User talk:Slatersteven

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I'd be very interested to hear your take as it applies to American politics. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without context it's hard to answer, but in effect, we do not have to write articles Today, or tomorrow or next week. So we can wait till the dust has died down and WWE can get more than "SHOCK GASP HORROR probes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slatersteven. You may need to take action in Talk:United States racial unrest (2020–present). A couple of editors there are accusing you of ownership issues and edit-warring, and have started discussing about reporting your alleged "bad behavior". Dimadick (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, and appear to have very similar interests. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

The references to venues was very out of date. You reverted the change based on 2 locations being pubs, which meant any reference to current venues in the city were lost. I amended it to account pubs not necessarily being major venues and you reverted the whole change. I don't understand the problem.

The place for this discussion is the article's talk page, but if reverted you do no re-revert you make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't exactly reverted, but actually amended to take in your comment Defberg (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read wp:revert. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it." Defberg (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this guidance would you kindly reinstate my edit, please? Defberg (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Defberg (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ed Winters. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not close it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in the discussion though, so I figured I should let you know. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the Vietnam war infobox, we can change communist’s casualties from from “1,100,000” to “680,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead” (because we don’t know how many dead, thus we need the range of estimate, and 30-40% is signification rate). Can you help me?27.3.144.156 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what reliable sources say, do you have any sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read here [1] - “ According to figures released by the Vietnamese government there were 849,018 confirmed military deaths on the PAVN/VC side during the war.[26][27]... Non-combat deaths account for 30 to 40% of these figures”2001:EE0:4A62:3AE0:400A:675B:670:D73B (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

849,018 is not 680,000, also that is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, we can change communist’s casualties from from “1,100,000” to “850,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead”. Source: Moyar, Mark. "Triumph Regained: The Vietnam War, 1965–1968." Encounter Books, December 2022. Chapter 17 index 2001:EE0:4A61:8A10:2563:80AF:6AEA:D27E (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or leave them unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, started a section on the talk page for us to discuss the recent edits Dan Wang (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would prefer not to double RV, but I've finished opening the talk page topic on Talk:Tommy Robinson, if that was your sole reason to RV then the issue has since been resolved. BrigadierG (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THen wait for it to conclude. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources cited in that section do not make the claim that EDL supporters are hooligans. BrigadierG (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again take this to the talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The emancipation proclamation was finally enforced when three-fourths of the remaining states ratified it on December 6, 1865. Thank you. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there, Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which you should have done the first time you were reverted (per wp:brd) rather than waiting a couple of days before revering back, if you do it again you will be reverted again. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Just at the beginning I added the word “which” as it wasn’t Gordon granger himself that proclaimed it but the law from the order and then I just gave extra info that this wasn’t the final enforcement which you may agree. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the present sentence doesn’t explain what the emancipation proclamation was for readers to accessibly understand its context I think. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last word here THe place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Make a case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BPD says talk to you first as one person on your own talk page. Thank you. Voyagerinvelo (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO BRD says discus, discussions take place on the article talk page so as any involved party there can see it. Its a courtesy to other people who watch that page, this is my last one on this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Tokyo war crimes trials

How do the addition i did to the memorial section be trival as I have put 3 references about it? and also if necessary and if it is not ref bombing I can insert more references. Faresian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is a conversation for the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews

what was written was objectively true, i am not sure why they were removed? getting one of the highest free speech awards and receiving it in the danish parliament is a pretty big deal NotQualified (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh i see you wrote "not in the lede", i disagree. this is again a very big deal and it warrants being in the lede but i do want to know why you think otherwise cause i might be wrong :D NotQualified (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read wP:lede it is a summery of the article, this is not a major part of our article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so if i want to add it to the lede i need to write a longer part for it in the article and summarise it above? i can do that but it would take an hour NotQualified (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it needs to be a major part of the article, and this is just one award, so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less). And this is not the place for this discussion, take it to the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less)

wait so i can undo the change and add back what i had written? NotQualified (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I have e said why already, I will not repeat myself here, take it to the Articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was being bold. It probably wasn't a constructive edit. I didn't understand your question and why you reverted. Nashhinton (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask at then articles talk page, where others can also see the question. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Nashhinton (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	While ultimately unsuccessful, please accept this barnstar for your work in trying to demonstrate Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines to this editor. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just send this IP's nonsense to the trash, hope that is ok with you (your comment got hit in the crossfire). Looking at the other "contributions" it is unlikely they care about sources. Polygnotus (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]