User talk:Slatersteven

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

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 diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Vietnam

Hello Slatersteven I am writing to you as I am wondering why you deleted my edit about masculinity on United States in the Vietnam War page? Thanks

As I said, I thought we had already had a discussion on this issue. It seems to rely on one source to draw a conclusion (assuming it is not outright wp:or) about a very minor (and possibly) irrelevant claim. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Echo1Charlie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to [[:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Echo1Charlie. I noticed that you recently removed content from [[:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes]] without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I did, i refered you to polices. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Book of exodus edit

Hello, I saw that you undid my edit on the book of exodus page. I added Schmid’s opinion because his book is one of the newer, if not the newest serious book on the topic being from 2021 and that he is well respected within the academic biblical community. I would appreciate an explanation as to why the edit was undone. Mishael613 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please take it to the article's talk page, so others can chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I did. Please consider redoing your undoing of my edit. Mishael613 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI mention

I mentioned you at WP:ANI#Thatsyrianitalian, your input is welcome. Fram (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

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) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:InfoWars for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. skarz (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not, I stated I thought the suggested edit was too trival for words, in other words fails wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Crimean war

Please don't start a war. A quote from a reliable source (Figes) is provided. I think that simply deleting the text on your part is not the way to consensus. I suggest you explain your actions. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is down to you to make a case (read wp:brd, you have been reverted make a case, at the article talk page), I do not think a random quote is useful. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You can think as you like. But simply deleting a text is the beginning of a war of edits, not a search for consensus. After all, you can state your point of view, both in the text of the article and on the discussion page. But you don't do either. You make it seem that this is not your goal, but just an attempt at denial. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Policy is that it is down to those who want to add text to make the case, not down to those wishing to remove it. These are the rules, if you do not obey them you may well end up with a block. I am trying to get you to obey policy. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss edits here, or in edit summaries. As other people who watch the page may not watch my talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You have no formal grounds for your actions. On my part, there is a quote from a reliable source. And it fits good into the topic, since the issues of trade interests are discussed further. Of course, you can have your own opinion. But I'm trying to point out to you that your position is weak. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you know, As you have not made a cast at the article talk page, but I will make it here.

A "It is stated today:", what does that mean, what 14/02/2024, this year 1856?

B This is one author's opinion, not an obvious fact (thus it may well fail wp:undue.

C It is clearly edited, but does not make it clear

Is this clear enough? Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I admire your action in editing the fragment. I completely agree and I think a consensus has been found. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not, as I still think this is undue, but I can't edit war it out. This is why the discussion should be at the talk page, and it is down to you per wp:policy to make the case, which you have refused to do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with your version of the fragment. He really got better. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Expert polling on Biden

Would you be fine with inclusion with the Siena College Research Institute expert poll from 2022 (Biden ranked 19)[1] alongside the Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey from 2024 (Biden ranked 14)[2]? KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The place for this to be discussed is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for Clarification, Advice regarding YDIH Undo

Aloha @Slatersteven. Regarding your undo of my change to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article shown in this diff [3] I created a new topic on the article's Talk page as follows Younger Dryas impact hypothesis a week ago and used @ with your user ID. I explained why I made these changes, which were quotes from secondary sources from a YDIH proponent and an opponent. So far no responses.

I have seen your userID in other topics in the YDIH Talk archives and would appreciate any background, clarifying comments and advice on how best to move forward. Thanks!

Dmcdysan (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion about Russo-Ukrainian War

Hello, you have recently participated in a discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. Consequently, I inform you that a new Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion (see here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Russo-Ukrainian War) was started about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. I think that a WP:RFC will be necessary to solve this serious dispute, but I believe that it should be organized by a qualified dispute solver via the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your opinion is welcome in the new discussion. -- Pofka (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit - Southend on sea

Hi. You just reverted my edut in Southend on Sea. The link you removed from Garons, is to Moores Stores who purchased Garons in 1962, and who sold off the bakery in Sutton Road and opened Garons first supermarket at 113 High Street which can be see in the Echo [4]. I am in the process of updating Wright's Biscuits/Moores Stores to include its many purchases including Garons Post 1962. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article's talk page, but please read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Your recent warning

Hi, in the future, please try not to tell editors that they have been reported, per WP:DENY.

Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I did that as I went there to warn them, and had the edit window open...silly really I should have just reported them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

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 look at four 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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A wikiminnow for you

Plip!

Remember to change the |answered= parameter to yes after responding to an edit request. That's all. Happy editing! GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 16:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Bush's condemnation of Iraq

Hi, I feel like Bush's condemnation of Iraq is very relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.

It's not a freudian slip. he says 'Iraq too' afterwards. this needs to be in there somewhere. It's highly relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEr7TayrmU CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Take this to the articles talk page, that is the place for this discussion, Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

okay CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

you seem to condone the invasion but okay CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Read both wp:agf and wp:npa is my answer to this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Condoning the invasion of Iraq is a normal political stance held by many people so it doesn't classify for a personal attack CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I have removed your entry from my talk page. I don't appreciate it being on there. I request you to not edit my talk page. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You really should take heed, but your choice. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

CalfRaiser150, Jimfbleak and Steven are trying to help you. Their warnings are not "hateful" or "vandalism". Those descriptions by you are considered personal attacks and can get you blocked from Wikipedia. Is that what you want? You must assume good faith. Please take their comments as good advice intended to make you a better editor who can then enjoy a long and constructive future here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would echo this. Slatersteven is a well respected editor and so is Jimbleak. They are giving you good advice, mischaracterizing those as attacks or hateful really can harm you more then you realize in the long run. Unbroken Chain (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I am? I thought i could be safely ignored. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation

Hi @Slatersteven

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)