User talk:Slatersteven

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, new comments go at the bottom. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there, Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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: Hawkeye7 looks at the Tokyo war crimes trials

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)[reply]

this is a conversation for the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2024 (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: Recent external reviews

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

> 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then ask at then articles talk page, where others can also see the question. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Nashhinton (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)~~

Hi, could you tell me what is wrong with this source? [1]

That made by Hungarian Academy of Science, modern academic sources, an international award winning source [2]. 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)[reply]

The place for this discussion is the article talkpage, where others can see it and comment. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

THis is not then place for this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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: Hawkeye7 looks at two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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