User talk:Slatersteven

Categories

The reason why is in my edit summary. Per WP:SUBCAT, Each categorized page should be placed in the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 226, February 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

good evening

how are you? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks 71.223.155.247 (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia free? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

There is not cost to use it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:TAGTEAM and WP:BITE

Hi Slatersteven, I’ve noticed that you have posted several brief comments on my talk page, referencing policies such as WP:USERNAME and WP:SPA without providing clear explanations. If you have specific concerns about my edits, I would appreciate it if you could articulate them in a constructive, policy-based manner rather than leaving one-line remarks that do not contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Additionally, I am concerned that while you appear to have endorsed Valjean’s threats of administrative action against me, you have not acknowledged their repeated personal attacks and WP:AGF violations towards me. I would like to understand your reasoning for this apparent selective application of policy. I would also encourage you to review WP:TAGTEAM, which discourages coordinated enforcement of an editorial stance, as well as WP:BITE, which reminds experienced editors to be welcoming rather than overly aggressive towards those engaging in discussions in good faith.

Moving forward, I ask that if you wish to engage with me on Wikipedia, you do so in a constructive, policy-driven way rather than with vague references or implicit endorsements of others’ actions. Otherwise, I kindly request that you refrain from further unnecessary messages on my talk page. Thank you. Iispepsiokay (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I note you changed your user name, so in fact it was a useful warning to you that it might cause issues. As for SPA, it is clear what it means, you have only edited in one topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now read WP:SPA. It will be useful for you to read WP:TAGTEAM and WP:BITE Iispepsiokay (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So then you agree that you were in fact only editing in one (contentious) topic area? Also I am aware of them and would point out that I have not even commented in the thread where you are in dispute with Valjean (so hardly tag teaming). You might also therefore need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So you don’t apply WP:BITE to yourself? Good to have that clarified.

You endorsed an admin threat against me while ignoring repeated personal attacks and AGF violations from Valjean. That’s selective enforcement, not policy.

WP:SPA isn’t a policy violation. If you have an actual issue with my edits, say what it is. Otherwise, dropping vague policy references means nothing. WP:TAGTEAM doesn’t require direct coordination—consistent editorial alignment is enough.

If you want to engage, do it properly. If not, I’d appreciate you not wasting time with one-line policy drops. Also, listing the number of editors who’ve asked you to stop posting on their pages isn’t the best look. Iispepsiokay (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Nothing it that says that you can't be warned if you are (or are about to break) a policy. As to my user page, it is for my benefit to remind me. I also suggest you read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

And I note as well you have still not edited except about the one topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add that (in effect) daring an admin to give you a perma block, and asking they delete all your content, is not the threat you think it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Please consider using standard user warning templates

@Slatersteven: Please use standardized warnings such as those at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. It helps administrators such as myself to evaluate how many & what level of warnings a user has received.

I use Wikipedia:RedWarn & Wikipedia:Twinkle to semi-automate user warnings, although others seem to prefer Wikipedia:Huggle. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

DRASTIC

If you wish to delete the article on a notable subject with sufficient sourcing, you need nominate it for deletion as per WP:AFD, after reading WP:BEFORE. Since I do not believe the article should have been redirected, I removed the redirect, and referenced the policy in my edit [1]. Your revert of my page restore asking me to nominate it for deletion [2] is both puzzling and contrary to policy. Please undo your revert. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant, but as I recall there was a discussion about this, and the result was redirect. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such discussion. The policy for deleting pages on notable subjects is quite clear. I even added a new source from Le Monde, the most popular daily newspaper in France, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject. Please undo your revert and file an AFD with your argument on why the subject is not notable. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will afd it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how you misunderstood me now twice. You did not AFD it as I requested, instead filing it as a redirect for deletion, failing to link to the discussion where the MERGE decision was made. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That is because it is a redirect you altred. It is not in fact an article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No, an article on a notable subject with reliable sourcing was redirected to another article in what looks like an attempt to sidestep the community deletion process, and you have yet to provide a link to that consensus discussion. Please delete the REDIRECT discussion and post a proper AFD as I kindly requested. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You altred a redirect, by just adding content, it remained a redirect, so when I went to AFD it, it treated it as a redirect. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 227, March 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture Timeline: This month in military history

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) 11:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Kindly strike out or remove the false accusations of edit warring you made at my talk page SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I see (what look to be) edits by you on the 13th at least 3 times, undoing other user's edits and at least 3 on the 14th (including a straight-up revert). Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Please indicate which edits these were? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

[[3]] first removal of content added by another user, [[4]] second, [[5]] Third. [[6]] fourth, There are more. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Your characterization that these specific edits are part of an edit war is absurd. Please tell me what is objectionable or controversial about moving content to different sections/pages, correcting translation errors, and copy-editing? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Being right is not a justification, read then policy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.

All the content you objected to was added to the article no later than the end of August 2024. I performed a series of routine copy-edits on long-neglected sections of the page, which have since stood unchallenged. There's nothing warlike about it. I stand by my edits, since you seem to have such a problem with them I encourage you to contact the authorities. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And I stand by my warning you may have been about to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you refrained from baselessly assuming bad faith on my part. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. And with that this is my last reply. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Crossfit record

Please revert your change to my change. I actually wrote the original language, then discovered I had included her wrong placing and made the change which you subsequently reverted back. Please go to https://games.crossfit.com/athlete/65675 to see that MTG came 62nd in her age group in 2015 (and not 47th). Thanks Kransky (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Title of "Saint" edit warring

I've started a talk page discussion on the recent dispute for Talk:Simon of Trent#Title of "Saint" edit warring. Let's work together to find a solution there.

Vegantics (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Query for the removal of D. O. B. On Mangal Pandey

Hello @Slatersteven! Just saw that you had removed the Date of Birth of Mangal Pandey even though I had provided a source for the verification of the information. So, my question why had you removed it (obviously, it was not clear from the edit summary) and what should be done next.

Waiting for your reply. 16:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Amogh Tripathi (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the articles tralk poage. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't get you. Kindly tell me what should be done next and are whether will you remove the information again or not so that I can add it and improve the information on Mangal Pandey.

Seriously need a proper reply of yours. Amogh Tripathi (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page; ask this question there. If you are reverted, you ask there why. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You reverted me so I am asking you why you did it. Besides, I was not doing any type of "vandal work." The Date of Birth of Mangal Pandey which I added was properly sourced. Still, You. Yes, YOU. Reverted mey edit.

Why should I ask on the Discussion page if you were the one who reverted my edit? Anyways, on what condition will you let me add it again? The information is true, many sources say it but, I added Britannica Encyclopedia as a reference as it is very popular. So, tell me straightforward. I really need to add the D. O. B. To improve the page.

10:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Amogh Tripathi (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Becasue that is how we do things, read wp:brd, I will not fall into the trap I have seen others fall into of private discussions that then get challged by others, if we discus it there, otherss get to see it and join in. I fail to understand why you do not want to. And no you do not NEED to add it, you want to. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Handling of Trump bias complaints

Re: [7]

Hi, please handle these per #61, as I did later. You could save my closure statement somewhere for easy copying-and-pasting. Or leave them for me, but the earlier they get closed, the sooner they get archived. In this case, there were nine hours between your comment and my closure. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added the suggested closure to the consensus item.[8] Making it even easier to do this. (I don't know about you, but I can select the entire {{atop}} string by triple-clicking anywhere within it. Then it's just a simple "copy" operation and a simple "paste" operation, and adding the {{abot}} at the bottom. Making it easier yet to do this.)

I assume copies and pastes are easy for you. If not, I recommend you work on developing that skill; it's an important skill for any editor's toolbox. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

American Civil War

In case you didn't know, there has been a discussion on the American Civil War Talk Page about that sentence. I think that my sentence is an improvement. Would you please explain on the Talk Page why you disagree. I'd like to develop a consensus about it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Which does not seem to say you can add it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I added another comment to the American Civil War Talk Page. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Kursk offensive (2024-2025). Link to ANI thread TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 228, April 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Borneo campaign of 1945 and warfare the South African way Timeline: This month in military history

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) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Santi book

Spamming fringe book, look at username and author's name. see Saint Thomas Christians Doug Weller talk 10:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

So why did you restore it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Korean war

What is the main reason for erasing other countries from the list? Hanyang.study (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ask at the article talk page, but for one, are they sourced? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

we can add source Hanyang.study (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

We? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You asked for it Hanyang.study (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat. Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is nowhere close to threatening. You asked for the source. Hanyang.study (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Then that is what you should have written, as your wording is open to misinterpretation. Nor is that an Answer to what I asked, what do you mean by "we"? Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I wanna ask the same question. what do you mean by "we?"? Hanyang.study (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we in trouble? Hanyang.study (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Where have I used the word "we"? 08:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Check the details I left here. The IP and rationalwikian are almost certainly the same user trolling us. Best to close the discussion. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages 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. Each review will earn 1 point. 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) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you help with editing a page

In etymology section of Bhumihar. The use of its synonym term bhuinhar for the first time recorded in describing Battle of Madarpur 1528, between mughals and bhuinhars of Madarpur. Which is also mentioned in Kanyakubj Vanshawali / Kanyakubj Prabodhni. Sources;

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=zVmaEAAAQBAJ&dq=Battle+of+Madarpur&pg=PT46

2. https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/azamgarh-8981760.html?fbclid=PAY2xjawJ3ectleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABp9LzMVFCwSOt4ORMoHArj4s68ELO1ed09VH6Gxe_EjtrzzYrwq1j-OT2tUqG_aem_10IvJzAzX4198UQf3QFrqQ

3. https://archive.org/details/rDlx_kanya-kubja-vanshavali-devanagari-by-sri-pt.-lalmani-dharma-shastri-ji-shri-janta-book-stall-ka

Use the sources which you like. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, and wp:v source must actiakly say what you want to include. This issue has been discussed at the talk page, and there are differing opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

1st source discuss about battle.

2nd source is news article that discuss the same thing and include year(1528).

And 3rd is link to that Kanyakubj Vanshawali book. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

And i said repeated discussion at the talk page threw up other sources that disagree, we do not take sides, now if you wish to relitigate this take it to the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about editing a different page. Bhumihar $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I read that. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I have had no interaction with you on that page, so I have no idea what edit you are talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So can you help please. Mention Madarpur Battle. In bhumihar page. $govindsinghbabhan$ (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to read wp:undue, and please make the case at that article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to groups of people or organizations

Just a shocking claim to see from someone as experienced as you... Just to be perfectly clear BLP does not apply to large collections of living people such as organizations, companies, or countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." And yes it can, just "not normally". But I stand by the basic point, we need good quality RS when there is doubt. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The size of Azov is not is doubt, we know its not small especially so small as to make individuals relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No, but its status as being far-right is, as to size? it is not exactly huge, having no more the 2,500 members. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

For BLP purposes more than 100 is large. "Doubt" in that context applies to the size of the organization, for example if we're writing about the company "Exemplar and Associates" but can't deterine if its an actual company with many associates or just Jessi P. Exemplar the owner. In that case there would be doubt about the size of the org which is when we would default to treating info about Exemplar and Associates as if it was info about Jessi P. Exemplar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is that an official rule? Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

No its contextual, I've seen it argued and held that in some contexts five people is too many for BLP to apply. I've never seen anyone successfully argue that BLP applied to a group of more than 100 and the only ones I've seen be close were because the size of the org was in doubt. I haven't seen everything though, if such a case exists I'd be very interested in knowing about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)