User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Musk's children

Hey friend. According to the latest, there is a third child of his and Grimes': https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/entertainment/elon-musk-grimes-third-child-scli-intl/index.html QRep2020 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

5 + 3 = 11 OK, but this https://pagesix.com/article/elon-musk-children/ lists the new child and names 11 (one of whom is dead). Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Assume good faith Sep 23

Regarding your addition to my talk page, I encourage you to read the civility policy, which states, "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment: [...] ill-considered accusations of impropriety [...]" The assume good faith guideline states that "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You have made a number of posts (in effect) accusing users of being paid editors of the CIA, AGF is not a suicide pact, if you breach the rules (in this way) it is permissible to warn you, and if it continues to report you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have never accused any specific editor of being paid editors for the CIA. If anything in the past I have indicated that there may be some editors who may be in Wikipedia in violation of conflict of interest disclosures. But I have not accused any specific editor nor any specific group of editors. If you think that no editor in Wikipedia is in violation of conflict of interest guidance, I think you are mistaken. In fact, Im getting inspired out of this to indeed bring this conflict of interest topic (not this thread) to the Village Pump for community analysis.

In the Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#New claims involving the CIA, you are balking at my adding of a news article. I simply did that, add a reliable source because in that discussion the topic is the CIA, claims about it and I found it in the list of controversies of the CIA page. I simply decided to share it. You are conflating things and making invalid assumptions. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You introduce right-wing sources into discussions, then cast aspersions at those who disagree with you. Apparently little has changed since the days of your unconstructive contributions at the Donald Trump talk page many months back. Zaathras (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras you are throwing an accusation against me. Cite the relevant quote of concern or retract your statement. I have to say I pride myself of taking honest consideration of views that disagree with me. But of course if someone is accusing me of stuff in possible violation of the civility policy, then it is understandable that the tone of the discussion changes.

I remember you; in fact, I left a message a while back in your talk page, "Don't disrupt discussions with accusations. Follow relevant policies". Yet here you are again, throwing accusations that I want to know if have any basis at all or are false aspersions.

I think my contribution in the Donald Trump page was constructive because I simply was pointing out Manual of Style issues. You on the other hand is another situation to analyze. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep. A message I hatted as "meritless chest-thumping, and went on my merry way. Zaathras (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No, rather you implied the article is clearly being written by the CIA, an article written by editors. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

War of the worlds.

The reasons for my additions are as follows:

The final line of the opening Chapter of the book states:

"And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment."

We therefore know that the main catastrophic events of the book occur not long after 1900.

To pin down the exact year, I make reference to two further paragraphs in Chapter 1 of Book 1:

"During the opposition of 1894 a great light was seen on the illuminated part of the disk, first at the Lick Observatory, then by Perrotin of Nice, and then by other observers. English readers heard of it first in the issue of Nature dated August 2. I am inclined to think that this blaze may have been the casting of the huge gun, in the vast pit sunk into their planet, from which their shots were fired at us. Peculiar markings, as yet unexplained, were seen near the site of that outbreak during the next two oppositions."

"The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition, Lavelle of Java set the wires of the astronomical exchange palpitating with the amazing intelligence of a huge outbreak of incandescent gas upon the planet. It had occurred towards midnight of the twelfth; and the spectroscope, to which he had at once resorted, indicated a mass of flaming gas, chiefly hydrogen, moving with an enormous velocity towards this earth. This jet of fire had become invisible about a quarter past twelve. He compared it to a colossal puff of flame suddenly and violently squirted out of the planet, “as flaming gases rushed out of a gun.”

These paragraphs describe a great light being observed during the opposition of 1894. The narrator speculates that this is the casting of the great gun which will ultimately fire the cylinders.

The narrator then describes "peculiar markings" being observed around this site during the next two oppositions. Looking at astronomical charts – these 'next two' oppositions between Earth and Mars occurred in Dec 1896 and Jan 1899.

The book then goes on to say that "As Mars approached opposition a huge outbreak of incandescent gas upon the planet". Given no other intermediate oppositions are described, this 'approaching opposition' must be in reference to the next one following from three previously described, which again referencing astronomical charts, occurred in Feb 1901. Given the gas was observed as mars approached opposition – it means that the first cylinder was observed to be fired towards Earth in the weeks prior to Feb 1901 (probably around Dec 1900 or Jan 1901)

To to tie down the exact time of year the events occurred, in addition to the many descriptions of fine weather and thunderstorms (which in the UK tend to occur around June/July), there are two direct references to the month that the main events occurred:

Chapter XVII of Book 1 (The Thunder Child):

"If one could have hung that June morning in a balloon in the blazing blue above London......."

Chapter III of Book 2 (Imprisonment)

"in the pitiless sunlight of that terrible June......."

My additions are based completely on the information contained within the book, or in published astronomical charts and as such do not constitute 'Original Research' as defined by Wikipedia's terms:

"original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists" 81.145.236.58 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

See wp:synth all we can say is that wells set it sometime after it was published, not how long after. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

How long after can be pretty accurately inferred from his writings. Wells was a keen scientist, so his references to actual astronomical events is no accident. Moonhawk (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Well then I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding reliable secondary sources saying that. EEng 19:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not the definition of an "OR" though. As stated in Wikipedia's terms – original research is defined thus: "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists".

War of the worlds is a published source – as are the dates of Earth/Mars oppositions. Moonhawk (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No read wp:v and wp:synth, you are drawing inferences not explicitly stated for all we know wells meant the next date, or the one after that. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on your reply here - can I ask why you have reverted a change I made to this article to make the original 1901 date less specific? Moonhawk (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Becasue the novel does not say 1901, this is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes - and I agreed with that, which is why I changed it to the less specific "early 1900s" - an edit you have now reverted so that the article reads "1901" again. You also reverted a change where I added that Miss and Mrs Elphinstone are also named in the book in addition to Ogilvy - which they are. Why? You seem to be taking the view that any edits to this article must be automatically reverted - which goes against Wikipedia's guidance/rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Moonhawk (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the place to discuss this is the article talk page, not mine. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)×

This is odd, as the OP I reverted was responsible for the addition of the 1901 date [[1]], I did not revert it after their last revert to avoid edit warring. I reverted a mass edit as I had concerns about some of it, as some of it seemed OR. So instead I reverted back to the version others seem to have accepted but put a CN tag. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Also the place to make a case for your edits (assuming you are the IP) is the Article talk page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

WTF

You think a Talk page question referring to the US DoH as "virulent right-wing lunatics" is not trolling!?!? Seriously? Get a grip man! Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, no not really. They asked for an edit, it was not just pure trolling. Also if it was, it should have been removed when it was first posted, not over 24 hours after it was posted). Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I didn't expect people to get lured by the troll. You have been, and now it's become (yet another) disruptive thread on that Talk page. Re-opening it will just let the badness roll. Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

See below. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Now as I said, (maybe you need to calm down) close it by all means, as it is not going to get any traction. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war the close. You re-opened it, so the ball is in your court. Bon courage (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:3rr it would not be an edit war if you have an agreement, you have. I fail to see why you are now trying to make this a personal issue. I (by the way) try to avoid any close I am involved in, as I feel that it might be seen as biased. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

O it's not personal. An "involved" editor should not have undone my close. My concern was simply to dampen down the amount of useless crap on that talk page. I am just baffled why you re-opened that thread. But (shrug) if that's what you want I'm not going to fight. I'll just ignore the thread. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I have said why, I did not see it as obvious Trolling, as to why I felt OK to reopen it, because clearly it was not done out of biase, as I disagree with the suggested edit. That what I meant, I try to avoid any possibility of bias on my part, by never doing something that supports my position. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Slatersteven,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections

Is it true that June 16, 2015 is the start date of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? If not, what date should be written in the infobox? Parham wiki (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The one RS say, or we leave it out. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Soap?

So you remove the comments that actually point out that wikipedia is not a propaganda tool? Ilya-42 (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article not as a wp:soapbox top tell us Wikipedia is shit. You need to make constructive comments.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Harassment

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

And disagreement is not harassment. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving this here from my talk page: Read wp:bludgeon, and no disagreeing with you is not harresment. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2023

If you can explain to me where in the other thread you see anything about the three new table rows for civilian figures that I proposed before you told me to shut up, the grownups were talking, I will reconsider what I think about that. But wait, now it isn't that they are already being discussed, it is that you disagree. Fine then, please show me where you get to tell me to stop talking because you disagree.

The editor I've been discussing this table with is an admin and does not need your help to manage the talk page. If he refactors my post because it makes things easier for him, then that would be fine, because he will have read it first. You telling me to stop talking without doing so is not that.

It's a lengthy post that includes three table rows with three new authors and three new sources, summarized from ~40 hours of organizing the daughter page in a constructive discussion that has already reached reached agreement on more than one source. It doesnt need to deal with the page wrap that indenting it five levels would introduce stop, This is something you have done over and over and over and really you need to stop Elinruby (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

About a topic we are already diucsusing multiple times, but OK, I am busy now but we will see tommorw what admins think. Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

As I was launching the ANI I realized you had in fact not been responsible for all those separate threads on casualties, so I apologise. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

John Campbell takedown

Just so you know, I checked the audio on the source and the BBC reporter says the words "after the call, he took down the video", it's not presented as a claim made by Campbell. It does indeed look like this one YouTube video was taken down and replaced with what he introduces as a "modified" version, his hammy delivery (is he always like this?) suggesting that he wants "modified" to be interpreted by his audience as "censored". The original is still up on Facebook at time of writing. Belbury (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

So did he take it down? Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's how the BBC reporter describes it, and the video does appear to be gone. If it's possible that YouTube could have struck it down directly, we don't have a source suggesting that. Belbury (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

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 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

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) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Armenian genocide dates

Hi Slatersteven,

I am writing to you about the page of Persecution of Christians

As you can see in the description of Armenian genocide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide).

The Armenian genocide was the systematic destruction of the Armenian people and identity in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Since the Republic of Turkey founded years after WW1. It is bizzare to claim that the genocide that has happened in 1915 was caused by a Republic that is founded in 1923. This claim is not following any logic. Since the main article about this topic doesnt have any such bold claims. It doesnt make sense to have this claim on an short image descption. Metuboy (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Make the case at the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk)

Edit

Hey I don’t think what I posted wasn’t constructive. Perhaps you misread. Noticed you’re dyslexic so that makes sense. Have a nice day 92.20.135.52 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discusing changes, if you do not intend to discuss then your post violated wp:soap as it was just snipping at the article (and those who write it). Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

elon

i self reverted. just wanted to let you know if you did not see that already. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

White Privilege

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)

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

And despite that, whites commit less murder than blacks.

I notice you didn't address whites being more likely than non-whites to get shot by police. Seems like a good reason whites have to fear the police then. Getting shot and killed. When can I expect you to delete the false claim on your user page? 2601:18D:8D80:A560:61F7:1C05:1C95:ED8 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of percentages? Whites commit more murders per capita and are more likely to get away with murdering a black. Also, do you not understand that the FBI (run by a Trump Republican) has stated white supremacists are far more likely to engage in mass shootings (like the one yesterday in Texas) and that the blacks that are shot are very often unarmed, stopped for minor traffic violations by police?

O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

1) LOL what?? Blacks commit **many times** more murder per capita than whites, as well as more murders in terms of absolute numbers. Blacks commit over 60% of the total murder. And given they're only 13% of the population, it is also significantly times higher on a per capita basis.

2) Blacks commit more mass shootings than white supremacists. Most mass shootings are done by blacks. He can say whatever he wants, but we have actual numbers on this.

3) The number of unarmed blacks shot & killed by police in any given year is about 10-20. A study found that liberals estimate this number to be 1000 or more. Quit a gap between reality and the liberal perception of it. 2601:18D:8D80:A560:DD5E:2F83:D23A:71BB (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Apart from, not all of that being true, so? Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

One of the questions we’re asked most often is how we decide what’s allowed on Facebook. These decisions are among 117.20.113.243 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not facebook. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely is true. FBI stats for 2019 right here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls 85.156.118.19 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no mention of mass shootings, or political affiliation, also that is homicide, not gun-related deaths (so does not only include mass shootings), In addition, this does not say how many unarmed black people are killed by police. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

12 unarmed blacks were killed by police in 2022.

19 unarmed whites were killed by police in 2022 - over 50% more than blacks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ 2601:18C:8201:5110:7959:F3E1:B75B:66D4 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

And per capita. there are 5 times as many whites as blacks. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We've been through this already but I can see, as they say, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. But I'll repeat myself anyways.

Men and women are both about 50% of the population, but 44 unarmed men were shot by police in 2022, while only 4 women were. So despite men making up only 50% of the population, they accounted for 91.7% of unarmed people shot by police. Why? Because men commit more crime than women, are more violent than women, are more likely to resist arrest than women, and are more likely to attack police officers than women.

One would not expect to find an even 50%/50% breakdown of unarmed shootings of men and women by police. One would expect the group that is more violent and criminal to be shot by police.

Blacks commit more violent crime per capita than every other racial group. So just as men account for a greater share of the population shot by police while unarmed than they make up in the general population, so too do blacks (because they're more violent and criminal on average than are other groups).

And whites are more likely to be shot by police than blacks are per interaction. See black Harvard professor Roland Fryer's study. 2601:18C:8201:5110:7959:F3E1:B75B:66D4 (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Are they, there is some evidance that they are more lily to be pulled up for (for example) carying a gun. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is true.

1) Blacks committed 60.4% of the murder in 2021: https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022-10-06-at-4.31.17-PM.png

2) Blacks commit more mass shootings than other groups: https://mass-shootings.info/index.php

3) Study showing the incredibly distorted view liberals have regarding race and policing, including shootings of unarmed people: https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf 2601:18C:8201:5110:7959:F3E1:B75B:66D4 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you possibly link to any worse sites? Read Confirmation bias. Also read Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Fact is that a black person is vastly more likely to be stopped by police than a white person whether driving or walking down the street. So it may be true that whites are more likely to be shot as a percentage of interactions because they rarely have interactions unless they are actually doing something wrong, as opposed to having something dangling from their rearview mirror. There are many black doctors and dentists who have stopped driving expensive cars because they are constantly stopped and asked what are you doing in a Mercedes. In the news a couple days ago, a black man in jail for decades for a murder he did not commit was finally released from prison. He was shot dead by a cop in a minor traffic stop. Back when I had long hair, I was stopped about 100 times by police while walking to work in one year. Three times in one night. I was given a speeding ticket while washing my car. I was in a Poker game which included two cops. After they lost their uniform money, they went to a local bar, beat the Hell out of three Hispanics to blow of steam and then arrested them for resisting arrest. Charges were dropped. Police do not treat people equally. In statistics. look up "confounding or lurking variables" and "spurious correlation". Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"In the news a couple days ago, a black man in jail for decades for a murder he did not commit was finally released from prison. He was shot dead by a cop in a minor traffic stop."

Because he refused to comply after driving 100 miles per hour and attacked the cop, yelling "yeah bitch!" as he choked the officer. The fact that your brought that up thinking it helps your argument, when it in fact does the opposite (shows blacks resist arrest and can't comply) is a perfect example of how morally confused and incredibly idiotic liberals are on anything that touches race. 2601:18C:8201:5110:4C3:92B1:1BCB:DB74 (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is now approaching harassment; you've made your point. I suggest that you move along, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

When someone brings up a story of a black guy getting shot by a cop and tries to frame it as racism, while leaving out the part where he was driving 100 miles per hour, leaving out that he attacked the police officer and tried to kill him, leaving out that the police officer used multiple non-lethal methods first, including a taser, before shooting him (all while being attacked), then no, I'm not going to run along.

I'm going to point out that the person is lying and holds views that are wildly out of touch with reality. 2601:18C:8201:5110:4C3:92B1:1BCB:DB74 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a debate society. You've pointed it out. Now move along. Last warning. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I did, there are more white so they are going to have more interaction, and most mass shooters are white. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

People don't have interactions with police based on their racial group membership's share of the population. They have interactions based on their propensity to commit crime. This is why men have more interactions with police more than women even though men and women each make up roughly 50% of the population (because men commit more crime than women).

Blacks commit crime, and violent crime in particular, at insanely disproportionate rates. Waaaaay higher than do whites. They are going to have more interactions with police because of this, on a per capita basis (because they are committing way more crime per capita than whites).

And again, you didn't address my comment, that whites are more likely to be shot by police than non-whites on a per interaction basis. Not just because there are more whites. But per interaction.

And to circle back to your comment that started this whole discussion, namely that "That is white privileged, not having to fear the police." This is quite clearly totally empirically false and wrong. I await your retraction. 2601:18D:8D80:A560:DD5E:2F83:D23A:71BB (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Apart from, not all of that being true, so? Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What's untrue about the numbers? You've been deceived. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Well form a start if "They have interactions based on their propensity to commit crime." were true no innocent people would be arrested, shot or jailed, that is clearly not true. Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I really, really, REALLY shouldn't, but: us white folks are actually quite a small minority, if you take a global view. Peace and love to you all. Michael F 1967 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Lets make this clear, no one is going to convince me (based upon my experiences) that white privilege does not exist, so this is a waster of time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, who needs data when this guy has anecdotes. 2601:18C:8201:5110:4C3:92B1:1BCB:DB74 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Tell you what, spend a little time looking up reliable information on racism, taking the global view. It's a funny thing (funny peculiar) but it seems that most places you go, dark dark skin gets you viewed as lesser. It works in India and Japan just as much as in the average European country (to varying extents). Us white folks might get discriminated against because of our nationality (or expectation of appalling behaviour, depending on local history), but hardly ever because of the colour of our skin. White privilege might best be understood as "lack of black disadvantage". All damned silly, given that we're all descended from the original modern humans who evolved as dark skinned folk living in Africa, but there you go.

Peace and love to you all, especially those who disagree with me.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

mistake?

Hello Slatersteven about your edit you said the article was better before. Can you explain? I put a bit of info which in my opinion gave context and clarity to the parts of the article that needed it, but needless to say you do not agree. Skiperfor (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It gives to much emphasis to the views of one writer. Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Which writer are you referring to? The information which you removed was sourced to more than one writer. I do not know if their removal was a mistake, but perhaps the views of the other writers can be restored. Skiperfor (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep it vague, and not put any one writer first, however, the place to discuss this is the article talk page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I will talk about this further with you there. However, in the meantime, thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns here. Skiperfor (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Slatersteven:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357

I'm concerned after reading some things this afternoon. I saw this name come up because I was trying to reply to another conversation at [2] and I got an edit conflict with someone removing a comment directed at them, but it made me curious after I looked and saw that they removed some reliably sourced content in direct violation of two different talk page consensuses with an edit summary claiming that the consensuses supported the removal.

It looks like this person has been warned over and over again for wasting people's time, using the same arguments over and over on many pages. I haven't seen the WP:TIMESINK page mentioned but they've been warned about WP:BLUDGEONING a large number of times. They were blocked [3] for "Edit warring, bludgeoning on talkpages, disrespect for consensus, and an egregious waste of constructive editors' time and patience, which is Wikipedia's most precious resource" in the past which I think is what you mean by WP:TIMESINK. When they were allowed back they weren't supposed to be allowed to edit on politics.

I thought it was just a person who had a weird grudge against the USA but reading more and more it looks like this person is dead-set on attacking wikipedia and just wasting everyone's time. What's the best way to report my worries? USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Take it to wp:ani and report your concerns about wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that page requires a lot of work and formatting and has a bunch of rules, and new people aren't very welcome there. Plus there's something about Philomathes2357 and them responding there claiming that they are being targeted by trolls at the bottom. I don't think they're targeted by trolls, I think they're trolling and generating responses by the way they waste people's time. USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Then make this point there. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I replied. Can you read it and tell me if I missed anything or should make a change? USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:canvas, no I cannot tell you what you do not like. Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I just meant if I left something out in formatting or should rewrite anything in grammar. USNavelObservatory (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned your name so I think I am required to notify you. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.USNavelObservatory (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Mao Zedong

Your recent editing history at Mao Zedong shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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.

GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I sugest you read wp:3rr, as well as WP:ONUS wp:brd and wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

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 English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:BITE

I think you came in a little hot here for a brand-newbie who is asking questions about what is appropriate, not actually editing article space. Please remember not to WP:BITE and be careful with the acronyms for new editors. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

What telling them to read policies that directly address their question? But I suppose you mean I should have not used the acronyms, there is that or WP:CONFLICT, I am unsure that is any better. Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much. Relevant advice from WP:BITE: Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well.. WP:SPS is a section of WP:V which I had already linked, so pointed them at that was wholly unnecessary. Linking WP:COI is sort of anticipating a problem that hasn't been demonstrated. As a whole, there was nothing welcoming or encouraging about your reply and no, your links did not directly address their question. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:We are not a comedy club

Hello, Slatersteven. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:We are not a comedy club, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE

Hi!

I thought that your recent comments about not immediately covering current events with standalone articles were a bit thought-provoking. After all, paper encyclopedias like WEIRD COCK World Book are usually a bit behind current events, and reference encyclopedias in general traditionally focus on non-temporal things like science overviews and historical things like biographies.

But what exactly are you suggesting, practically speaking?

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In essence we only write about events months after they have happened. When we can deal with analysis and not just "SCOOP!" as every media source rushes to capture the sales for that day. It also plays into wp:n as we will then know if an event has lasting notability (for example), do people give a damn about it months later. Per wp:primary (but a very harsh reading of it), we also should not use any source written at the time of an event. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So how do you propose to deal with the new articles people are constantly creating? Some of them can be deleted as unambiguous NOTNEWS, but what of the others? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing until we have community consensus (believe me I have tried) to enforce our rules about not being a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians

Hello there, I saw you removed a section. Christians face persecution in the Gaza Strip as well as in the Palestinian Authority. Can you please explain the reasoning behind the removal? So I know how to improve the text? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It is down to you to make a case at the article talk page (per wp:brd) but I said why in my edit summary, I do not agree this constitutes persecution, thus is wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

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 looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

About Gran Colombia being included in the list of largest empires

I do not see why I can not include gran Colombia in the list of largest empires, it does not state in that section that the empire has to be the largest at that specific time, that date means the time the empire reached its peak, not when it was the largest in the world, in that case most of these would be reverted. Not only is gran colombia included in the list of empires, it is also included with the same size as in the spanish and english page that uses the same exact cite. That size is also larger than a lot of the empires on the list, so can you give me a reason as to why I can not? I am only trying to provide correct information and leave out countries from here. List of largest empires Popayan1210 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

MAke a case at the articles talk page, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If you dont mind, I am awaiting a response. Popayan1210 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:We are not a comedy club

Hello, Slatersteven. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "We are not a comedy club".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. 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) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump/Biden

Howdy. I think it might be best if 'you' were to close down (i.e collapse) the entire 'racists' discussion at Trump's talkpage. Put out the spark, before it becomes "He's a racists, no he's a racists" argument. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind. I went ahead & closed down the entire discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

My close was reverted. So, perhaps it's best you make the close. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I never close a thread I am involved in. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 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 three diverse works 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) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Vietnam

Hello Slatersteven I am writing to you as I am wondering why you deleted my edit about masculinity on United States in the Vietnam War page? Thanks

As I said, I thought we had already had a discussion on this issue. It seems to rely on one source to draw a conclusion (assuming it is not outright wp:or) about a very minor (and possibly) irrelevant claim. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Echo1Charlie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to [[:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes]] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Echo1Charlie. I noticed that you recently removed content from [[:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes]] without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I did, i refered you to polices. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Book of exodus edit

Hello, I saw that you undid my edit on the book of exodus page. I added Schmid’s opinion because his book is one of the newer, if not the newest serious book on the topic being from 2021 and that he is well respected within the academic biblical community. I would appreciate an explanation as to why the edit was undone. Mishael613 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please take it to the article's talk page, so others can chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I did. Please consider redoing your undoing of my edit. Mishael613 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI mention

I mentioned you at WP:ANI#Thatsyrianitalian, your input is welcome. Fram (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 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 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

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) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:InfoWars for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. skarz (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not, I stated I thought the suggested edit was too trival for words, in other words fails wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Crimean war

Please don't start a war. A quote from a reliable source (Figes) is provided. I think that simply deleting the text on your part is not the way to consensus. I suggest you explain your actions. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is down to you to make a case (read wp:brd, you have been reverted make a case, at the article talk page), I do not think a random quote is useful. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You can think as you like. But simply deleting a text is the beginning of a war of edits, not a search for consensus. After all, you can state your point of view, both in the text of the article and on the discussion page. But you don't do either. You make it seem that this is not your goal, but just an attempt at denial. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Policy is that it is down to those who want to add text to make the case, not down to those wishing to remove it. These are the rules, if you do not obey them you may well end up with a block. I am trying to get you to obey policy. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss edits here, or in edit summaries. As other people who watch the page may not watch my talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You have no formal grounds for your actions. On my part, there is a quote from a reliable source. And it fits good into the topic, since the issues of trade interests are discussed further. Of course, you can have your own opinion. But I'm trying to point out to you that your position is weak. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you know, As you have not made a cast at the article talk page, but I will make it here.

A "It is stated today:", what does that mean, what 14/02/2024, this year 1856?

B This is one author's opinion, not an obvious fact (thus it may well fail wp:undue.

C It is clearly edited, but does not make it clear

Is this clear enough? Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I admire your action in editing the fragment. I completely agree and I think a consensus has been found. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not, as I still think this is undue, but I can't edit war it out. This is why the discussion should be at the talk page, and it is down to you per wp:policy to make the case, which you have refused to do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with your version of the fragment. He really got better. 95.25.16.210 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)