User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

I removed a comment of yours

Hi Slatersteven, you responded to that brand-new account that commented at Talk:Ivermectin just for an ad hominem argument against Alexbrn. I removed that comment, and your since it was solely a reply to the other. I hope that's ok, and feel free to revert if it's not. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As it was indented as a general comment (rather than a specific reply to a user) it should not really have been removed as there is a tad too much soapboxing going on there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Restored, with my apologies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, it I was that worried I would have restored it myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Slatersteven an employee of the Wikipedia organization.? Odonanmarg 25 May, 2022. Odonanmarg (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please not ask new questions in a year old thread? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Never seen anything like it. Amazing stuff. Now let's go get this article to GA status, hey?! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I invite you to participate in good faith at the Dispute Resolution this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ethnicities_in_Iran_discussion —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Couldn't find the NOTFORUM barnstar!  :) But, if you can keep your head, etc. All the best! SN54129 14:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs, you are the king...its good to be the king. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Two same articles??

Battle of Kakkor and Battle of Kakor (1759). These two articles are based on same battle, same location, same year. Can you please review when you have time available? One of them needs to be deleted I believe. MehmoodS (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Fake news and Donald Trunp

I have added a comment to the talk page regarding the Donald Trump section of the article Fake News. Kookaburra17 13:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookaburra17 (talk • contribs)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Slatersteven,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 817 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

not a revert

This is a different edit. It's adding new information from the source THAT SOMEONE else insists on using. The reason it's being added is because the other information misrepresent the source. Could you self revert? Volunteer Marek 17:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks to be a partial revert to this [[1]], which was revered here [[2]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No, because this uses the WaPo sources that somebody else added. Thing is BOTH sources, both WaPo and Tablet actually say the same thing! "The far right influence has been diluted". It's just that some editors picked out one particular specific non-representative quote from the WaPo source and only want to include that. But the WaPo source actually emphasizes the very same thing that the Tablet source that they're trying to remove. That's why this is such a gross misrepresentation and obviously pure POV pushing. Volunteer Marek 17:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

DId you or did you not add back "According to analysts , as of 2022 the battalion is no longer an ideological organization and the influence of its early origins has been diluted and ignoring the changes that have taken place in the battalion since 2014 plays into Kremlin propaganda and decades old anti-Ukrainian tropes"? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the edit you reverted. Not the one you mention above. Different edit. New material. Not a revert. Volunteer Marek 17:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

(I know it looks similar because it has the word "analysts" to in it, but it's a different source and different text - so to answer your question, I did not add back what you quote above). Volunteer Marek 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I'm satisfied with your most recent edits. Volunteer Marek 17:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

And the use of ""diluted", thus I would argue it was a partial revert, to try to say the same thing, but reworded. This I why I reverted it, as it is clearly trying to say "they are no longer as Neo-nazi". Which you knew had already been objected to. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Claims of tendentious editing and personal attacks

Hi Slatersteven, you involved yourself in a discussion I was having with someone else on my talk page. If I understand it right, you seem to think my editing is biased. Could you elaborate why? As for personal attacks, if you honestly consider referring to people as ″you guys″ and ″team″ (don't try to say I called anyone a Nazi, because you know what I meant by that) then I would have to disagree and say that is one massive reach. I can assure you I don't have bad intentions for the article, I simply want it to follow Wikipedia NPOV. I am sure you disagree with me, but I think it is a bit unfair to accuse me of these things. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No I did not say biased, I said tendentious. And yes implying (let alone actually saying it) that users are tag-teaming or engaging in a coordinated campaign violates wp:npa. And no I do not know what you mean by Nazi, as "jokes" are still coved by NPA. So I will ask you to stop making these "jokes", they are not helpful and are a distraction. You comment on the content not the user (and also, you do not get to determine if a word that can be an insult is a joke, the target does, if they object to it, you apologize you do not justify it as "only a joke"). This is a good illustration of why I said you were being tendentious, weak justifications for disruptive behavior. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, I only skimmed it and it seemed focused on biased and skewed editing. I guess I forgot how stiff Wikipedia is, and I can admit I gave some attitude in frustration though I was not the only one who did that in that thread. I do think you are putting some words in my mouth though, I can't comment on if there are coordinated efforts or not, that is not what I meant. I was only referring to editors that were of the same opinion grouping together on the article, not that they are sitting around a table with their laptops making plans together. I still think the personal attack thing is a reach and by that logic I can decide that you calling me tendentious is a personal attack, I'm not but hopefully you get what I mean. I have only actively been editing for about 7 months so I'm still new to a lot of this, I still stumble here and there. TylerBurden (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You accused me (In this edit summary [[3]]) of tag Teaming, you have accused users of [[4]] "grouping together to form "consensus"", an implication of coordination, [[5]] "Team Neo-nazi", again an implication they are working together. You do not accuse users of tag-teaming or being part of some coordinated effort (that is called wp:meatpuppetry and is a serious allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Because you did? You jumped into the discussion on my talk page out of the blue, taking the side of the editor that created the thread. That is why I referred to it as tag teaming. I don't see how stating that editors of the same opinion group together on talk pages is an accusation, that is reality and happens on every article where there are disputes. "Team Neo-nazi" as in the editors who advocate for the current lead. I'm sorry, but you do not get to decide what I mean by my own words for me. And you've interpreted them wrongly, not sure what I can do about that other than say that you're wrong. TylerBurden (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No, NO I did not, I went to your talk page to ask you to read policies after I saw posts that breached those policies. That is not tag-teaming (read [[wp:npa]). Tag teaming is a direct accusation of coordinated effort. You are right I do not get to tell you what words mean to you, I can tell you if I find them a PA, and ask you to withdraw them if I feel they are. If you refuse that is when wp:nai kicks in. I am now asking you to stop with the accusations of tag taming and being part of team nazi (and no I do not care if you think the claim is a joke) and strike them. If you continue to make such claims I will report you for continued PA's, and lets admins decide if calling uses Nazis constitute a PA. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

When have I said that you coordinated the effort? Do you know what a tag team is? It's a pro wrestling thing, not a Wikipedia policy protected slur like vandal. I have no idea if you are coordinated, so I am not going to say that you are or aren't. I don't think it is possible to communicate with you, since you think everything I say is a personal attack, and you're threatening me, so I'm not going to communicate more with you in the future unless I absolutely have to. Feel free to revert any messages you find offensive, it's your talk page. Have a good one. TylerBurden (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

tag team

noun

a pair of wrestlers who fight as a team, taking the ring alternately. One team member cannot enter the ring until the other tags or touches hands with them on leaving.

So yes, it means coordination as part of a team also read WP:TAGTEAM, I am telling you what you are doing wrong, and that if you continue down this road you will end up with a block for PA's. You might also need to read WP:LAWYERING, and WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to keep restoring self published vanity press sources?

Like you did here? Seriously, what gives? This is pretty basic. Volunteer Marek 12:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Then stop removing a source that is not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Nor is the source Self Published, and this seems to just be another example of the lazzyness behind the NPOV stage on that article. Just search for the book shows you it was not published by POB, it is just one method to produce it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Why it says May 22 at top of it:) Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

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 on a World War II summit and the American space program

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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello

The land claim has been settled. Here is the reference to cite to use as a citation, https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/05/24/beaverhouse-first-nation-achieves-historic-recognition.html. I don't know how to update the Land Claim section over on McGarry Ont page. 2605:B100:D18:340A:1B8F:2911:577F:5E69 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone will add it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Marcum (hoax)

Hello, Slatersteven,

Did you set up this AFD page? Because it doesn't look like a standard AFD discussion page, it doesn't use the template, it doesn't even include a link to the article you are discussing. It's confusing to me because you are a very experienced editor.

If you are still interested in having a deletion discussion about this article, I suggest requesting that this page be deleted and starting from scratch using Twinkle which will set up everything correctly for you. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the AFD has been fixed and closed by another admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

User Silverije vandalism again

He is repeating vandalism even being warned here. 2804:388:A040:C6E0:396C:849A:BD47:5100 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Then report him at WP:AIV. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

NK

I have no idea what you're talking about, or what you think I "hate". Please don't leave messages on my user talk page unless you can make them at least semi-coherent... AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry spell checker fuck up that shous have been "hated comments", once a conversation has been closed you really should not post in it again. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A Reply to the attempted banning of MR R. F F Miles (b 1957 to A. Miles, Brighton ( Rn 1942-5, ret Lt, RN Intelligence officer, NY ( Waldorf, Tacoma) 1943-44 served HMS Kledive St France, Agean: nominated for NZ Rhodes 1946= Vic, Lecturer Vic, Wgtn 47-9; Balliol 49-50. Ardmore TC 1954. TBHS English, Frech teacher, Careers Master/ 1968-77;the Anon main writer of numerous RNZN/RN cold war: some sig USN WW2. cold war and strategic articles and some F1, and some US, NZ and BR rail passenger pages

In terms of the footnote used in relation to the slow delivery of effective flyplane 275 radar it is the same as used by me on the Tiger class cruiser wikipedia article which is largely written by me. I am old short sighted anmost NZ libraries even the Wgtn National Libraries and the Wgtn and Auck university library have sig reduced there holdings in the defence field. Due to covid and the general NZ central library policy to greatly reduce holdings and access to partly enforce conformity with modern PC and Maori centric view of the NZ political class if it could be called that. So a detailed checkof the precise fit of the ref is not possible, but I believe they are more than accurate enough for general academic and wikipedia use. Saying 12 = 12 + 24 is not a synthesis and neither is saying 25 lend lease supplied US mk 44/ Type 275 UK radar classification, meant only enough for Ark and Eagle were available and none for the 1949 six proposed Dido mod reconstructions. To say that logic is a synthesis would only apply if a coup pr WW3 threatemed.But of course the still prominent Mr Steele who gave the shody or deliberately false/ misleding info on the NBC threat from Iraq/ Saddam was presenting something even less than a synthesis. The Royalist article is being massively reduced in size and scocpe by the editorship of Mr Graeme Leggert who is a known former junior RNZN cold war officer and others who it would be generous to call enthusiasts. This is to conform to the NZ Govt MFAT view on the issue and apparently for the the benefit of the low quality RN Ratings of today so they are not challenged by a HIgh IQ widely republished articles in encylopedias. Your reversal of my material say as a strong eg 1800 +- on my tutorial for Mr Ish on what constitutes a strong / weak source and some sensitive issues; constituted an attackon my idenity, my authorship of the work and also removed completly significant lines referring to strong defence sources as US proceedings, and Georgia Tech and Scinetific America having more weight than might be expected. I did not of course mention the uS Rand Corp which like Proceedings and Georgia Tech is of course not mentioned in any Auckland University Political Science or History thesis on cold war or 21C defence issues which in a an objective view makes them weaker than my own academic work and publications regardless of the grae, class awarded. The current urgency of the political situation relating to the Ukraine war and NZ vulnerable and exposed defence position, re China to some extend leads to more aggressive defensive editing. I am not a member of any current NZ Political Party, although I was briefly a member of both the two major parties National and Labour and held some minor electorate posts in both in the 1988-1997 period. The objection was in National that I was wrongly seen as a n anti nuclear activist, I actually opposed nuclear power not deterence or tactical nuclear weapons of the USN and secondly that I came to the attention of the former UK CDS Elworthy during the 1982 Falklands War having told a SC Waimate Council group that the RN task force other than the Seawolf/ Seadart 5 DD had no airdefence there Seaslug/ Seacat missiles and guns would not take aircraft, and the Argentine airforce equipped with pilots of the Nationality of Fangio and Reutemann were certain to actually attack the task force and only had to keep coming and they would overwhelm the RN defences and it was quite likely the RN fleet would be at the bottom the Sth Atlantic within 3 weeks. Since 2014 while possibly contributing settings to the Abbot/ Hockey budget delievered that year and sig supporting around the Wellington defence quarter the P-8 acquisition and always being unsympathetic and hostile to NZDF relations with China. I have consistently opposed any RN/ USN presence in the Black Sea including the USN ABM ships. I am not any sort of extreme rightist and have always been a strong supporter of Israel and been appalled by mothers ultra right and anti semetic views which were a product of her pre war position and was a person like Max Moselya nd Rose Kennedy unable to revise her old opinions. I mentioned the Von Luckner visit to NZ/ Aus in 1938 and the strong pro Nazi movement that long existed in Australai simply because that fact and the fact Von Luckner was a strong advance man for Kreigsmarine, German Army and the paid rep of Hitler and Goebbels not an international peace worker as claimed by Arden whose flagship positioning is a total truth denial( 'there have never been any Nazis in NZ' and 'NZ has never been a capitalist nation) and RNZ similar one sided distortion to show you how inaccurate any NZ current service authority is likely to be. Since my father, grandfather and myself have all been slandered by sig sources as never having been to Balliol in Alan and in Fredrick Fisher Miles case or have degrees in my case and in all 3 of our supposed cases to be under some weird permanent mental illness, of sorts no longer considered to exist in the UK/ USA. Anybody connected with Dairy Farming, SC, Waikato or Massey University are extraordinarily unreliable sources.

I have no idea what this is in relation to, as it seems to ramble from one thing to another. MAybe fewer more focused words. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy summer/winter

		Sunshine!
		Hello Slatersteven! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Some "Larries" background

If you haven't seen it, you may or may not find something of interest at Talk:Harry_Styles#The_Larries. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this puts it in the "major conspiracy theory" bracket so much as "fandom is crap". It does not convince me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major ct either. Fandom, in moderate doses, can be a pleasant pastime. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Slatersteven,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15331 articles, as of 18:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

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) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, 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. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda

I removed a section that you replied to, as the account was just spamming. Feel free to revert if you'd like, but please remove the link if you do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Nah, its OK. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello 13:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Precisely! I'm not dumb.

Please do take the time to actually read this.

At 'Slatersteven': Your logic here is utter nonsense.

For your information, I came here to find out who Molyneux is, for I had never heard of him. I scanned the opening wiki paragraphs, discerned that they display smear language, and immediately clicked on 'talk' to see if any others have been repelled by the language. Quite apparently, many have. It is ironic that in the excerpt of his own self description, posted on this talk page above, I find what I came for - a brief summary of his stated position on things.

Now he may be in many ways a hypocrite - I do not know. But I am not stupid - what he writes is not a denial. He is not rebutting anyone. He is simply asserting the beliefs he holds. Any man is nothing more and nothing less than what he himself says and does. Certainly there may be incongruity and even contradictions in those truths, but they remain the fundamental truth. What others think may be of interest, but it is not central. That there are apparently many tertiary sources that are severely critical of him is most appropriately documented under a section entitled 'Reception' or 'Criticism'.

Indeed, if you wish to shine light on a man's contradictions, it is best to factually document those contradictions by juxtaposing and sourcing his own conflicting statements. Ad hominem linguistic bullying with vague opinionated labels like 'racist' and 'white supremacist' only cast a shadow on you, at least in the eyes of any thoughtful person. If you wish to use such words, they must be presented in a neutral point of view context.

For example, you might demonstrate and source a contradiction, and then state "as a consequence, some have classified him as racist", being careful to cite sources refering to those who have so opined. It is not incumbent upon you to proffer the opinion yourself, nor is it legitimate to simply parrot another's opinion, however well sourced. That is heresay, and invariably, there will be those who hold opposing opinions, however heinous an individual may actually be. By using the word 'some', you, as an editor, remain neutral, and allow for the possible existence of dissent. Thereby you maintain the integrity of the article and wikipedia as a whole. Indeed, if the contradictions, as well as opinions expressed by others, are overwhelmingly numerous, you could be justified in using the word 'many' instead of 'some', while still preserving your neutrality and the integrity of wikipedia.

In conclusion, I find this particular wikipedia article to be incredibly sub-standard. Articles like this, that sacrifice objectivity and neutrality in service to the current vogue for neo-liberal propagandist language (neo-conservative propaganda is equally anathema) degrade the credibility of the wikipedia as a general reference source. In fact, in these times, I have concluded that many who scream 'racist' most loudly are, in fact the most racist among us, or worse, they are the true fascists: utterly intolerant of views that deviate even slightly from their own.

This is your encyclopedia now. I stopped editing it years ago. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand the principle of 'a house divided against itself can not stand'. By systematically traveling the path you have taken in the last decade, you only move closer to a world in which the wikipedia is untrusted and irrelevant. 2001:569:5202:1900:29BD:23B0:5B0C:F7BD (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Posted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stefan_Molyneux

So typical ... immediately deleting a coherent disinterested call to actually serve the interests of wikipedia users. You waste the time of your user base Mr. Slater. It can lead no where good. 2001:569:5202:1900:29BD:23B0:5B0C:F7BD (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(Immediately reposted with addendum after nearly immediate summary deletion of the original post. Edited with clarifying and explanatory addenda the next day - thank you for not deleting the remarks a second time, as I half expected to find.)

It seems I spoke too soon. The second deletion has now happened.

Alas, maybe I can get through to a man who seems to use precisely the tactics that WP:NOTDUMB and Civil POV pushing, as well as other policies try to prohibit. Indeed Mr. Slater, it seems to me you are WP:Wikilawyering. In your note to me on 'my' talk page you project your own behavior on me, when I have done none of the things of which you accuse me. In fact, I have read more of the wikipedia guidelines than most editors I've encountered over the years. I'm thoroughly familiar with the policies you cited to me.

That I no longer edit is an irrelevant point. I am a wikipedia user, and I value a wikipedia that maintains a neutral point of view, where I can efficiently answer simple questions without wasting enormous amounts of time wading through prejudicial tripe. I am in no way 'threatening' you to "get my way". I merely point out that the user base is also "not dumb". People are smart enough to see when a presentation is biased, and even now on this talk page, there is plenty of evidence that some care enough to point out that bias. Inferior articles genuinely degrade the reputation of the wikipedia.

As for "reliable sources" (wp:rs) and "original research" (wp:or), I am not in any way suggesting that these policies be ignored. I am making quite reasonable suggestions about how you might maintain a neutral point of view by more strictly adhering to these very policies.

It is clear to me, having read this talk page, and having read your personal talk page, that you have an agenda and distort wikipedia policies to suit your agenda. This is the projection you are imposing on me. I am not trying to "get my way", while it is apparent that you have repeatedly done that with the history of this article. Ultimately, I do not care what happens to this article. I came here for an answer, and I got my answer. I really don't care about Molyneux. I do not defend him and I do not disclaim him.

I do care about a credible wikipedia and a positive user experience. It is entirely appropriate to address you directly here on this page, for any intelligent reader can see from the material that is already here, let alone the deletions in the history, that wikipedia policies are being grossly abused in the bullying of other potential contributors and the prejudicial presentations. I am in ACTUAL FACT, discussing the content of this article. This IS a terrible article. It is one of very minor importance, and I suppose that is why you can get away with your behaviour. Few would care enough about the topic to seriously oppose you. Indeed I myself do not care about the topic. I am addressing you directly because it seems to me, you are the one who is excluding others from making any suggestions, let alone contributions. That degrades all wikipedia editors. It is wrong behaviour.

If you can not contain your prejudices, perhaps you should recuse yourself from editing controversial topics. In any event, summarily deleting legitimate criticism of the article clearly violates wp:talk policy. Civil discussion can only occur when there is tolerance of suggestions made by others. I don't expect to "get my way". I do expect to be respectfully heard and I expect my suggestions to survive long enough for other editors to view and discuss them.

I see that you are retired and on vacation. I am also retired, not just from employment, but also from the wikipedia. Ironically, had you simply allowed my original post to stand, I would have quietly gone my way. At this juncture, I am tempted to re-enlist as an editor solely for the purpose of filing a formal complaint against the violations of wikipedia policies that are apparent in this article's history. No, that is not a 'threat'. It is completely within my rights as a former editor and is a possibility that conforms with current wikipedia policy. I'll have to think about whether it is worth the trouble. 2001:569:5202:1900:CD50:BD21:8FBB:DE24 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And you still need to read wp:soap wp:forum wp:npa and wp:talk. By the way, you can file a complaint at wp:ani as an IP, you do not have to have an account, I would advise against it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the delayed laughter.... since there was no subsequent drama, when I was reminded of my "major mistake" today (by stumbling across this), I belatedly decided you really were kidding. Although I didn't know that at the time, and withheld my laughter, I cracked up today. So I just wanted to stop by to bow to the master of subtle humor.... enjoy your day! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You removed my corrections to "Sputnik V COVID" vaccine

You kindly suggested that I discuss the planned changes on the Talk page for this article. This is a good suggestion. However, I did post my suggestions on the Talk page and explained why I think these changes are needed. So far, no one has responded. Would you be so kind as to consider my suggestions and give critical feedback? Olgamatveeva (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I reverted per wp:brd, a user had objected to it, it was down to you to get wp:consensus for your change. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am a much less experienced Wikipedia editor than you are. I need advice on how to proceed. I've mostly defended my position and proposed changes on the discussion Talk page and received no feedback on my final arguments. What should be my next steps to reach consensus? I'm not even getting a response to the suggestion to remove the links to the press releases.Olgamatveeva (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

An wp:RFC if you really feel strongly about it, but at the end of the day silence is not acquiescence Also users are not expected to respond right away, as they do have lives outside Wikipedia. So give it at least 24 hours before deciding you have not been responded to. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Filter

Funny thought crossed my mind. Maybe TFD (The Four Deuces) would be the right fellow to respond to the IPs & Newbies at the Trump & Biden talkpages, as well as other high profile American politician BLPs. He spends nearly 90% of his time on talkpages anyway & has the ability to both annoy & satisfy me, with his responses (a sign of a neutral-minded editor). He'd make a perfect 'filter', for those BLP discussions. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As he had already commented there he was one of your 10. Also, his answer was no different from what I would have said. This is just what I was talking about, an unactionable request that can be dismissed with one sentence. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Dang, he is one of the 10. I reckon I figured, the Trump & Biden pages were likely two of the most watched BLPs on Wikipedia, so someone outside us 10, would eventually respond to the IP's question. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

During that wait, the IP will wonder "why have I been ignored", when the answer is simple. We do not do new users a favour by not explaining why their edit (or more often just their vague assertion) can't be done. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I reckon my proposal won't take hold. Specifico sure isn't gonna (apparently) give it a try. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) my two cents is.... if an editor (A) sees a problem (B) believes a good response is possible and (C) thinks for some reason they are incapable of producing that good response...... maybe they'd be more effective contributing to something other than Wikipedia. In other words, if you're not capable of giving good neutral replies to IPs, maybe you shouldn't be here, or at least watching those topics. On the other hand, giving neutral replies even when opinionated is an acquirable skill so the best of all is that YOU respond to the IPs and keep practicing (and recruiting feedback) and soon you'll be the go-to guy for MPOV advice or help on these deals. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but not every random IP is worth responding to. If they can't be arsed to read the 15 previous responses to "you are pedaling left-wing propaganda?" why should any user be arsed to say more than "see the 15 previous answers to that question"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Those are harmful troll posts, and I remove them on sight per TPG. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Was kinda wondering, if the 1994 Biden Crime Law covered Hunter Biden. Thought about bringing it up at the 'laptop controversy' page, several times. But, figured I'd likely get a rough going over. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea, and this is not the place for such speculation. You would need RS saying it does, not just your speculation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I ain't gonna dip my beak into that article's discussion page. No way. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Well any discussion here about it will have zero influence, so you either discuss it there, or you drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay, discussing it anywhere is subject to the DS American Politics ruling from Arbcom. If you float (whatever) scandal without RSs, others could possibly use that against you in AE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For all his complaints, denial of our sourcing PAGs, and emotional farewells that last between 6-24 hours, I have yet to see GoodDay contribute any article improvement on any page of this encyclopedia. It's truly mind-boggling that a longtime high-count editor, such as they boast, would not have anything to show for it. GoodDay, next time you feel the urge to disparage, kindly use the ping function. It will save you a time and effort in the long run. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Funny, I was just thinking the same thing re valuable contributions to article content. It was noted by others before that he's a "drama junkie"; nine years later and I personally don't see any change in that regard. He seems to enjoy baiting with little edits or passive-aggressive talk page comments in the hopes someone will bite. He professes to agree to avoid contact and then immediately proceeds to revert, make a contentious edit, draw in more editors to the dispute, respond with straw men, make a bad faith accusation, play "I didn't hear that", try to draw in an ally with another oblique aspersion, start an edit war, draw in more editors to another dispute, make another bad faith accusation (in the same breath as he says "it's nothing personal"), evade the subject, make yet another smear... It goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. All that's just in the last six days, if you can believe it, and there's of course, much more. I see you're aware of his recent topic ban. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You've both given me pause to self-reflect & consider taking a wiki-break. Stress (off Wikipedia) has been extremely high. This goes back to my nervous-breakdown (Mar-May 2021) & Indeed, I should 'slow down'. My apologies to you both, if I've caused either of you any stress. FWIW, I've removed several pages from my watchlist, to help. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I just told you my personal suicide prevention story at your user talk, and anyone is welcome to read it, and contact me at usertalk or email to talk about it more. (Or share their own) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing up my suggestions, to your talkpage. FWIW, I've removed the Trump & Biden pages from my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

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 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warning

Hello sir, I would like to make a request on a change with the article Indian Rebellion of 1857 as a user is keeping the definition while there is a link given about the word. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be done on the artices talk page, with proper arguments sources to RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have given my arguments on the talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chanchaldm#Please_stop_your_disruptive_behaviour GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is if you read wp:3rr it clearly says being right is not a valid reason to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy. --Silverije 22:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

New users at Azov

Hi, Slatersteven, as Azov Batallion is one of the more contentious articles within an already contentious topic area of the encyclopedia under AC/DS, the temperature there is elevated and new participants are sometimes viewed with suspicion, when they should be welcomed. Sometimes a welcome might turn out to be misplaced, but we don't know that at the outset. Disconnected Phrases is a brand new user, and other than some unfamiliarity with how we title sections and with some other of our principles, all normal for a new user, Disconnected Phrases still deserves the benefit of AGF. Whether I happen to agree with the appropriateness of the open letter by parliamentarians they raised there is beside the point; even if their presentation of the issue has some rough edges, their raising it seems clearly to be an attempt to improve the article, and comments about SOAP and NOTFORUM were out of line. I respect your comments site-wide enormously, and I suspect you may be frustrated by bad actors in the E. Europe topic generally, and at that article in particular which strains our ability to AGF, but let's try anyway, and especially, please welcome the newbies. Thanks for all you do to improve the project. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC for Azov: any timeframe envisioned for the inauguration of this long-awaited and most auspicious of occasions?

Firstly, let me express my utmost gratitude to you for having the gumption to undertake this duty. I haven't been editing on Wikipedia long, or at least not very much, but the Talk Page of that article, the jig-saw maze-like accumulation of sources - many appearing to outright contradict each other (very rarely IMO, if one simply applies WP:RS, especially the peer-review and time-sensitive aspects of our policy) - the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:OWNERSHIP sensibilities, must be an absolute nightmare for you to sift through.

Secondly, how close are you? Is there anything I can do to help?

Regards,

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @EnlightenmentNow1792:, Encountering a maze of contradictory sources is not unusual in political or other contentious topics. I'd recommend you read up a bit on WP:DUE WEIGHT. Most new users get on board fairly quickly with WP:Reliable sources, and then wit the related issues of WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT sources. The core topic of WP:Neutral point of view may arise as well, and that's a fairly easy one to understand. But WP:DUE, which is a subtopic of NPOV, is a little harder to get a grasp on for some reason. (I've seen ten-year veterans who never quite get it.) In any case, try pondering WP:DUE for a while, and see if that gives you some insight into how Wikipedia handles multiple conflicting sources. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice @Mathglot, but don't worry about me, I do this kinda for a living, and have been for almost two decades now - I was just trying to impart upon Slatersteven how impressed I am at his bravery in taking the task upon himself. (On these particular sources and on topics focused on this particular part of the world, I'm something of an old hat, I speak and read Russian, having only very recently returned from a 5-year-long residency in Moscow. :-) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A Glass of Kvass for you!

	An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class
	In thanks for - and to help you keep cool during - your continued patient efforts towards the ultimate goal of improving article quality in the too-often-over-heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Can I delete your reply at the Iver. talk page if I delete my question about arb? Thanks, and thanks for your answer. Your user page statement seems well intentioned, but I personally think it will eventually prove to be the opposite when it comes to the covid benefits of iver. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (had to come back and sign this after the reply, accounts for the time difference)

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow mate, I am amazed, well done!

You're a true Hero of Wikipedia. Very selfless and brave of you. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe you should have let me do it my way, as I may have known what I was trying to achieve? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Make sure western ukraine thread stays; THAT IS NOT A FORUM THREAD, DUH!!!

since you blocked it, i want you to put this link there and it will shut you all up, you will post:

nato to western ukraine is what's on negotiating table, proposed by military analyst ljupce lubek but nato is afraid to do much and they are playing putin;s game: www.google.com/search?q=nato+into+western+ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.53.15 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

what kind of wikidiot are you, you dont give people chance to reply, you simply block the page, restore the link as explained, you are killed thread which improves article, DUH!

We have policies (such as wp:npa which you really need to read). Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

you have wikidiot policies time wasters like you created to have excuses after excuses, restore the thread as explained above and clearly you are wrong!

And you will get a block. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Note (as well) I have tried to ask the question people have claimed was being asked, but worded correctly so as to be clear as to what it is asking wp:coi. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

dude, bring it on, no wonder wikipedia is never taken seriously as succinctly proven archive.is/Y0BB nothing but mistakes and drama!, you will have to keep ukrainina 2022 war blocked forever as i will repost that and i had people agree with me but no consesus was reached, yet the thread is valid, so you are at fault here, blocking me is like a breeze to me...

I have reported you, and the attempts to hack my account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

dude, you need medical help, final warning to restore the thread!

Please read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, you won't gain anything from attacking others, except for a block of course. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Which they now have. as do all the proxies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't find that elusive NOTFORUM barnstar either but I found a puppy

ARoseWolf has given you a puppy!

As the king of keeping your head you get this puppy I just found wondering around Commons. Malamutes are a wonderful breed. Enjoy! --ARoseWolf 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

ARoseWolf 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Remember a puppy is not just for Christmas, you can use the left overs on boxing day. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Hello Slatersteven, noticing your revert, I was wondering why. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I could not see why this needed to be added. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at reference 71 --> External link in |title= (help) = Category:CS1 errors: external links You can help too if you want to clean up Lotje (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And, this does not explain why you need to add the text of a tweet verbatim, as this is just about his membership of a cuscuses. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you suggest to have the Category:CS1 errors: external links removed?? Lotje (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Add the title "syria tweett"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

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 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

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) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Bringing to your notice

Dear editor, newly created caste centric pages like this Bihari Ahir have lots of references which can be considered under WP:RAJ along with addition of many poorly or questionable sources, same case here on Gopa. I don't know how have the page reviewing editors missed it. There is also a case of WP:CFORK in some cases like this Yaduvanshi Aheer creating new article just to bypass the referenced content on Yadav page. I am pointing this out because it requires improvement by experienced editors. RS6784 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

Please see my comment at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene.Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

There are no foods left, so here is your prize Junkie257 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Same Sex Marriage Petition

I included it on the timeline as it was brought about by heterosexual couples getting married before fighting the Russians, a teacher saw this, got upset that Same Sex couples couldn’t do it and started a petition for SSM. Often wars lead to massive social changes. It might be the beginning of a cultural change in Ukraine that the invasion has started. If you still feel it isn’t relevant then I defer to your judgement. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No it is not relevant to the progress of the war, nor will it impact on the war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it there has been movement on this issue in Ukraine at least in small part due to the war, as gay persons who are in a relationship with soliders who fight and and are injured or die have no legal rights(i.e. inheritance/visitation). Perhaps it won't impact the war itself, but... 331dot (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)