk page is WP:FAITH, so I give you wikilove. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"Still at it"?

Wdym "Still at it"? Talk pages are places where you can chat about the page and discuss your opinions about the page! 69.160.112.231 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

YOur posting policy breaching comments [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

White is a unofficial denomination of Caucasian race in the USA, but is not officialized by any source.

The term "white" refers to Caucasian race. But this is not officialized by any State source. I saw that you have changed the denomination on George Floyd topic in the murder charge by Caucasian race police officer. But the official denomination is not the term "white", but Caucasian race, which fits the description of the perpetrator. Can you validate by any source that "white" denominates in the official Constitution and laws of the US, in the context of the George Floyd murder? BlackNoxis (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

But it is a widely used colloquialism used in most RS about this case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers I'd argue 62 is far enough away from 6 that six should be spelled out regardless Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks odd, personally, but the MOS seem to agree with you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 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: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

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) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

attempt to overturn the election

Why are you deleting syntax and grammar edits? it wasn’t better before. Do you work for the DOJ Jack Smith?

“Baselessly” is an opinion. This is not a one-sided issue. You like communism?

To be fair and neutral, please revert it. Furtivead (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

wp:agf and the place to ger wp:consensus is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You may also need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already blocked them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That was quick, I did not even get to warn them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The recent revertion of an entire three days work of edits on Mary Baker Eddy

Hello, I have already stated my case - in length - on the MBE talk page. You can read for yourself. I found it perfectly legitimate to remove the "sources may not be reliable" note from May 2023, as it has improved since then, has both sided biographers (for example Peel is pro-mary baker eddy, and Milmine is opposed to Mary Baker Eddy) - and they are all known biographers spanning over a century. I even had the users that were conversing with me stating that they feel I could remove it as well. I have worked really hard on this page, and for it to suddenly be reverted for a reason that I cannot see and that I have proven with my work, I am at a loss. Can you please let me know what the problem is? I really do want to understand so it can be fixed the right way. Greg (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to make your case (and get consensus) on her page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• PLEASE SEE HER TALK PAGE

Greg (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No? That isn't how Wikipedia works. WP:BEBOLD is an important guideline: it is not necessary to seek consensus on a talkpage before improving an article. You should not just revert someone's BOLD edits without a substantive challenge to them. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

i appreciate this - man, i feel completely and unjustifiably bullied on this - I mean why am I spending so many hours trying improve it if someone can come along and just delete the whole thing with no explanation or reading up to date info on the talk page? Greg (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gregorcollins: Yeah, getting reverted without a good explanation can be very frustrating. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

please read the user comments on the bottom of MBE page to get up to date with what I'm referring to. thanks Greg (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

MBE was what confused me as we have no page called that. Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits simply for a "lack of consensus"

Your way of going about this is in complete contradiction of WP:BOLD and is incredibly discouraging to fellow editors. If you have an actual disagreement with their edits, indicate that in your edit summary. If it's a massive overhaul of an article that has been debated endlessly, that's one thing, but for 99.9% of articles, there is no necessity to seek consensus before making significant edits. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources are no good. They were all written by Christian Scientists apart from the Britannica source. Its violates WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV etc. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Then Slatersteven should say that! That's a perfectly good reason to revert. "lack of consensus" is not. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I will admit to frustration as I had in fact tried, and kept getting edit conflicts due to the number of edits they were making. In some cases each edit worse than then last. Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Atlantis

I just took a look at the Talk:Atlantis page, and just wanted to thank you for the time and effort you put into answering all the crank claims by IPs. I remember doing this about a decade ago, and I don't miss it. Hats off to you! --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Harassment

a wikipedia used named Remsense is harrasing me. they are deleting my comments on the talk page even though I provide referenses. I added something to the mao page about how mao was influenced by abook called the water margin in his peasant struggle. Remsense removed my comment. Sorry to bother you.

I am not an admin. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter Pratt

Irony. The link is in the article, not the lead. Number 16 197.87.143.164 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Not for your initial version, this is why you discuss it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am seeing a lot of typographical errors in your recent interactions with other editors. Some affect your intended meaning and some affect wikilinks. Please proofread more carefully and correct your errors. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding North Korean involvement in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Rc2barrington (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 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 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

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) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)