User talk:Slatersteven

Archives

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 when more than 5 sections are present.

G.O.A.T

	Award for being on wikipedia
	HI TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	thank you for your help TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and NOTFORUM

So here's what I've started to post on some user talk pages per Talk:Donald Trump#FORUM. By responding to these people with anything but a WP:NOTFORUM link, you're being part of the problem instead of the solution. I totally get that forum talk is tempting.

Hello! Talk:Donald Trump is for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump article, not for more general forum-like discussions about Trump, politics, and such. I hope you will keep this in mind in any future participation there. See WP:NOTFORUM for the relevant Wikipedia policy.

―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR sections in the article Shambhala

Hello Slatersteven, sorry for reverting your good-faith edit. I deleted those sections in the article Shambhala because they were completely unreferenced and tagged as WP:OR. I will try to expand the article with sourced content based on reliable references; it will take time. GenoV84 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THe place for this discussion is the article talkpage. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump rv

Did you actually look at my edit? I fixed an EGG. The rest of my comment was about possible overlinking, which I didn't change. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to remove a valid link explaining the powers of the president. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed no link. I changed one linktext from "vetoed" to "He vetoed". ―Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood your edit then. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024

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 battles of Operation Veritable in 1945

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) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Army

Hello, you see the problem is, I don´t know which user to adress, therefore I decided to post a general question. But since you asked me directly here are some articles British soldiers in the eighteenth century British Army during the American Revolutionary War British Army during the Victorian Era British Army during the Second World War while some just need formatting or lacked of inline citations other are incomplete... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just new here at wikipedia? Starex Night (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Lovecraft has been a registered account since 2021. You (on the other hand) have been here less than a month. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR

If you cannot read a diff effectively, you should not be policing people who correct errors in templates. The unsigned template was filled out in error, and the hat template needs to be placed inside the section it covers, not outside, in order to work properly with archiving. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the only refactoring you made. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Template : Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox

Hi Steven, I see you've reverted adding of North Korea in my last edit at Template : Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. To explain my move, I think the discussion has already run its course and the numerical and argumentation grounds, particularly considering that there were 16 support !votes and 3 oppose !votes, and both arguments were based in PAGs, firmly supports adding North Korea. I intend to revert your reversion because requiring an uninvolved admin close here is unnecessary and likely to add months to doing something that the community has already made a clear decision on. I think this may be a WP:1RR page since it deals with CTOPs, so please be aware of that. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think that, and (as I stated) I disagree that it is a clear snow close, so wait until it is closed. |Slatersteven (talk)

OK, but that isn't a decision you can make by yourself - we don't have a "dog in the manger" veto on Wikipedia, where a small minority continue to block a change after it has clearly received consensus. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it yours, as you are involved, so wait for an uninvolved admin to judge it, I am willing to why are you not? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've explained the issue - getting an uninvolved admin close could take months, meanwhile the result is now beyond question. But you're insisting on an uninvolved close - and it has to be an admin apparently? OK. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree it is beyond question, as it should be policy-based, and not just on the number of votes, and we are not uninvolved enough to make that decision. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it does not matter if it takes months, we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper, we can wait until the war is over if we want. There is no rush for us to add anything. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Dixit RfC

Given the continued edit warring is strongly supported by the RfC, I think it's long past time we get it closed. Don't you agree? - Hipal (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with an independent close. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I am unsure what view you think is strongly supported. Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a close by a third party. Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits to RfC

Just mentioning that an IP has commented several times on the North Korea RfC, and that those edits have been up for several days, in case you'd like to do anything about that Placeholderer (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology additions

Hello you reverted my edit to astrology. I see its a protected article so perhaps I wasn't following protocol (should I just have added the suggestion into the astrology talk page?). On your substantive comment to the revert I'd say the reference is not definitive (of course!) but it is uptodate and critically contributes to the article by discussing forms of astrology from round the world usually disussed separately. This makes it notable/worth including I think. But I will leave it to your judgement. best wishes dz Dz3 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss any changes on the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo

let's not help this guy get 500. I asked a question and now regret it. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its why I said "I give up,", its clear they will not listen, next its ani. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 224, December 2024

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: Nick-D on the Franco-Prussian War
Op-ed: Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum

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) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MiG-21

Alright, so... we have any evidence that some of Syrian aircraft were evacuated before capture and eventual destruction? Are any airfields in control of Assad? From what I understand almost all of Syria is in control of rebel forces. If any MiG-21's are in control of the Syrian Arab Air Force, then those aircraft had to be evacuated somewhere, like Russia or Iran. From what I can tell SyAAF dosen't exist anymore.

Btw if you think that it still exists and operates those aircraft, flying them somewhere, then I recommend doing some fixing on This article. It states that all aircraft were lost by SyAAF, either due to airstrikes, or capture by rebels. Is this article wrong? If yes then should we fix it? Or are there like two parallel realities.

Sorry for bad English, I'am Polish and I'm exhausted and too lazy to check grammar. Blitzkriegfree (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Dore

Hey @Slatersteven, if you have time, could you please review Francis Dore that I created a month ago? Sokoreq (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genital modification and mutilation

Would you please show me where in the citation it indicates that "Significant percentages of the global population" are impacted by this? Where in the citation does it say "victim"? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) (courtesy @MiracleDinner:) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a discussion for the artocel talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Edit Warring

This is your last warning. I will report you. 2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to remove vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to use your subjective opinion to consider everything vandalism. Stop edit warring or I will report you to the administrators. 2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altering another users posts is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting replys is not. 2601:18C:8183:D410:1D8C:39C9:DCEE:1166 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make your reply without altering other people's comments, then. — Czello ^(music) 14:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per to above, exactly, I had no choice but to revert all your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware this IP has started a thread about you but neglected to inform you. [1] — Czello ^(music) 14:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

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: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history
Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump

Hi, I'm writing to you because, before me, you (rightly) deleted the IP's comment. They, unfortunately, are continuing without stopping. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I am about to have a shower, when I come back they get reported. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

Hey there. In regards to this edit summary, my intended edit simply moved a comma inside of double quotes instead of outside of it. Not sure how it got garbled. Edit conflict maybe? My apologies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Fixed a typo here, please forgive me. Polygnotus (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bro, READ the British gov pages before you revert

You far right cockhead Micheal Paleologo-Oriundi (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User warned about PA's and blocked from some pages for rickrolling. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Donald Trump lead sentence discussion

Hi Slatersteven,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about a consensus debate currently happening on Donald Trump’s page, as it mirrors a similar situation we encountered during Joe Biden’s presidency. Four years ago, we agreed on a consensus to keep the lead sentence format, which I believe was both fair and sensible. Specifically, the line for Joe Biden was: "...who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021." Looking back, I see that you were in favor of maintaining this as the status quo. Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

I believe we should apply this same structure to Donald Trump’s page, just as we did for Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him, to ensure consistency and clarity. This format clearly conveys the order ("47th"), incumbency ("current"), and start date ("since 2025"), which helps maintain uniformity across presidential biographies.

Given your involvement and support in that earlier consensus, your insights would be incredibly valuable in the current discussion. It’s important that we uphold the same standards regardless of the officeholder, and I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in, share your thoughts, and cast a vote. Here is the current discussion and vote underway: Talk:Donald Trump, Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Thanks a lot, and I hope you’ll consider contributing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a discussion for the article talk page, anything I have to say will be said there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough TimeToFixThis (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]