User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slatersteven. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nomination of Merton Park Ward Residents Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merton Park Ward Residents Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merton Park Ward Residents Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Matt 190417 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Invite
|
Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You! |
75.145.160.153 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
A bicyclette at Vietnam war
He basically reverted you here [1] and I think he's past the 3 revert limit and violated 3RR (a third time now). EkoGraf (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You don't find it strange that an IP appears out of nowhere with no edit history and reverts all my changes? Mztourist (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- As I said if you have an accusation to make make it, do not go fishing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Based on my experience at SPI they will not do a checkuser of an IP because that could out a User, which seems like an obvious way for a blocked User to avoid a ban. I have explained my edits and issues with the reliability of the sources generally on the relevant Talk Page, please look at them. Mztourist (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- So basically you have no more then "I do not like the edits". That can also get you a block, making false and ill founded accusations. I suggest you drop this fishing line now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at my edits and take a view on the IP's justifications for reverting them and form your own view. Mztourist (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.". Thus making accusations with out firm evidence is a PA, this is a PA. If you do not stop I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette regards Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.". Thus making accusations with out firm evidence is a PA, this is a PA. If you do not stop I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at my edits and take a view on the IP's justifications for reverting them and form your own view. Mztourist (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- So basically you have no more then "I do not like the edits". That can also get you a block, making false and ill founded accusations. I suggest you drop this fishing line now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Based on my experience at SPI they will not do a checkuser of an IP because that could out a User, which seems like an obvious way for a blocked User to avoid a ban. I have explained my edits and issues with the reliability of the sources generally on the relevant Talk Page, please look at them. Mztourist (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Undid revision
Can you explain yourself as to why you undid my edits to AR-15 style rifle and Colt AR-15. Do you believe there is some policy violation or guideline not followed. As I am sure you know any editor may make improvements to article content. To remove a improvement and make the same mistake as the new editor, seems odd. Surely you have some reasoning for these actions? -72bikers (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- It s its name, surely something rather important to have in the lead do you not think?Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
RE RSN
RE this - this is more of a question of verifying the source. If either of these aren't online - you should ask for a quote from the source.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I was unsure about the first source, the new one is a dictionary that appears to be legit. I am therefore going to AGF ans assume it supports it (as I have no reason to assume otherwise). But much of the article is still unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Just wondering - is there any added mileage in deleting rather than reverting back to redirect? It's a reasonable search term, after all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe, but looking at the history I am going to say it will just be reverted back to an article. Or maybe not as the user is now blocked. But I am not sure.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Please just disengage. There is absolutely no need to try to explain to an editor editing in the white nationalism area why asking ""Are you Jewish? Serious Question" is objectionable. And while I understand your instinct to try to discuss the issue and convince such editors, it just provides them a forum to expound extremist views while pleading ignorance. Deny recognition and "revert, block, ignore" is the better strategy. Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:PACT is also relevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK, as I said I think a range block is in order now. I think that implies I no longer believe engagement is possible.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Indents
You've heard of the Untouchables, now you have met The Unblockables. Of course, if you or I were to post comments like "shove it straight up your ass" or "I don't give a flying fuck.", we'd probably receive a warning. 82.30.110.20 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikiprophecy
In relation to this post: this section.
—PaleoNeonate – 15:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
AR 15 style rifle
Slatersteven, i to seems to me that both Thomas.W and Mr rnddude have violated the remedies there (by restoring an edit that was challenged and reverted by me, without achieving talk page consensus first). Both refused to revert themselves, and as of now the edit stands. Please look at my edit history to see, it's very hard to post diffs.
If I could, I would report them both to the arbcom board, or whatever the appropriate place is (apparently it's not ani). Unfortunately I have very slow internet where I am and that will remain true for several weeks, so complicated actions like that impossible. Anyway, take a look and see what you think. I'm pinging User:Sandstein, as I recall they were active in some in these discussions (and NeilN is away). Again, apologies for the lack of diffs etc. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did look at the diffs, and I cannot say who breached, as this was long tern material but 72biker reverted, thus he was (technically) the first revereter. Thus I am not so sure of this In would report it, if you think otherwise then I would suggest you do so.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy note
I had meant to include the comment you were responding to in the hat, but had missed it in preview. I've added both it, and your response to the hat (here). Though I've separated 72Bikers other comment about the content from that one. I hope you don't mind. I'd just like to separate the content discussion from the many back and forth accusations that won't resolve that dispute. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- AS I said such accusations have no place on the talk page anyway, and as the pages is under DS it should have been dealt with by now. No issue with the hatting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
AR-15
Please explain your actions, you cannot exclude content and give no legitimate reasons for your actions, that would be viewed as disruptive. -72bikers (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have not, not given an explanation, in fact I have done so umpteen times now, and if you think I am being disruptive report me or lay of the accusations. I am not going to take any notice of hollow threats.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello Slatersteven/Archives/2018, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)