User talk:Slatersteven

Archives (Index)

s/2016/December s/2017/January s/2017/February s/2017/March s/2017/April s/2017/May s/2017/June s/2017/July s/2017/August s/2017/September s/2017/October s/2017/November s/2017/December s/2018/January s/2018/February s/2018/March s/2018/April s/2018/May s/2018/June s/2018/July s/2018/August s/2018/September s/2018/October s/2018/November s/2018/December s/2019/January 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s/ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

I didn't want to drag out the conversation at WP:RSN, but please, for the love of god, read people's comments before replying to them. In nearly every single post in that discussion, you've claimed that I've said things I very obviously didn't say (or have in no uncertain terms said the opposite), clearly not out of any bad faith but because you just haven't bothered to read the individual posts you're specifically replying to. This is not a recipe for any kind of helpful contribution to discussion if every reply to you has to involve pointing out what you didn't read the first time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try the same [[1]]. We all make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

- Sitush (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that extends to making a case not refusing to, I suggest you take your own advise.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So stop with the dismissive and insulting attitude, and obey policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this message you left at another user's page: please note that the particular DS you mentioned expired on April 15. However the article remains under the 1RR sanction as described at the top of the article talkpage (which the editor breached despite your pointing them to the discretionary sanctions).
In any case, I appreciate your effort in informing the editor of the applicable rules. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. A thoughtful analysis of Wikipedia's role during these unprecedented times. Best, El_C 12:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well even a brocken clock is right twice a day (unless its a 24 hour clock, of course).Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sell yourself short! Anyway, your statement really hit home for me. Definitely a worthwhile read. El_C 13:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the complement, maybe we are not all as dumb as we think we are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question here [2], the user in question was given a partial block. This forcibly blocks the user from editing the specified page, but *only* the specified page, and not the accompanying talk page. This differs from a topic ban, which is more along the lines of a verbal prohibition from editing content in the topic area. El_C gave the user a partial block, not a TBAN. In my opinion it's a bit of an oversight to partial block a page but not its talk. Stickee (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

shall ask for clarification. As (in effect) it means the disruption will (and is) continue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem like there has been an uptick in POV-pushy edits to I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter lately? XOR'easter (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, given the degree of reparation I think its trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the article got linked on a forum somewhere, sending people our way. XOR'easter (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies for people to watchlist it, since my guess is that it will continue to attract disruptive attention. XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since additional discussion is now available, you may want to rewrite your vote at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Survey_(The_Indian_Express). Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir,

This is regarding your comment on the Regents Park admin's talk page. Continuing my discussion here instead of cluttering his page.

Your comment: "Its you I should have moaned at. Like I said over at the SPI, there are too many POV pushers who get the wrong end of the stick about me. I almost think it was more the stupid AXZENT that pissed me off, I do not want to work to read bollocks."

I just stated the facts to counter the claims by other. People are taking the advantage of WP:NPOV and writing anything here. People should write the truth here and then use the WP:NPOV on these articles. The book(filled with Raj Era names in bibliography section that I mentioned in the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha talk page)in the following link is still being used despite the facts that I stated against it in the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha talk page.

https://www.amazon.in/Formation-Colonial-State-India-1760-1860/dp/0415704472

Review from the above link. "This book makes it obvious that the author needs to do more research. The books shows that the writer (Bellenoit from US Naval Academy) does not have a good understanding of the hindu caste system. For example, there were several groups - some of these groups were warriors(Maharashtra) but Dr.Bellenoit , sitting half-way across the world, seems to be completely ignorant. Secondly, some of these groups were formally classified as Kshatriyas by the religious hindu leaders as early as the 16th century but Bellenoit seems to have not studied that. Other than in north India, these groups held very high positions but again Bellenoit does not know that. He also references books by some British Ethnographers like Steele (who were completely ignorant of Hinduism and have been considered unreliable) instead of British Historians like Grand Duff or Indian historians. Bellenoit also lacks sensitivity and empathy when writing about people. It shows that Bellenoit probably never read much about Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar, Satyendra Nath Bose etc.."

I highlight the facts so that the next time people read those paragraphs,they simply read the main points without having to do any detailed reading. Based on the above book,people are writing wrong things about my caste. Why? I haven't deleted anything. I'm an editor! I have been warned several times of being blocked here. So,I was not sure whether I'll be blocked or not after stating the truth over there. So,I stated the facts. I wanted to write a few more points but the articles in the Kayastha & Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha started getting deleted suddenly,so,I thought that I should write so that my voice reaches the old admins/editors. Please don't use abusive words like 'bollocks'! I read your profile! It says that you're dyslexic! That can also be a reason why you're finding it difficult to read and interpret those. The Raj Era source has a loophole. Raj Era or not,trusted historians should be used for writing wikipedia articles. I don't think that all Raj Era Ethnographers might have been incompetent. Competent or incompetent writers are born in every Era. It has got nothing to do with Raj Era. This is what I feel! I hope that I will not be blocked for saying the truth here. :) Dinopce (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have polices such as wp:npa, wp:sock and wp:consensus. Nor is it a question of incompetence, but of cultural bias. Also wp:coi might be worth a read.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sir. I'll read it. Thanks Dinopce (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ, I noticed that you reverted my edit on 2019 Jammu and Kashmir Airstrikes claiming that other sources also confirmed that fact, if other sources also claim that fact then cite them, if you want to talk then you can do so on my talk page (talk)

That took all of 30 seconds, you could have looked yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you tagging articles for improvement and deletion. This is a very important task and I would like to thank you for your contributions! Just a quick note though, I saw you tagged Longball (game) for deletion for duplicating an article on an existing topic. When tagging an article for A10, it is important that you specify in the CSD tag which existing article it duplicates upon. Please indicate which article you think Longball (game) duplicates upon, as I can't find an article on the EXACT same topic on a quick search.

Also, when tagging an article where the author (who happens to be the sole contributor) has blanked his page with no meaningful input by other editors, like Shevchenko Theatre Chernihiv, it is often better to do so with WP:G7 instead of the WP:A3 you used. The latter category is more suitable for articles with no content whatsoever in its history of existence (except from links and the like). Thanks! --Dps04 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and since you are a new page reviewer, you may want to make a page as patrolled after you tagged it for deletion, so other reviewers do not have to check the same page again. Cheers --Dps04 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did point to the page bat and ball games I have no idea why it did not register (as it would not let me CSD until I had entered something into the field), as to Shevchenko Theatre Chernihiv it was originally tagged (by me) as promotion until they deleted the contents.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the similarity between bat and ball games and longball (game), but A10 should only be used in cases where the newly created article unambiguously duplicates an existing topic, and does not improve upon it. In any event, if you do wish to apply A10, you should do it this way: {{db-a10|article=existing article title}}, so the tag links to the page of the existing article. As for Shevchenko Theatre Chernihiv, if they deleted the contents of the page, this can be taken as a deletion request per G7. Cheers --Dps04 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the page review tool, which should have (as I entered it into the field) done that automatically. I have no idea why it did not (but then the tool seems to also screw up AFD's as well at the moment and is not auto completing, something is not connecting). By the way read some of the articles link ed to in longball (game), they are explicitly called bat and ball games (and as far as I can tell only one makes any mention of Longball).Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I dont really use Page Curation (I use Twinkle), so apologies I wasn't aware of the tool error. As for the page itself, there are indeed a lot of similarities between longball and bat and ball games. I guess I could send a message to the author and ask them to explain the difference between them. If they are essentially the same thing my take is to redirect longball (game) to Bat and ball games? But yeah, thanks for the clarification. --Dps04 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all sure it would be a redirect that would be used. Its not a term I have encountred before and a gogoe search tells me this https://www.onondaganation.org/culture/sports/longball/ may be what people might be looking for, or maybe Danish longball, or even https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16900/longball. But I am not sure any are a given (and I gave up at three uses, there maybe more). It all looked very OR to me. Ohh and I thought I would check, yes we already have a disambig Longball.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but I went ahead and redirected the article to bat-and-ball games. Even this source you cited relates to ball and bat games, so the target article would still probably be relevant to what the reader would be looking for. As for this, this board game doesn't seem notable at first glance so my guess is people wouldn't be looking for this (granted, I haven't done thorough research on this). If this board game somehow passes notability requirements, an article with the title Longball (Board game) could be created. In any event, as you said, we currently have Longball as the disambiguation page. I think it is best to leave things as it is now, especially as redirects are cheap, though I am fine if you wish to take Longball (game) to WP:RfD. Happy editing sir :) --Dps04 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[3] You probably wanted to request temporary full protection rather than semi-protection. Semi-protection only blocks new accounts and IPs from editing. jps (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its my first time, so just used the template.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. When you use the template, you probably wanted to ask for the Full Protection option. jps (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy and pasted what they had.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The instructions above that explain what the different levels of protection you should include are. The "template", as it were, is only an example. Alternatively, you can install WP:TWINKLE which automates the process. jps (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, is posting a newbie template on jps, welcoming him to Wikipedia, supposed to be amusing? Because I don't see it. And please don't tell me "the tool" did it "automatically". If it did, you could have removed it, couldn't you? Your sig is on a post, you're responsible for it. Bishonen | tålk 16:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Errr no I was not aware I had.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its the bloody page curation tool trucking up again, I used it to afd an article he had created. So yes that is why it had happened, I did not see he had created it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now left a message apologising, and I have been cooking and having my dinner.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 19:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:The_Federalist_(website). While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Notifying only your supporters in the dispute of the DR you opened, but omitting Coemgenus and Thenext20feet is textbook canvassing. I suggest you quickly fix that, or it will look pretty bad for you in the DR. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I leave out?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry found them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are still missing one - Thenext20feet . JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised and altered them. There was a lot of edit to go back over.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What the next step in DR? I've never been involved in one. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all make our case.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Slater for your time and patience put into the World War I casualties article, along with Driver. Greatly appreciated. (this is not sarcasm)

Now that Britannica is coming under fire for not being an RS (?) by other users, I'm afraid I can no longer contribute to the page in any meaningful way. It's kind of pointless to argue at this point. If you continue to try to improve the article, good luck, and stay safe during these times! 2601:85:C101:BA30:F421:B237:377F:9C58 (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I guess not Driver anymore. 2601:85:C101:BA30:944B:8C76:A362:2EA (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not quite understanding your edit summary explaining a revert here. Can you clarify? I'd appreciate it. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You dais it was a copy edit, a wp:copyedit changes grammar, spelling, readability, or layout. A tag was added, that is a more substantial change than a copy edit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Really? I guess I can't argue with that - you are correct. It wasn't my intention to misrepresent my actions - I misspoke, or simply forgot I'd added that maintenance tag.

I do think that's a rather silly reason to revert an edit which was done in good faith and served to improve the article (in a very small way). A little heads-up message to be more mindful of my summaries (which, you know, most people don't bother filling out at all) would have accomplished the same thing. But I thank you for the reminder. Jessicapierce (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few too many "minor edits" or copy edits" that make far more (and often huge) changes than you did. So I tend to hit the first "mistake" and then just undo.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

Hi. Following your suggestion I made my case at the talk page of the PragerU article. ^[1] What is the process, what are the next steps?

Wait to see what others say, when (and if) you get a majority of users on your side you can add it (note however this is based on the quality of their arguments, thus 15 Agrees from counts who have never edited before whose sole reason is "I like it" will not trump 3 long term accounts whose arguments are based on policy) .Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your comment to me violates "WP assume good faith" 98.7.201.234 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why the article Plandemic did not mention "this video and even links to the video are being censored and deleted far and wide on large platforms like Facebook and Google.". whilst we do not use the word censored we do in fact mention (to quote the article) the fact it was "removed by multiple platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, and Twitter, over its misleading content and promotion of false information", in fact far more than you asked for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The independent autopsy on George Floyd confirms the points I was making with you about public autopsies in these cases - they are not reliable sources of information. An interesting lesson. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both autopsies could be wrong, as at the rend of the day they are just (in effect) an opinion. But unless you had carried out one your opinion on their accuracy is irrelevant, we go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that I removed the AfD tag, I think the issue was that I was removing my merger tag pretty much at the same time as you were adding to the AfD one and I was too slow with clearing, it was not purposeful, apologies.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After research, here's the answer to your question: Sources are focused on the details of the criminal complaint. And not on the video's details of events, the audio and visual components which continue beyond the scope of the complaint. Thus, the macing and the dragging of Floyd's body are in the video components and mentioned, but not fully reported, in RS. But they're important details for the article, and bystanders commented on both incidents in the video. I would think all article editors would have examed the most important source - the video of the killing of Floyd. But, I provided RS on the mace incident, and was sanctioned from editing before posting RS on the dragging incident. Be that as it may, both the macing and dragging incidents are far more important than the misinformation on Chauvin, for example. And the macing incident RS also contradicts the lengthy current description of Chauvin's hands, as another example. I tried to build consensus but you and AzureCitizen repeatedly became rather hostile, without fully examining the most important source. Curious.

Here are 2 messages for you which you may not have seen. Thanks in advance for your attention:

1. The interpretation that I admitted to an interpretation is not correct. I will continue to look for another RS that confirms these facts. Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Hi again. So, I found & provided 3 RS for the mace moment (which omitted the spraying sound and comments from bystanders, but they are better than nothing), and a sentence that is supported by RS, and it was accepted by another editor and done. Please, I don't think you read the talk before responding to the RS. But now I can't access talk to ascertain why the mace incident was removed after being added, since I was only curious. Can't read/respond to a msg from AzureCitizen. I must ask, did you follow through on your threat - which was based on an interpretation of an alleged interpretation? I hope not, especially since it appears you reported me for providing RS for the mace moment, which is the correct sequence of events. Can you clarify? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cant access talk?Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nor watchlist posts. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you do not app[ear to bed blocked, I suggest you ask an admin to check.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Александр_Мотин is indef blocked from editing the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for persistent disruption. I see he is being insulting and disruptive again on the talk page, so don't feel you have to respond to him. Feel free to ignore him. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was one of the ones that asked for it (and said he should have also been blocked for the talk page). But until fully blocked he is still an editor and so should be respond to at least in the hope of convincing him he is wrong. As well as the fact that if he is not engaged he will think he has consensus. But as you can now see, I have said I will not respond to him there anymore.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the circumstances. I think based on his recent talk page edits it would be a good idea to ask the blocking admin to block him from the talk page as well. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of his posts way from that (hence my "and this is the last time I will respond here"), but I will give him one more chance to actually make a valid point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted a thread at ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dark Heritage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film with no independent, verifiable reviews.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank I forgot all about this. Its so old I doubt you will find any reviews.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:

Hi - thanks for the recommendations for improving the Fred M. Packard Award and apologies if this comment is strangely formatted - i'm still learning how to use talk pages properly. Are web citations in regards to the notability of the award from other notable third party institutions suitable for starters?

Cheers,

Gilpin b (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barley, frankly if if it got wp:AFD it would fail, but its just enough to pass a wp:csd.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Okay, so I've been bold. You reverted. Let's have the discussion.

The current text in the lede is clearly very contentious. It is not fully supported by WP:RS. It has undergone many changes in the last few days. User:Deb here Talk:Edward_Colston#Introduction came up with a form of words regarding Colston's charitable donations which is more neutral and accurate than the current contentious wording.

So I reverted the contentious and non-neutral phrase "He was also a philanthropist" back to: "He later came to be regarded as a philanthropist"

- which point of view is supported by a WP:RS here: Ball, Roger (2018-10-14). "Myths within myths…Edward Colston and that statue". Bristol Radical History Group. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-10.

Given that my change is a small one which is a reversion to someone else's previously used text, the meaning is supported by a WP:RS, and also that it makes the text more neutral and less contentious, why not let the change stand for now?

Put it another way: calling him "a philanthropist" is objectively not a neutral point of view, and it is also unsupported by any WP:RS, so that phrase should not be used to describe him in any Wikipedia article. That means there is good reason to replace it immediately with something which is neutral and is supported by a WP:RS.

Your thoughts, please?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion if over at the articles talk page. Until consensus is reached there it should not be changed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion isn't really going anywhere at all quickly. What is so special about the current contentious phrase which means it's wrong to replace it by reverting to less contentious and more neutral wording right now?

I see that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle states: 'Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns.' and also 'Assume this revision will not be the final version.'

Bearing that in mind, I see no reason to stick with the current contentious wording at all, and don't understand your objections especially since in a case like this, it's almost certainly going to prove impossible to come to a fully agreed consensus.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on the Edward Colston talk page Talk:Edward_Colston#Introduction that you state as if it were a fact the contentious claim that "He was a philanthropist" without attempting to support that opinion with WP:RS. I feel that you are not paying careful attention to WP:RS and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and that in this case, it is wrong for you to repeatedly revert the lede text to the contentious version you support.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

The on-going discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Edward_Colston is not addressing the introduction in particular.

There has been no addition to the relevant discussion about the introduction at Talk:Edward_Colston#Introduction since 03:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC). The discussion appears to have stalled. Under the circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable to revert a single contentious phrase in the introduction to more neutral wording despite the fact that you personally support the contentious phrase. In my view, the fact that you personally prefer the contentious wording is not a valid reason to undo a reversion to more neutral language.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So? wp:consensus is clear, you do not make contested edits without it. Its also clear that is the result is "cannot decide" that mean "do not include".Slatersteven (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real reason for deletion of "Kill the Buzz" ? Raphael1256 14:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He is not notable (see wp:n).Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SlaterSteven, I just wanted to let you know that your !vote in the Fox News section appears to contain a few spelling errors. I had a bit of a difficult time understanding what you were trying to say. So I thought I would let you know, in case you’d want to correct it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

The recent charge sheet by Delhi police indicates that the Delhi riots were pre-planned. There are numerous references regarding the charge sheets. But none of these news reports are getting included on the page. This is shocking. On this matter, recently you commented "A charge sheet is (at best) an RS for an accusation not a fact. And we go with what third party RS say."^[2]. There are numerous references given in the article which are not facts. In fact, most of them are not facts. Many opinion articles are also included as references. These articles are surely not facts. The entire article includes references that indicate that the riots were started by violent Hindus, especially by BJP leader Kapil Mishra. While the chief conspirator (according to Delhi police), Tahir Hussain's name appears only once. When it comes to the other side of the story (Islamists started the riots), you are saying its not a fact. Both POV references should be included regardless of a person's bias (WP:FIXBIAS). Quanta127 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:primary wp:blp and wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Delhi riots is the worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia. The high-handed attitude of few "privileged individuals", when asked to explain the unencyclopedic construct of the article, of washing their hands off by citing a one-liner WP policy instead of engaging in a discussion, is the icing on the cake. I've, in fact, taken a snapshot of the article in the shape it is as of today (and locked further till 27-Sep-2020), to keep as a memoir of WP spreading fake news, and later on, use as an artifact for sharing on social media, once the extent of fake news (includes 1. fiction presented as fact, 2. fact presented as fiction, 3. facts suppressed given they are not conducive to POV; most media portals when engaging in fake news engage only in the 3rd, but this article unabashedly engages in the first two also) on the article becomes so untenable that it cannot be supported even after defying WP:NPOV. isoham (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People are innocent until proven guilty, so the best an arresting officer can do is allege a crime occured through the actions of a suspect. This should never stop. Assuming an offense happened just because a cop says so is literally prejudicial, regardless of race, gender, wealth or anything else that word suggests lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see it, but not retyping this part. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was not aware I had said he was guilty of anything. Being arrested is not being prosecuted, you can be arrested ans released without charge, you have still been arrested for the offence of...Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I wasn't aware he was guilty of everything. So we both learned something, maybe, and it's moot now. But I've had charges against me dropped simply because the alleged offences therein absolutely, positively did not exist outside of a cop's imagination, so won't be generally convinced to the contrary. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can in fact be charged with an offence that exists only in a cops imagination, it will just not stand up in court. A charge is just the police saying THEY Allege you did something.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they alleged I did something (an offence) which did not occur. The charge, the arrest and the suspicion were real. But that was all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? I never said it was anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said he was arrested for other offenses, meaning (or inadvertently suggesting) those criminal acts were real, rather than suspected or alleged. In this case, they turned out to be all three. But as a rule of thumb, going forward, best to treat charges of something as distinct from the something itself, at least for living people. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you can be arrested for non existent offences.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"For" means "because of". Things that do not exist are incapable of causing any effect. That's just how objective reality works. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? No it does not, I opted for an answer does not mean I opted because of an answer.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sake, words have multiple meanings, depending on context. Do you think he was arrested in support of drug possession? Busted toward theft? Nabbed as being or constituting a failure to identify? Nicked in place of aggravated robbery?InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if you cannot keep a civil finger on your keyboard that is the end of this conversation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am being civil, sarcasm gets points across sometimes. Sorry if I missed, honestly. Can I add "rolled up on in honour of trespass", at least? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, and that is my final word.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you lie and say I posted a legal threat on Wikipedia? I did no such thing - You fucked up motherfuckin' shithead!

I did not say you did, I asked you to read out policy on it, before you did.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". WWGB (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material".Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgot to change the edit summary. The edits themselves are correct. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not sure overly why we need then to have the category set to no, why not just exclude it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, if living is not defined the talk page is placed in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I think this is because if someone just places the banner without the living parameter, the person might be alive so {{BLP}} might need to be placed. Therefore, it needs to be explicitly defined. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing it but fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question at Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive_1#Tou_Thao's_role_needs_to_be_clarified, more recent RS have said what it was. I don't have those sources handy, but, as I recall, they said it was a "restraint hobble". They said that, after getting it out, the cops decided not to use it. Geo Swan (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a perfectly reasonable question. I do not understand why you refuse to answer me. Discussing matters on the talk page to resolve an issue is correct procedure.

Now then, you seemed to agree with me that the Colston article's first paragraph should be reverted to the form it took when the RFC addressing philanthropy was opened. When I made that change, you objected.

I would like to understand why, so I asked you. You didn't answer my question. I don't understand why. I am acting in good faith.

Now you are saying "next time it's a report" - what? I am baffled.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered you multiple times, you are just no listening, read wp:not. I have said I have no more to say to you, and I meant it. I never ban anyone from my talk page and I will not now. But I will not reply until you show some understanding of what I have already said to you. Also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT might be worth a read.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have not actually answered my query. I have made no personal accusations against anyone - but perhaps you need to remind yourself of WP:AGF.

My query is this: since the Colston article's first paragraph should not have been changed until the RFC had been resolved, why is it wrong to restore the first paragraph to that form? Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a discussion mentioning you here:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Edward_Colston

Now Healthy: 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denapaona 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kari_o_Komal 3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jibita_o_Mrita

etc........ প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not delegation, deletion. প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

প্রসেনজিৎ পাল, you gotta try to be more coherent. What is the context here? What are you trying to say? Why are you telling Slatersteven that? Non sequitur messages do not help. El_C 17:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger told this (Administrator Board issue, প্রসেনজিৎ পাল). So, I told you this here. Articles of Rabindranath Tagore created by me were nominated deletion first. Because, each article contained single line. I was just a new comer then. Later I developed them and now they are fit. Thanks প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I still don't see what it has to do with the dispute you're having with Slatersteven. I suggest you focus on content and engage the article talk page in a substantive and responsive way. El_C 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m Mike and I’m new to Wikipedia edits. I’m curious... can you share why you deleted the additions I made yesterday to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_roadside_attractions?wprov=sfti1 All of these have multiple sources as being worlds largest and many other edits on that page have no references at all. So why might you have deleted them? How to get them added back? Thanks, Mike VVFamEdits (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not RS, for one.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please exercise some caution when making edits? Specifically, your edits use bare URLs susceptible to link rot which, while fine, often duplicate sources that already appear in the article and which creates a lot of clerical work for other editors to try to clean up for you. You've also been introducing sentences that lack periods or with strangely conjugated verbs which make them difficult to decipher (e.g. [4], among other places). Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I just undid your edit here [5] in which you falsely attributed a quote to Cristiano Lima which was actually stated by a Twitter user named "Veggie King". Chetsford (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This is how the Parler CEO describes their content policies pic.twitter.com/fiPnNCpxgd

— Cristiano Lima (@viaCristiano) June 30, 2020

As the top Twitter comment points out, “Twitter allows four of the five things that Parler censors.”"

No mention of veggie king. Also as you know who said it, why not replace "who? with who said it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter posts are followed by comments in which registered users can reply to, or "comment", on the original post. The phrase "the top Twitter comment" refers to the first person to reply to, or comment, on Cristiano Lima's original post. You can click the timestamp in the embed of your source if you like [6]. Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thank button needs a choice of emoji. For that one, I need a "sigh". 🤷 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a stifled moan.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop posting to his talk page. I did. Much happier. This essay may apply. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not overly unhappy about posting there. But also not overly committed to doing so either. If you feel my last post was going to far I will remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to do my Strother Martin imitation about the unreachable? He just cannot grasp it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I am easy with not posting there again, no skin of my nose.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your unacceptable conduct has been reported Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving yourself notice of your own post at WP:AN? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: No. It's from Sirjohnperrot. Feel free to opine at your leisure. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SJP is mixing me up, as I thought this was SJP's userpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find me mentioned at any case, what one am I supposed to be involved in?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but you have such a cool nick. Makes people jealous. OR, you commented here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, you commented on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is a message that they have made a report about me, I cannot find one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He bulk reported all of us that took part at ANI as a "kangaroo court" . It was all inclusive. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh that was the one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit I made to Tommy Robinson (activist). I have never read a Biography on Wikipedia with so many direct quotes. Would you mind explaining your revert in a little more detail? Thanks! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, You said you were tidying up the quote, you removed it as such it was not tidying it up. You need a bit more than "too many quotes" to just remove them at random.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I guess I see clean-up and remove as very similar terms, but you're right remove would have been the better term. In my view the sentence reads better without the quote. I was not randomly removing the quote, I genuinely feel the sentence reads better without it. Do you have an issue with me removing it again, if so, please explain why in a little more detail? Thanks. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No strong view either way.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, perfect. Thanks for your time. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for your input at Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#Proposed_Edits please? Thanks! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to comment about something I have no strong views over.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to remind you that WP:Edit summaries should summarize your edits. This one (Please stop) doesn't do the job. Your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you check you will see this was part of a series of edits, and I did leave a message on their talk page. But you are correct I should have just pointed out how is was badly written again.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your last question on the Admin Noticeboard would involve disclosing confidential information which is not appropriate there or anywhere else. As I said on my Talkpage the advice I was given was that a block on that identifier 'may' compromise its use in other applications, I'm not an IT professional but my adviser is and it would be helpful if you would remove your question for those reasons. Thank you. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking the community who might know the answer as (as far as I know) A Wikipedia block can have no impact anywhere else (or on any "application", which Wikipedia should not be interfering with anyway). Thus the question is valid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slatersteven,

Thank you also for you comments on One Caribbean

I agree with the tag you added, I did consider adding it myself, but I thought 3 different sources was the limit? I think the previous iteration was deleted because it was all from a single source? probably at that time there was little more available?

As you will see Aviation is not what I normally edit on here. I re-started the One Caribbean page as I have been following the demise of LIAT in the news. One Caribbean looks like it could be expanding to pick up some of their slots, and adding new planes. Caribbean Aviation looks to change rapidly in the coming months post Covid and post LIAT. With that in mind I though it best the One Caribbean was opened again. For now I have done all I can with it. In starting the page I did what I could, I expect there will be new sources very soon. and I also hope that the Aviation editors can add far more than I can.

I don't have any connections with One Caribbean or LIAT. apart from being a passenger on the latter.

Simuliid talk 14:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:crystal we cannot assume as article is needed because "it might be more notable" right now I doubt it would pass an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added for philosopher and composer categories # https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar I think now everyone will be satisfied. Thanks.... প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop making assumptions about what people think.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

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

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, but it was nothing you personally did. I was hesitant to take on the case, I should have stuck with my gut and closed it. I truly don't have an opinion one way or another- but once someone decided I did- I was no longer an acceptable mediator. I'm not upset about that... just sorry that its so contentious right now. Nothing will get resolved until those involved take their emotions out and go back to WP:AGF. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which seems to be what this is about.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]