Slatersteven
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5. |
George Floyd
editWhy 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)
Hello Please question
editSouth 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"
editHello ! 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
editHey @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
editCan 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?
editBabhan 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
editFYI: 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
editHow 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
editRegarding 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)
fake news definition
editIs 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- As Im said, take it to the article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
Formal Arbitration Notification
editYou 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)
- There is no request. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Now there is , you are supposed to launch them before linking to them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive
edit| September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| 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)
The Bugle: Issue 232, August 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) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced welcome
editHi 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)
- yes it was. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi
editYou have opinions. Please join us over at User talk:Mackensen/Yellow Card. Polygnotus (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)