User talk:Slatersteven

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

White Privilege[edit]

Your User page states: "I almost felt that a month ago. Then I was forced to face up to the fact that even though (In my youth) I was stopped on sus maybe twice A year I never feared the interaction might lead to my death. That is white privileged, not having to fear the police."

Whites are killed by police more than any other race. So clearly interactions between whites and police lead to whites getting killed. Further, Black Harvard professor Roland Fryer did a study showing whites are more likely to be shot by police than non-whites. So your belief that whites don't have to fear the police is simply untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8D80:A560:FDAC:A931:F7F1:9107 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are more whites. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accusation of bad faith[edit]

This man is using his edits to obfuscate the number of confederate statues remaining in Maryland. He is using one article about statues at courthouses that is 3 sentences and a link and two of those sentences contradict what he's trying to assert, that all statues in the entire state are gone. I gave him the benifit of the doubt but I cannot when hes following after me changing it back without addressing that his source and the rest of the Wikipedia article hes editing contradict him. This man is operating in bad faith. 2600:1003:B135:9996:A0B1:22ED:9D21:33DD (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ONo I am yrrey9ing to paraphrase a wp:rs so as not to breach its copyright. And as you have only edited one page (see wp:spa) I can hardly be following you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are attempting to paraphrase, you are doing a very poor job of it. The "outside of" phrase in the source means that it is not speaking of all the public land in the state, and is an inherent suggestion that there are statues on public land that is not "outside of" those places. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not, I returned it to a previous version created by someone else. Then attempted to make it clear it was only a claim, not a fact. The source says there were not left on public land outside of cemeteries, we now (in effect) say they have only been removed from court houses. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor was the edit made in bad faith or vandalism, thus (in a sense). Another reason for the revert is I felt the reasoning behind it was not good enough, and may have been a violation (and in fact still do) of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I would have preferred a much better argument than " I do not think this was an error made in good faith," Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't expect an IP editor to know the fine points of what qualifies as "vandalism" on Wikipedia, but yours is a bad edit. It is true that they have been removed from courthouses. That we don't list the multiple sorts of public land that they have not been removed from does not mean that they have not all been removed from courthouses. The edit summary where you claim "the source says the last on federla land" is false on multiple fronts, as the source says nothing about specifically federal land (it's focused on removal from a county courthouse, which is not likely to be federal land) and only makes the claim about public land with significant exceptions. The courthouse claim is made in the RS's voice.... even though as a headline, and thus not in the brightest spot of reliable sourciness. The version you're undoing is far more accurate to the source than the claim you prefer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as I am not an American I am not always up on the finer points what iS "government land" in America. So yes that was a mistake, I should have said "Government land", as to the source, you should be aware we do not use headlines, we use what the body says it says things like "Workers on Monday removed what is thought to be the last public Confederate statue in Maryland other than those on battlefields or in cemeteries." (no mention of courts) and " "said to be the last such monument in the state on public property outside of a battlefield or cemetery."" (again no mention of court houses). So my edit here [[1]] was an attempt to reflect that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this is why we have wp:brd once reverted the user should have taken it to talk, and not edit warred to get their preferred version (which I do not think actually reflects what the source says) either. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note as well, I did not report them, I told them what policies to read wp:npa and wp:agf, before they posted here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello Slatersteven,

New Page Review queue December 2022

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Ukraine war truce section[edit]

Hello sir. I have noticed that you recently reverted an edit of mine adding a "2023 truce" section to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article in its "Peace negotiations" section, stating "let's see if it holds". In full respect of your choices, I suggest re-adding the section as "2023 truce attempt" or otherwise, since it's still a notable event during the invasion considering that it's been covered by multiple reliable news outlets in detail and has caused a bit of a rumble. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 19:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be notable, but we do not yet know if it has had any impact, or even if it has been accepted (as I pointed out on the talk page). Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023[edit]

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) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't understand what you posted at User talk: Would you mind taking a look and correcting it please? Otherwise I fear it's time wasted and worse, confusing for everyone involved. Mark83 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poland in Allies of WW2[edit]

Hi, About our discussion that you didn't agree. You need to remember that Poland during WW2 was divided between Polish Underground State that was against Soviet Union and Polish Committee of National Liberation in 1944 that was against USA and against Polish Underground State. That's why writing just "Poland" is wrong and non accurate. DerekTDR (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to understand we go by what wp:rs say. Also, we do not say "Polish Committee of National Liberation" we link to Polish government-in-exile, not Polish Committee of National Liberation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please WP:DENY[edit]

Hello Slatersteven,

I'm writing to request that you don't respond to grossly insulting WP:SOAPBOXing like this. It makes it significantly more complicated for someone else to simply delete it, which is the appropriate thing to do with grossly insulting soapboxing. As it stands, it's now a puzzle how to hat / retitle all the inappropriate threads started by obvious meatpuppets. In the future it would be much simpler to revert on sight (or let others do it). Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now started just removing them, but I always start by treating them like they are genuine requests, trolling only works if you get angry. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of War in Ukraine 2023 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War in Ukraine 2023 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/War in Ukraine 2023 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible copycat account or accounts?[edit]

I found this on the hindi wikipedia - Special:CentralAuth/Statersteven Half-kratos21 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its been blocked,. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV Notice[edit]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weasel words, lack of NPOV, etc. on article: Gab (social network). The discussion is about the topic Gab (social network). Thank you. --~~~~ Commandur (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023[edit]

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) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV and definitions[edit]

I understand your complete dependence on RS to defend your characterization of Project Veritas as far-right activism. However, I disagree on this characterization, and I would appreciate it if you could take the time to consider my position. My contention is as follows: 1) mass media sources cannot be considered RS when discussing a competing platform/source, and academic sources are not NPOV until proven otherwise; 2) the characterizations are based on flawed definitions (by all definitions, PV is gotcha journalism, not activism); and 3) PV itself has not actively engaged in or called for minimalist government or reactionary social policy, and while it does seem to associate with reactionary groups, it is not truly far-right (which, in opposition to things like totalitarian socialism and Communism, would advocate for minimalist or completely absent government).

I am, of course, discussing my position with you (and I will do so with other editors) in order to resolve a dispute amicably and reach a resolution, since my edits, which were in good faith, and my edit comments were categorically ignored by you and several other editors.Ecthelion83 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NO, we address them in the edit summaries you were not ignored, you were disagreed with. wp:policy is clear, we go by what wp:rs say, and not our wp:or. If you have issues with the sources being rs take it to wp:rsn. And they can be all of these things, they can use gotcha journalism to push an agenda (as I believe they are) that seeks to impose their values on America (so christo-facist). But as my opinion (or OR) does not trump yours I also must go by how RS describes them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That in itself is fair. However, I note that the characterization of PV depends heavily on quotations from news media sources (see wp:newsorg), which given wp:rs, is reliable only for statements of fact (e.g. "police reports indicate x number parking tickets were collected on this block over the past 3 months"), and not necessarily for characterizations of competing sources/platforms. For example, if an article by a major Reuters journalist characterized the entirety of CNN as a left-wing propaganda machine, unless other neutral or opposing-view sources also agreed, the article in question could not be considered to be a RS.
This isn't wp:or but rather a detail in wp:rs that strongly refutes the characterization of several of the sources as RS. I should note that even the Virginia Law Review's article cites no supporting evidence to justify the far-right characterization. The Columbia Journalism Review's article bases its characterization of PV on articles from the Washington Post, whose position, per wp:newsorg, calls its RS status into question.
With regards to activism, none of those sources actually called PV activists, but rather outlets or groups, which would lend support to my position that PV is more gotcha journalism than activism.Ecthelion83 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should make this point at the article talk page. Do any of them say "gotcha journalism"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also note wp:brd if you are reverted it is down to you to make a case at talk, and get wp:consensus, not hose reverting you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ancient Aliens[edit]

Hi - I realise that you were the one reverting to the status quo, but in the interests of fairness (I've just left a message for the other editor) - please remember that WP:CTOP rules apply here. You've reverted twice, but I don't see any edits to the talk page, just some communication via edit summary. Best Girth Summit (blether) 16:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TrUe, but WP:ONUS is on the person wanting to make the change to make a case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I would also invoke wp:fringe. 16:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all that, I just need to be even-handed. I've informed them of CTOP and BRD; they would have grounds to complain if I didn't mention it to you. Girth Summit (blether) 17:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I realize that. Just pointing out my reasoning. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glitch in the matrix[edit]

Sorry, I accidentally deleted your reply in what I believe was an edit clash. That IP user is sort of forum shopping after being turned away from Palestine (region), but I don't want to tread on any toes. Do let me know if you want me to self rv. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured as much. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023[edit]

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) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that they will not stop[edit]

Hello @Slatersteven: hope you are well, today I have reverted Kaiseredit on list of wars involving Bulgaria and list of wars involving Albania, they are obviously WP:Nothere also I′ve noticed that you had problems with them in the past, I was thinking that it is time for a ANI report, but currently I am quite busy to write it extensively, I could do that next week. If you think that it should be done sooner, I could write a short comment when report is done. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:54 15.March 2023 (UTC)

I am umming and arring about that or edit war. 12:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about the category[edit]

Hi. User User:Kevo327 deleted the category of Category:Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany in Armenian Legion by saying that this category is for people. So, I did the same.

I also believe that this article can be under the category of Collaborations with Nazi Germany. Please take a look Armenian Legion page as well. N1C4T97 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is RFC ?[edit]

You removed my contribution in Taiwan stating that to overturn RFC i must include RFC, what is RFC ? Also do you have a wikipedia guideline page stating your claim ? Stephan rostie (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp:rfc. Also read wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can’t see anything saying saying “to overturn Rfc you must include Rfc”, the wp:consensus says to head toward the talks page first before Rfc, i also wonder how does my contribution “overturn” any previous Rfc ? i didn’t deny taiwan’s statehood so how does it overturn the previous Rfc ? Stephan rostie (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read that line just before the part you edited that said "Taiwan has been recognised as a country instead of a state (or other definition) by Wikipedia, see recent RfC Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30#RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state". Do not change its status as a country.", you changed it from country to state, in defiance of the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]