You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 13:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tit for tat, you need to read wp:brd, you were reverted you need to make a case, not just edit war to add it in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make a proper case for why you reverted, not just random, discombobulated statements. I have given you my reasoning. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 14:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, see WP:ONUS, its you that needs who to make the case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you cast your eyes a few lines above, you'll see that I have made my case already. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 14:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I objected to it, thus you do not have consensus. The policy is not "make your case" its "get agreement".Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that I needed to "make the case" and now that I don't. I think you're getting a little confused and muddled up over there. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to make a case, and then convince others its valid, read the policy. "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." I said "make a case (as in "Discuss"). Just making the case is not enough you also need wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly made my case. Your case was so weak and barely understandable and you never made a reasonable argument that the consensus was pretty clearly in favour of keeping the content. If you're so keen for consensus, why did you originally revert just four minutes after I added the content? It seems that you didn't want consensus and just went straight to deleting, which was very battleground like. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 14:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did not agree with it, consensus means agreement, you agreeing with yourself is not consensus. You made a bold edit I reverted as I felt it was unnecessary detail (and still do). All it does its adds content that really tells us nothing about what he did beyond triva, and I stand by that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting involved in this? I am being blocked from editing for no reason?!

What are you talking about, this was 4 months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 13:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titfortat notices and wp:point, is never a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally not a good idea to follow me around Wikipedia, reverting and opposing the edits I make. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 14:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not generally not a good idea to make ill-founded actions based, either report me or stop making false accusations of stalking. I will continue to undo any edits I do not agree with, regardless of who makes them, and that includes yours.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one rolling up to me with your gun fully loaded, slamming the revert button. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 14:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with you making unfounded accusations, now stop or I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reported user continues to edit war and violate revert rules despite warning and under report investigation. Could you please lock article Jovan Rašković from further edits immediately? I told them to open discussion on the talk page. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thought you were when mentioning locking the page. Sorry. OyMosby (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, you made this post accusing me of doing a promotion of a company.

And can you explain this [[1]], which seems to be using your user page for promotion of a company that makes paid contributions to Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And can you explain this. . ." Interesting you start your post with the conjunction "And" which implies "in addition to other things". Is this a logical, continuing part of the BMK incident? Why is this "can you explain" posted there? I don't mean to be glib, but if you think this accusation that I am "promoting of a company" is part and parcel of that incident, you are beating a WP:DEADHORSE, so please WP:DROPTHESTICK on that incident.

I am curious as to why I have to provide an explanation about what this "seems" to you? Are you stalking me to see if I will do something to criticize and perhaps claim an incident? Seriously, why are you doing this?

Here's the short answer: It is not what you seem to think it is. I am in no way promoting a company.

Here's the long answer:

You were looking at a page called Osomite/Stuff. It is one of my sub-user pages. If you look at it, it is my collection of "references" and things that I don't want to forget and might want to check out at a later time. I have a lot of stuff there I use while editing as I have difficulty remembering the details of things like the content of the various "CITES". Although it is accessible to all, I don't really expect to have an editor be interested enough to look at it much less be critical of the "stuff" I might happen to save.

Apparently, anything one editor does could be considered suspect to another editor if you what to infer something. True, Legalmorning is undoubtedly considered to be antithetical to Wikipedia's editing policy and philosophy, but in the real world of commerce, it is just a company that provides a service that undoubtedly Wikipedia does not appreciate.

I saved some LegalMorning stuff as it is about something I thought interesting enough that sometime in the future I might want to look into the subject for more detail. There is a lot of this type of stuff on my "Stuff" page.

In holding stuff in a place that undoubtedly does not receive much traffic, in a "backstage" area, am actually I promoting a company? It isn't covert advertising.

I have reviewed the Wikipedia page Subpages with special attention to "Disallowed uses" and the Wikipedia page Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. I don't see a violation concerning my saved stuff.

If doing this innocuous save of stuff (at least it is to me) is in violation of Wikipedia's policy, please specify what that policy is, and I will make my saved stuff comply.

If this explanation is not adequate, please clarify what is needed.

And again, why are you doing this?

Osomite ^hablemos 00:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am "doing this" is explained in the ANI. You had a wp:battleground mentality over an issue that appears to be informed by wp:or and using wp:wikilawyering to remove a blatantly obvious fact for unidentifiable reasons that led you to make a number of wp:PA's you are still yet to unreservedly apologise for (see wp:wikilawyering, again). In addition, you ignored the ANI whilst making rather trivial changes (and some that almost can be read as deliberate slaps in the face) to your user page. All of which implies you do not (and do not) take what you did seriously. As to promotion, "Legalmorning is a full-service online marketing agency. We offer content writing, Wikipedia editing, media outreach services, and more. Founded by Mike Wood in 2011" reads a lot like promotion to me (see wp:not Esepcvolkaly as it is in a section called "‎The Rise and Fall of the Wikipedia Empire" which seems to just be a collection of links to how crap Wikipedia is. Also, your walls of text do not help, you could have explained all of the above in one or two lines (maybe see wp:bludgeon). Simply put I am getting a whiff of wp:nothere and wp:Ididnothearthat (the latter others have also mentioned) so what I am doing is trying to tell you what not to do to give the wrong impression. Also you need to read wp:indent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As are you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind if we talk directly instead of getting into an edit war, haha.

I believe mainstream Andorran scholarship actually does support the idea that Andorra was never part of the war. Here's a screenshot of a translated section from the article I mentioned. It has multiple cited sources you can check for yourself:

https://imgur.com/a/28QsWMg

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again Wikipedia (and this is obviously a wiki page) is not an RS. I suggest what you do is go to the respective article talk pages and make your case. My take is that one newspaper article (which does not even say it's a fact, it attributes the claim to one person) 100 years of scholarship does not overturn. But others may disagree (see wp:consensus), but wp:brd is clear, you have made an edit, and it has been reverted. You now make your case on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalan wiki article cites eight different sources, and that article was just one of them. Like I said, you can check out those sources for yourself.

But yes, I will continue the discussion on the talk page.

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, but I think it's only fair to let you know that Osomite has included you on their list of editors to "check out", here, along with myself, Drmies, and Fram. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, but as no one seems to see what he is doing as an issue I am going to crop it for now. His user p[age is a violation of policy, and that alone should have led to sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you drop this now before you get a boomerang for not dropping it. I did warn you to read policy before you launched it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope as well you make no more bad-faith accusations of hounding.Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I would get a boomerang? Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 21:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read what has been said about the is no case for me to answer and you need to stop it? Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are very lucky it was closed before you dug a deeper hole.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article's history. The material was added, with a reference, and Snowdad refused to explain why they think it's "citation spam", I might agree if they presented evidence of any kind, but they have not done so. Yur edit to the article was not helpful, Please consider reverting it and asking Snowdad to provide evidence of why the edit in question is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 days ago, and it was reverted within a day. This is not (and was not) long-standing content. It was a new addition, and this wp:brd applies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2021 (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 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content was long-standing, so BRD does not apply. The STATUSQUO was the inclusion of this material. And (as I said on your all page) you violated the 1rr restiction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The category was not. It was added by AllegedlyHuman within a day. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the cat on Trump has been there for longer than a day, and given the 1rr rule on that page I self-reverted. My comment stands for Paul. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? when? here is the version from 6 days ago [[2]] and here form 2 months ago [[3]], so when did he add it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See second comment above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have seen it has been there for at least two months, not a day, do I need to go back further?Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Rand Paul? It was just added today. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh crossed wires, as you have been doing this over a few articles. It would have been nice if you had said which page this related to.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said "Looks like the cat on Trump has been there for longer than a day, and given the 1rr rule on that page I self-reverted. My comment stands for Paul." So I had self-rvd on Trump, but meant that my comment still applied to Paul. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, you will note I have not undone your revert over at rand Paul.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

any objections? Acousmana (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see talk, I have suggested an alternative.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Slatersteven! I'm Dswitz10734. I'm writing this message regarding my edit and your revert of my edit. I just want to make it clear that I am not offended in any way by your action, but I just wanted follow up and explain why I did made the edit that I did.

The word "march" makes it seem like Trump encouraged the violence. I'm sure he didn't want violence nor deaths, but the light he is in seems to get that message across to the reader. I wanted to make it clear in the article that Trump didn't encourage deaths, but he said to "peacefully and patriotically" [4] express your feelings.

I do my best to be neutral on this encyclopedia, and with so many people with so many different backgrounds editing, making this whole encyclopedia neutral is a hard task. I didn't want the article to convey that Trump wanted the violence without a reference; this article should be neutral. I noticed when I referenced that site that it was citation number 1. That means that the entire intro is citeless! (I made that word up because it makes sense ;-) ) Please tell me your thoughts so we can work this out. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon! Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to make your case over at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is disputationism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have never heard of Islamic terrorism being called this, and its root would be "dispute", which is not solely about Islamic terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is coagulationism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a term used for Coagulation, as an ism is usually a movement, not a condition.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent any more of your questions, as I said "they sound made up", words you are using in ways that do not (assuming the words themselves are not made up) in ways that differ from everyday (or even dictionary) usage.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"they sound made up" is not a rationale. The word suggests "a pathological condition", another sense according to my Oxford. Please add the targets of these redirects at your listing of these in RfD. ~ cygnis insignis 11:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But redirects are there so people looking for a term are directed to the right article, this (assuming it is a made up word) will not be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate what I mean, trying to figure out which pages these redirect to is very hard, because they do not in fact have a connection in terms of word construction, what has Objectionism (root objection) got to do with objectivism?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is concentrationism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is objectionism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is collectionism getting erased? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the terms used in English ending with ionism? How many do you have? --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Words that end in Ism.

professionalism.

photojournalism.

intellectualism.

interventionism.

humanitarianism.

neoconservatism.

If you want I can link to dictionary definitions, can you?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not say -ism, I say -ionism. You know, expressionism is like impressionism. Ending with the following letters IONISM. Whatever brain I have, I bring -ism to the end of every word that has -ion. --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You bring?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me the words that end in IONISM used in English. --Kahrolsun İzolasyonizm (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Slatersteven. I saw your edit at the RfC here and was confused as to what you meant. There have been more one sentence votes simply saying “I agree with Slatersteven or xx editor” without any self explanation as to why. Are RfCs just popularity votes or are the opposition required to make an actual case? Otherwise 2+2 can equal 5 if majority says so, haha. This RfC seems to have been open for a bit. Not sure what you meant to remove as you said you now don’t want to vote? Your vote is still there so wanted to verify with you. Thanks! OyMosby (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was I did not realize they were saying I said it, I thought they were voting on my behalf, and thus I decided if that was the case I would not vote. see [[5]] for an explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! Wanted to make sure with you. Will remove my incorrect assumption. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though what is your take on my question about RfC protocols? OyMosby (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be up to the closer to decide who made the best arguments, but if someone agrees with another user there is really no point in rehashing what has been said. I would suggest you ask for a close from an uninvolved editor.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it just figured since often Balkan RfCs lead to a sudden appearance of voting blocks as seems odd after my comment yesterday, often various groups would just write agree or disagree with a user without explaining why in their own mind. Good to hear that an uninvolved admin makes the decision on arguments not vote numbers. So one sentence agreements with another editor don’t real add or subtract from the RfC. Reassuring to know! Thanks Slatersteven (or do you prefer Steven?). :) OyMosby (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care what you call me as long as its not 2 in the morning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol OyMosby (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this see what I mean? Acousmana (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? why are you showing me this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted an edit, I did not introduce something. Check the history before making false assumptions. Secondly claiming that anti-Semitism needs verifiability is quiet a proof of bad faith. You are not really willing to be constructive, this is very low. Are you coordinating your militant activity with the second user? I don't understand why you became part of the user actions as you are not showing your willingness to present your arguments... I can wait, but then don't act out of bad faith and do reverts on false pretexts. Thanks for understanding the message, if not reread.--Vanlister (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely accused a user of edit warring. You then edit warred yourself. By the way [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]. You need to stop the false accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the percentage of users of lesswrong who identify with neoreaction is notable (which is less than 1%), but the percentage who identify with effective altruism isn't notable (over 20%). The source is the same 2016 survey so verifiability isn't a concern. Either both statistics should stay or both should be omitted. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is the statement "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LessWrong", which makes it historically significant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The effective altruism movement mostly grew on LessWrong as well, probably to a much greater degree than the neoreactionary movement did. For example, in the 2014 EA survey, LessWrong was by far the #1 source that led people to engage with effective altruism (31%, with the next source being 14%). I admit that there aren't as many secondary sources talking about the connection between effective altruism and LessWrong as for neoreaction, even though the two are much more deeply intertwined, so I won't push the issue further, even though I stand by my edit and believe it merits inclusion. Have a nice day. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a source that says "The effective altruism movement mostly grew on LessWrong", as you say there seem to be few RS saying anything of the kind.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the book "The AI Does Not Hate You", chapter 38:

It's impossible to talk about the Rationalists without mentioning their conjoined twin, the Effective Altruism movement. They're so intertwined that I have a bad habit of using the terms synonymously, but they are in fact distinct. [...]

The links between the Rationalists and the Effective Altruists go back pretty much to the beginning [...]

Certainly, the LessWrong Rationalists provide a large proportion of Effective Altruism's support. In 2014, 31 per cent of survey respondents said that they had first heard of the movement through LessWrong; by 2017, that figure had dropped to 15 per cent, presumably partly because LessWrong had shrunk while Effective Altruism had grown, but a further 7 per cent had heard of it through Slate Star Codex. And a large fraction of LessWrongers are Effective Altruists: according to the 2016 LessWrong diaspora survey, 20 per cent of respondents identified as Effective Altruists, and 22 per cent had made 'donations they otherwise wouldn't' because of Effective Altruism.

Is that enough to justify inclusion? 72.209.38.247 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do RS make this connection?Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BY the way, it might be best to raise this on the articels talk page, and give others a chance to join in.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a WP:BOLD edit and will mention it on talk page. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slatersteven,

Mangal Pandey DOB is 30th January 1831, not 19th July 1827. We raised our concern to the Indian government and acknowledge them. They agreed that the actual DOB is 30th Jan 1831 and we are celebrating the DOB on 30th Jan 1831. We are trying our best to people know the actual DOB. I am from the same place where Mangal Pandey was born so I knew the actual story from his relatives. If DOB is incorrect in any popular website t's our duty to raise a concern. He is our first freedom fighter and everyone should know the actual DOB. Please try to understand the importance of this issue.

Please find the below link to see what's published in the Indian newspaper for your reference and another link also.

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/will-observe-mangal-pandeys-birth-anniversary-on-jan-30-from-next-year-up-minister/1899615 https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey

I translate some of the websites into English for your reference.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hi&u=https://www.patrika.com/varanasi-news/martyr-mangal-pandey-untold-story-on-independence-day-news-in-hindi-1-1716560/&prev=search&pto=aue https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hi&u=https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/varanasi-city-questions-raised-on-mangal-pandey-birth-anniversary-ballia-people-say-tampering-with-facts-birthday-is-30th-january-jagran-special-20529379.html&prev=search&pto=aue

Let me know if you have any concerns.

Thanks, Manish

And we have sources that contest that, so we do not yet have an authoritative dob.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I am I going too far in my removals or possibly misapplying the BLP rules? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that now there has been direct criticism and calls for investigations, yes and no. I think we can say "there have been called for investigations into her finacies", but this may still be undue. So am very much in two minds as to including this or not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your advice even though you are *understandably* not sure. I am not sure if the has been direct criticism, I may have misunderstood you... Newsome is not affiliated with BLMGN and the BLMGN have denied any wrong doing. No need to reply if you would prefer to wait for better evidence etc. Thanks again. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I see your exasperation on a bunch of those edit requests you respond to, and I totally feel you. I used to try to talk to people who posted like that but I found it was never worth it, and now I just close with a template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (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 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

With this edit you removed a lengthy section of text, and in your edit summary wrote, "this is all we so far have consensus for". I read the article's talk page and didn't really see a consensus. Perhaps I missed it. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only text there was any agreement to was what I added (2 people) apart from that none of it has any consensus of any kind. So your argument is in fact for total removal, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I should have added more detail. The text that was removed was sourced content, and did not seem a BLP violation. I don't know why you removed it. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was no consensus for adding it, it is still being debated. We have not yet agreed on what can (or should) be said or how to word it. If there is an ongoing discussion about adding content that content should not be added until there is clear agreement to add it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this AfD is not properly set up and might be speedily closed. I recommend WP:TWINKLE to automatically generate correct AfDs. Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had, maybe no.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You left some brief cryptic comments on my talk page. I have no idea what you are on about. sbelknap (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to read policies you did not seem to be aware of as this [[9]] might well violate wp:npa and does violate wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of these policies. You are making vague assertions without any evidence, much like the critics who call Tucker Carlson racist. Please be specific. How have my posts violated wp:npa or wp:soap? sbelknap (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO I am not, as if you are aware of policy your recent comment linked above is a know violation of them. It attempts to undermine the credibility of editors by making assertions about "Progressives seem to be more successful at embedding biased content into wikipedia as well", this is a violation of NPA (to my mind). It violates wp:soap as it does not make arguments based upon policy, but presumed bias and affiliation (as well as containing wp:or, it is your interpretation of what Carlson has said, RS interpret it differently). I am waring you to be more careful as this article is under DS< and that means users are expected to use a higher standard of caution when editing it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, one little problem I have with the edit on Satanic ritual abuse: I don't remember any of the best WP:RSes on the topic asserting that the SRA panic itself originated in Canada. Only Michelle Remembers' author Lawrence Pazder did. (Even the book was published by a New York publisher, and our WP article seems to say the book was mostly promoted in the US.) So I'll make that change to the article now, but if you want to discuss you can revert and ping me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says it did, the lede reflects the body. So unless an earlier example from the US can be presented we have to assume this was the first example.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not an example of a panic, it's an example of a fictional story. (A "moral panic" is very strictly defined in social science literature.) IIRC (it's been a few years) the major sources consider McMartin Preschool as the first mainstream SRA panic; Pazder did contribute to the broader panic in the US as a moral entrepreneur, but mostly did that work in the US where fundamentalist Christianity had already built a popular narrative about evil Satanic forces. Really, if you're interested in the topic, the sources listed in the article's bibliography (basically Victor, Nathan & Snedeker, deYoung, and Richardson Bromley & Best) are definitive and exhaustive about the origin & development of the SRA panic and should be the basis for the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be fiction, it was not marketed as such at the time. It was the progenitor of the whole sillines.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GulayAta (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure most people would say what does? --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That any large number of people would associate anti-Americanism with discrimination, in fact, I would argue it's practically going to be the opposite, they associate Americanism with discrimination.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want it can be removed. Do you have any other problems with my revert? --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make a case at talk, not here, as I am not the only person who reverted you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you're not the only person who reverted me? My edit was a manual revert of NaviNews. --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I should have said I am not the only person who disagreed with this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You voiced your disagreement with the inclusion of the discrimination sidebar, nothing else. I have already said that I would be willing not to include it, at least for the time being. So why should the rest of their edit not stay reverted?

Also, I did some searching and would like to point out that many other anti-national articles (e. g., Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Russian sentiment) include the same discrimination sidebar. --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I often also undo larger edits if other users have objected and they are reinserted. As I said, make a case at talk, not here, as everyone has a right to know there is a discussion and to join in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include longstanding edits? --Roastedturkey (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say generally yes, if the content is long-standing and I can see a valid objection I would say "make a case at talk".Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...if you do not wish to donate to the project, fine. But do not use the threat of doing so to try and force your POV onto an article." Oh, I have your permission to not donate? Thank you so much!!! That right there is why I hope Wikipedia dies. It's not a threat, pal. It's what I'm doing, and I don't need your permission. Not only am I not going to donate this pathetic website anymore. I'm donating to projects that are working to destroy and replace this horrible site. People like you are cancer. You don't care about anymore except yourself. Your articles are heavily biased propaganda, not even pretending to be objective or balanced. You routinely censor anyone who reverts or corrects your misinformation, play little admin-tag on reverts, even when editors provide sources from sites YOU approve. If you want to purge all factual opinions from the articles, fine. But don't you dare tell me what I can say on talk pages or threaten me, you insecure power-tripping troll. Keep your snarky self-referential "help" pages about how not dumb you are to yourself. No one in the real world cares about your pathetic little fiefdom. Wikipedia is a joke and people like you have turned it into a bad one.

I am telling you we are not going to alter our policies just so you will still donate to us (assuming you actually even do). I would also suggest you read wp:npa asa the above violates it. I did not say you had to have my permision, I said we are not going to care.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2021 (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 intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

Hi. I tweaked your comment on the delhi riots talk page. The spelling you used could be considered derogatory (and I know that's not your intention). Hope that's ok. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I can never get the word right (too much reading of period literature I suspect).Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1029046331&oldid=1029046123

soibangla (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry hit enter before adding the reason, which is WP:ONUS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Came across your recent edits. If you are further interested in topic may be you would like to join a discussion @ Talk:Superstition#Definition in lead besides I am also looking for article expansion help @ Draft:Irrational beliefs if you find topic interested in.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube. It was discussed a bit at Mark Dice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that I have made are not radical ones. There is no evidence that he spoke up against legal immigration. He has, though, been an active opponent of illegal immigration. Also, the other changes were just realignment of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshit 3110 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, as theey radically change what we say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't! There is no concrete evidence of his opposition to legal immigration. He has repeatedly denounced anti-racial discrimination being used as a tool to combat past discrimination. Reflecting on these changes is neither radical nor incorrect.

That is irrelevant to "they are not radical changes". A radical change radically changes what our article says, and that is what you did, and you did not only alter his stance on immigration.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide what an article should say. The changes I made did not state anything untrue. Just because it doesn't match your view, does not make it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshit 3110 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:brd, you were reveted so you should make a case at talk, not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2021 (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 RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

I saw your revert here and I think this does fit the definition of weasel wording - who exactly made this claim? It seems Sherri Tenpenny would be one person that we can name. --hroest 15:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MAde what claim, that some think it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested the One is not irrelevant to a certain university. I beg to differ.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=655932674
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=5131023

See this as a starting point. Apply diligence in plunging the depths of Wikipedia, and the wisdom of relevance will become yours. Perhaps the One is closer than you think. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one what?Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! On the neutrality board, you asked me to provide you with RS on the subject of Black women in the history of Juneteenth and Juneteenth celebrations. I'd like to post them here, on your talk page. Would that be ok with you?

AmorLucis (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really as they are part of the discussion there, and others need to see them too.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They already are on the talk page.

I was offering to repost them here so you would not have to read through the whole thread over there to find them. I have been repeatedly warned not to "repeat myself" on the talk page, so I can't repost them there to answer your question about sources.

AmorLucis (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have posted them there already then they have already been rejected..Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They had already been posted and discussed before you asked me (on two different talk pages) to post my sources. If you are now withdrawing your request to me for my sources, I will no longer attempt to provide them to you.

AmorLucis (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I asked was "Do any RS support any of this, directly and qoatably?", I did not ask you for sources, I asked for sources that explicitly support your edit. As I pointed out on your talk page we have policies called wp:v and wp:rs, your sources are not compliant (as multiple users have told you) with those policies. So I asked you to produce ones that were. Rather than ban users from your talk page, you should read and understand what they are telling you. You asl need to read wp:bludgeom and wp:tenditious, all you are doing is rep[eraging already rejected arguments referring to already rejected sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote: "Do any RS discuss the topic you wish to add, so any RS say black women were not emacipated and thus Juneteenth is not about them?"

Correction: at no time did I state or imply that Black women were not emancipated from chattel slavery (they most certainly were) or that Juneteenth is "not about" Black women (of course it is). Can decisions being made be valid, if they are based on arguments that are not mine?

Correction: I did not ban anyone from my talk page for giving advice on editing. I welcome editors' advice on editing. I set a boundary about editors on my talk page implying that I am acting in bad faith.

AmorLucis (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to read a policy as I felt you were coming close to violating it. In the same way, I might say (if you are driving at 39 in a 40 zone ) "a bit close to the speed limit". Yes Do any RS "discuss the topic", in other words "Do any RS support any of this, directly and qoatably" That is what it means As wp:or says "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.". In other words the sources must link Junteenth to these women, directly. Yy have to have a source (for example) that says "honored in Juneteenth celebrations include Sojourner Truth’s "Address to the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association", You have had this explained multiple times.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we do, we warn users before, not after, they may be about to breach a rule. There is not a lot of point in telling you about a rule after you may have broken it is there? The way you are going you will get another block, you really need to start reading and understanding our policies (and why you were actually blocked).Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Yy have to have a source (for example) that says "honored in Juneteenth celebrations include Sojourner Truth’s "Address to the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association"

I am aware of that. That's why I cited Juneteenth sources that mention Truth's 1867 address and others that included Pauli Murray's "Jane Crow" law review article.

As I said, I welcome advice on editing, including an editor asking me to read a policy because they believe I am coming close to violating it.

AmorLucis (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep this simple, give one source (just one here, just the link, no preamble) to one of your sources that link as Jnneetneh and Sojourner Truth.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:v is clear, I have to be able to see (without being told by anyone) what it is I am looking at. If you have to tell me what it says, it may well fail wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

RS from my original reverted edit directly connecting Juneteenth to Sojourner Truth. The page suggests to "Celebrate Juneteenth" by honoring "The Women of the Movement" and directly references Sojourner Truth's historical speeches on women's rights, specifically.

^[1]

To save you time, the relevant quote on the page (under the section on Sojourner Truth) is:

"Her most famous address, given in 1851 at the Women’s Rights Conference in Akron, Ohio, challenged prevailing ideas about racial and gender inferiority."

The source, The Chisholm Leadership Academy, boasts an impressive Board of Directors of Black civic leaders. Their mission statement is "The Chisholm Leadership Academy is a Georgia 501(c)(3) organization that cultivates a pipeline of middle and high school girls of color to become catalysts for change and to be inspired for bold careers in public service."

Thoughts?

AmorLucis (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention of the word Juneteenth in that quote. Which part of "Do any RS support any of this, directly and qoatably" do you not understand?Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP Juneteenth article covers, in detail, how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth. This is a source on how to CELEBRATE Juneteenth. The RS of this article is CELEBRATING Juneteenth (the title of the article) by honoring "The Women of the Movement" (a section in the article) and Sojourner Truth (a woman in that section) and her speeches (mentioned in her section).

There is already precedent in the Juneteenth article for noting "female-centric" CELEBRATIONS--the "Miss Juneteenth" contests.

What part of "this source directly and quotably connects CELEBRATING Juneteenth with Sojourner Truth and her speeches" do you not understand?

Explain to me, please, the difference between the WP Juneteenth article including how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth with breakfasts, re-enactments and beauty pageants and including how people CELEBRATE Juneteenth by "honoring the women of the movement."

AmorLucis (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are going to have to agree to disagree on the relevance of Black women leaders of history to Juneteenth commemorations, I'll end our discussion with this point of clarification on your earlier analogy:

"I asked you to read a policy as I felt you were coming close to violating it. In the same way, I might say (if you are driving at 39 in a 40 zone ) "a bit close to the speed limit".

There was, in fact, two parts to your statement to me on my talk page. Advice on WP policy AND commentary on my motives. So an accurate analogy would be that you told me that I was driving "a bit too close to the speed limit" because I "had to get there before everyone else."

You commented on my motive when you said that I was going to different forums to "get the answer I wanted." I was going to different forums for clarification, which is what those forums are for. Fortunately, other editors are continuing to work with me on that clarification.

I was clear that what I objected to was not your "advice" about WP policies. I objected to your comment about my motive, because commenting on the motive of other editors is a violation of talk page guidelines. I was (erroneously, IMO) blocked because my setting a boundary for myself about you discussing my motive was deemed "disruptive."

AmorLucis (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had been given the same answer every form you went to, the same answer you are getting now. It was clear from your statements you would (as you are) continue to make the same points over and over again. So I told you what policy you would breach if you raised the same issue, using the same arguments in another forum, and why it would be seen that way. NO (by the way) commenting on motives is not a violation of policy (and no I did not question your motives, I questioned how you were going about your arguments (see wp:tenditious)) when issuing warnings, even informal ones. And no you were not blocked for "my setting a boundary for myself" you were blocked for making personal attacks (so I will be commenting on "your motives" again, keep on misrepresenting why you were blocked and you may get another), and by the way "my setting a boundary for myself" would be boundaries for you, not boundaries for others in their behavior towards you. I am going to make another, it is clear to me that at this time you are wp:nothere you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue (Juneteenth, and now your block) and you will continue to fight your case (see wp:battleground ad infinitum. This may leed to longer blocks, as it is a wait of users (and admins) time to have to deal with the same issues over and over again (I have pointed to tendentious already). I am (and was) warning you what the behavior is that could cause you problems and lead to blocks. I would point to this talk page discussion as an example of what I was talking about, as instead of forums you are now discussing this on three or four separate users talk pages. wp:dropthestick before it is too late.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Could you please clarify the issue with adding factual information?

SPA has nothing to do with that. It is about the fact you are only editing a single article. Nor is "factual information" how we work, we work with "verifiable information (see wp:v). If we have sourced content you can't alter it unless you produce a better source to support your new edit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user can't comment at ANI because they're currently blocked. If you're interested, at Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance there's a box you can check that will strike through the username if an account is blocked. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they are blocked they are blocked, we should not post on behalf of blocked users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2021 (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: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

You have repeatedly accused me of removing sources and statements from the Elections in Cuba article. I have proven this to be false, will you admit your mistake and apologise? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why edit warring is bad, you have made so many edits it's hard to see what you have been doing. it's when why reverted you should go to talk. It looked like you added CN tags to sourced statements, Rather it may be you add CN tags to statements you had added (whilst moving the sources). If you did don't remove any sources I apologize, this does not alter the fact you edit warred, you added unsourced or poorly sourced content whilst attacking the reliability of RS. |And that you have refused to accept when multiple editors have told you this. Rather resorting to background language about Cptaoslit sources or Western sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slatersteven, you responded to that brand-new account that commented at Talk:Ivermectin just for an ad hominem argument against Alexbrn. I removed that comment, and your since it was solely a reply to the other. I hope that's ok, and feel free to revert if it's not. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it was indented as a general comment (rather than a specific reply to a user) it should not really have been removed as there is a tad too much soapboxing going on there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, with my apologies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, it I was that worried I would have restored it myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have defended your concerns with Brackenheim's behavior on procedural grounds, not because I have any (current) interest in getting involved at the MCS article. (You can read my recent comments.) Bbb23's comment at AN is on point, and I'll let you and ScienceFlyer take the lead there. I may join in later. -- Valjean (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Slatersteven. As you've noted, it would appear Pipsally has begun resorting to IPs. [10] Here's another IP that has made multiple reverts back to Pipsally's edits and should probably be included in the SPI. [11] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm working through a list of orphaned talk subpages and came across this one you created in Wikipedia space. I'm not sure what you intended it to be used for, whether you wanted to move it to User space or tag it for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie myself to Wikipedia, can anyone enlighten me as to what a newbie edit war is? Slatersteven uses this term in his profile page. I know what an edit war is, at least I think I do, but not a newbie edit war. Redaction101 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a less severe warning to give to newbies, but I believe it is now defunct. It is not a type of edit war, just a type of warning.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. BTW, I'm impressed, if I might say so, with your George Orwell literary allusions on this page. Wikipedia seems to me to very often darn serious (disputatious), and it is good to see some humour.Redaction101 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All based on accusations made against me (in some cases, not the Orwell references, as such) cut and paste quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Undoing of revisions seen as vandalism: why do you deliberatly delete a voice from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis&action=history

If my english is wrong, please you can correct it. If my sentences are lies, please tell me which one and you can remove it (after you demonstrate me that it's a lie, which is not, because all my sentences are verified). If you have a particular problem with an author, you can not administer this page because of self-interest. You didn't even have the time to read the contribution, that you immediately deleted it: this makes me think you have a personal interest on deleting that contribution. Please, I gently report you here and I gently please ask you to change this behaviour. Please restore the contribution and tell me which single sentences are lies.

If you think it was Vandalism report it here wp:aiv, and before you do read wp:npa and wp:vandalism. I also suggest you actualy read wp:coi and wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have said all of this on your talk page, read it please.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I am trying to keep things as simple as possible. Thank you again. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Could you please explain why you undid my last edit on the Assange page here ? You should be aware that the defence used more than one “psychiatric expert” in the 2020 extradition hearing – as well as Kopelman, Dr Quinton Deeley gave testimony for the defence on Assange’s autism. As stated in my edit summary the wording: “Assange's psychiatric expert” clearly implies Assange’s team only used one psychiatric expert – it’s just wrong to say otherwise - so could you kindly revert your edit on my completely innocuous and accurate wording. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did on the talk page, the inclusion expansion of this is still under discussion. It does not matter if he has more than one. What matters is this one's testimony was questioned.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: That is simply not reasonable – you have reverted a correct statement replacing it with a wrong/misleading one – there is no justification for deliberately including misleading text in an article – it’s no better than Vandalism - kindly revert your edit. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it misleading, we do not say all of the medical evidence was dismissed, only his. And read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who followed Assange’s 2020 hearing may be confused to read the phrase “Assange's psychiatric expert”. “Could have sworn Assange had two psychiatric experts” – they will grumble – or “which psychiatric expert is being accused of giving unsound evidence, I’m fogged.” - or– “It’s rubbish this Wikipedia, always printing unreliable info” they might add (ruefully whilst making a mental note to themselves, not to contribute to Wiki fundraisers). So be a good chap and revert you edit. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they can figure out he worked for the defence based upon the same information? However, I have now named him, end of confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2021 (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 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed claims about the effectiveness of the Sputnik V vaccine on the grounds that the material was from the the company (lab) that produced the vaccine. Actually, the material was presented by a separate source, which was citing the company. Instead of not including the claims, might it not be better to state that the secondary source reported the lab's claims? It seems that's what's usually done in English Wikipedia.Kdammers (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it cited the company, so to include it we would have to make it clear it is the companies claim (the edit did not do this). I am also unsure the source is even an RS. I would like a better source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. 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) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit I made removing the word “crazed” from and Assange quote I said in my edit summary “please see talk page” – I can only assume you missed that because - had you done so - you would have seen the following explanation for my edit:

“As I mentioned earlier I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources...”

As explained: you can either have the “crazed” word included or the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” you can’t have both and stay true to the source - so please could you remove one or the other. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained one of them used the word in its headline.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tinmes "Julian Assange referred to the two Swedish women who accused him of sexual assault as “treacherous” and claimed that the allegations were the result of “crazed radical feminist ideology”, it has emerged.". The other source goes on about how he has said Sweeden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism, so they do not use the exact same wordage, the sentiment is the same. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slatersteven,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Or he'll threaten a ban, trying to justify it by saying you have an attitude even when you don't. Pyromilke (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not threatening to ban you, I am not an admin. I am warning you I have seen others banned for doing what you are doing. And to make it clear the attitude I am saying will get this user banned is that it is a fact there are only two genders.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with pravo.gov.ru? It's official source of Russian legal acts (laws, decrees, orders, etc.). Why do you consider it's not reliable source? It's the most reliable source, other sources aren't. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a wp:primary source, and one with a reputation for dishonesty. At best you could use it for "Russia claims".Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the revolt of 1857 article, for saying that it sounds better that way, but I think you didn't see below it because I had written a HUGE paragraph about the doctrine of lapse and you stated no clear reason for removing that. So I will undo your revert and may replace them with the older 1st para lines. I hope it is clear. Regards, WikiSilky (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just add the paragraph. But if undone you should make a case at talk, and not just revert the revert.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I mark my edits as minor by default, I sometimes forget to uncheck that box. --31NOVA (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the only reason I objected.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have you read the latest source I put? the anti-Americans are more virulent since this event, I don't see how this paragraph has no place in the article. --31NOVA (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So my understanding is that if several Wikipedia editors pronounce Taiwan a country, regardless of a huge global debate, then a handful of Wikipedia editors can determine Taiwan's disputed status, tell the world on a popular encyclopedia that Taiwan is definitely a country (never mind the United Nations refusal to seat Taiwan as a sovereign participant; never mind the US State Department's one-China policy, never mind the claims of a country of 1.4 billion people that Taiwan is a break-away province), lock the editing, determine all discussion over or irrelevant and impose a moratorium on debate that lead to changesMarcywinograd (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) for two years. This is disappointing and suggests Wikipedia, on this topic, chills debate and violates its own neutrality pillar whenever it suits the agenda of those who previously reached consensus.Marcywinograd (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Thank you for your recent message. Unfortunately, I think "Righting great wrongs" actually supports what I said at "White privilege", eg "that which is verifiable". White privilege is not verifiable, because it is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. If you say it's a verifiable fact, you are descending into the murky world of opinion, which is not appropriate for WP, no matter how PC it is (and Political Correctness is what we are really dealing with here).

Another point is that the guidelines talk about "giving appropriate weight to the balance of opinion". If you say that White Privilige is OK the way it is, you are ignoring the balance of opinion, because the opinion expressed in the article (and it IS an opinion) is just one side of the issue.

I could go on and on, because I have looked at the dubious statements expressed by you at your Talk page, for example your opposition to the idea that there are only two genders, which just happens to be scientific fact (but you PC types were never interested in science).

A quick reading of your talk page is fascinating. You have a history of clashing with other editors, edit warring, Osomite, ANI etc etc etc. Quite frankly, Steve, I think you should be barred. Sardaka (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where to report me wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2021 (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 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Regarding the RFC on Assange talk - In acknowledgment of a valid point raised by Geogene I would like to alter the wording of option F to the following:

“Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."

As this alteration is merely consists of clarifying a detail and also substituting “continued to confer” for “conferred” as approved by several editors I hope this suggestion will meet your approval and that you can substitute the new wording in the RFC that you initiated (or approve my doing so). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not change something that users have already voted on, add it as a new susgestion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does RS stand for? Sardaka (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:RS, reliable sources. You have been here for 14 years and you do not know that? frankly, I find that unbelievable. It is one of our most basic concepts (if not (after wp:v with which it kind of links) the most important).Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks Steve. You won't be hearing from me anymore. I know when I'm wasting my time. Sardaka (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you do not start to learn how we operate you may well have that choice taken away. Please read WP:PILLARS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you inadvertently restored the Stundin paragraph that was removed per the close of the recent RfC. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I just reverted back to thew last version I could find.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He meets notability per WP:ANYBIO. Highest award and included in the Montenegrino standard national biographical dictionary. If I had not edited in the article I would do a speedy WP:NAC. I suggest you revert your deletion nomination. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did he, which one is the highest (and note any claim of awards seems unsourced in the article).Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moreover, samurai in 1904, they had been outlawed 40 years previously. In fact, much of the story seems highly dubious, so I question the reliability of the biographical site.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 AUKUS, you may be blocked from editing. Not following WP:BRD: the bold edit was removal of the content, that was reverted and now it should be discussed before removing again. Whizz40 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you added the contested content back [[12]] so per BRD I removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation of WP:BRD. Citing from the page:

1. Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information.
2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a VIP [Very Interested Person].
3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a consensus. Apply the consensus. When reverts have stopped and parties all agree, you are done.

Since the material previously had consensus, due to a number of editors contributing to it over time, it's removal is a bold change. An RfC is a sensible way of establishing whether or not there is explicit consensus to continue to include it in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did it? The article is only 14 days old, so the argument this is long standing content is not valid (if that is what you are arguing). And again, WP:ONUS, it has been objected to so it is down to you to make a case for inclusion. Also it had been reverted before as far as I can tell as this edit [[13]] restore it, in violation of BRD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your comment for clarity. If that is not what you intended to link to, feel free to WP:TROUT/digitally castrate/ fire at will. Cambial foliage❧ 15:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not really edit another users posts, but I will let this pass you you were correct. Another user might not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to be ungracious. And wrong - Fixing links Cambial foliage❧ 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you were correct, but if you had not been you would have linked to the wrong page. As you seemdeto be unsure yourself with "If that is not what you intended to link to," and what you linked to says " If in doubt, ask the editor in question to update their own post, or add a follow-up comment of your own suggesting the alternative link." an ungracious editors would have said you should not have altered it if you were not 100% sure.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does the nudge nudge in

As I seem to recall that one of the points made here (more than once) is "ahh look at how the mainstream media are ignoring this, nudge nudge" I think wp:undue is has relevancy here.

signify please? What are you trying to say? NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said it on the talk page earlier, the idea that there has been some conspiracy among RS to not report this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So that was in relation to the mention of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Lens erlier. Do you think that mentions in those decrease notability? NadVolum (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it was in relation to a claim that the material met wp:undue despite a claim it's actively being ignored by mainstream RS. Either it's being ignored or it's not important.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree they do support notability? I still do not understand what nudge nudge was supposed to convey, could you express it in simple terms please. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO I am not saying that I am saying the fact they do not cover it does not support inclusion. As to "Nuge Nudge", it's a reference to the idea of implying something without saying it directly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to just say what you mean rather than leave people to try and work out what you're saying. And those actually covered the story, they don't magically decrease the coverage. They aren't top notch sources but can be used to support that there was little immediate coverage. As to conspiracy I'm not saying a DSMA or NSL or similar gag order has been issued but corporate media do seem to have a cozy tit for tat rule with each other probably more on the lines of Self-censorship#In media. NadVolum (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, its called humour.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V8KdGqUfek

Using humor to disparage other contributions could be considered bullying and at the very least can turn into a nasty habit. I'd advise against it in such circumstances. NadVolum (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you first admonish the editors who do it repeatedly without humour? Steven is a constructive collaborator who was delivering the message as lightly as possible. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, it's using it to make an argument based upon previous statements they have made. But yes, we should disparage conspiracy theories being used to justify the inclusion of material. IN fact it may even be against the rules (see wp:or) so if anything those who tried that need to refrain as it can lead to blocks. So as you are so concerned about good behavior, the next time you post a conspiracy theory screed I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the attitude that conspiracy is a nonexistent problem certainly explains your response to what FAIR said or to the Stundin article or that Yahoo article. And if you want to go and report me for saying that then just go ahead. NadVolum (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait until you repeat in on an articles talk apge.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So stupid threats like SPECIFICO. NadVolum (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NadVolum, I suggest you redact your preceding post about me. Steven has just given you fair warning of an enforcement report and adding personal attacks to your file won't work out in your favor. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No redaction. I say exactly what I mean. And if I made a threat I would almost certainly carry it out in the specified circumstances. NadVolum (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that anyone's threatened you. While we are here, I would like to ask: Have you ever edited under another ID besides NadVolum? SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear, my talk page has (as far as I am concerned) rather less strict rules or what is and is not allowed (see wp:talk). So if a user tried to use BS argument that may not be an issue (as in a ruloes infraction). If however, they try to use wp:or (and wp:blp violating) conspiracy theories to sway a talk page discussion that is against the rules I would warn them (I have) I have if they continued I would report them (I will). That is not a threat it is a promise. It is to make sure that if I do report you it will defiantly be an infraction of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so damn difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.222.34 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? We have never interacted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your explanation of how two edits nearly 48 hours apart breach 1rr restrictions. Do try to keep up. Cambial foliage❧ 15:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are correct, I misread the dates.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. This includes templating users for 3rr that you have reached first. Cambial foliage❧ 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, I issued one to them, I have to issue one to you in the name of fairness.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to clarify the last sentence here (presumably "one IP is an SPA"). I think I understood correctly but it was not clear. Cambial foliage❧ 15:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the IP's has only edit in this one topic, the other has not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I am sorry I didn’t respond to your reply to my discussion in the Project Veritas article, I only learned how to reply after it was locked.

You seem to be a very passionate and dedicated editor, but I have a few concerns. From reading your posts in the discussions, it appears you would have a conflict of interest in editing the page due to your personal opinions on the subject matter. I in don’t want to assume you are biased, but I think it would be important for you to assess whether you are objective on the subject matter.

I hate to be this critical of someone who is putting a significant amount of effort into editing, but I want to make you at least aware of my concern in the case it is valid. Otherwise, keep up the good work. GigaDerp (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"personal opinions on the subject matter" is not a COI, we all have "personal opinions on the subject matter", the fact you are here shows you have, after all, you are expressing a "personal opinion". But we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Julian Assange shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please self-revert to avoid sanction Cambial foliage❧ 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And so were you, but I did not add duplicated material, I reset to the last consensus version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made three consecutive manual reverts removing opinion pieces without secondary sources (both supportive of and critical of Assange) and removing SPS supportive of Assange. What is so were you supposed to mean? Cambial foliage❧ 15:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also partialy reverted me by adding back material I had removed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact your addition looks very wp:pointy and rasies concearns about wp:CIR as you do not even seem to have checked what you were adding aagianst that I had written. You just did an info dump.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note you have now reverted me again (as in removing content I added), which is totally out of order as you are waring me about edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were the person who brought that duplication to my attention. I used your content when I was editing, and expanded upon it (note that I used the exact same quotes you selected). Do you want me to put it back? That's a rhetorical question, apparently that needs saying. Cambial foliage❧ 16:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, what you should have removed was your inccorrectly added material, not reverted my addition (which is edit warring, as you are well aware). Ig you had reverted your edits (rather than mine) it would not have been.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your misunderstanding of what is or is not irrelevant is cause for much more serious concearns about [[wp:CIR}]] than a copyediting mistake that would likely have been corrected had you not decided to start reverting to your preferred earlier version. Cambial foliage❧ 16:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is when you undo another users edits, that is what you did, as a result of your own cock up. The mistake was yours, it should have been your mistake you removed, you did not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mooreover I had the decency to self revert, rather than making excuses.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you settle the matter and point to these reverts with a diff. I took your content and expanded it - I did not delete any of it. No reversion or undo in sight. Cambial foliage❧ 16:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[14]] this was the content I added, you removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck are you talking about? That content is still on the page now. You should have kept what you said here, about me altering content: it's closer to the truth, but still wrong. In fact I barely even altered what you added. I interpolated additional content between the sentences. Cambial foliage❧ 16:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, it is not the same edit as I made this you partialy altred it, so no it is not the same content. You did not barley alter it, you made massive changes (which as I have expressly stated I did not think this material should have more than a few quotes) you should have had reason to know I would not be happy with. You knew I did don't support massive expansion, yet you still did it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's have a look.

You wrote: Support for Assange has came from politicians, journalists and celebrities including Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has said ""They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression"

After my edits: Support for Assange has came from politicians, journalists and world leaders. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the President of Brazil, said at the time "They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression"

you wrote: John Pilger who stated that if Julian Assange is extradited to US 'no journalist who challenges power will be safe'""

after my edits: John Pilger stated that were Assange to be extradited "no journalist who challenges power will be safe".

you wrote: Oliver Stone, who stated that ""Julian Assange did much for free speech and is now being victimised by the abusers of that concept.""

after my edits:The filmmaker Oliver Stone stated that ""Julian Assange did much for free speech and is now being victimised by the abusers of that concept.""

you wrote: Whilst the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law at the time of his activities in Australia.

after my edits: but the Australian Federal Police said he had not broken Australian law.

I did add a more appropriate quote from Jeremy Corbyn, because the one you wrote: for the rights of whistle-blowers and journalists to be “upheld for the good of all of us” is a generalised statement, is not about Assange, it doesn't mention him, and so is not relevant.

The only part that was removed entirely was this sentence American politicians (such as Sarah Palin) have said he should be pardoned because it was not supported by any source. If you want to argue that that portion of my edit, removing an unsourced claim in a BLP, means the entire edit therefore constitutes a reversion, then go right ahead. Cambial foliage❧ 17:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added content despite the fact I had already said we should not have too many views, it was therefore logical to conclude I had included all the views I felt were needed. You removed mention of Sarah Pain, that was a revert. Also which part of "partial" means entirely? And again, edit war does not say "unless relevant". Oh and as for it not being supported by a source, you did not read them did you? "Recently, calls to pardon him have grown louder, including from unlikely characters such as former US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, a Republican." is from one of the sources I added. As I said you did not even bother to read what had been written.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, when you add content, no-one should add anything else to it. I didn't realise you were so important here. As I say, I don't agree that that is a "revert". That's your word; feel free to argue it wherever you think it will help you achieve your goals. You are incorrect as to whether I did bother to look at the sources you provided, which is why I concluded the quote that is screengrabbed in the article (but reported in another) is more appropriate. I missed the Palin mention in the same article. Would you prefer I restore that sentence? Cambial foliage❧ 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYONE! Whatever happened to collegial and collaborative editing? A talk page discussion is ongoing, so there should be no edits to that content until a consensus is reached. The article itself should not be a battlefield. Stick to discussing, proposing, and refining the propositions, all on the talk page. When everyone has agreed, THEN install the new version. -- Valjean (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be reset, as I did.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing an arbitrary edit of your own to restore to is not any kind of "reset". Cambial foliage❧ 17:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIt was the last version before the changes I made, I was also undoing my own edits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it was however my version, restoring it to an earlier version as well. But I am happy to go back exaclyy 1 week or 1 month, but it needs to be reset to the version that was extent at the start of the thread about "assessments", there you go lets rest it to 09:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC).Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of twinkle is betraying you; look at your edit summaries generated by twinkle: Restored revision 1050543058 by Slatersteven, Restored revision 1050540975 by Slatersteven (talk): This is the version I mean to reset to.. Both restorations of revisions by Slatersteven. In what sense is that before the changes [you] made? I'm all ears. Oh, a proposal to go back to another completely arbitrary point in time. I'll pass, but feel free to propose that on article talk. Cambial foliage❧ 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread what I have posted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to do that, and I'm not going to. This is tiresome enough already. Cambial foliage❧ 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to whether you want me to restore the twelve words I removed when expanding the other content you added, because I erroneously thought they were unsourced. About Palin and a pardon. Do you want it restored? Cambial foliage❧ 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to restore it to the last consensus version of 09:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC), as I tried to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no version with that timestamp. And judging by the level of editing on that date, the version from that morning was not a consensus version. Cambial foliage❧ 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said that is the time stamp of when the talk page discussion was started. This [[15]] seems to be the last stable version before that time stamp.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This all needs to go to WP:AE rather than endless quibbling in user space. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on trying to stop the page being vandalised. A Fresh Start and I have asked to a temp block. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure I would categorise it as vandalism, so much as overzealousness.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cambial foliage❧ 11:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a dif where I used a warning or blocking template?Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought you had used the npa template here. Cambial foliage❧ 11:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the third time [16][17][18] you've posted on my talk page something that is inaccurate and/or included threats or warnings that are baseless. For that reason I ask that you no longer post on my talk page unless it is with an explicit and accurate diff to support it. I will look to enforce this. Cambial foliage❧ 11:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those uses a template. Note that making an accusation I have misused templates could be seen as a violation of WP:WIAPA if I have not used one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will now extend my warning to my talk page, if you post false accusations against me again (anywhere) I will report you. This begins to boarder on WP:HARASS now. Stop telling lies.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing your argument that my responding to you posting on my talk page constitutes harrassment. I am more than happy to stay off your talk page, with the usual exceptions. This includes responding to personal attacks you make such as Stop telling lies without evidence. Cambial foliage❧ 11:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well as that diff did not include a template, and as you said it did (by inference as that was the post that led to you posting here asking me not to leave templates), that is a lie, there is all the evidence there. Moreover it is not just here, you are also using these tactics on an article talk page. Now it is up to you what you do, you can stop and try to cooperate or continue with this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that makes everything personal.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of My mistake, I thought you had used the npa template here was difficult to understand? You're still yet to withdraw your evidence-free and false accusation of a personal attack; now you're doubling down on an accusation of lies. Thin ice, buddy. Cambial foliage❧ 11:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point it was a false accusation, nor is it the first time you have had to apologize for having made a false statement. You left a warning here that violated wp:npa, you really need to take less of a battleground mentality and stop making things personal. You have in fact done so (here, in this thread) twice now as with this [[19]] you both manage to accept it was a mistake, and still claim "This is now the third time" of me "abusing warning or blocking templates" using the very diff you claimed to accept was not in fact abusing warning or blocking templates. Moreover one of the other diffs you provide as "evidence" of me abusing warning or blocking templates also does not include any use of a template. So in fact (in one diff) you manage to claim it both was a mistake and an example of what you were accusing me of.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are making quotes up. In that diff I say This is now the third time you've posted on my talk page something that is inaccurate and/or included threats or warnings that are baseless. That remains true. You are surely aware that your sentence does not represent what I said because you've separated the two sets of quotation marks. I'm unwatching your talk page now; you'll need to ping me if you want a response. If it's for further uncivil, manufactured and groundless accusations on your part we can continue the discussion at the appropriate noticeboard. Cambial foliage❧ 12:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five weeks ago you opened a RFC here about the wording of a sentence re. Julian Assange and Seth Rich. I wonder, perhaps you could take what action needs to be taken to get a result on this (contact an admin maybe?). Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall ask for a close.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (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 British conscription and German warship raiders

[20] - thanks- GizzyCatBella🍁 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, to be clear that was regarding this[21]. I’m staying away and I’ll stay away from yours as well. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to answer your question. No, I’m not. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Kolma8 (talk) Kolma8 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:editwar and tit for tat warnings never look good at noticeboards.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolma8 No, it is you who is edit warring. The moment I asked "can someone explain on Talk how this content relates to "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials?"", the onus was on you or others to defend it on Talk per BRD. You did not. Don't restore the content without consensus. soibangla (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the information that has been on WP for weeks because you don't understand its relevance. Stop WP:CHERRYPICKING!!! Kolma8 (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of edit wars in the past (see above)... Kolma8 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAs it been there weeks unchahlged?Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, While FreeWiki isn't WP:RS, it is always good to know what others think about us. That was my point. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that a Google News search for this person brings up the charmingly-titled "Lacey and animal sex, Chanel hotties, a six-pack and more: Celebrity pictures of the day!". Happy to close the AfD as delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[22] "most common", then? I suppose that would be equally upsetting to American exceptionalism types. /lh clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commonest, or maybe more than one word, and they missed a space. I am unsure it displayed a conspicuous understanding of English. As it seemed rideled with odd choices of word order.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think there was a forged link, and I was careful to say that I thought it was just an error on OP's part. But I don't recall there having been an RfC on the Greenwald content, do you? And if there were, it would at any rate be out of place because the content in that Oct 3 link is not the content that was referenced in OPs complaint about the Isakoff article in 2021. At any rate, it just struck me that nobody had noticed the unrelated text at that link, presumably not having actually read the links presented as evidence. When I looked at the talk page, I found that same talk page text in a comment, but not an RfC, by Burrobert. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As that page is so busy I am unsure.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that OP's essay in opposition belongs in a separate comments section below the !votes, not in the description of the question of the RfC. But you are more experienced in these formats than I so I thought I'd mention it here rather than move the preamble myself? SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there is a hard and fast rule, other than they must not make it part of the actual question. As they make a point of sighning them separately, they are (as far as I know) obeying the letter of the ruls.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I delete your reply at the Iver. talk page if I delete my question about arb? Thanks, and thanks for your answer. Your user page statement seems well intentioned, but I personally think it will eventually prove to be the opposite when it comes to the covid benefits of iver. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (had to come back and sign this after the reply, accounts for the time difference)[reply]

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2021 (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 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

Thanks for engaging with me constructively at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Its a breath of fresh air to work productively on contentious topic with a user Vanteloop (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the part where i have violated wp:npa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[23]] " You seem to connecting invisible dots to come to a notion that you are clearly prejudicied about".Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should read wp:npa Because this is in violation of wp:npa -" BUt you do want to say "they did it" When i did not make any inferences and was quoting verbatim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested edit says they did it, thus you want to say they did it. And no saying you said something is not a PA, saying why you want to say something is, I did not say why you want to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested edit only quotes the words of a Judge of the Additional Sessions Court who asked the police to frame charges on the accused with this observation after verifying all the evidences and witness accounts. At no point, i made a personal inference or connected dots to come to a preconceived result like your allegations suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to understand that you did not attribute this to the courts, you put it in Wikipedias (or in other words) your voice. You want tried to add (truncated) "they are guilty of the following...".Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SlaterSteven I began by quoting the lines of the court verbatim with adequate references for the same. At no point, I said or infered anything close to what you accuse me of. Please read wp:npa before making such outlandish accusations against fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was I wrong in assuming you wanted to add "they did this" to the article?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong in assuming that and the intentional misspelling of the religious identity of Hindus to use a Colonial slur word, which I am duly reporting to get you sanctioned. It is not the first time you have used this spelling and clearly you knew what you were writing.49.204.198.173 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what did you want to add, the actual text?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THere is an observation of a Judge on similar lines without an actual judgement. Why can't this be quoted verbatim too? The editing on the page has been really erratic and inconsistent in dealing with similar edit requests 49.204.198.173 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type here the text you want to add, so we can see what YOU want to add.

A Delhi Court has framed charges against 10 men in connection with a case concerning the North East Delhi riots, observing that the objective of the unlawful assembly was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties. The Court has framed charges against the suspects, under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 436 (Mischief by fire), 452 (House-trespass), 392 (robbery), 427 (mischief) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I am dyslexic and so tend to spell words phonetically if I am unsure, it is not a case of being insulting. I just do not use Hindu often enough to recall how it is spelled. So I tend to switch between both spellings (its whatever spell checker picks up on).Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is my username okay on here? Thanks in advance. -HumbleConservative (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe word "Hindoos" with double-o is seen as a racist slur in India, as it was the spelling used by British Colonialists and Christian Missionaries to demean the Indigenous people of the Indian Subcontinent. Please refrain from using this spelling and use the right spelling.49.204.198.173 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have said I will try, but mistakes happen when you are dyslexic.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that on the talk page I do not use it once, I use the correct spelling, it was a mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am dyslexic too. So, I empathize with you. Jus that the word is seen as a very demeaning term and many people in the west seem to be unaware of it.49.204.198.173 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have used it once in over a month, despite using the word Hindu many times. It might have been a good idea for you to wqp:agf rather than assume I was trying to be insulting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see you following agf when you block my edit requests :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can be acting in good faith and still be very wrong about certain policies. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331Dot Pls go back filibustering on pages assigned to you to set a predetermined tone. You have no business poking your nose in a Talk page that does not involve you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How was I not acting in good faith? I disagreed with your rationale. AGF does not mean I have to let you do what you want, it means I have to assume (as for example I did not) that you are not (for example) pushing an agenda. It means I can't reject your edits based on assumptions about your intent.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted nothing short of a written statement by the dead victims of the riots when the victim is a Hindu and accept much less for a Muslim narrative, because a foreign newspaper said so. How is that AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? When did I say anything of the kind? I objected to your edit as it said people were guilty of committing a crime when they had in fact no been convicted. To do that is a violation of our policies. But yea you are correct, in sectarian strife it is best to use sources that are not a party to that strife.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you tone down the SOCK thing? There is no requirement that anyone get an account, and if you have indications of socking (not using different IPs by itself), please show that. Your comments made me look through the history of that talk page and elsewhere, but I found nothing. Sure, the IP was disruptive, but that had nothing to do with their IP-ness. Yes, using different IP addresses to avoid scrutiny is a kind of socking, but as I said I found no evidence of that, nor did I see where you presented that. So please, just leave that be--it just muddies the waters. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I suspect that they might not have been aware that if they edited using another IP they might think it was OK.Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. It IS OK, unless one can indicate that it's not, that it's to avoid scrutiny. This editor would never be confused with someone else, no matter what IP they were editing from. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the ban is to them, not their IP, so if they edited under another IP that would still be a breach of policy, even if they admitted it. So no (at this time) it would not be OK.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They say it's not their choice, but what their ISP does. So the block has been cut to 48 hours to avoid collateral damage. If they come back within the week of the original block they'll be blocked again. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know I was asking them to read the policy so they can avoid a mistake, if they choose to edit whilst blocked that is their choice. I am talking about block evasion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YOou too, though I am rather less optimistic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re this I think you got confused between the inventor of mRNA vaccines and the ex-nurse styled as doctor? Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2021 (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 the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

Qq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:2304:8942:F100:3805:8C33:C8F:B17F (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge1253 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)@Slatersteven thank you for your pointers. I click on some links, then words I don't know, and end up angry.Sorry for being rude. Because you are right, I am not demonstrating respectfully behaviour. And I WILL truly make an effort not to be snarky and snide. Knowledge1253 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me aware of my rudeness in a way which did not get me riled up and defensive. I reflected on what you said about my behaviour, and realized that being kind and respectful is how we must be at all times, especially when it is not around us. Knowledge1253 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make sure you are aware I added this bit [24] and that you still agree. Nice to see you. Hope all is well. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that is the general idea to decide if EC applies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Hi mate! I’m just writing this to gripe and commiserate with myself and maybe with you (I’m making a biggish assumption about your inclinations) at the way the article’s going. As you are probably aware, there are many very active editors around who just will not allow anything in an article which relates in any way to current affairs if they get wind of it and it isn’t in alignment with their leftie/woke views. I’m writing here about the quote about mass formation psychosis. Which is so obviously noteworthy, but they just don’t like it, so it has to be eliminated. I’ve seen this time and again. You too? It’s all so bluddy tiresome, frustrating, painful. I’m guessing that you stood back as you could see the way it was heading? All the very best to you. Boscaswell talk 07:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have my little rant on my user page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grretings @ Slatersteven

I felt good to see some one else too thinks like me, when I came across your comment about COVID-19 related article @ Fringe theories/Noticeboard.

For encyclopedic audiences 'Safety' and 'human well being', are legitimate concerns of encyclopedic curiosity, IMHO.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Mr. Slater - Looks like Crashed greek misarranged the sources which didn't support the lines they were referenced to. So I fixed the arrangement. You can take a look and also added all unreliable and failed verification tag where applicable. I also did some study yesterday on more sources from reliable academicians but couldn't find any source that specifically states "Battle of Peshawar". Its plain, "Capture" of Peshawar. Even though one or two source states that "attack and captured Peshawar", it still doesn't verify it as a battle in an open battlefield. In agreement that its "capture", unless other user can come up with a reliable source that mentions a "battle" but so far I have found none and I went through quite many sources. MehmoodS (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! and apologies. I edited out a phrase in the Cambell article that I thought was unfair. I can see now how alterations like that are a really bad idea! You may want to edit out the word "So?" however if that's ok, which due to my edit now looks a little strange. I don't think any other harm has been done in this case, thankfully.

On the subject of Campbell, I take him to be a very professional medical practitioner in spite of his recent gaffs. He can't be such a maverick if his text-books are used to teach nurses. Again, greetings and thanks Faltero (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's why you should not do it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2022 (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 the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

Hi Slatersteven, I just popped into the conversation with that SPA on Talk:Fascism to help out with the work of countering their POV-pushing (as I've been doing at Talk:Economy of Nazi Germany as well). You appear to have responded to my comment as though I were them: [25] An understandable mistake, since the replies have been coming hot-and-heavy, but you might want to correct it. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can I ask you to go back and look at the discussion at Talk:Crimean War#Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022. I am reluctant to simply make another edit request because the person responding might just say "but those are completely different things, you need a reliable source." Thanks in advance. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:F4E7:A53C:3FD6:69F4 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure it needs changing again.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like due to less vote on deletion, the AFD message was removed from Battle of Peshawar. Is there a AFD tag for redirect or Merge or even rename the title that can be added? MehmoodS (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you start that on the talk page, and of the talk page of the article you wish to merge to (is its a merge). An RFC might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste time on the editors page. I know you mean well, but it isn't benefiting him or you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is why my last message was left, I am out of there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown beat me to it--how you doing, Dennis? You know I love you like a brother. But Slatersteven, you made no fewer than 25 edits to that talk page. That's way too many. You're mostly right in the things you say, I won't claim otherwise, but it's just too much--it borders on badgering, and even if you don't cross that line, the accumulation of that many edits actually makes our job harder, because if a user were to claim you're harassing them, it wouldn't be laughed out of court, it would be taken seriously, even if (as I'm guessing) you wouldn't be suffering any serious consequences. But this is not the first time that I'm asking you this, not the first time that I see you doing and saying just too much. I really need you to a. tone it down and b. know when enough is enough. Remember, you are not the only editor here who sees when someone is just way out of line--do what needs to be done and leave the rest to us, OK? Drmies (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I noticed you reverted an edit that I made where I deleted the “Relationship with Science” section. I gave a reason for this as it was talking about YEC rather than Progressive Creationism (which was the article’s subject). The section didn’t give a criticism specific to Progressive and just creationism in general. You reverted it, for the reason “seems to be”. What did you mean by that comment? Thanks 68.97.131.85 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it was also not about YEC (your reason). Progressive Creationism teaches a version of creationism, this was criticism of creationism. You will note one of the sources is about (and even titled "Creation Science") Creation Science, so no it is not about YEC, it is about Creation Science.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, thanks for your comment. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. If you continue your revisions, you will be reported per WP:EDITWAR. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back once over a 24 hours period, and tit for tat warnings will no go down well when I report you. So revert again and not only will I revert you, I will then report you for edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That really was not a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cope more angloid 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:ADBE:2DD:73B6:75C0 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	"I would argue if both sides are unhappy that means we have what we should have, balance." Very nicely said. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a space between the last word (or punctuation mark) of your talk age comments, and your sig. Several of your comments on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, for example, do not do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by what you mean with what's written both in response to my explanation and on my talk page and can only come to three possible conclusions as to why you'd respond in that way based on reliable sources. First of all, reliable sources state that whites cannot be the victims of racism, they are solely the aggressors in race motivated incidents, so the conclusions are as follows.

1: It was not a racially motivated incident and the whites who were hit are victims of an attack. 2: It was race based and the whites hit got what was coming to them as a result of their aggression. 3: You simply made a mistake and misread what was written as a judgement.

I doubt your actions are malicious in intent, so I'm going to assume the latter of those three. 88.106.234.104 (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking you to read out policies. Do the sources you provided actually say (using these words) "whites cannot be the victims of racism,"? RS HAVE TO SAY " It was a racially motivated incident". do they use those words? If not it fails wp:v and is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2022 (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 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Ukraine and west will bathe in nuclear fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:ADBE:2DD:73B6:75C0 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read wp:npa and wp:soap did you? Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I want to contribute to Wikipedia, so I created an account. I added a single piece of information which seems clearly and obviously valid. Yet, it keeps getting deleted even though I keep following all these rules people throw at me. I hope you understand the frustration, but I want to apologize for being testy with you. I think you are trying to help. I am just going to step away for now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MythicalTom (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps getting deleted as other users do not see its relevance, and thus you do not have wp:consensus, not that wp:v is clear; just bec=cae you can show it exists does not mean it must be induced, wp:not is clear, we are not a repository of factoids. It is hard to see why (therefore) this single course is significant to the topic, they offer many courses why single out this one? We have many articles that need work, maybe try and edit some of those and learn how we do things. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file an AE about the latest problem. Just wanted to let you know to avoid any duplicated effort! Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to when I saw this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the next one ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Slatersteven I need your immediate help. There is a guy on wikipedia who is attacking me personally. He has created an inappropriate account disrespectng me please help me!!! I am in depression.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamjeed Ahmed (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would be best raising this at wp:ani, I am not an admin and can't assist. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems you did not like me asking for RIP Harambe to be made into it's own article and for some reason disliked the fact I nominated the dumbest article ever written for deletion. Sorry if there is any problem or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Great Wiki Dude (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO I said I do not see what this has to do with the article you placed the comment in, nor have you explained it here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also your deletion request is not correctly formatted, so will be closed. That is not a judgment on its validity, just about if you do not do things correctly they will not get done. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon made the song, therefore I asked on HIS page. And yeah, I saw my error, seeing it was the 3rd time someone asked for the deletion, not the 1st. Any chance you could help a guy?Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UNsure it is notable enough for a page, not significant enough to be added to his article (and no I was not aware it was by him). Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only in this century will the world's richest man release a less thank 2 minute song about a dead gorilla.

But yeah, it's his only song (now at least) and it might just be cool if the world's richest man could have his only single have a wikipedia article for all to see. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not deal in cool we deal in wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well here are some notable areas of fame if it may help.

Elon Musk - RIP Harambe (Lyrics) [Elon Musk Song] This is the vid with a million views

Meanwhile... Elon Musk's Bad Rap Debut Stephen Colwhatever his last name is.

Hear Elon Musk's Surprise Rap Song 'RIP Harambe' - Rolling ...https://www.rollingstone.com › music › music-news › e... A rolling stone article.

Harambe#Media Even a piece on Harambe's wiki page. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to really read wp:n and wp:rs (and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for notability, and rolling stone is a reliable source.

And 1 million views is more than the population of Iceland. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also note MUsk did not perform it, write it or produce it, he just uploaded it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't perform it?

Now my day is ruined. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to RBF, that will have to wait until you current AFD is closed, as it will confuse things to try and launch it again, nor am I sure your reason is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also with RBF, I wanted to get rid of the deletion thing when I realized my mistake, but can't seem to delete it. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now for the Inception part of this, How do I delete a deletion page? Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you wait for it to be closed, ot even ask for it top be closed, as an AFD will show up in other places as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Hopefully when we meet again it'll be on the same team of an opinion or edit. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488 https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion-biotech-revealing-secrets-behind-its-new-drugs-and-vaccines https://www.ft.com/content/ab138504-8c2e-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d https://www.businessinsider.com/moncef-slaoui-leading-trump-vaccine-push-10m-holding-moderna-conflict-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03535-x https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent-dispute-headed-court-us-nih-head-says-2021-11-10/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/moderna-patent-nih.html https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003566_EN.html https://www.politico.eu/article/moderna-vaccine-profits-tax-havens/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/177354/vaccine-manufacturer-moderna-accused-of-tax-evasion

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don’t doubt you have heard about discretionary sanctions, but was under the impression when I left this one earlier that I had to give one to everyone involved, like you have to notify everyone at NPOV. I have also realized that you have an extensive talk history and I didn’t (and don’t want to) comb it to see if you already have have one for Eastern Europe. If you do then please feel free to remove it. In fact, feel free to remove it even if you haven’t. All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC, relying on the requestor’s representation of it, and this is not the hill I want to die on. We can discuss the RfD further if you like — I think if anything you should have voted merge and will be happy to explain why if you like — but my main point here is that you got the above notice because I was at the time under the impression that everyone had to get one, so sorry about that Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you only have to if you do not think they are aware of DS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)))[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I stopped reverting you. And tit for tats never go down well. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and pointers. Sorry for being so abrasive and defensive. 66.103.52.68 (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this article. I reverted changes of the previous user due to copyright issue and further usage of poor grammar. Regardless, the overall article has been poorly written and went unnoticed, disrupted by various IPs. Can you take a look at the article and do you agree this article needs to be rewritten? MehmoodS (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many issues with this page, I believe you are also concerned with it, firstly the source provided i.e. History of Mewat seems not reliable enough, on the same page it calls Malhar rao a sindhia while he was holkar, I mean anyone writing about 18th century can't mistake Malhar rao Holkar as Sindhia. Secondly regarding infobox, your removal is correct but only keeping 5,000 is not correct as it shows the reader that there were only 5,000 men under Surajmal while these are the men on only one front, numbers on the other front are not given only name of the commanders given, either strength section should have no mention of numbers or have full info. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Itg might be best to take the source to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That I am planning to do alongwith one other book cited there Followers of Krishna. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Is there a way to verify a citation in different language if Sajaypal007 can be able to retrieve the book that he considers reliable source? Seems like the book he is mentioning is in his native language so I guess he might have to run it through WP:RSN or alternate noticeboard?MehmoodS (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi is common language of north india, most people of north india can read and write it. Also we can discuss it on WP:RSN, nevertheless I can assure its a reliable source. I have the book and the siege is described in 2-3 pages. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can't assure us its an RS, as Wikipedia has not spoken on the subject. You can assert it (and you may well be right). As to the issue of language, no Wikipedia does not have a rule forbidding the use of non-English language sources. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made no threats to anyone on the John Campbell Talk page. I expect you to stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time you have breached Wikipedia etiquette with false accusations.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[26]] "So you want me to escalate your misbehavior to other parts of Wikipedia? Be careful what you ask for". That reads to me like a deliberate threat posted on the article talk page. That is not the place for such warnings, that is the user's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per of Wikipedia etiquette Principles of etiquette, here are a few points I suggest you think about with regard to what you're doing:

• Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
• Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
• Be polite.
• Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean.
• Civilly work towards agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.
• Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.

I cannot help but notice that you haven't tried to caution MrOllie, whose comments had nothing about the article but were directed solely at me. So that last point is very much something you should think about. Nor have you said, through all the months documented in the Talk page Archives for that article, 1 word of rebuke for Alexbrn, who badgered many other people with rudeness.

You guys don't own that article. And the way Alexbrn, Roxy the Dog, and Mr Ollie have slammed people who raise objections, cite Wikipolicy without using it to explain what they are referring to, and insist that no changes can be made to the article are all comments meriting rebuke - if you're going to make yourself the hall monitor for that page. Until you decide to be more even-handed, your criticims are unwelcome and I will consider any further comment from you as harassment.

Let's agree to wait for the AFD to be resolved, okay? If the article is left in place, I will recommend some edits that I think at least tone down the hostile and heavy-handed bias in the text. I'll appreciate your thoughtful consideration of those suggestions.Michael Martinez (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also note you continue to violate wp:talk as you keep on posting about user's actions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not shout, I can read. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have not posted on my talk page, or commented on me. Also, you will see I asked everyone to stop on the article talk page. But they made no threats to report anyone, you appeared to. They (for me) is what stepped overt the line. In addition, you keep on posting this kind of "advice" yet are not followging it yourself in any way, another reason why I asked you to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on MY Talk page first, twice, both times making false allegations. And you repeated one of your false allegations on the article Talk page. Do you understand how serious THAT behavior is? I asked the others to stop engaging in their belligerant behavior on the article Talk page. That is ALL I did. And I cite relevant portions of Wikipolicy explaining what they were doing wrong. Again, you said NOTHING when they took the discussion off the rails. Your criticisms are misplaced, inappropriate, and unwelcome. I will not reply here again as it's your Talk page. You are welcome to leave comments on my Talk page about anything other than Wikipolicy and my behavior - until such time as you demonstrate that you are actually reading and understanding the policies you're referring to.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you or did you not imply you would report the user? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. They keep challenging me to escalate disagreements about that article to Arbcom and other parts of Wikipedia. And all my comment does is mirror his intention, which he immediately confirmed with this reply: "Yes, I very much want this." To which I replied: "Well, at least we know what you want. Good luck with that. It's not the Wikipedia way, of course."

How is it that you missed those two comments, when that branch of the discussion ended there?

Please let this end here. There is no need for any further discussion.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2022 (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 Hitler as a military leader

• Special:Diff/1080783286

For best results, please leave monitoring the discussion to me. I've got my administrator hat firmly on, and I've expressed zero opinion in the discussion, not even doing the sorts of things I normally do like challenging poor rationales to make them better. You're the nominator; you're actually involved. I don't want people levelling accusations at you for partisan refactoring. Let me be the person accountable for any refactoring of the AFD discussion.

I'm popping my head in from time to time, and I already posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard for other administrators to keep their eyes peeled, too, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion. I hope that we can get through this with nothing more serious than two warning boxes and me refactoring some things; we're doing well so far.

For the record, I'm going to leave that edit reverted; with no prejudice, however, to someone who comes along to argue counter to ජපස in a proper fashion. Discussing whether the subject has or has not requested deletion, and the application of our deletion and BLP policies thereto, is very much within scope.

Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read this policy on Wikipedia harassment and stop harassing me. You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page.Michael Martinez (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you that you are breaching policy and in a DS area. By the way, I can still leave warnings when you breach policy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one breaching policy by making multiple false accusations.

I have asked you to stop.

I have advised you I will regard continued false accusations and unnecessary argument as harassment.

I have asked you NOT to post on my Talk page unless you read and understand the policies you keep misusing.

I have asked you to just let this whole matter drop.

You have refused all of these requests.

I will point to these diffs if you push this up into some sort of easily avoided dispute resolution process.

PLEASE STOP. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did let it drop, this is a new issue, and I did not only accuse you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't let it drop. You added another false accusation to the list. And I would LOVE to stop leaving comments here but you keep violating yet another Wikipedia policy by taking this argument to multiple pages. So, either you stop harassing me or we discuss it here. You've made no attempt to discuss anything on my Talk page. There is no need for you to post there again, especially you want to make more false accusations. Just tag me here and I'll add the diff to my list for future reference if you insist on keeping this up. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another, it was not the same thing "let it drop" does not mean "stop communicating about me", it means drop what you are currently doing, I did (as I did not reply to you last thread here). Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it a bit hypocritical to tell me to stay off your talk page, but to come here with and warn me in really quite an offensive way. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will also ask you again not to shout, any more shouting and I will just delete the thread without a response. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Michael, it has been a long time. We know each other from past SEO industry events and media. Steven (the owner of this page) is generally a good guy and I recommend not arguing with him further. If you two have a disagreement, perhaps I could help? Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attempts to keep the peace. It's good work. MarshallKe (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankit solanki982 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, I started it, despite your best efforts to deflect it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?

Can you explain why you have ignored the leading academics on this field (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, and others) as well as AFP,^[1] BBC,^[2] DW,^[3] CNN,^[4] WashPo,^[5], Financial Times,^[6] USA Today, et al?

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looki at one source (DW), it does not say they are not Neo-nazi. There are (Jin fact) 4 uses of the term "Such associations would be described as "free comradeships," or organized neo-Nazi groups, in Germany, Andreas Umland from the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies, told DW" "Umland said Azov had drawn early attention by using the the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol as its emblem. "The Wolfsangel has far-right connotations, it is a pagan symbol that the SS also used," said Umland. "But it is not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine."" "The Azov Regiment wants the symbol from the Nazi era to be understood as stylized versions of the letters N and I, standing for "national idea."" and "Ukraine: Anti-Putin protests with Nazi symbols". So I am unsure this is enough to say they are not Neo-nazi, and certainly not enough to overturn other RS saying they are. Also when I launch the RFC I will base it on the options users have chosen, not what I have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're literally quoting my source, which quotes Umland. I never said "they are not neo-Nazi". All I ask is that the article reflect the RS. As it is, there is not a single RS in the spattering of magazines and tabloids that follow the words "..is a neo-Nazi".

So why are you actively trying to keep these RS out? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it quotes someone saying it, it does not say it themselves. Thus it could be used for "which Umland says is untrue". This is being discussed at the talk page. I am not saying they can't be used, I am saying they can only be used for what they actually say. And one bloke saying something does not overturn mutiple RS. As I said this is being discussed at the talk page, there is no point in making the same arguments here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic greetings. It's a shame the attack on Wikipedia in English these days. I imagine the community is aware of it. There are a lot of sockpuppetry who wear false flag, to duller the information. This includes sockpuppetry, who "backing" removing the term "neonazi", based on faulty arguments, which do not lead to any good port. Just lengthening the discussion. Leaving on wikipedia, outdated information, and to a good prospect of the population, misinformed.--Berposen (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we must also be warry of socks from the other side as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy. --Silverije 22:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Slatersteven, as Azov Batallion is one of the more contentious articles within an already contentious topic area of the encyclopedia under AC/DS, the temperature there is elevated and new participants are sometimes viewed with suspicion, when they should be welcomed. Sometimes a welcome might turn out to be misplaced, but we don't know that at the outset. Disconnected Phrases is a brand new user, and other than some unfamiliarity with how we title sections and with some other of our principles, all normal for a new user, Disconnected Phrases still deserves the benefit of AGF. Whether I happen to agree with the appropriateness of the open letter by parliamentarians they raised there is beside the point; even if their presentation of the issue has some rough edges, their raising it seems clearly to be an attempt to improve the article, and comments about SOAP and NOTFORUM were out of line. I respect your comments site-wide enormously, and I suspect you may be frustrated by bad actors in the E. Europe topic generally, and at that article in particular which strains our ability to AGF, but let's try anyway, and especially, please welcome the newbies. Thanks for all you do to improve the project. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me express my utmost gratitude to you for having the gumption to undertake this duty. I haven't been editing on Wikipedia long, or at least not very much, but the Talk Page of that article, the jig-saw maze-like accumulation of sources - many appearing to outright contradict each other (very rarely IMO, if one simply applies WP:RS, especially the peer-review and time-sensitive aspects of our policy) - the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:OWNERSHIP sensibilities, must be an absolute nightmare for you to sift through.

Secondly, how close are you? Is there anything I can do to help?

Regards,

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @EnlightenmentNow1792:, Encountering a maze of contradictory sources is not unusual in political or other contentious topics. I'd recommend you read up a bit on WP:DUE WEIGHT. Most new users get on board fairly quickly with WP:Reliable sources, and then wit the related issues of WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT sources. The core topic of WP:Neutral point of view may arise as well, and that's a fairly easy one to understand. But WP:DUE, which is a subtopic of NPOV, is a little harder to get a grasp on for some reason. (I've seen ten-year veterans who never quite get it.) In any case, try pondering WP:DUE for a while, and see if that gives you some insight into how Wikipedia handles multiple conflicting sources. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice @Mathglot, but don't worry about me, I do this kinda for a living, and have been for almost two decades now - I was just trying to impart upon Slatersteven how impressed I am at his bravery in taking the task upon himself. (On these particular sources and on topics focused on this particular part of the world, I'm something of an old hat, I speak and read Russian, having only very recently returned from a 5-year-long residency in Moscow. :-) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class
	In thanks for - and to help you keep cool during - your continued patient efforts towards the ultimate goal of improving article quality in the too-often-over-heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]