User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2017/March

Not There

You are right, I should not have responded on that page. I am interested in editing Wikipedia, and on many other topics. I created an article not to long ago Big Joe, and that got deleted. I did feel that "js" statements were relevant to the original charge. For what it is worth, I will take your initial advice at this point. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Then your first act needs to be to learn to read what people have written. Jps was talking about me stalking him, not you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Robert Sungenis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If you check I did not revert it. also note you have not left this warning on the other parties page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DS alert for BLP

I notified you in the past about the DS on pseudoscience, here. I am adding the notice for DS on biographies of living people.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I cannot help nut note that the current version of the page this is about is virtually identical to the one you have issued this warning over.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been made aware of both sets of DS. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And you have still not explained what about my edit was a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been notified of the PS DS already. If you continue trying to water down applications of the WP:PSCI policy I will file at AE to request that you be topic banned from editing about PS. I am doing everything I can to give you fair warning. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And we are supposed to talk about edits, not just expect them to be accepted, and I am now a bit tired of your use of threats of bans, please launch an ANI. I consider your tactics to boarder on bullying.Slatersteven (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New book which by a paleontologist on Cryptozoology

Darren Naish has a book coming out called Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths[1] which is already on GBooks in preview. Thought you might be interested. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, saw this on the fringe theory forum.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Price (actor)

I yield to your expertise that IMDb is not a reliable source, but his verified social media page on Sina Weibo said he graduated from University of Sydney and his astrological sign is Scorpio, meaning from late Oct to late Nov. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that is a user generated page, so it is RS for his claim. Not for it being a fact. Another issue is you need RS establishing notability, and there is precious little of that, not enough to pass AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he stands toe to toe with Orlando Bloom in this upcoming movie S.M.A.R.T. Chase means that he is notable very soon. It's just that there is not enough English RS. Plus, the way Sina Weibo works is his diploma has to be verified before his account could be tagged an orange "V."Supermann (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Odd then that all the press about the film I have seen do not mention him. Just appearing in a film does not make you notable. Being noted for appearing in a film does. Also we have rules about predicting future notability [2]. This is why if you want to keep this page you are going to have to find some sterling sources now, not in 6 months time.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on the newly released movie poster to S.M.A.R.T. Chase, I presume Orlando Bloom is the big lead in the movie and that is what the press tends to focus on. Every actor comes from somewhere obscure at the very beginning. Patience is a virtue.Supermann (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

And [3], when and if Mt Price becomes notable then we can have a page on him. If Patience is a virtue then he can wait to have a page on Wikipedia. Also the press may have focused on Mr Bloom, they have also mentioned the rest of the leads, Mr price has not been mentioned as a lead.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

MG 42 Machine Gun

Since you asked the question I will explain. The MG 42 was by far the most effective and efficient light machine gun ever made. The MG 42 permitted the user to not only quickly change out a overheated barrel, but also come back to battery much faster than any of the American or British light machine guns. This meant that German machine gun crews properly placed could defend more ground more efficiently relying on fewer soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.146.222 (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but that does not explain why this is such a great thing, only that it is a very good example of it's kind. It could also be pointed out this did not prevent the Germans from losing WW2, which hardly makes it a war winning weapon.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

When I was 15 I thought the MG42 was the pinnacle of human achievement (as well as being the most useful infantry weapon on a wargame table). Then I grew up :-) Guy (Help!) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No need for veiled PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I still think it's pretty good, I just got a sense of perspective. But you know, I think Volvos are great cars. I'm just weird. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It is still a PA implying a user is childish. AS an admin I thought you would understand the rules on civility.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)