User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Ancient Aliens

Hi - I realise that you were the one reverting to the status quo, but in the interests of fairness (I've just left a message for the other editor) - please remember that WP:CTOP rules apply here. You've reverted twice, but I don't see any edits to the talk page, just some communication via edit summary. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 16:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

TrUe, but WP:ONUS is on the person wanting to make the change to make a case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

And I would also invoke wp:fringe. 16:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know all that, I just need to be even-handed. I've informed them of CTOP and BRD; they would have grounds to complain if I didn't mention it to you. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. Just pointing out my reasoning. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Glitch in the matrix

Sorry, I accidentally deleted your reply in what I believe was an edit clash. That IP user is sort of forum shopping after being turned away from Palestine (region), but I don't want to tread on any toes. Do let me know if you want me to self rv. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I figured as much. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

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: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that they will not stop

Hello @Slatersteven: hope you are well, today I have reverted Kaiseredit on list of wars involving Bulgaria and list of wars involving Albania, they are obviously WP:Nothere also I′ve noticed that you had problems with them in the past, I was thinking that it is time for a ANI report, but currently I am quite busy to write it extensively, I could do that next week. If you think that it should be done sooner, I could write a short comment when report is done. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:54 15.March 2023 (UTC)

I am umming and arring about that or edit war. 12:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

What is RFC ?

You removed my contribution in Taiwan stating that to overturn RFC i must include RFC, what is RFC ? Also do you have a wikipedia guideline page stating your claim ? Stephan rostie (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wp:rfc. Also read wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I can’t see anything saying saying “to overturn Rfc you must include Rfc”, the wp:consensus says to head toward the talks page first before Rfc, i also wonder how does my contribution “overturn” any previous Rfc ? i didn’t deny taiwan’s statehood so how does it overturn the previous Rfc ? Stephan rostie (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read that line just before the part you edited that said "Taiwan has been recognised as a country instead of a state (or other definition) by Wikipedia, see recent RfC Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30#RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state". Do not change its status as a country.", you changed it from country to state, in defiance of the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about the category

Hi. User User:Kevo327 deleted the category of Category:Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany in Armenian Legion by saying that this category is for people. So, I did the same.

I also believe that this article can be under the category of Collaborations with Nazi Germany. Please take a look Armenian Legion page as well. N1C4T97 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it normal for noticeboard to be inactive ?

Is it normal for noticeboard to be inactive like that ?

few days ago i made a section regarding Taiwan’s recognition, but only received only one reply for now, is it normal or usually happens ? Stephan rostie (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Also would it be more appropriate or better if i deleted it from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and reposted it on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ? Stephan rostie (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is neither normal nor not normal, it happens. If you wish to escalate the DS do so, but first try as wp:rfc. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Appreciation

During the holy month of Ramadan,I thank you for your work in protecting Islam and for your work on preventing Islamophobic content on pages like 2020 Delhi Riots 171.76.80.135 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

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 War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

You don't always write what I'm already thinking, but that's kind of what I like about you, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Allies of World War II revert

Hi, can you also revert this edit, so the infobox will be restored to the state it was when the RFC started? Marcelus (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

NO, as it should not have been altered from the long-standing version in the first place. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Allies of WWII RfC

I hope you don't mind my dropping in on your talk page, but I was hoping you could clarify your comments on this issue. 1) Do you think it would improve the article if we drop all the dates for the Big Three in the info Box? Or are you suggesting some other change? 2) Like it or not, we currently have a sentence in the lead which says, "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in June 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union." Do you think this sentence could be improved in any way? Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the page works as is, and have seen nothing that makes it better. At best removing the dates doe not make it any worse. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe about time to stop editing Hinduism related topics?

I saw your edits, and duly respect them(credit should be given wherever due) but your edits on Hinduism seem too much influenced by western scholars, many of whom, are alleged to have subjective bias(Won't take names). Highly encourage you to know more about Hinduism in general and shift to maybe a more (liberal)neutral stance. Please leave a message on my talk page if you want to communicate more.(Don't perceive me as a hypocrite though) Regards, Science nerd11112007 (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Science nerd11112007 You cannot request that a user refrain from editing about a particular topic, especially for nationalistic/geographic reasons. This is a global project that incorporates information from the entire world, not just the area that the topic originates from or is related to. Perhaps you could broaden your knowledge a bit from looking at information from other areas to counteract your own personal biases(we all have biases). As Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about topics, it isn't required for someone to be an expert in the topic or to use sources only from a particular area. If you wish to challenge the reliability of any particular source, that is done at the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I would furthermore note(apologies to Slatersteven) that a source being biased does not preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless the allegation is that there is, for example, so much bias that the source is inventing things out of whole cloth(making things up without basis). 331dot (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are influenced by uninvolved third-party RS, per policy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Please review article

Please review article Battle of Akora Khattak which is completely based off of this source here [1], page 161. And it clearly shows that the battle was actually a Sikh victory and false result has been added into the infobox, the lead section and battle section. There are bunch of other sources on the article but they all fail verification due to lack of inline citation and page numbers. Seems like other sources are fake and deliberately added to give more strength to the article. Please review. Thanks. 199.82.243.92 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For being ahead of the game with tagging Mary Baker Eddy as relying too much on primary sources more than 2 months before this controversy came out. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust

I undid your revert in this article, because I agree with the IP that there is no obvious connection between the linked text and the link target. By all means point our the error of my ways! What did I miss? Nick Levine (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Well the text says "Wide protest was evoked when Hitler's authorisation of the T4 program became public knowledge in Germany" it links to a section about "While the Nazi extermination of Jewish people took place primarily on Polish territory, the murder of people with disabilities (viewed by the Nazi regime as "invalid" individuals) became public knowledge because it took place on German soil and interfered directly in Catholic and Protestant welfare institutions. Church leaders who opposed it – chiefly Bishop Galen and Theophil Wurm, the Lutheran Bishop of Württemberg – were able to rouse widespread public opposition." so seems to me about the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also you did not undo it, the IP did. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I was about to remove the link, but got an edit conflict. Upon clicking the link, the connection isn't obvious and the reader needs to read to understand what's going on. It's confusing. The cardinal isn't even mentioned in this article. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This should have been discussed per wp:brd, not edit warred back out. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and my apologies Nick Levine (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE

In the future, I kindly direct you to WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. In addition, you added no delete rationale to your nomination besides calling it a "silly pointless list". Cable10291 (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I considered just reverting this outright as a courtesy to Slatersteven, but since it isn't my talk page, I'll just drop a note. You have a lot of nerve badgering an editor with a decade of experience to your - checks notes - um, 18 months with 202 edits. We're all just regular users, there's no hierarchy here. But snarkily "reminding" someone with far more experience than you of deletion guidelines is uncalled-for. I suggest you refrain form this in the future. Zaathras (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

List of states with nuclear weapons

I'm not getting into an edit war with you. If you want to talk about HOW to integrate the fact of nuclear weapons being in Cuba from September to November of 1962 into the article, I'm open to criticism. But I'm not OK with denial. Ángela Stella Matutina (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That is what the article talk page is for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Your edit to 2020 Delhi riots has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Please do not restore any content removed as part of a contributor copyright investigation without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source. CandyScythe (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:agf, and assume that if someone says they do not see the violation, they have read the source. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please calm down

There is nothing wrong with asking for a source. Nor is there a problem with making a brief remark about why one thinks the source might be important. I wouldn't mind hatting our exchange from where it started to go off the rails. I may or may not have an article-level suggestion, but first I need a chance to digest the source. I wouldn't mind hatting our discussion from where it started to go off the rails. In the meantime, there is no need to jump all over me for perfectly appropriate actions. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not "jump all over you" until you took the discussion into forum territory. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I think the portion you were objecting to was brief and mild, but I've struck it for the sake of decorum, and hatted the part that was getting nuts. I hope this works for you. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Assume good faith

For someone citing WP:NOTDUMB, you assume too often that the other person has not considered their position at all or accuse them of not having read policy. Bart Terpstra (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact, you have to obey policy, every one of your arguments violates any number. You have made your point multiple times, each time multiple users have told you you are wrong, now there is an RFC, where multiple users are telling you you are wrong. Yet you continue to post the same arguments over and over again (in essence "this is how I interpret it" (by the way the only use of the word interpret in wp:rs is discussing quotations, we are not using any). It does not matter how many times you tell people "I am right", what matters (only and solely) is you have RS that say (exactly, see wp:v) what you say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

State of Palestine dispute

Please be advised that I have taken the dispute about the State of Palestine to WP:DRN. Your contributions would be very much appreciated. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Undid revision 1165211883 by 89.240.193.119 (talk)Make a proper case undo Tag: Undo

That sure was quick, down the memory hole it must go. Did you ever think you would function as an unpaid agent for the neo-con industrial complex ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.193.119 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The new editor making edits to Vietnam War

I suppose I could have blocked the editor from the single page, but I thought that might inflame a good-faith misunderstanding from a newbie (which DONTBITE). I hope nobody minded that I temporarily changed protection level. I thought it might be least intrusive way to slow the process down. When I was a new editor, I felt so much urgency about every dispute. Today, only one situation required an immediate response, and this wasn't it. If the discussion goes wrong please flag me down. If I can ever be helpful... BusterD (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I assumed it was something like that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory

Apologies, I appreciate the revert as it was purely accidental. Good catch. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We all do it sometimes. Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Charleston

No, my apologises. The Siege of Charleston was not a disaster for the Americans. Thegreatcool (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We need RS to say it was. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Thegreatcool (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

QAnon

In the past couple of weeks or so there has been a persistent series of drive-by edits from IPs expressing various QAnon talking points at that article, and related articles like Adrenochrome. I suspect there's an active QAnon forum pushing people this way. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

it gives me something to keep me off the streets. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's part of The Plan. Acroterion (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's apparently fallout from Sound of Freedom (film). Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Which is one thing that will not keep me off the streets. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What motivates you to do what you do?

The complete nonsense you talked about Huw Edwards isn't the first time I've seen you genuinely act as if the world begins and ends at Wikipedia. Literally every single source out there reflects what actually happened, why the Sun ran that story. The parents wanted their son to stop allegedly buying crack cocaine. Huw Edwards was allegedly funding his habit. This is all reliably sourced, impeccably so. The BLP and RS objections are complete garbage, the usual wikilawyering games. If not plain incompetence. The reason why Wikipedia wants to reflect only half the story is clear to all who know the basics. Wikipedia is biased. Because it is made by people like you, and the people who are theoretically meant to stop you, the Black Kites, are even more biased. It doesn't take long for anyone to realize this. You must think people are complete tools if you disagree. You surely cannot be unaware that is people like you, probably you specifically in a very big way, who are the reason Wikipedia's brand value is falling among young people. They don't recommend Wikipedia because it is so screamingly obviously riven with an agenda. People are getting fired at the WMF because donations are down. Eventually you might not have a website to get whatever it is you get from talking complete nonsense. Wouldn't that be the own goal of all own goals? SlatedForDestruction (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am unaware I have said anything about Huw Edwards, care to link to it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Which will never be provided as they have been blocked as a wp:sock. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I almost wish SFR and BK had not reverted them just for the lulz. But blocked for socking, yes, absolutely. Xan747 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Toast!

I just wanted to say thank you for dealing with the recent "concerns" being raised. I have avoided getting involved in the current discussion at GAG etc because I think you are handling it well. You're exhibiting a zen-like patience and admirable demeanor. Cheers! DN (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Spellcheck witch?

Hi, Slatersteven. I was reading the dispute resolution concerning Witchcraft, and I was wondering if perhaps the spellcheck witch messed with your comment. Here, did you mean to say "pop culture decisions of witchcraft", or perhaps rather "pop culture definitions"? Bishonen | tålk 07:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC).

Neither, depictions. Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to ill link on Natan Khazin

Hi, regarding this revert, what is your opposition to an interlanguage link on Natan Khazin? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I generally dislike links to no English wiki's as I can't read them. So I fail to see the point. If they can't pass OUR notability guideline (and that linked article frankly leaves a lot to be desired) then I see no value linking to one that does not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assessment of ill links. When I can read them, it's helpful; when I can't, Google Translate usually can. In either case, an ill link is superior to a red link (which was there when I added the ill) as it can provide some additional information and can spur those do read the language to consider adding an article here (assuming the subject meets WP:N). I'd agree that the Ukrainian article is a stub at best, but that doesn't mean Khazin wouldn't meet WP:N. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Or we have no link, as we now do. Which I think is better as red links make the page look untidy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on that. I'd value even a marginal amount of additional information over the untidiness of a red link. Given that there isn't a policy-based reason to remove the ill link, I'd ask you to reconsider your revert. Thanks —Carter (Tcr25) (talk)

Slatersteven if you are removing ILL links please stop. They are used to collate lists of articles that do not exist at en-wikipedia but should, as measured by the redlinks, and can easily be created by someone, as measured by the language links. They are not trivial to set up, and every time you delete one a wikiangel cries over the loss of other editors' constructive work. If the color of the links offends you perhaps someone could produce a hack that hides them from you or even globally turns them some other color, just for you. I even volunteer to investigate whether this can be done just to please you Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Second Elinruby on this. Interlanguage links are a very good tool, and should be used more, per WP:RED and like. If you don't want to add them, you don't have too (it takes some wiki literacy skills) but removing them is, well, vandalism. I hope you don't mind me saying so, I respect the good work you do in many areas of this project, but, pretty please with the cherry on top, do not remove ill templates from articles. A few weeks ago I had to "waste" a good hour of my time restoring ill links that another well-intentioned editor removed from an article, making it less informative. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is Poland ?

According to our discussion on page: Talk:The Holocaust in Poland i want to ask about location of Poland on the map below. You claims that country named Poland exist, while I can't see it. ~ Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:or. We go by what RS say [2] [3]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II – is there Poland or Occupied Poland ? Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325411408072 Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I read whole discussion about article title and the only argument for is naming convention, but what about true  ? The consistency for You is better than true? Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes we go by policies, and "truth" is often not, after all if there was no Poland there was no occupied Poland (as it did not exist, can you point to it on the above map?). So we go by what RS say, not how we see things. As to why that other article exists, you would need to ask there. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

But one reason may be because there may not be any other pages on any other nations, thus there is no NPOV conflict with singling Poland out for special status. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you realize that there was a point where there was no Third Republic of France nor Fourth Republic, merely German-occupied territory? Yours seems like a novel interpretation that accepts the Germans' imposition of their worldview on other countries? what if I declare this user page to be mine and mine only? Would Slatersteven exist? See my point? Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we go by what RS say, not OR. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do point me to some.RS that say that Warsaw for example was not a Polish city in World War 2. I am aware that the Nazis disagreed but do not care about their opinion and don't think that Wikipedia should either. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

your recent revert at Warsaw Ghetto

"not an improvement" is a bit vague. I see there was a typo, are we talking about that? Or do you object to the change in sentence structure? Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Its clear enough I did not think it improved the text. The typo made it worse than the original. It is fine as it is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No not really. If you don't like "put to the torch" then fine, but "burning could mean anything on up to "scorched", "smudged", OR "covered in ash but still livable". I strongly suggest changing it to "burned down" instead do at least convey the scale. I think "put to the torch" better conveys its systematic military nature, but fine. Can we at last make it burned *down*?

So could put to the torch. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

not sure whether you are arguing with me or agreeing with me. If the latter would you please make that change then? Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I am saying I do not think it needs changing and your edit made it no clearer. To me it is clear that what we are saying is burn the ghetto down. It is not unclear or unambiguous. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

well apparently that's what you think it says, and I am pretty sure that this is also the intended meaning here. But I am also pretty sure that the additional detail that this was "block by block" means that this was not just any minor house fire. Now if I double-check again and I see 'burned down" then fine, I will be happy, and if not I will add it, fair enough? Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As blowimg up was also invoved, lets keep it vaugue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

ok now that is a point. But in my world "burned" and "burned down" don't mean the same thing. Anyway. I will ponder if there is a better word than encompasses explosions. "Attacked with flame throwers" would also work for me, for example. Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus Bakhmut

Regarding your edit here [7]. You are saying I need consensus to write according to the four sources cited right next to the sentence, confirming the city's capture by May 21st, while you do not need consensus for the sentence you wrote, based on your personal interpretation of that one source, which doesn't even say what you wrote? Guess logic and neutrality are really gone on Wikipedia since the start of the Ukraine war, thanks for reminding me why I generally have given up on it. Have it your way, cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as others have already argued against it (and see the RFC, they still are). As I pointed out, there are sources that disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is whether the battle is over, not if the city has been captured or not, there is a big difference between the two. And the only source that disagrees is the Ukrainian military (as a belligerent not reliable) which claims, mind you, to hold an "insignificant" part in the city's southwestern outskirts, which is also already noted in the infobox. While even Ukrainian sources such as the Kyiv independent, beside a multitude of RS outlets, confirm the city has been captured. An ongoing battle and a city captured are not the same. In any case, writing its only Russia that is claiming the capture of the city, while the cited RS outlets are confirming in their own capacity the city's capture, is a missrepresantation of the cited sources however you want to put it. EkoGraf (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If the battle is not over it has not been captured. So let's wait until the battle is over, we are not a live news feed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be missundarstanding the main point of contention at the article's talk page. The battle does not include just the capture of the city, but the fighting around the city as well. And as far as I have seen at the RFC, nobody is actually denying the capture of the city. In fact, a number of editors who are saying at the RFC the battle is ongoing are actually acknowledging the city's capture. And the main argument of those who are saying the battle is not over is that clashes continue outside the city, despite its capture. By your logic, the battle did not start August 1st 2022, when the Russian offensive through the nearby villages started, but when they actually penetrated into the city, which was much later. EkoGraf (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

But like I said, if you want to misrepresent what RS are saying (haven't seen one RS denying the city's capture), go right ahead. Not going to argue further. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the place to make these points is the RFC, as any closer is not going to be looking at my talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Which one? Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The one about Elections in Cuba. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that the wizard has inserted it in a closed discussion about Iran, i have no idea to proceed, i'm opening a ticket on the helpdesk. Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, but its too much work. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

it has been fixed by someone else, you can now contribute. Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

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 review three recent works

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Slatersteven,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback – please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Slatersteven,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

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 alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

I am replying to your comments.

A favorite quote of mine: The difference between a discussion and a debate is that a debate has a "Winner". A discussion is different, because each person leaves the conversation with additional knowledge giving them a better informed opinion.

You might be aware there is a lot of edit warring over topics involving South Asia, with many passionate users with strong opinions. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. From an afD, I found a really facinating article about temples in India, added sourced information that seems extremely neutral, but it was immediately yanked by someone for being biased. I wanted to think through it by discussing, and posted on Tea to get recommendation on who to talk it through with and... "I'm pretty sure there isn't a cabal to erase this person's life off Wikipedia."

And it was dismissive. That was the point, to hand waive the problem away and say "it's actually not a problem at all, you're paranoid!". Yet, It's such a big issue it was a topic of the Arbitration committee! I've decided to let it wait, educate myself more on the topic, and approach it at a future date.

With the "Groomer" issue: We have one side using the slur groomer "along with ambiguous messaging to characterize LGBT people as pedophiles." Obviously, the point is to smear the opponent. They say the don't mean pedophile then turn around and use the term.

Their opponents respond to them by hand waiving it and saying "oh it's just a conspiracy theory like QANON".

Both of these positions are political positions. Neither position is a neutral, unbiased position.

We need to find a title that is neutral. WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View is a pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia "describes disputes, but does not engage in them."

Hence, I am attempting to find common ground and would appreciate you approaching discussion with that goal in mind.

Denaar (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No the conspiracy part is the idea that they have allies who are = supporting efforts trying to turn children gay, per what RS say. Groomer has a lot of uses (including as an insult) and thus is a separate topic form the conspiracy theory about LGBT people, as well as their allies and progressives in general, of systematically using LGBT sex education and campaigns for LGBT rights as a method of child grooming and enabling pedophilia. That is not the use of a word. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Elinruby (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic notification

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Lourdes 04:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is why I tend to be so hard on possible policy violations, it has proven to be a POV battleground. Mainly to remove countries from it. Look at the recent waste of time, which I could have just responded to "we go by what RS say" from the off. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Darker Dreams (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Undid revision on Elon Musk cage fight

Hi, Slatersteven

Could you tell me why the cage fight between Musk and Zuckerberg is only notable once it has taken place? Surely, the amount of journalism and attention dedicated to this event is enough to note it, even if it does not transpire.

There are examples, for instance, where boxing matches are arranged yet do not happen, which are detailed in the associated boxer's article. TDW ✉ 16:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither of them are professional fighters, so your analogy does not work. Also the place to discuss this is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Elon Musk TDW ✉ 16:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Mungal Pandey and Shaikh Paltu articles

I refer to your deletion of my link between the Mungal Pandey incident and the outbreak of the Great Indian Rebellion at Meerut a few weeks later. On reflection this was an unnecessary connection on my part and was covered satisfactorily elsewhere in the article.

In this context I would appreciate advice concerning repeated deletions since 6 March 2023 of sourced material from the closely associated Shaikh Paltu article. These have been done without explanation or supporting references – the original SRs have been left in place although no longer relevant. The anonymous editor involved has used a variety of differing IP addresses, thereby preventing discussion, but it is clearly the same person. I want to avoid edit warring (see my comments on the Shaikh Paltu talk page) but am at a loss as how to prevent this pointless vandalism continuing. I note that this individual attempted to make similar edits to the Mungal Pandey article but was prevented by its semi-protected status. Buistr (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I will need to check the sources if I can, but it seems to be you in fact altered sourced text, without changing the sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this but I must stress that I have not altered the sourced text for any entry in this article. They have each time been deleted by an anonomous editor (starting as 116.206.202.118 on 6 March 2023) and subsequently apparently using several different IP address. His or her motives remain unclear but the edits initially attracted a number of warnings from other editors on the 116.206.202.118 talk page. I simply want to return to the original material, as reliably sourced from Great Indian Rebellion history works by Christopher Hibbert, Kim A. Wagne, Saul David and Philip Mason. I would be happy to accept changes from the anonomous editor if any of these were accompanied by a supporting reference but in each case the change has been made without any explanation or SR. The SRs visible now are the original ones left in place by the anon. editor though they no longer support the revised entries. I have a post-graduate degree in history and have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2006. My only concern is to ensure that articles are coherently written and reliably sourced. Buistr (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You may find this interesting

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry.

Unintentional. [8] Edit conflict I think, though I should have noticed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It happenes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts

See [9] behaviour seems very similar to what we're seeing now on BE, do you think it warrants a trip to Wikipedia:ANI? WCM_email 15:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It has earned one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've just commented, he is deleting notices so I hadn't spotted it. WCM_email 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)