User talk:Slatersteven
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
George Floyd
[edit]Why was the question about George Floyd deleted? It was not intended as offensive; it was just a question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaBoy (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC) Forgot to sign VirginiaBoy — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Read wp:soap, we do not "just ask questions". Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025
[edit]
|
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) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Undue?
[edit]Undue?, Indian minister has confirmed it that both sides have agreed for the cease fire and Pakistan's minister has confirmed the same, whats the point of removing that? I.Mahesh (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- The undue part is the amount of prominence Trumpys announcement is given. Only the opinions of the two players matter. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
About EC edit requests
[edit]Hi,
It seems that you're effectively answering a bunch of EC Edit requests on Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict. Could I request you also mark the |answered=yes parameter whenever you believe the edit request is answered? ! There seems to be a permanent backlog of edit requests on that page, so any templates you handle is ones others don't have to. Thank you! Soni (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Slater
[edit]Can you please check the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, the casualties section keeps getting deleted and I requested the change to be reverted, they did revert it but now again after 2 days it's deleted.
Also i'm not sure who is doing this but whenever I scroll over Pakistan, it takes me not to Pakistan article but terrorism article, I don't want to name call anyone but it's very evident who is doing this vandalizing and I was requesting for you if you can please keep close eye on Pakistan related articles because it seems someone is vandalizing them. Ironman993 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Science
[edit]Science is good. 114.46.147.190 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Read my user page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Blank section at ANI
[edit]WP:ANI#New user POV pushing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, just have it enter by mistake, as about to file an ANI, but they are a new user so I felt I needed to tell them I would report them and give they a chance to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Articles for Creation backlog drive
[edit]
Hello Slatersteven:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Blogs
[edit]Hi,
Just curious were it says that blogs (no matter who writes it) should be used. Wikipedia says like this:
"Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites."
I think it's important to use good sourcing and improving the article, that's all. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- wp:sps " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."
- Agree it says like this. "May," and that it is not preferred right. I'm just curious why the blogs are even necessary, couldn't we just use all the other sources? We both can agree a blog post is not optimal, I guess? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- They are no more necessary than any other source, but they sometimes contain opinions from relevant experts. Thus are the opinions we should want, not those of talking heads in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Can we agree that Wikipedia states that they are not preferred and that other sources are preferred? I'm just talking about the official policy, 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, as they are allowed. We do not have any kind of preferred source policy. If it is an RS it is an RS irrespective of what kind of source it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- So why does it say like this?
- "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources" 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Read the rest of it, we should exercise caution as to how we use it. Such as for information in wp:blp's. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I mean I agree that it's not completely forbidden, in this case I just argue that better sources can be used. But I'll leave it at that.
- Another question, shouldn't the sources be properly represented in the article? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Occasionally, things are claimed in the article, that wasn't really said in the sources, like some of the examples I found before. I think that's a big issue actually. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- That is a wp:v issue, and if that is the case a claim (or source) can be removoed as wp:or, though it is often best to tag if rather as failing verification. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Occasionally, things are claimed in the article, that wasn't really said in the sources, like some of the examples I found before. I think that's a big issue actually. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Read the rest of it, we should exercise caution as to how we use it. Such as for information in wp:blp's. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, as they are allowed. We do not have any kind of preferred source policy. If it is an RS it is an RS irrespective of what kind of source it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Can we agree that Wikipedia states that they are not preferred and that other sources are preferred? I'm just talking about the official policy, 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- They are no more necessary than any other source, but they sometimes contain opinions from relevant experts. Thus are the opinions we should want, not those of talking heads in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
DanBritton
[edit]I don't believe there is much point in your engaging with the editor. As is often the case, even editors trying to help, get added to the conspiracy against the sanctioned editor. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hence why I said that was my last word. Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
War on terror
[edit]Hi, look, I have a question regarding the article on the war on terror. Why shouldn't the current de facto leader of Al-Qaeda, Saif al-Adel, be included in the infobox? Is the war on terror really over?
On the other hand, the information is quite ambiguous about whether this war is actually over or not. Aksel 5001 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- The article talk page is the place form this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
India Pakistan conflict 2025 Analysis section
[edit]Is there any reason you deleted this from Analysis section which is confirmed by Washington Post? what is the offense here?
The Washington Post, which reviewed more than two dozen satellite images, confirmed damage to at least six Pakistani airfields noting that some of the Pakistani sites hit were 100 miles deep inside Pakistani territory. It further noted that these strikes were the most extensive Indian air attacks on Pakistani military infrastructure since the 1971 war.[1] Foodie 377 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it was stated in the first edit summary when I removed it, why did you claim it was a mistake? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ok fine you removed it on purpose. But I am asking why? it shows reference to an article. it is not WP:OR. what are the grounds for removal Foodie 377 (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you say it was removed accidentally when it was not? And I have already answered you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- I genuinely thought it was a mistake along with the other NZZ revert. But I am not clear on why you removed this one. I really am not clear why. Can you answer that? Foodie 377 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- What?, that is the only edit I made today. As to why I shall quote my edit summary. "NO per WP:ONUS it is down to thhose wantng to add something to get consneus.". You are expected to read edit summaries. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- I genuinely thought it was a mistake along with the other NZZ revert. But I am not clear on why you removed this one. I really am not clear why. Can you answer that? Foodie 377 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you say it was removed accidentally when it was not? And I have already answered you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ok fine you removed it on purpose. But I am asking why? it shows reference to an article. it is not WP:OR. what are the grounds for removal Foodie 377 (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Please try to add claims of John Spencer Tom cooper Michael Rubin and Damien Symon and Tom Cooper in Analysys and other places
[edit]Please add the claims of these in this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict
Before all these claims were rejected because admins says they are from Indian media. But now this is reported by a neutral media The Australiatoday So this should be added. Australia Today is a neutral media and every news published by them will be fully verified by the chief editors of Australia today before publishing. 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Also all these statements are clearly shown diverted to respective statement owners verified X posts.
Thanks 157.51.213.56 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- See thre talk page as to why these have have not been added. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello Please question
[edit]South African Republic was a 1852-1902, and during WW1 South African Republic got an rebellion on 15 September 1914. Wolf Official (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- No that was the Maritz rebellion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I did created a topic in "Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War"
[edit]Hello ! I think that this topic could maybe interest you.
"Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Concerning_the_edit_of_this_article_in_"MAY/26/2025"_at_"16:59_UTC"".
I did mentionned your edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "17:04 UTC".
If you have an interest for this topic. You can participate.
Don't forget that you are not under obligation to participate if you don't want. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Nancy Pelosi article
[edit]Hey @Slatersteven! I noticed that you reverted all the edits I had made on the Nancy Pelosi article. I think such a decision warrants a discussion, and, of course, an explanation on your end. Thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I did, i the edit summary. I felt that some of your changes went way beyond what you claimed, so yes it is now down to you to start a conversation at the articles talk page and get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think I gave summaries that were specific enough (for instance, "Added notes list, amended bibliography, adjusted 'Early life and education' section, added citations, removed an external link"—that is as specific as I can possible be). Regarding my last edit, I was merely addressing the claims raised on GAR, namely, that the article needs to be trimmed. Another concern raised was the lack of citations, and I am trying to deliver on that as well. Therefore, I don't think I required any consensus for any of my edits (remember "Be bold"), but I don't expect that this issue will be resolved easily. Nonetheless, if we eventually find ourselves in agreement, I can undo the revert and go back to editing the article. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Do ont edit war, make a case at the talk page, not here. And I objected to your edits, so yes you need to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, will do. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Do ont edit war, make a case at the talk page, not here. And I objected to your edits, so yes you need to get consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think I gave summaries that were specific enough (for instance, "Added notes list, amended bibliography, adjusted 'Early life and education' section, added citations, removed an external link"—that is as specific as I can possible be). Regarding my last edit, I was merely addressing the claims raised on GAR, namely, that the article needs to be trimmed. Another concern raised was the lack of citations, and I am trying to deliver on that as well. Therefore, I don't think I required any consensus for any of my edits (remember "Be bold"), but I don't expect that this issue will be resolved easily. Nonetheless, if we eventually find ourselves in agreement, I can undo the revert and go back to editing the article. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
India Pakistan conflict analysis
[edit]Can this article be used in the analysis section of that article. I'm only posting this here because the talk page is closed there. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/22/indias-wake-up-call-why-us-defense-reform-must-match-the-speed-of-modern-war/ Can anyone please add this source in the India Pakistan conflict analysis section. The article reads: India’s overwhelming success demonstrated something more enduring than airpower. It validated a national defense doctrine built around efficient domestic industrial strength. And most significantly, it delivered a clear message to its strategic rival. Pakistan—a Chinese proxy by armament, alignment, doctrine—was completely outmatched. Its Chinese-made air defense systems could not stop, detect, or deter India’s precision strikes. In Sindoor, India didn’t just win. It demonstrated overwhelming military superiority against a Chinese-backed adversary.c' Bunnybun746 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- You would need to ask at the talk page, and also suggest a text. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
If I start a move discussion will you support me in consenses?
[edit]Babhan term is obviously more older than bhumihar Term 103.88.57.34 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- So? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- So the Article Redirected from Bhumihar caste to Babhan caste.
Babhan term comes first
and then Bhuinhar Brahman transliterated bhumihar Brahman term appeared in madarpur Account
Then bhumihar term
- In very Short:
- This article contains Babhan, Later, the word Bhumihar Brahmin was popularized. On reading the article itself, it is telling that the community attempted to popularise the term "Bhumihar Brahmin", while discarding the term "Babhan". However, the term "Babhan" remained popular in Bihar. 103.88.57.34 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- What article? Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- To put it another way, you are asking me (in effect) to support an edit, without really explaining what that edit is, What page do you want to move? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Stop refactoring your comments now that they have been replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Do some work at your End
- Create bihari babhan caste wikipedia 103.88.57.34 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Circumcision
[edit]FYI: I have requested conflict resolution on our dispute in the article circumcision. Chaptagai (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- FYI: I made a RFC on this question. Chaptagai (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025
[edit]
|
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) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
"Cryptid" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Cryptid has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 6 § Cryptid until a consensus is reached. Note: Cryptids is also under discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 18:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Speedy deletion at Battle of Manupur
[edit]How is it identical to its former deleted page..? Battle of Manupur in its old page had a myriad of issues including poor sourcing, and copyright.
The new version uses WP:HISTRS and WP:RS sources, see relevant discussion at this page Noorullah (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Creation Museum
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Creation Museum. Félix An (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 231, July 2025
[edit]
|
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) 13:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment removal at Talk:Donald Trump
[edit]Regarding this edit, my understanding is that the talk page of articles is an appropriate place to discuss meta issues about our articles. WP:NOTFORUM is of course a thing, but there are templates which allow editors to note, for example, when an article was featured in a news piece as a way of celebrating the work editors put into place. The only significant difference here is it was my image, which was used on the Donald Trump article as his signature for about a year or so, and not the entire article. So it would seem the community has carved out an exception for those types of comments. Am I missing something? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- But this did not use such a template, and it was still alleging criminal acts, without evidance (OR is not evidance). And no, talk pagers are only for how to improve the article, you admit this cannot be added. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- A couple of things: I did not allege anything or create OR (the show in question is a secondary source, and I am not employed by HBO or the staff at that show). And as to
talk pagers are only for how to improve the article, you admit this cannot be added
, I again note that the community accepts that we can celebrate when our works are used in other major projects. The type of thing NOTFORUM/NOTSOAPBOX is concerned with is with simply making posts about topics that are unrelated to the maintenance of improvement of our articles. My comment does not fall into that. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)- The show maybe, your interpretation of what it shows is not ("Thought the signature looked familiar). And (as I said) you admit that this cannot be added using this source "Just more informational, doubtful this would be relevant unless an RS picked up on it." you just "anyways, figured others might find it interesting". That means it is (in effect just a forum post, that cannot really be acted on). Previous undated comment added by Slatersteven (talk) at 2025-08-02T14:31:56 UTC
- Hmm, maybe I'm dense, but are you saying the signature they used is not the one I selected and vectorized for our articles? See also {{press}}, which is used on thousands of article talk pages with the sole intent of saying "heyyy, this page or content from it was mentioned in XYZ". The very thing you deleted. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- No I am saying an RS does not say it was, you do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- So what? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- No I am saying an RS does not say it was, you do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe I'm dense, but are you saying the signature they used is not the one I selected and vectorized for our articles? See also {{press}}, which is used on thousands of article talk pages with the sole intent of saying "heyyy, this page or content from it was mentioned in XYZ". The very thing you deleted. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- The show maybe, your interpretation of what it shows is not ("Thought the signature looked familiar). And (as I said) you admit that this cannot be added using this source "Just more informational, doubtful this would be relevant unless an RS picked up on it." you just "anyways, figured others might find it interesting". That means it is (in effect just a forum post, that cannot really be acted on). Previous undated comment added by Slatersteven (talk) at 2025-08-02T14:31:56 UTC
- A couple of things: I did not allege anything or create OR (the show in question is a secondary source, and I am not employed by HBO or the staff at that show). And as to
I have said all I wish to say, this smacks of an attempt to go "ahh Trump-estine, see se" without actually saying it. Even Trumpy is civfed by wp:blp, and that also applies to talk pages. Others seem to disagree, as such that is an end to it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- ^ "Indian strikes on Pakistan damaged six airfields, Post analysis finds". Washington Post. Retrieved 14 May 2025.