User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slatersteven. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Expert polling on Biden
Would you be fine with inclusion with the Siena College Research Institute expert poll from 2022 (Biden ranked 19)[1] alongside the Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey from 2024 (Biden ranked 14)[2]? KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- The place for this to be discussed is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Request for Clarification, Advice regarding YDIH Undo
Aloha @Slatersteven. Regarding your undo of my change to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article shown in this diff [3] I created a new topic on the article's Talk page as follows Younger Dryas impact hypothesis a week ago and used @ with your user ID. I explained why I made these changes, which were quotes from secondary sources from a YDIH proponent and an opponent. So far no responses.
I have seen your userID in other topics in the YDIH Talk archives and would appreciate any background, clarifying comments and advice on how best to move forward. Thanks!
Dmcdysan (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion about Russo-Ukrainian War
Hello, you have recently participated in a discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. Consequently, I inform you that a new Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion (see here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Russo-Ukrainian War) was started about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. I think that a WP:RFC will be necessary to solve this serious dispute, but I believe that it should be organized by a qualified dispute solver via the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your opinion is welcome in the new discussion. -- Pofka (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent warning
Hi, in the future, please try not to tell editors that they have been reported, per WP:DENY.
Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I did that as I went there to warn them, and had the edit window open...silly really I should have just reported them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024
|
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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A wikiminnow for you
Plip!
Remember to change the |answered= parameter to yes after responding to an edit request. That's all. Happy editing! GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 16:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Reverted edit - Southend on sea
Hi. You just reverted my edut in Southend on Sea. The link you removed from Garons, is to Moores Stores who purchased Garons in 1962, and who sold off the bakery in Sutton Road and opened Garons first supermarket at 113 High Street[1][2][3] which can be see in the Echo [4]. I am in the process of updating Wright's Biscuits/Moores Stores to include its many purchases including Garons Post 1962. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- The place for this discussion is the article's talk page, but please read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Provinces". Leathergoods. Vol. 102. 1967. p. 53.
- ^ "Southend-on-Sea, 70 High Street". The Estates Gazette. Vol. 219. 1971. p. 756.
- ^ "Southend development". Municipal Engineering, Cleansing and Public Health. Vol. 140. Municipal Engineering Publications. 1963. p. 45.
Bush's condemnation of Iraq
Hi, I feel like Bush's condemnation of Iraq is very relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.
It's not a freudian slip. he says 'Iraq too' afterwards. this needs to be in there somewhere. It's highly relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEr7TayrmU CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Take this to the articles talk page, that is the place for this discussion, Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- okay CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- you seem to condone the invasion but okay CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read both wp:agf and wp:npa is my answer to this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Condoning the invasion of Iraq is a normal political stance held by many people so it doesn't classify for a personal attack CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Steven, I have removed your entry from my talk page. I don't appreciate it being on there. I request you to not edit my talk page. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- You really should take heed, but your choice. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Steven, I have removed your entry from my talk page. I don't appreciate it being on there. I request you to not edit my talk page. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Condoning the invasion of Iraq is a normal political stance held by many people so it doesn't classify for a personal attack CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read both wp:agf and wp:npa is my answer to this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
CalfRaiser150, Jimfbleak and Steven are trying to help you. Their warnings are not "hateful" or "vandalism". Those descriptions by you are considered personal attacks and can get you blocked from Wikipedia. Is that what you want? You must assume good faith. Please take their comments as good advice intended to make you a better editor who can then enjoy a long and constructive future here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would echo this. Slatersteven is a well respected editor and so is Jimbleak. They are giving you good advice, mischaracterizing those as attacks or hateful really can harm you more then you realize in the long run. Unbroken Chain (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am? I thought i could be safely ignored. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Edelman Family Foundation
Hi @Slatersteven
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello Slatersteven,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
What ARE you doing?
This[5] removed reliable sources, put back a load of cruft, completely de-tagged the article, etc. You are taking ownership of this version and it's set the Project/Article back a long way. Bon courage (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- It was the last stable version, the one before the first contested edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024
|
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) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh
This page should be created Nydv160 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- What? Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh
- This page should be created Nydv160 (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because it's a serious issues that why Bangladeshi Hindu population is not incresing.
- Muslim population grew 5 times from 3.5 crore to 15 crore but hindu population remained around 1 crore. Nydv160 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is it, source for this being the reason? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also wp:not and wp:rightgreatwrongs cause me to question your motives (as do your personal attacks). Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You can't do, that's it. now don't message......... Nydv160 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am asking you to do at least some work, not order us to do it, and then order us not to respond. Yiou need to read wp:civility, as cooperation gets you a lot further than PA's and sanrk. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok Bro, thank you so much for teaching me about civility. Have a nice ahead 🙌🇮🇳🇬🇧 Nydv160 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I really have no idea what you think you just said. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok Bro, thank you so much for teaching me about civility. Have a nice ahead 🙌🇮🇳🇬🇧 Nydv160 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am asking you to do at least some work, not order us to do it, and then order us not to respond. Yiou need to read wp:civility, as cooperation gets you a lot further than PA's and sanrk. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You can't do, that's it. now don't message......... Nydv160 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Difference between SPA and new editors
I noticed this comment you made on a new editor's talk page. You suggest that the editor, whose account has only made edits in the last 24 hours and was relatively recently created, is a single-purpose account. This strikes me as somewhat biting, as editors often begin their editing careers because they notice something they are particularly interested in. Less than 24 hours of editing and no participation in any votestacking is indicative of a good-faith editor making their first edits in a discussion rather than a SPA engaging in disruption. Please remember that wrongly accusing new editors of disruption increases their likelihood of disengagement with the project and is uncivil. For what it's worth, I disagree with this new editor and find their arguments tedious; I think we can safely disengage from that discussion in the knowledge that the current consensus won't shift. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but given their vehemence of argument I thought it was a good idea to let them know about it, as I am getting a wp:nothere feel to their arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- As does their user name. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I still feel a better response is to utilize one of the several welcoming templates available or to use the Twinkle options. I can see your reasoning for concern, but potentially problematic editors (rather than obviously disruptive ones) benefit far more from the aforementioned options and may be dissuaded for needlessly escalating a discussion. Additionally, it's generally inappropriate to write off editors for usernames that conform to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not, I just felt it best to warn them before it became a problem. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I still feel a better response is to utilize one of the several welcoming templates available or to use the Twinkle options. I can see your reasoning for concern, but potentially problematic editors (rather than obviously disruptive ones) benefit far more from the aforementioned options and may be dissuaded for needlessly escalating a discussion. Additionally, it's generally inappropriate to write off editors for usernames that conform to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| 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) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Undone Revision
Hey I just made edits to the Ed and Lorraine Warren page and saw you removed it. Is there any corrections I could have made?
Tess.studley (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- THis would be for the talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Havana syndrome
Just letting you know since you mentioned maybe also considered asking for admin help that I made a request for more admin eyes at ANI. I'm not asking for sanctions any specific user and just hoping an admin can help with whatever they decide on individually, so I haven't notified anyone else (also out of time today). KoA (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd be very interested to hear your take as it applies to American politics. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Without context it's hard to answer, but in effect, we do not have to write articles Today, or tomorrow or next week. So we can wait till the dust has died down and WWE can get more than "SHOCK GASP HORROR probes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–present)
Hello, Slatersteven. You may need to take action in Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–present). A couple of editors there are accusing you of ownership issues and edit-warring, and have started discussing about reporting your alleged "bad behavior". Dimadick (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Mmm, and appear to have very similar interests. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024
|
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) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Southend-on-Sea
The references to venues was very out of date. You reverted the change based on 2 locations being pubs, which meant any reference to current venues in the city were lost. I amended it to account pubs not necessarily being major venues and you reverted the whole change. I don't understand the problem.
- The place for this discussion is the article's talk page, but if reverted you do no re-revert you make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't exactly reverted, but actually amended to take in your comment Defberg (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- please read wp:revert. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- "If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it." Defberg (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Given this guidance would you kindly reinstate my edit, please? Defberg (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done Defberg (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Given this guidance would you kindly reinstate my edit, please? Defberg (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- "If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it." Defberg (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- please read wp:revert. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Deletion review for Ed Winters
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ed Winters. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did not close it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- You were involved in the discussion though, so I figured I should let you know. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam War
I think in the Vietnam war infobox, we can change communist’s casualties from from “1,100,000” to “680,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead” (because we don’t know how many dead, thus we need the range of estimate, and 30-40% is signification rate). Can you help me?27.3.144.156 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- We go by what reliable sources say, do you have any sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can read here [6] - “ According to figures released by the Vietnamese government there were 849,018 confirmed military deaths on the PAVN/VC side during the war.[26][27]... Non-combat deaths account for 30 to 40% of these figures”2001:EE0:4A62:3AE0:400A:675B:670:D73B (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- 849,018 is not 680,000, also that is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- ok, we can change communist’s casualties from from “1,100,000” to “850,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead”. Source: Moyar, Mark. "Triumph Regained: The Vietnam War, 1965–1968." Encounter Books, December 2022. Chapter 17 index 2001:EE0:4A61:8A10:2563:80AF:6AEA:D27E (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or leave them unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- ok, we can change communist’s casualties from from “1,100,000” to “850,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead”. Source: Moyar, Mark. "Triumph Regained: The Vietnam War, 1965–1968." Encounter Books, December 2022. Chapter 17 index 2001:EE0:4A61:8A10:2563:80AF:6AEA:D27E (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- 849,018 is not 680,000, also that is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can read here [6] - “ According to figures released by the Vietnamese government there were 849,018 confirmed military deaths on the PAVN/VC side during the war.[26][27]... Non-combat deaths account for 30 to 40% of these figures”2001:EE0:4A62:3AE0:400A:675B:670:D73B (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
9/11 article
Hey, started a section on the talk page for us to discuss the recent edits Dan Wang (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Tommy Robinson RV
Would prefer not to double RV, but I've finished opening the talk page topic on Talk:Tommy Robinson, if that was your sole reason to RV then the issue has since been resolved. BrigadierG (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- THen wait for it to conclude. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
2nd Tommy Robinson RV
The two sources cited in that section do not make the claim that EDL supporters are hooligans. BrigadierG (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again take this to the talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Juneteenth
The emancipation proclamation was finally enforced when three-fourths of the remaining states ratified it on December 6, 1865. Thank you. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there, Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which you should have done the first time you were reverted (per wp:brd) rather than waiting a couple of days before revering back, if you do it again you will be reverted again. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Just at the beginning I added the word “which” as it wasn’t Gordon granger himself that proclaimed it but the law from the order and then I just gave extra info that this wasn’t the final enforcement which you may agree. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also the present sentence doesn’t explain what the emancipation proclamation was for readers to accessibly understand its context I think. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- My last word here THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BPD says talk to you first as one person on your own talk page. Thank you. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- NO BRD says discus, discussions take place on the article talk page so as any involved party there can see it. Its a courtesy to other people who watch that page, this is my last one on this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BPD says talk to you first as one person on your own talk page. Thank you. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- My last word here THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024
|
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) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
George Floyd
How do the addition i did to the memorial section be trival as I have put 3 references about it? and also if necessary and if it is not ref bombing I can insert more references. Faresian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- this is a conversation for the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024
|
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) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
why did you revert the robinson edits?
what was written was objectively true, i am not sure why they were removed? getting one of the highest free speech awards and receiving it in the danish parliament is a pretty big deal NotQualified (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- oh i see you wrote "not in the lede", i disagree. this is again a very big deal and it warrants being in the lede but i do want to know why you think otherwise cause i might be wrong :D NotQualified (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read wP:lede it is a summery of the article, this is not a major part of our article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- so if i want to add it to the lede i need to write a longer part for it in the article and summarise it above? i can do that but it would take an hour NotQualified (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, as it needs to be a major part of the article, and this is just one award, so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less). And this is not the place for this discussion, take it to the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- > so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less)
- wait so i can undo the change and add back what i had written? NotQualified (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, and I have e said why already, I will not repeat myself here, take it to the Articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, as it needs to be a major part of the article, and this is just one award, so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less). And this is not the place for this discussion, take it to the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- so if i want to add it to the lede i need to write a longer part for it in the article and summarise it above? i can do that but it would take an hour NotQualified (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Read wP:lede it is a summery of the article, this is not a major part of our article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted my edit on fascism
I was being bold. It probably wasn't a constructive edit. I didn't understand your question and why you reverted. Nashhinton (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Then ask at then articles talk page, where others can also see the question. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Nashhinton (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| While ultimately unsuccessful, please accept this barnstar for your work in trying to demonstrate Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines to this editor. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
IP
I just send this IP's nonsense to the trash, hope that is ok with you (your comment got hit in the crossfire). Looking at the other "contributions" it is unlikely they care about sources. Polygnotus (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Joe Biden edit
With regards to the edit of Joe Biden recently, I believe that decision was only on the infobox. Not the external links. I didn't see anything with regards to the external links on putting his position of the Newcastle County Council in the discussion page. It appears it was there for awhile before it was taken out without any reason back in March RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- MAbe, but its is trying to get it in by the back door, so make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
World War 2 - Battle of Britain
The text for the Battle of Britain on the main WW2 page does not highlight the significance of the battle. As I said, 3 major AI programs all put it in the top 10 significance events in WW2. Can we work together to improve it? 117PXL (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- AI is not an RS, and what it does does not impact us. And this is for the article talk page, take it there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion was the amount of content, I replace a sentence and explained what the Battle of Britain was, this is helpful for everyone. You seem to have the biggest problem with it reverting originally and again now, so it is helpful to find out what your main objection is? Thanks. 117PXL (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, take it to the article talk page, and get wp:consensus. It is down to you to make a case, not down to be (see WP:ONUS}. 10:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)~~
- The discussion was the amount of content, I replace a sentence and explained what the Battle of Britain was, this is helpful for everyone. You seem to have the biggest problem with it reverting originally and again now, so it is helpful to find out what your main objection is? Thanks. 117PXL (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Demographic research
Hi, could you tell me what is wrong with this source? [7]
That made by Hungarian Academy of Science, modern academic sources, an international award winning source [8]. It also attributed properly "according Hungarian historiography" + in relevant demographic research section
https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/en/home.html
https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/en/accompanying_text.html
In Hungarian related articles vast amount of Hungarian sources are provided, in Transylvania article the majority of sources are Hungarian and Romanian sources.
OrionNimrod (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The place for this discussion is the article talkpage, where others can see it and comment. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Removing block notices
Hi mate, just thought I'd let you know this isn't correct. What you might be thinking of is that they're not allowed to removed declined unblock requests, per WP:BLANKING. Cheers. — Czello (music) 17:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Reversal of drone fact in Attempted Assassination of Trump article
Hi, your edit summary said "maybe i am not seeing the full artigcel I I see nothing about drones not being used."
Maybe you missed these paragraphs:
"That dropped communication was one of several instances where technologies that might have protected Mr. Trump from getting shot on July 13 did not — either because they malfunctioned, were improperly deployed or the Secret Service decided not to use them in the first place.
The Secret Service, for instance, turned down offers to use a surveillance drone at the Butler Farm Show rally site. The agency also did not bring a system to boost the agents’ device signals in an area with poor cellular service. And some of the equipment the agency did bring, including a system to detect drone use by others, did not work when it was most needed. The result was that a 20-year-old gunman had a technological advantage over a $3 billion federal agency.". Please undo your revert. Thanks in advance! Forich (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- So no then it was not the full article. but please discus this on the article talk page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The Crimean War
Dear Sir Slatersteven,
I noticed you reverted my edit that added the line about the significant Irish contribution to the British military during the Crimean War. Your comment indicating 'UNure we need this undo' suggests you may have had some uncertainty about undoing this edit.
Notably, History Ireland is a reputable publication that provides well-researched articles on historical topics, often written by historians and experts in the field. It is considered a reliable secondary source, which aligns with Wikipedia's standards for citations.
I believe this detail is relevant and important to include, as it highlights the substantial Irish participation and role in the conflict. Could you please reconsider adding this line back in? I'm happy to discuss further and provide any additional context or justification for including this information.
Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, new comments go at the bottom. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Stefan Molyneux was interviewed on the Joe Rogan Experience.
Molyneux was on the Joe Rogan Experience three times (episodes #396, #436, #538).
https://www.jrepodcast.com/guest/stefan-molyneux/
You have no reason to edit it out. Hayden41 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- THis is not then place for this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 10 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
|
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)
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)