User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
𝖘𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 00:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Tommy Robinson
'What function does this serve?' Well... i don't now, it maybe the function of providing the information, that he is also a YouTube personality whith over 250K subscribers at the moment... For you personally it can be dysfunctional, not for thousands that visit hir article everdyday. Tolea93 14:12, 26 september 2018 (EEST)
- Then we can put this (if we have to, I ma not sure that 250K is that many nowadays) as prose in the article, not as some odd "button".Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- LoL, are we playing goy?! Tolea93 16:20, 27 september 2018 (EEST)
- NO, this is not the correct use of a play button, and it is also an irrelevant factoid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- LoL, are we playing goy?! Tolea93 16:20, 27 september 2018 (EEST)
- Then we can put this (if we have to, I ma not sure that 250K is that many nowadays) as prose in the article, not as some odd "button".Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
You are violating policy
You are violating two policies WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN (and by the way just common courtesy). As stated before you lack the ability to judge what is a actual violation, you are not a authoritative figure, so stop trying to act like one. Please do not post on my page doing so just looks like harassment. -72bikers (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Then report it. Any user can leave warnings if they think a users is about to breach policy (in fact you were told in the edit war report against me that is what you should have done before reporting, inform an ed they might be about to breach revert restrictions). It was a courtesy to tell you that you might be about the breach 1RR, would you rather I reported you again next time without warning (you know I am willing to)? Also I did not restore any comments you removed, so HUSH is not even relevant (do learn to actually read a policy before invoking it).Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- (Page watcher) @72bikers: the issue of you banning people from your talk page has come up many times and I think we all know that the response to all those various WP:AN/I threads is that users are free to put a warning on your page once for any given incident. You are free to remove those comments and they shouldn't put them back. But that doesn't prohibit them from warning you about some different incident later. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
|
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) 07:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Deep state section that you are editing is case of WP:CIR
Please dont be incompetent and require from users to spell out sources that are already given, and read them yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Saying "some one may think there is something" is not the same as saying "there is something". And I have asked you to stop making PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are given examples, you would know that if you actually read the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Given examples of what? Of the fact that some members of Donnies own staff are working against him, that is not the deep state. The fact that Uscinski has claimed there is (possibly) some kickback against the White House from bureaucrats is not proof of a deep state, read wp:or. A suspicion that there is a deep state held by Donnie or his supporters is not proof there is a deep state. You have to have a source that say "there is a deep state".Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- We cant have discussion when you did not read. Erdogan coup and subsequent firings of thousands of military, education,etc personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Again read wp:or, it does not matter what some leader does, what matters is what RS say. Just because Hitler, Stalin or Teresa May arrest, sack or kill a lot of people does not prove there is a deep state.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Right so coup may or may have not happened? Lmao, like there are not countless headlines about that coup. Sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- No it means that you do not have a source saying is. It means that not all Coups are Deep state operations (and no all accusations of Claims of Coups are real). It means you need an RS actually saying "there was a deep state conspiracy".Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hahaha dear god, then what was military coup ? All sources define it as entrenched bureaucracy, most commonly in military and intelligence community.
- A military coup may not always be from an entrenched bureaucracy, the Qaddafi and Greek ones were not. And also there has been no coup in the USA, so talking about coups tells us nothing about the USA. Please read wp:Synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- We are talking about specific coup, not Greek or Qaddafi. Also term deep state is not from USA and does not only apply to them, nor do they get to define it since it was well known and used before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I though we were talking about Donnie and the USA, that is what was being talked about on the article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- ? We obviously cant talk about such important and relevant term through lenses of single country at single point in time, for which there is hardly consensus even within the country.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- When we are talking about a situation in one country we cannot use what happened in another as proof of the situation in the first country. Not all Coups are the same, and what happens in a coup is not evidence of what happens when there is not one.Slatersteven (talk)
- Point is we cant use loose definition(for which there is no consensus as shown in sources, sources notably point to definition I am using)of single country for entire term. Term Deep State cant and wont only refer to USA situation, especially since it does not even originate from that country. If you want to argue that Donald Trump is peddling conspiracies thats on you, but you cant use term that is well known and defined beforehand.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- We are not we are saying he has.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Point is we cant use loose definition(for which there is no consensus as shown in sources, sources notably point to definition I am using)of single country for entire term. Term Deep State cant and wont only refer to USA situation, especially since it does not even originate from that country. If you want to argue that Donald Trump is peddling conspiracies thats on you, but you cant use term that is well known and defined beforehand.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- When we are talking about a situation in one country we cannot use what happened in another as proof of the situation in the first country. Not all Coups are the same, and what happens in a coup is not evidence of what happens when there is not one.Slatersteven (talk)
- ? We obviously cant talk about such important and relevant term through lenses of single country at single point in time, for which there is hardly consensus even within the country.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I though we were talking about Donnie and the USA, that is what was being talked about on the article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- We are talking about specific coup, not Greek or Qaddafi. Also term deep state is not from USA and does not only apply to them, nor do they get to define it since it was well known and used before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- A military coup may not always be from an entrenched bureaucracy, the Qaddafi and Greek ones were not. And also there has been no coup in the USA, so talking about coups tells us nothing about the USA. Please read wp:Synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hahaha dear god, then what was military coup ? All sources define it as entrenched bureaucracy, most commonly in military and intelligence community.
- No it means that you do not have a source saying is. It means that not all Coups are Deep state operations (and no all accusations of Claims of Coups are real). It means you need an RS actually saying "there was a deep state conspiracy".Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Right so coup may or may have not happened? Lmao, like there are not countless headlines about that coup. Sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Again read wp:or, it does not matter what some leader does, what matters is what RS say. Just because Hitler, Stalin or Teresa May arrest, sack or kill a lot of people does not prove there is a deep state.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- We cant have discussion when you did not read. Erdogan coup and subsequent firings of thousands of military, education,etc personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Given examples of what? Of the fact that some members of Donnies own staff are working against him, that is not the deep state. The fact that Uscinski has claimed there is (possibly) some kickback against the White House from bureaucrats is not proof of a deep state, read wp:or. A suspicion that there is a deep state held by Donnie or his supporters is not proof there is a deep state. You have to have a source that say "there is a deep state".Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are given examples, you would know that if you actually read the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ohh and by the way, read wp:CIR and then justify your accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are firmly left wing Labour supporter with obvious disdain of Donald Trump and are willing to hijack term Deep State so you can attack him.I thought that was clear already. MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is not what a COI is on Wikipedia, And I did not hijack the term, I neither added it to the article, not am I any of the RS that use in in the context we are disusing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Note I pointed to the wrong policy, it should be wp:COI.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ok its not your direct fault but still. RS use definiton I use and you ask me to provide sources(they are already given). That i think falls into competency issue, being able to read with understanding.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I asked you to provide a source that directly said it, you did not. None of the sources you provided say that the definition of deep state we say is in use is wrong. What they do (at best) is provide an alternative definition (anbd some do not even do that, they actually talk about Donnies belief in a deep state). You need sources that explicitly (not implicitly) say that the definition we list is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Rolling Stone - "Is there actually a deep state? If you mean entrenched bureaucracy, then of course there is" - Also definition you give at best only refers to current meaning of term in USA in limited circles of conservatives (not consensus among all conservatives, let alone USA), not in the world and not through history. No where it states that in article but sources are clear, its just blanked used in article and can be assumed that it applies to entire world.Again reading carefully and with understanding is critical.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- That does not say the other definitions are wrong, it says that in on e context it is valid. In fact this does not even say this is a deep state, only that if you mean it in this context it is real (if you mean it in this way).Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Article needs to make it clear that it only applies to limited conservative circles without consensus among USA conservatives, let alone entire USA. It also needs clearly to differentiate it from actual deep states that are proven, like military coup in Turkey 2016 cause sources given do. Meaning in that way is consensus Steven even in sources, then they go on to give it different meaning used by some. Clear differentiation needs to be made.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- A dictator claiming a coup was part of some deep state conspiracy is not proof there was in fact a deep state conspiracy. You need RS saying that there was (in fact) a deep state conspiracy (note saying it was one, not saying it has been called one).Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fine dont put Erdogan, everything else still stands.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- You have provide no sources that say there are actual deep states that are proven, what you have a sources that say that if you take deep state to mean something other then a "a government-wide conspiracy" then there may indeed be such things. The Conmsproicy article is talking about "government wide conspiracies".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, it only says coordinated effort, does not mention a single thing of how narrow or wide. It could be 2 bureaucrats as far as I know according to article.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was referencing the rolling stone source, As I said it does not contradict anything we say (and I note the first line of the paragraph "Occasionally used as a neutral term to denote a nation's bureaucracy", so yes we do point out is is sometimes used in the way you describe). We make it clear we are talking about "the conspiratorial notion of a "deep state"".Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I still have massive problems with entire section. Its not occasionally, it is generally used in that way. On topic of you using US definitions from magazines, I looked up Deep State in United States article which is lot better than deep state section in conspiracy theories and kinda seems redundant cause they define what that term means in USA, so should not that section focus on world understanding ? Quote from article - In The Concealment of the State, Professor Jason Royce Lindsey argues that even without a conspiratorial agenda, the term deep state is useful for understanding aspects of the national security establishment in developed countries, with emphasis on the United States. Lindsey writes that the deep state draws power from the national security and intelligence communities, a realm where secrecy is a source of power.[8] Alfred W. McCoy states that the increase in the power of the U.S. intelligence community since the September 11 attacks "has built a fourth branch of the U.S. government" that is "in many ways autonomous from the executive, and increasingly so."[9]MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- No because the article (and thus the section) is about conspiracy theories. As such it should really concentrate on that part of the deep state concept, not a wider discussion as to deep state as a political term.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is still wrong tho, even in conspiratorial sense Geoff Nunberg described it lot better what it means in conservative circles (I still hold definition you give wrong). It's an elastic label — depending on the occasion, it can encompass the Justice Department, the intelligence communities, the FISA courts, the Democrats and the media. In short, it's a cabal of unelected leftist officials lodged deep in the government who are conspiring to thwart the administration's policies, discredit its supporters and ultimately even overturn Trump's election. He is given as source on Deep State in United Stateshttps://www.npr.org/2018/08/09/633019635/opinion-why-the-term-deep-state-speaks-to-conspiracy-theorists. MrStefanWolf (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, it only says coordinated effort, does not mention a single thing of how narrow or wide. It could be 2 bureaucrats as far as I know according to article.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- You have provide no sources that say there are actual deep states that are proven, what you have a sources that say that if you take deep state to mean something other then a "a government-wide conspiracy" then there may indeed be such things. The Conmsproicy article is talking about "government wide conspiracies".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fine dont put Erdogan, everything else still stands.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- A dictator claiming a coup was part of some deep state conspiracy is not proof there was in fact a deep state conspiracy. You need RS saying that there was (in fact) a deep state conspiracy (note saying it was one, not saying it has been called one).Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Article needs to make it clear that it only applies to limited conservative circles without consensus among USA conservatives, let alone entire USA. It also needs clearly to differentiate it from actual deep states that are proven, like military coup in Turkey 2016 cause sources given do. Meaning in that way is consensus Steven even in sources, then they go on to give it different meaning used by some. Clear differentiation needs to be made.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- That does not say the other definitions are wrong, it says that in on e context it is valid. In fact this does not even say this is a deep state, only that if you mean it in this context it is real (if you mean it in this way).Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Rolling Stone - "Is there actually a deep state? If you mean entrenched bureaucracy, then of course there is" - Also definition you give at best only refers to current meaning of term in USA in limited circles of conservatives (not consensus among all conservatives, let alone USA), not in the world and not through history. No where it states that in article but sources are clear, its just blanked used in article and can be assumed that it applies to entire world.Again reading carefully and with understanding is critical.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I asked you to provide a source that directly said it, you did not. None of the sources you provided say that the definition of deep state we say is in use is wrong. What they do (at best) is provide an alternative definition (anbd some do not even do that, they actually talk about Donnies belief in a deep state). You need sources that explicitly (not implicitly) say that the definition we list is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ok its not your direct fault but still. RS use definiton I use and you ask me to provide sources(they are already given). That i think falls into competency issue, being able to read with understanding.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
talk page watcher@MrStefanWolf: as you're new here I'd suggest you review WP:STICK and then put yours down before you face a consequence worse than a WP:TROUT Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest you and your college to read Deep State in United States and then read deep state in conspiracy theory and review and correct obvious contradictions cause I wont be intimidated. MrStefanWolf (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- He is not my colleague and this kind of attitude is going to go down badly. I would advise you to message the only user who so far has shown you any sympathy and ask him (or ask him to suggest someone) who can mentor you. At the rate you are going you are going to get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- They why is he on your page hurling threats ? Me and you are having discussion and unless he wants to be constructive mind his own business.You is not obliged to respond to me if I am bothering you. MrStefanWolf (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- He is not my colleague and this kind of attitude is going to go down badly. I would advise you to message the only user who so far has shown you any sympathy and ask him (or ask him to suggest someone) who can mentor you. At the rate you are going you are going to get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Also Steven your leftwing bias is disgusting and should be ashamed of your self, but you wont cause 80 percent of editors here have it, which is just sad for this site. Its obvious you want to keep section and not correct it case you hate Trump. I will leave you old fart too it, you can keep pushing your agenda, like i give a fuck if I get banMrStefanWolf (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you also read WP:NPA - because buddy, you're heading fast from "don't want to WP:BITE" to "block for WP:NOTHERE" at this rate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (it wasn't me) Kleuske (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Immigration and crime
What are you talking about? And where is your evidence of forum shopping? You wrote "search in goggle for "links between the immigration crisis and Germans racist past"... How on earth do you think I found the references in the first place? (apart from the fact that I used Google, not "goggle") The fact that you don't agree that Jews can be immigrants does not make you correct, and your own efforts to improve the article have been just as quickly attacked as mine have. It would be more useful if you could explain how you propose to fix the POV issues. Deb (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I said another ed had accused of of it. As to the rest, ~ True Jews can be immigrants, but most of those killed by the Nazis were not they were Germans (or the citizens of other nations stolen form their homes, which is still not immigration, and not to Germany anyway). I have told you how to fix the POV issues, find sources that make explicit links and then repeat what they say. "according to professor X the current attitude towards immigrants represented a continuation of the attitudes expressed by the Nazi regime" or some such (sourced to professor X of course). That is how you make the point.Slatersteven (talk)
- I look forward to seeing how you get on with these improvements. Deb (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to leave it to you, I think you need to learn how to edit and this is a good start. Fell free to come here with any suggested edits and sources and run them past me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I look forward to seeing how you get on with these improvements. Deb (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)