User talk:Slatersteven

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

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)[reply]

Read wp:soap, we do not "just ask questions". Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What article? Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Stop refactoring your comments now that they have been replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do some work at your End
Create bihari babhan caste wikipedia 103.88.57.34 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 231, July 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No I am saying an RS does not say it was, you do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

fake news definition

[edit]

Is making a definition of a concept clearer and more precise bad for Wikipedia and its readers? explain me Potebik55 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The place for this discussion is the article talk page. However narrowing a definition to make it more precise is not broadening it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This current definition of “fake news” is simplistic and banal for an encyclopedia. Readers have the right to an in-depth and scientifically accurate definition of a concept. 79.22.186.141 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Im said, take it to the article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Arbitration Notification

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Official Claims Not Being Accepted and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no request. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is , you are supposed to launch them before linking to them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • 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) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 232, August 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced welcome

[edit]

Hi there, it looks like you accidentally did two things recently when you made this edit. First welcomes should be on users talk page, not on the user page itself; and second, the welcome template should always be substitude. Given your edit history on here, it was surprising so I would assume it was simply a mistake. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes it was. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

You have opinions. Please join us over at User talk:Mackensen/Yellow Card. Polygnotus (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history 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) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring editions in articles

[edit]

Hi! Not sure if you can offer help. I've reverted two posts in the past twenty-four hour period, and there's an edit that's problematic. However, the first of the two reverts I've made was done just under 23 hours ago; and I'm afraid of violating the Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Is there any other way to revert posts without hitting "undo"? I've seen editors use "Ultraviolet" and "Twinkle" and I've checked these pages out but their use sounds very confusing. Thanks in advance! Butterscotch5 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is a revert is a revert, does not matter how you do it. Also you should not remove other users' posts wothout very good reason (and if the reasons come into it, you are allowed to violate pwp:3rr. |Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]