Jump to content

User talk:Slatersteven

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srijan Suryansh (talk | contribs) at 08:55, 20 November 2020 (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.





Archives (Index)


Regarding your comment on Talk:2020 Delhi riots

The recent charge sheet by Delhi police indicates that the Delhi riots were pre-planned. There are numerous references regarding the charge sheets. But none of these news reports are getting included on the page. This is shocking. On this matter, recently you commented "A charge sheet is (at best) an RS for an accusation not a fact. And we go with what third party RS say."[1]. There are numerous references given in the article which are not facts. In fact, most of them are not facts. Many opinion articles are also included as references. These articles are surely not facts. The entire article includes references that indicate that the riots were started by violent Hindus, especially by BJP leader Kapil Mishra. While the chief conspirator (according to Delhi police), Tahir Hussain's name appears only once. When it comes to the other side of the story (Islamists started the riots), you are saying its not a fact. Both POV references should be included regardless of a person's bias (WP:FIXBIAS). Quanta127 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:primary wp:blp and wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Delhi_riots
2020 Delhi riots is the worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia. The high-handed attitude of few "privileged individuals", when asked to explain the unencyclopedic construct of the article, of washing their hands off by citing a one-liner WP policy instead of engaging in a discussion, is the icing on the cake. I've, in fact, taken a snapshot of the article in the shape it is as of today (and locked further till 27-Sep-2020), to keep as a memoir of WP spreading fake news, and later on, use as an artifact for sharing on social media, once the extent of fake news (includes 1. fiction presented as fact, 2. fact presented as fiction, 3. facts suppressed given they are not conducive to POV; most media portals when engaging in fake news engage only in the 3rd, but this article unabashedly engages in the first two also) on the article becomes so untenable that it cannot be supported even after defying WP:NPOV. isoham (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have any one line polices. Nor do we engage in discussion that would mean making edits that violate our core polices, as there would be no point. Edit cannot be made that do not obey policy. But please feel free to publicise this, you have my user name you may mention me. Also it is not locked, you just have to be an experienced and conformed user. Also fell free to report me for libel to any court you wish, but before you do please read Draft:Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truth will always prevail and no matter how much one can try to gag it. As you said above so using your own language definitely you are not dumb but don’t think others as dumb. None has misused WP:POV, WP:BLP and reliable sources game as you and few editors. DBigXRay has been exposed and was disowned by Jimmy Wales on Twitter though the clan backed his mischief. Truth will prevail as it has been since ages. Wait and watch. #FreedomofSpeech curtailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:4003:6DF0:8815:7D9:854A:63ED (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what you are talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


trying to add comment for first time so doing it on your talk page instead of article talk page. Regarding lede on 2020 Delhi Riot, I have serious concerns on credibility of article referenced from the guardian (number 12). I have checked Twitter profile of author Shaikh Azizur Rahman. I can see fake news being paddled on his timeline which, despite being proven fake, are still there on his timeline. one example is https://twitter.com/AzizurTweets/status/1284061838959767552?s=19 what is the process of verifying credibility of authors on so-called "reliable sources" platforms?? being 50 or 100 or 200 year old platform is good enough that anyone can write opinion piece on those platforms and it can be used as bible for Wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhapli (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the guardian is not an RS take it to wp:rsn. I can tell you how it will go.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I filed a request for dispute resolution here: [1] Your input on the problem is requested. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at Ukraine 112

Heya! You mentioned on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Opinions_(112.ua) RfC that, given the evidence provided so far, you saw no reason to reverse blacklisting/deprecation. I think I've new arguments, so it might be worth re-evaluating. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute about Persecution of Christians is being reopened at the request of User:Jenhawk777. Your participation is voluntary. (I know that you thought that the case had been resolved.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Half Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded for "productive editing together with someone who holds diametrically opposed viewpoints." It's not as easy as you make it look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
This one is in appreciation of your personal character and commitment to good content on WP no matter how irritating the process becomes.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Civility Barnstar
This one is because I wanted to give you evcery barnstar I could find and tell you grateful I am for you keeping your patience high and the drama level low.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
on that basis, you really earned this one. Thank you for not giving up on me or this article.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First autopsy claim of homicide

Hey, I couldn't find the word homicide in the first autopsy report:

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

and

https://web.archive.org/web/20200604001830/https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf/

Could you show me where it claims it is a homicide, or alternatively, where an additional source reports that the autopsy reports it as a homicide?

Thanks.--TZubiri (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:primary, WE USE SECONDARY SOURCES [[2]], "Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details".Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the autopsy is already cited directly twice in the article. I think this is one of those cases were the source is a hybrid between primary and secondary, put in other words, the primary secondary distinction isn't clear cut. Something similar happens with judicial processes.

In any case, assuming that it's a primary source, and relying on then secondary sources, there's a couple of different takes that imply a conflict:

From the vice reference already present in the lede: "The medical examiner’s preliminary findings noted Floyd had underlying conditions like coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease, according to the complaint. The complaint also said that based on preliminary findings, there wasn’t any evidence to support traumatic asphyxiation or strangulation, and instead speculated that Floyd’s pre-existing conditions, the police interaction, and “any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”" And the cnn source cited in the autopsy section: "-- It says Floyd had underlying health issues: "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease." -- It says three factors contributed to this death: "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."

I think it's best to focus on presenting the two main POVs represented by both autopsies, instead of focusing on how some sources represent the conflict differently. In this case I think I accidentally avoided the 'homicide' contention in the second rewording by avoiding the use of the word homicide to describe the first autopsy. Thanks for the attention. --TZubiri (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we present what RS say (see wp:or) not what we think might be relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we only add content present in sources... What content have I added to an article or proposed to add to an article that is not backed by a source? I'm not sure I follow.--TZubiri (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say source I said RS. If RS say X and your interpretation of a wp:primary source says Y, you do not get to add it (see wp:or).Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of time travel works of fiction

There is already a discussion at the Talk page for the list; I initiated it roughly a month ago now and nobody responded. I don't see how it is reasonable to ask an editor to remove problematic entries with singular edits versus a single larger edit when the entries are combined into a list that makes individual editing difficult as-is. You are welcome to restore, with sources, any entries that you feel should be considered time travel works of fiction, but if you continue to restore entries without providing sources, when the article has been tagged for needing such long-term, then you are effectively violating WP:BURDEN as well as WP:LISTV. Please stop. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean a carte Blanche for mass removals. If you had removed (for example) only that films about dream, no issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As evidenced from my edit summary, I couldn't tell from the descriptions which films actually involved time travel and which did not. I invite you to bring your concerns to the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"allowing him to travel back in time to just before an earthquake created by Lex Luthor.", that does not tell you its about time travel, or "in the 17th century who has been sentenced to death for witchcraft, is transported to the 20th century", seems pretty clear to me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the issue is not that all of your removals were incorrect, just that some were.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, seriously, did you even read some of the descriptions or articles before decreeing "its not about time travel"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I messed up your Stefan edits

I didn't think anyone else would be editing besides me and didn't account for someone joining. I was trying to make the opening paragraph more concise. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its relevant detail.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Feel free to revert my edits if you want. I was just trying to make the leade shorter.GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Liberation War

Looks like we are nearing a consensus. Won't you make a comment now? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

WP:THREAD gives a very clear guideline for indenting comments. This doesn't fit with that. One very unnecessary revert. (Somehow I feel that editors at IPA are pretty revert-happy already.) Let's have a TeacupY cup of tea in the name of better indentation in future. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you indent to reply to the post you are replying to.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


bros article

hi their I noticed you commented on post, what are you not sure about and what can I do to improve source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3136:4500:ED89:CF30:324A:32D (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:rs, I am not sure any of those pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire Feature Article Review

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing format in Charlottesville article

I'm trying to sort out the mess that existed. Please refrain from reverts until I'm finished. I hope you didn't leave the "Bustle" source, which violated Wikipedia conventions, editing practices and copyright law, and extensive quotes. Activist (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK< as its a WIP I shall leave it, by the way, you should have left this on my talk (not user) page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry about leaving it on your User page. I started sorting out the article a couple of hours ago, and was distracted and confounded by the long quote and bizarrely formatted citation to the Bustle article. They were probably done by a new editor who was oblivious to editing practice I should have ignored that, and just proceeded with the other edits. I see you've made 26 edits and presume you've done an excellent job on the article. I'll get back to trying to sort out the remainder of the problems. I had started with removing errata such as the colors of vehicles involved which much have been copied directly from the police report(s). I've confused things by opening and working on two different edit pages at once. Thanks much for your patience.Activist (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Hopefully, that sorted things out. You are no doubt vastly more familiar with the situation, the sequence of events, and likely even a much better understanding of the locus of the episode. I absolutely defer to your judgment. Activist (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just realized what "WIP" means. Thanks again. Activist (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I came upon your page while surfing the 'pedia, and wondered if you knew about the {{semi-retired}} template/the term "semi-retired". This makes more sense than "MR SLATER IS RETIRED AND ON A WIKI BREAK, HE WILL KEEP EDITING, BUT HE IS RETIRED" --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a piece of satire, a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information

Hello and Greetings,

I thought to include James Randi in see also of Superstitions in Muslim societies after I came across his mention in an Arabic news article of Egyptian modernist, who campaigns against superstitious practices among Muslim societies.

Just wanted to keep you informed about how I gave a thought to include, although I do not insisting to retain it.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally see also are for oblivious links or very similar things.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Donald Trump, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Note: I was scanning through some pages, and I found out that your comment in revision 987527283 was undated. Since I could not find an appropriate user warning for undated comments, I will use the standard notice above; I dated it in revision 987529680. Ntx61 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — updated Ntx61 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parler has an RFC

Parler has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Notifying all editors who participated in the informal discussion about removing the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not nonsense

Its not nonsense. If you do not like it that is your problem.178.148.109.252 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:or and wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stay retired

If you are retired, you should not keep reverting proposals.178.148.109.252 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a joke, as I would have thought was quite clear.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want more jokes create art. on him.178.148.109.252 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? On who?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians

Yes, that is persecution. See my discussion on the article's talk page. 216.14.157.170 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then wait till you have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Big Cats

Hi, not sure what went on there with the British big cats article because I had definitely tried to revert the edit that added those things, maybe the timing conflicted with your edit or something.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but if an edit is reverted it should not be reinstated, rather it should be discussed at talk. Just because we already have crap sources in an article is not an justification to add more.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN

Please visit at [3] to join the discussion on the addition of ESPN in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and it's reliability. Thank You.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy editing

Hi - please don't offer to make edits on behalf of a blocked user, as you did here. This may be seen as proxy editing or meat puppetry. Thanks. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, its not, as I would make the same offer to any editor who could not figure out how to right a proper article that is policy complaint. If they can show notability it seems to be we should have an article. Its not as if I have shown them any kind of sympathy. But if you think it breaches policy I wont, its no great skin of my teeth.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
i am just kidding Srijan Suryansh 08:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&oldid=989664458"