Jump to content

User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (it wasn't me) Kleuske (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Immigration and crime

What are you talking about? And where is your evidence of forum shopping? You wrote "search in goggle for "links between the immigration crisis and Germans racist past"... How on earth do you think I found the references in the first place? (apart from the fact that I used Google, not "goggle") The fact that you don't agree that Jews can be immigrants does not make you correct, and your own efforts to improve the article have been just as quickly attacked as mine have. It would be more useful if you could explain how you propose to fix the POV issues. Deb (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I said another ed had accused of of it. As to the rest, ~ True Jews can be immigrants, but most of those killed by the Nazis were not they were Germans (or the citizens of other nations stolen form their homes, which is still not immigration, and not to Germany anyway). I have told you how to fix the POV issues, find sources that make explicit links and then repeat what they say. "according to professor X the current attitude towards immigrants represented a continuation of the attitudes expressed by the Nazi regime" or some such (sourced to professor X of course). That is how you make the point.Slatersteven (talk)
I look forward to seeing how you get on with these improvements. Deb (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I am going to leave it to you, I think you need to learn how to edit and this is a good start. Fell free to come here with any suggested edits and sources and run them past me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
You've really brightened my day with your humour. :-))))) Deb (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

@72bikers: 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 Slatersteven. 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.

  • 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.

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)

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. [[1]]. Springee (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Slatersteven, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist 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

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 [[2]] (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

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Slatersteven,

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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Slatersteven. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Introducing unsourced information

This needs to stop. If you don't have the sources to evidence what you're saying, then don't say it. It is OR and is discouraged on WP. See WP:RS and other sourcing guidelines. And no, contrary to what you've put on my talk page, tagging is not "perhaps best". This is for someone who can't be bothered to find the references themselves and would rather leave it to someone else to find. That is not collaborative behaviour. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:E1BB:DAFE:CF66:1377 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You have not bothered too look for sources as it has taken me upwards to 1 minute to find them. The only reason it is talking so long to undo your deletions is the amount you have deleted. This is why I am asking you to tag, your mass deletion just makes the task of looking for sources harder because I have to check each of your edits to know what it is you have removed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, the unsourced information has been on there for months, if not years, so that's why it was removed. As for your term "mass deletion", how about the mass addition of unsourced info? Secondly, if, like you say, the references have taken "upwards to 1 minute to find", why use a tag? Why not avoid the tag, as that suggests you're too lazy to go looking for references yourself, and simply go reference hunting? I personally will not go looking for references on behalf of someone else. It is not for us to spend valuable time looking for references on behalf of someone who thinks it's ok to simply come along and add what the hell they like, without a source. The idea is to add information with a source, at the time of adding it. It should've been deleted on sight when it was first added, but it wasn't. The fact it's been deleted several months down the line is irrelevant. Finally, you may want to take a read of WP:CS and more specifically, WP:CITEVAR. The formatting and reliability of the sources you've used is below par. 2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:CCE0:9846:4FC6:EDC (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Generally not everything has to be sourced, it only needs to be sourced if likely to be challenged (see WP:CHALLENGE). It was doubtful anyone would challenge the existence of a park (for example). Why use a tag, because it makes it easy to see what needs sourcing (we have them for a reason), see WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. And I did not ask you to look for sources, I asked you to tag unsourced material in order to make others look.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I am, but I'll stick to this, thanks. This isn't a top trumps on WP policy, it's a common sense scenario that if unsourced information is added and not backed up, then it is either sourced pronto or it is deleted. As you have now sourced it (although I'm connvinced the sources you've used are dubious and fail several guidelines) I'll leave it alone. I would challenge anything not sourced on WP. WP is not a reliable,e source, remember that. "And I did not ask you to look for sources, I asked you to tag unsourced material in order to make others look". Did you not read my last post about tagging something to make others look for it? That is lazy, unproductive and uncollaborative. 2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:CCE0:9846:4FC6:EDC (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
No its not, its policy, you tag unsourced material. Otherwise why do we even have them, to take up space?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
We have them for articles that are being worked on by persons intending on adding the sources during their construction in order to allow them a reminder that a source is needed. They are not for people like you to add to dubious claims in the hope that someone, someday, will pop along and answer it for you. It is as easy, as you've demonstrated above, to go source hunting, which is far more productive, than it is to add a silly tag. An edit is an edit. So let me get this right, you see some unsourced info on a WP article. Does the curiosity not get the better of you by you clicking off to somewhere else to see if what you've read is correct? The fact it's a "rule" that they can be used to tag and nothing else, is not a reason to do it. No one will complain if you go and add a source, but to add a tag and do nothing else will still force others to go away and find the source themselves. By that time, they've lost interest and may not return, hence why these bloody eyesores end up remaining for several years. Is it not best to add a source from the off? Or, if the text remains, find the source and add to the article yourself? Please don't forget why you signed up to this website all those years ago, to collaborate with others to build a great encyclopaedia. Adding tags and doing nothing else is neither of those things. 2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:CCE0:9846:4FC6:EDC (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not add those entries.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, So let me get this right, you see some unsourced info on a WP article, with or without a tag. Does the curiosity not get the better of you by you clicking off to somewhere else to see if what you've read is correct? Why would we allow people to do this? We want to keep people, not lose them. The fact it's a "rule" that they can be used to tag and nothing else, is not a reason to do it. WP is full of unintelligible rules that make no sense whatsoever. They can be broken if it is justifiable to do so. No one will complain if you go and add a source, but to add a tag and do nothing else will still force others to go away and find the source themselves. By that time, they've lost interest and may not return, hence why these bloody eyesores end up remaining for several years. Is it not best to add a source from the off? Or, if the text remains, find the source and add it to the article yourself? This can be done, by you, and is a whole lot better for the project, as an encyclopaedia. 2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:CCE0:9846:4FC6:EDC (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Generally not if it is not controversial and I have no reason to doubt it no. I do not go around looking for unsoruced material to remove. And again not everything needs to be sourced, and I fail, to get why this is such a bugbear with you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Wrong. Again, you need to brush up on your sourcing. See WP:INTEGRITY for one and WP:CS for everything else. It is important to cite all information, not just some of it. Otherwise, that becomes WP:OR. Generally, a source is needed at the end of every piece of information. If it's not in the source given, it is unverifiable and should be removed, particularly if there are BLP issues. That's the rule of thumb. A cite is to be included if a reliable one exists, not a fan site, blog, or other third hand website (like the Rayleigh museum). A cite should always close a paragraph. Lead sections should also not carry citations, see WP:LEADCITE. I see that Rayleigh does. That information should be echoed in the body of the main text, with the cite, and the lead should be cite free. Finally, why am I not allowed to have this as my "bugbear"? I would ask you to memain civil. 2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:CCE0:9846:4FC6:EDC (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
That is not talking about a need for cites, but a need for cites (if you have them) to be correctly placed
You may also want to fix your exposed URLs as they will suffer WP:LINKROT.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)2A02:C7F:76E4:4400:CCE0:9846:4FC6:EDC (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Or you could, nothing stops you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Another reason why just deleting is a bad idea, it increases the amount of work needed by not only meaning you have to create correct cites, but also re-add the text (and maybe re-write it as well). It makes work.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

POV and the US

What I'd ask is why is it assumed that trusting the US government to be accurate in matters of foreign policy is neutral and not trusting them is a POV? There are so many recent historical examples of the US government apparatus spreading disinformation about rival states (Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.) that questioning their accuracy should be seen as healthy skepticism, not revisionism. If other sources exist from independent entities, I'm happy to entertain them. It's this specific source that I have a grievance with. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It was your choice of words, that implies you are not viewing this neurally. Yes they can spread disinformation, they also (often) get things right. So it needs to be a bit more then "evil capitalist lackeys" for me to decide its not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
how about this as a starting point for specific skepticism of the US's neutrality as an information source then... My point is simply that, for these claims, I want to see an independent source. I'm not being a Hoxaist apologist here. But I am tired of Wikipedia sourcing information about Communist nations only from their explicit enemies. I see it as a constant and irritating systemic violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not using it as an RS in this context. I'm just trying to demonstrate to you that there is just cause to suspect that the United States, which has a history of attempting to destabilize socialist countries in general and which had poor relations with Albania in specific during its socialist period is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia to use as a sole-source for statements of fact about the expressed goals of a communist leader. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Except there are other sources in that section as well. Nor have you shown the information is false or misleading, just that you do not like the source. It is a fact that most totalitarian (not just communist) countries tend to be allegedly "atheist" (they are in fact only anti theist) and actively persecute all religions (as the only allowed god is either the party or the leader). Thus I have no difficulty accepting the source as accurate in its appraisal of the situation, and need rather more then your dislike of the USA to undermine that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
When I was dealing with that section there were no other sources supporting the material I removed. Dsprc inserted a second instance of the same source as if it were a second source but that hardly counts. Two URLs - the same content. Which is why I was challenging inclusion; you'll note I have made no attempt to challenge any independent sources for this information. My dispute is with the source, not the statement. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
And I see nothing wrong with the source, maybe take it to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Periodically I do bring up the "Wikipedia's sourcing of statements about socialist countries is bullshit" issue on the RS noticeboard. Mostly in the frame of my ongoing complaint that Wikipedia maintains Mass killings in Communist countries but refuses to allow Mass killings in capitalist countries - going so far as to say that Anti-communist mass killings is the same thing (as if events like the Trail of Tears were anti-communist). To date it's been something of a quixotic pursuit. Perhaps in a few years the scale will have tipped a bit there. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
So its an RS then.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is built on a consensus model, I intend to continue arguing that it is not. Others are free to agree or disagree - but that doesn't change that I'm not POV pushing, just arguing that my interpretation of WP:NPOV differs from the main consensus currently. You can tell by how I don't do much edit warring on it and regularly engage at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
For the record I do agree with Simon's position here. Attribute at least, preferably don't use. --Calthinus (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I said it should be attributed from the off. This was caused by simons apparent rejection of that idea.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd RfD announce: Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL

There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Loxton and Prothero

Responding to this diff, picking up that copy of Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science would really help you out here. This is in fact a topic of particular historical interest to Young Earth creationist cryptozoologists. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Its also of interest to many other types of people including folklorists.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You are of course correct about that, and I agree that your edit is better there. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
So why did you revert it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought and after reviewing Loxton and Prothero, here's a quote: "the quest for Mokele Mbembe ... is part of the effort by creationists to overthrow the theory of evolution and teaching of science by any means possible". The entity stems from regional folklore, but is, as we know it, something of a construct by Young Earth creationist cryptozoologists. They have a chapter dedicated to this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That does not say they are the only ones who believe in it, only that they use it. Also arte you sure that is accuatre, the closets I can find is "the quest for Mokele Mbembe ... but part of the effort by creationists to overthrow the theory of evolution and teaching of science by any means possible". A minor difference but even so.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 00:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

'What function does this serve?' Well... i don't now, it maybe the function of providing the information, that he is also a YouTube personality whith over 250K subscribers at the moment... For you personally it can be dysfunctional, not for thousands that visit hir article everdyday. Tolea93 14:12, 26 september 2018 (EEST)

Then we can put this (if we have to, I ma not sure that 250K is that many nowadays) as prose in the article, not as some odd "button".Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
LoL, are we playing goy?! Tolea93 16:20, 27 september 2018 (EEST)
NO, this is not the correct use of a play button, and it is also an irrelevant factoid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You are violating policy

You are violating two policies WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN (and by the way just common courtesy). As stated before you lack the ability to judge what is a actual violation, you are not a authoritative figure, so stop trying to act like one. Please do not post on my page doing so just looks like harassment. -72bikers (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Then report it. Any user can leave warnings if they think a users is about to breach policy (in fact you were told in the edit war report against me that is what you should have done before reporting, inform an ed they might be about to breach revert restrictions). It was a courtesy to tell you that you might be about the breach 1RR, would you rather I reported you again next time without warning (you know I am willing to)? Also I did not restore any comments you removed, so HUSH is not even relevant (do learn to actually read a policy before invoking it).Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
(Page watcher) @72bikers: the issue of you banning people from your talk page has come up many times and I think we all know that the response to all those various WP:AN/I threads is that users are free to put a warning on your page once for any given incident. You are free to remove those comments and they shouldn't put them back. But that doesn't prohibit them from warning you about some different incident later. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 07:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deep state section that you are editing is case of WP:CIR

Please dont be incompetent and require from users to spell out sources that are already given, and read them yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying "some one may think there is something" is not the same as saying "there is something". And I have asked you to stop making PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There are given examples, you would know that if you actually read the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Given examples of what? Of the fact that some members of Donnies own staff are working against him, that is not the deep state. The fact that Uscinski has claimed there is (possibly) some kickback against the White House from bureaucrats is not proof of a deep state, read wp:or. A suspicion that there is a deep state held by Donnie or his supporters is not proof there is a deep state. You have to have a source that say "there is a deep state".Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We cant have discussion when you did not read. Erdogan coup and subsequent firings of thousands of military, education,etc personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Again read wp:or, it does not matter what some leader does, what matters is what RS say. Just because Hitler, Stalin or Teresa May arrest, sack or kill a lot of people does not prove there is a deep state.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Right so coup may or may have not happened? Lmao, like there are not countless headlines about that coup. Sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No it means that you do not have a source saying is. It means that not all Coups are Deep state operations (and no all accusations of Claims of Coups are real). It means you need an RS actually saying "there was a deep state conspiracy".Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hahaha dear god, then what was military coup ? All sources define it as entrenched bureaucracy, most commonly in military and intelligence community.
A military coup may not always be from an entrenched bureaucracy, the Qaddafi and Greek ones were not. And also there has been no coup in the USA, so talking about coups tells us nothing about the USA. Please read wp:Synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We are talking about specific coup, not Greek or Qaddafi. Also term deep state is not from USA and does not only apply to them, nor do they get to define it since it was well known and used before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I though we were talking about Donnie and the USA, that is what was being talked about on the article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
? We obviously cant talk about such important and relevant term through lenses of single country at single point in time, for which there is hardly consensus even within the country.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
When we are talking about a situation in one country we cannot use what happened in another as proof of the situation in the first country. Not all Coups are the same, and what happens in a coup is not evidence of what happens when there is not one.Slatersteven (talk)
Point is we cant use loose definition(for which there is no consensus as shown in sources, sources notably point to definition I am using)of single country for entire term. Term Deep State cant and wont only refer to USA situation, especially since it does not even originate from that country. If you want to argue that Donald Trump is peddling conspiracies thats on you, but you cant use term that is well known and defined beforehand.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We are not we are saying he has.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohh and by the way, read wp:CIR and then justify your accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You are firmly left wing Labour supporter with obvious disdain of Donald Trump and are willing to hijack term Deep State so you can attack him.I thought that was clear already. MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That is not what a COI is on Wikipedia, And I did not hijack the term, I neither added it to the article, not am I any of the RS that use in in the context we are disusing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Note I pointed to the wrong policy, it should be wp:COI.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok its not your direct fault but still. RS use definiton I use and you ask me to provide sources(they are already given). That i think falls into competency issue, being able to read with understanding.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I asked you to provide a source that directly said it, you did not. None of the sources you provided say that the definition of deep state we say is in use is wrong. What they do (at best) is provide an alternative definition (anbd some do not even do that, they actually talk about Donnies belief in a deep state). You need sources that explicitly (not implicitly) say that the definition we list is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Rolling Stone - "Is there actually a deep state? If you mean entrenched bureaucracy, then of course there is" - Also definition you give at best only refers to current meaning of term in USA in limited circles of conservatives (not consensus among all conservatives, let alone USA), not in the world and not through history. No where it states that in article but sources are clear, its just blanked used in article and can be assumed that it applies to entire world.Again reading carefully and with understanding is critical.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That does not say the other definitions are wrong, it says that in on e context it is valid. In fact this does not even say this is a deep state, only that if you mean it in this context it is real (if you mean it in this way).Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Article needs to make it clear that it only applies to limited conservative circles without consensus among USA conservatives, let alone entire USA. It also needs clearly to differentiate it from actual deep states that are proven, like military coup in Turkey 2016 cause sources given do. Meaning in that way is consensus Steven even in sources, then they go on to give it different meaning used by some. Clear differentiation needs to be made.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
A dictator claiming a coup was part of some deep state conspiracy is not proof there was in fact a deep state conspiracy. You need RS saying that there was (in fact) a deep state conspiracy (note saying it was one, not saying it has been called one).Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine dont put Erdogan, everything else still stands.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You have provide no sources that say there are actual deep states that are proven, what you have a sources that say that if you take deep state to mean something other then a "a government-wide conspiracy" then there may indeed be such things. The Conmsproicy article is talking about "government wide conspiracies".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope, it only says coordinated effort, does not mention a single thing of how narrow or wide. It could be 2 bureaucrats as far as I know according to article.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I was referencing the rolling stone source, As I said it does not contradict anything we say (and I note the first line of the paragraph "Occasionally used as a neutral term to denote a nation's bureaucracy", so yes we do point out is is sometimes used in the way you describe). We make it clear we are talking about "the conspiratorial notion of a "deep state"".Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I still have massive problems with entire section. Its not occasionally, it is generally used in that way. On topic of you using US definitions from magazines, I looked up Deep State in United States article which is lot better than deep state section in conspiracy theories and kinda seems redundant cause they define what that term means in USA, so should not that section focus on world understanding ? Quote from article - In The Concealment of the State, Professor Jason Royce Lindsey argues that even without a conspiratorial agenda, the term deep state is useful for understanding aspects of the national security establishment in developed countries, with emphasis on the United States. Lindsey writes that the deep state draws power from the national security and intelligence communities, a realm where secrecy is a source of power.[8] Alfred W. McCoy states that the increase in the power of the U.S. intelligence community since the September 11 attacks "has built a fourth branch of the U.S. government" that is "in many ways autonomous from the executive, and increasingly so."[9]MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No because the article (and thus the section) is about conspiracy theories. As such it should really concentrate on that part of the deep state concept, not a wider discussion as to deep state as a political term.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It is still wrong tho, even in conspiratorial sense Geoff Nunberg described it lot better what it means in conservative circles (I still hold definition you give wrong). It's an elastic label — depending on the occasion, it can encompass the Justice Department, the intelligence communities, the FISA courts, the Democrats and the media. In short, it's a cabal of unelected leftist officials lodged deep in the government who are conspiring to thwart the administration's policies, discredit its supporters and ultimately even overturn Trump's election. He is given as source on Deep State in United Stateshttps://www.npr.org/2018/08/09/633019635/opinion-why-the-term-deep-state-speaks-to-conspiracy-theorists. MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

talk page watcher@MrStefanWolf: as you're new here I'd suggest you review WP:STICK and then put yours down before you face a consequence worse than a WP:TROUT Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you and your college to read Deep State in United States and then read deep state in conspiracy theory and review and correct obvious contradictions cause I wont be intimidated. MrStefanWolf (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
He is not my colleague and this kind of attitude is going to go down badly. I would advise you to message the only user who so far has shown you any sympathy and ask him (or ask him to suggest someone) who can mentor you. At the rate you are going you are going to get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
They why is he on your page hurling threats ? Me and you are having discussion and unless he wants to be constructive mind his own business.You is not obliged to respond to me if I am bothering you. MrStefanWolf (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also Steven your leftwing bias is disgusting and should be ashamed of your self, but you wont cause 80 percent of editors here have it, which is just sad for this site. Its obvious you want to keep section and not correct it case you hate Trump. I will leave you old fart too it, you can keep pushing your agenda, like i give a fuck if I get banMrStefanWolf (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you also read WP:NPA - because buddy, you're heading fast from "don't want to WP:BITE" to "block for WP:NOTHERE" at this rate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 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)

ANI notice

Just to let you know, I made a minor mention of you here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Keith-264. (Nothing that should concern you, but I always prefer to notify if I name someone who isn't an existing participant or otherwise aware of the discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification of AFD

Hiya, you were previously involved with the article KC International Airlines. Just wanted to know I had nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KC International Airlines (2nd nomination). Please voice your opinions there. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Officiousness

Do you realise how ridiculously officious and, well, crazy this comment sounds? Yes, I know how RSN works and, yes, I know how it is used. The two are not the same, the discussion is already dealing with generalities and the situation with caste-related organisations is so severe that it formed one of the reasons for the special sanctions regime in that topic area. Someone will see that discussion and try to use it for their benefit.

Other people thanked me for making the note, so please wind your neck in. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The point is you do not get to make a general point about what is or is not an RS in a largely unrelated thread. That RSN post is not and does not say "we cannot use caste based sources" and my response to your point would have been the same as my response to what was being discussed we can use them as long as we attribute it. This would have been a de-rail, as you would not doubt be aware. Thus I pointed out is was not really about what was being discussed. I would also remind you to be polite and respectful towards other edds, I have not insulted you do not insult me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Steven, you could be insulting him. You're 'splaining to an editor who has at least as much as experience as you do. He arrived on the project exactly 19 days before you. Consider the possibility that Sitush is right, and maybe you haven't understood his explanation. Ask questions before concluding that he's wrong. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am explaining why I said what I said. I did not want to see that thread de-railed into a discussion about caste based sources. Now is it in fact true that caste based or affiliated sources cannot be used as sources for their own claims? Can I see where this was discuseedSlatersteven (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
What you want is your business; what you get is not necessarily the same thing. If you ever actually do support the idea of quoting/attributing a membership claim by a caste-affiliated association, you're going to be shot down in flames because you clearly haven't got a clue about the subject. And it is because of that issue, in part a result of the caste area being so complex anyway, that it is important to note that such figures are positively dangerous to use in the caste context. People were generalising about scenarios in that thread prior to my arrival and have done since my simple, brief comment - it was appropriate for reasons that I doubt you will be willing to accept, and it could have stood alone without writing the hundreds of subsequent words that have been made necessary by your pointless officiousness.
As I said above, I do know how RSN is supposed to work and I also know how it works in practice. You're being far too binary in your thought processes, as I have noticed in the past when you have ventured your opinion on caste issues. Jehochman mentions the fact that we've both been around for the same length of time and, since he has done that, I will point out that I have a massively greater number of edits and, which is still more significant, a massively greater proportion of edits to article space. That experience doesn't make me always right, of course, but it does make me a bit pissed off when someone with little clue regarding a issue (and too much time spent chattering) pokes me without real cause. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
As I said this is why I did not want that thread de-railed, and I take it form the above that no it has never been decided by the community.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't got much idea what you are referring to now but you don't get to decide what constitutes de-railing, and certainly not on the basis of a single comment. I think taking up Jehochman's idea below might be A Good Thing; then perhaps keep doing similar stuff until your article edits hit, say, 65%. You'd learn a lot from doing so. And article space is where I am heading to right now. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Steven, I am trying to get Planet Nine promoted to featured article status. Variety is the spice of life. Would you like to help me with this endeavor? It may be something completely new and may give you a totally different view of Wikipedia. Sometimes it's healthy to take a break from Wikipedia space and dive into a strange, new article. Jehochman Talk 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what I can do.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
We need a layperson to read the article and make a list of suggested copy edits, as well as proofreading and gnomish fixes. It's a technical subject so not everything will make sense entirely, but we should try to make it reasonably accessible. Any feedback would be quite useful. If you want to help, that would be wonderful. Jehochman Talk 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Sadly I will be away till Sunday evening. But I can give it a start.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And my first few questions have just been undone as breaching notafourm (such questions as "Has it been indirectly observed?" ), so forgive me if I decide that being a layman means I have no place in that article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
We're working on your suggestions. Sorry on behalf of whoever did that. It is a reasonable question to ask. If you want to post questions, use the heading "Prose review" and maybe indicate that I invited you for this specific purpose. You asked a very good question, by the way, because "it hasn't been directly observed" suggest that maybe it has been indirectly observed. I would say, yes it has, because of the gravity signature. Jehochman Talk 19:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I think the consensus seems to be that something has been observed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Irritating

Perhaps it is just me, although I doubt it because I think this has been raised before. One of the reasons why you have such a high volume of non-article contributions is because you seem unable to resist sticking your oar into discussions. This type of comment, seemingly trying to teach a long-term contributor to suck eggs, is bloody irritating. It is to be expected with relatively new contributors, who are learning the ropes etc, but you have been here for years and, since you do in fact spend so much time at the various centralised boards, really should know better. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I had posted in that thread before you, you replied to me. With an answer that seemed to be saying "Ahhh but". I just pointed out "no there is not an "ahh but", I said why we could use it, and your response did not contradict any of that (in fact it agreed) whilst at the same time saying "ahhh but". So who was trying to tell who how to suck eggs, yes it is irritating to have someone tell you the blindingly obvious, and then agree with you anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This is going to end up at WP:ANI before long. Have you ever been asked formally to back away from the drama boards and centralised discussions, aside from the informal hint Jehochman gave you above? You're disingenuous, tendentious, irritating and wasting a lot of people's time at RSN at the moment. Meanwhile, I've got a lot of "proper" stuff done here today. - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, then that is where it goes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven/Archive_1&oldid=1048396046"