User talk:Slatersteven/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

RIP Harambe

Yeah, seems you did not like me asking for RIP Harambe to be made into it's own article and for some reason disliked the fact I nominated the dumbest article ever written for deletion. Sorry if there is any problem or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Great Wiki Dude (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

NO I said I do not see what this has to do with the article you placed the comment in, nor have you explained it here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Also your deletion request is not correctly formatted, so will be closed. That is not a judgment on its validity, just about if you do not do things correctly they will not get done. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Elon made the song, therefore I asked on HIS page. And yeah, I saw my error, seeing it was the 3rd time someone asked for the deletion, not the 1st. Any chance you could help a guy?Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

UNsure it is notable enough for a page, not significant enough to be added to his article (and no I was not aware it was by him). Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Only in this century will the world's richest man release a less thank 2 minute song about a dead gorilla.

But yeah, it's his only song (now at least) and it might just be cool if the world's richest man could have his only single have a wikipedia article for all to see. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not deal in cool we deal in wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well here are some notable areas of fame if it may help.

Elon Musk - RIP Harambe (Lyrics) [Elon Musk Song] This is the vid with a million views

Meanwhile... Elon Musk's Bad Rap Debut Stephen Colwhatever his last name is.

Hear Elon Musk's Surprise Rap Song 'RIP Harambe' - Rolling ...https://www.rollingstone.com › music › music-news › e... A rolling stone article.

Harambe#Media Even a piece on Harambe's wiki page. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to really read wp:n and wp:rs (and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You asked for notability, and rolling stone is a reliable source.

And 1 million views is more than the population of Iceland. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note MUsk did not perform it, write it or produce it, he just uploaded it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

He didn't perform it?

Now my day is ruined. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As to RBF, that will have to wait until you current AFD is closed, as it will confuse things to try and launch it again, nor am I sure your reason is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, also with RBF, I wanted to get rid of the deletion thing when I realized my mistake, but can't seem to delete it. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And now for the Inception part of this, How do I delete a deletion page? Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest you wait for it to be closed, ot even ask for it top be closed, as an AFD will show up in other places as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hopefully when we meet again it'll be on the same team of an opinion or edit. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RIP Harambe

Yeah, seems you did not like me asking for RIP Harambe to be made into it's own article and for some reason disliked the fact I nominated the dumbest article ever written for deletion. Sorry if there is any problem or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Great Wiki Dude (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

NO I said I do not see what this has to do with the article you placed the comment in, nor have you explained it here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Also your deletion request is not correctly formatted, so will be closed. That is not a judgment on its validity, just about if you do not do things correctly they will not get done. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Elon made the song, therefore I asked on HIS page. And yeah, I saw my error, seeing it was the 3rd time someone asked for the deletion, not the 1st. Any chance you could help a guy?Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

UNsure it is notable enough for a page, not significant enough to be added to his article (and no I was not aware it was by him). Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Only in this century will the world's richest man release a less thank 2 minute song about a dead gorilla.

But yeah, it's his only song (now at least) and it might just be cool if the world's richest man could have his only single have a wikipedia article for all to see. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We do not deal in cool we deal in wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well here are some notable areas of fame if it may help.

Elon Musk - RIP Harambe (Lyrics) [Elon Musk Song] This is the vid with a million views

Meanwhile... Elon Musk's Bad Rap Debut Stephen Colwhatever his last name is.

Hear Elon Musk's Surprise Rap Song 'RIP Harambe' - Rolling ...https://www.rollingstone.com › music › music-news › e... A rolling stone article.

Harambe#Media Even a piece on Harambe's wiki page. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to really read wp:n and wp:rs (and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You asked for notability, and rolling stone is a reliable source.

And 1 million views is more than the population of Iceland. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note MUsk did not perform it, write it or produce it, he just uploaded it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

He didn't perform it?

Now my day is ruined. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As to RBF, that will have to wait until you current AFD is closed, as it will confuse things to try and launch it again, nor am I sure your reason is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, also with RBF, I wanted to get rid of the deletion thing when I realized my mistake, but can't seem to delete it. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And now for the Inception part of this, How do I delete a deletion page? Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest you wait for it to be closed, ot even ask for it top be closed, as an AFD will show up in other places as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hopefully when we meet again it'll be on the same team of an opinion or edit. Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to read this

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488 https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion-biotech-revealing-secrets-behind-its-new-drugs-and-vaccines https://www.ft.com/content/ab138504-8c2e-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d https://www.businessinsider.com/moncef-slaoui-leading-trump-vaccine-push-10m-holding-moderna-conflict-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03535-x https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent-dispute-headed-court-us-nih-head-says-2021-11-10/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/moderna-patent-nih.html https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003566_EN.html https://www.politico.eu/article/moderna-vaccine-profits-tax-havens/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/177354/vaccine-manufacturer-moderna-accused-of-tax-evasion

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to read this

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3488 https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion-biotech-revealing-secrets-behind-its-new-drugs-and-vaccines https://www.ft.com/content/ab138504-8c2e-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d https://www.businessinsider.com/moncef-slaoui-leading-trump-vaccine-push-10m-holding-moderna-conflict-2020-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03535-x https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent-dispute-headed-court-us-nih-head-says-2021-11-10/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/moderna-patent-nih.html https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2021-003566_EN.html https://www.politico.eu/article/moderna-vaccine-profits-tax-havens/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/177354/vaccine-manufacturer-moderna-accused-of-tax-evasion

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually don’t doubt you have heard about discretionary sanctions, but was under the impression when I left this one earlier that I had to give one to everyone involved, like you have to notify everyone at NPOV. I have also realized that you have an extensive talk history and I didn’t (and don’t want to) comb it to see if you already have have one for Eastern Europe. If you do then please feel free to remove it. In fact, feel free to remove it even if you haven’t. All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC, relying on the requestor’s representation of it, and this is not the hill I want to die on. We can discuss the RfD further if you like — I think if anything you should have voted merge and will be happy to explain why if you like — but my main point here is that you got the above notice because I was at the time under the impression that everyone had to get one, so sorry about that Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No you only have to if you do not think they are aware of DS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov article warning

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That is why I stopped reverting you. And tit for tats never go down well. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

McGarry, Ontario

Thank you for your edits and pointers. Sorry for being so abrasive and defensive. 66.103.52.68 (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Ghasera

Slatersteven When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this article. I reverted changes of the previous user due to copyright issue and further usage of poor grammar. Regardless, the overall article has been poorly written and went unnoticed, disrupted by various IPs. Can you take a look at the article and do you agree this article needs to be rewritten? MehmoodS (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually don’t doubt you have heard about discretionary sanctions, but was under the impression when I left this one earlier that I had to give one to everyone involved, like you have to notify everyone at NPOV. I have also realized that you have an extensive talk history and I didn’t (and don’t want to) comb it to see if you already have have one for Eastern Europe. If you do then please feel free to remove it. In fact, feel free to remove it even if you haven’t. All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC, relying on the requestor’s representation of it, and this is not the hill I want to die on. We can discuss the RfD further if you like — I think if anything you should have voted merge and will be happy to explain why if you like — but my main point here is that you got the above notice because I was at the time under the impression that everyone had to get one, so sorry about that Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No you only have to if you do not think they are aware of DS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov article warning

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That is why I stopped reverting you. And tit for tats never go down well. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

McGarry, Ontario

Thank you for your edits and pointers. Sorry for being so abrasive and defensive. 66.103.52.68 (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Battle of Ghasera

There are many issues with this page, I believe you are also concerned with it, firstly the source provided i.e. History of Mewat seems not reliable enough, on the same page it calls Malhar rao a sindhia while he was holkar, I mean anyone writing about 18th century can't mistake Malhar rao Holkar as Sindhia. Secondly regarding infobox, your removal is correct but only keeping 5,000 is not correct as it shows the reader that there were only 5,000 men under Surajmal while these are the men on only one front, numbers on the other front are not given only name of the commanders given, either strength section should have no mention of numbers or have full info. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Itg might be best to take the source to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That I am planning to do alongwith one other book cited there Followers of Krishna. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Is there a way to verify a citation in different language if Sajaypal007 can be able to retrieve the book that he considers reliable source? Seems like the book he is mentioning is in his native language so I guess he might have to run it through WP:RSN or alternate noticeboard?MehmoodS (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi is common language of north india, most people of north india can read and write it. Also we can discuss it on WP:RSN, nevertheless I can assure its a reliable source. I have the book and the siege is described in 2-3 pages. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually you can't assure us its an RS, as Wikipedia has not spoken on the subject. You can assert it (and you may well be right). As to the issue of language, no Wikipedia does not have a rule forbidding the use of non-English language sources. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Ghasera

Slatersteven When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this article. I reverted changes of the previous user due to copyright issue and further usage of poor grammar. Regardless, the overall article has been poorly written and went unnoticed, disrupted by various IPs. Can you take a look at the article and do you agree this article needs to be rewritten? MehmoodS (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Battle of Ghasera

There are many issues with this page, I believe you are also concerned with it, firstly the source provided i.e. History of Mewat seems not reliable enough, on the same page it calls Malhar rao a sindhia while he was holkar, I mean anyone writing about 18th century can't mistake Malhar rao Holkar as Sindhia. Secondly regarding infobox, your removal is correct but only keeping 5,000 is not correct as it shows the reader that there were only 5,000 men under Surajmal while these are the men on only one front, numbers on the other front are not given only name of the commanders given, either strength section should have no mention of numbers or have full info. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Itg might be best to take the source to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That I am planning to do alongwith one other book cited there Followers of Krishna. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Is there a way to verify a citation in different language if Sajaypal007 can be able to retrieve the book that he considers reliable source? Seems like the book he is mentioning is in his native language so I guess he might have to run it through WP:RSN or alternate noticeboard?MehmoodS (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hindi is common language of north india, most people of north india can read and write it. Also we can discuss it on WP:RSN, nevertheless I can assure its a reliable source. I have the book and the siege is described in 2-3 pages. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually you can't assure us its an RS, as Wikipedia has not spoken on the subject. You can assert it (and you may well be right). As to the issue of language, no Wikipedia does not have a rule forbidding the use of non-English language sources. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

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 Hitler as a military leader

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) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

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 Hitler as a military leader

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) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT MISREPRSENT TALK PAGE DISCUSSIONS

I made no threats to anyone on the John Campbell Talk page. I expect you to stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time you have breached Wikipedia etiquette with false accusations.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

[[1]] "So you want me to escalate your misbehavior to other parts of Wikipedia? Be careful what you ask for". That reads to me like a deliberate threat posted on the article talk page. That is not the place for such warnings, that is the user's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Per of Wikipedia etiquette Principles of etiquette, here are a few points I suggest you think about with regard to what you're doing:

• Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
• Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
• Be polite.
• Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean.
• Civilly work towards agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.
• Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.

I cannot help but notice that you haven't tried to caution MrOllie, whose comments had nothing about the article but were directed solely at me. So that last point is very much something you should think about. Nor have you said, through all the months documented in the Talk page Archives for that article, 1 word of rebuke for Alexbrn, who badgered many other people with rudeness.

You guys don't own that article. And the way Alexbrn, Roxy the Dog, and Mr Ollie have slammed people who raise objections, cite Wikipolicy without using it to explain what they are referring to, and insist that no changes can be made to the article are all comments meriting rebuke - if you're going to make yourself the hall monitor for that page. Until you decide to be more even-handed, your criticims are unwelcome and I will consider any further comment from you as harassment.

Let's agree to wait for the AFD to be resolved, okay? If the article is left in place, I will recommend some edits that I think at least tone down the hostile and heavy-handed bias in the text. I'll appreciate your thoughtful consideration of those suggestions.Michael Martinez (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also note you continue to violate wp:talk as you keep on posting about user's actions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

And please do not shout, I can read. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

They have not posted on my talk page, or commented on me. Also, you will see I asked everyone to stop on the article talk page. But they made no threats to report anyone, you appeared to. They (for me) is what stepped overt the line. In addition, you keep on posting this kind of "advice" yet are not followging it yourself in any way, another reason why I asked you to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You posted on MY Talk page first, twice, both times making false allegations. And you repeated one of your false allegations on the article Talk page. Do you understand how serious THAT behavior is? I asked the others to stop engaging in their belligerant behavior on the article Talk page. That is ALL I did. And I cite relevant portions of Wikipolicy explaining what they were doing wrong. Again, you said NOTHING when they took the discussion off the rails. Your criticisms are misplaced, inappropriate, and unwelcome. I will not reply here again as it's your Talk page. You are welcome to leave comments on my Talk page about anything other than Wikipolicy and my behavior - until such time as you demonstrate that you are actually reading and understanding the policies you're referring to.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you or did you not imply you would report the user? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not. They keep challenging me to escalate disagreements about that article to Arbcom and other parts of Wikipedia. And all my comment does is mirror his intention, which he immediately confirmed with this reply: "Yes, I very much want this." To which I replied: "Well, at least we know what you want. Good luck with that. It's not the Wikipedia way, of course."

How is it that you missed those two comments, when that branch of the discussion ended there?

Please let this end here. There is no need for any further discussion.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

AFD

• Special:Diff/1080783286

For best results, please leave monitoring the discussion to me. I've got my administrator hat firmly on, and I've expressed zero opinion in the discussion, not even doing the sorts of things I normally do like challenging poor rationales to make them better. You're the nominator; you're actually involved. I don't want people levelling accusations at you for partisan refactoring. Let me be the person accountable for any refactoring of the AFD discussion.

I'm popping my head in from time to time, and I already posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard for other administrators to keep their eyes peeled, too, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion. I hope that we can get through this with nothing more serious than two warning boxes and me refactoring some things; we're doing well so far.

For the record, I'm going to leave that edit reverted; with no prejudice, however, to someone who comes along to argue counter to ජපස in a proper fashion. Discussing whether the subject has or has not requested deletion, and the application of our deletion and BLP policies thereto, is very much within scope.

Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

CEASE YOUR HARASSMENT IMMEDIATELY

Read this policy on Wikipedia harassment and stop harassing me. You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page.Michael Martinez (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am warning you that you are breaching policy and in a DS area. By the way, I can still leave warnings when you breach policy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You are the only one breaching policy by making multiple false accusations.

I have asked you to stop.

I have advised you I will regard continued false accusations and unnecessary argument as harassment.

I have asked you NOT to post on my Talk page unless you read and understand the policies you keep misusing.

I have asked you to just let this whole matter drop.

You have refused all of these requests.

I will point to these diffs if you push this up into some sort of easily avoided dispute resolution process.

PLEASE STOP. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I did let it drop, this is a new issue, and I did not only accuse you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You didn't let it drop. You added another false accusation to the list. And I would LOVE to stop leaving comments here but you keep violating yet another Wikipedia policy by taking this argument to multiple pages. So, either you stop harassing me or we discuss it here. You've made no attempt to discuss anything on my Talk page. There is no need for you to post there again, especially you want to make more false accusations. Just tag me here and I'll add the diff to my list for future reference if you insist on keeping this up. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, another, it was not the same thing "let it drop" does not mean "stop communicating about me", it means drop what you are currently doing, I did (as I did not reply to you last thread here). Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I also find it a bit hypocritical to tell me to stay off your talk page, but to come here with and warn me in really quite an offensive way. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will also ask you again not to shout, any more shouting and I will just delete the thread without a response. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Michael, it has been a long time. We know each other from past SEO industry events and media. Steven (the owner of this page) is generally a good guy and I recommend not arguing with him further. If you two have a disagreement, perhaps I could help? Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT MISREPRSENT TALK PAGE DISCUSSIONS

I made no threats to anyone on the John Campbell Talk page. I expect you to stop putting words into my mouth. This is the second time you have breached Wikipedia etiquette with false accusations.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

[[2]] "So you want me to escalate your misbehavior to other parts of Wikipedia? Be careful what you ask for". That reads to me like a deliberate threat posted on the article talk page. That is not the place for such warnings, that is the user's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Per of Wikipedia etiquette Principles of etiquette, here are a few points I suggest you think about with regard to what you're doing:

• Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
• Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
• Be polite.
• Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean.
• Civilly work towards agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so.
• Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.

I cannot help but notice that you haven't tried to caution MrOllie, whose comments had nothing about the article but were directed solely at me. So that last point is very much something you should think about. Nor have you said, through all the months documented in the Talk page Archives for that article, 1 word of rebuke for Alexbrn, who badgered many other people with rudeness.

You guys don't own that article. And the way Alexbrn, Roxy the Dog, and Mr Ollie have slammed people who raise objections, cite Wikipolicy without using it to explain what they are referring to, and insist that no changes can be made to the article are all comments meriting rebuke - if you're going to make yourself the hall monitor for that page. Until you decide to be more even-handed, your criticims are unwelcome and I will consider any further comment from you as harassment.

Let's agree to wait for the AFD to be resolved, okay? If the article is left in place, I will recommend some edits that I think at least tone down the hostile and heavy-handed bias in the text. I'll appreciate your thoughtful consideration of those suggestions.Michael Martinez (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also note you continue to violate wp:talk as you keep on posting about user's actions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

And please do not shout, I can read. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

They have not posted on my talk page, or commented on me. Also, you will see I asked everyone to stop on the article talk page. But they made no threats to report anyone, you appeared to. They (for me) is what stepped overt the line. In addition, you keep on posting this kind of "advice" yet are not followging it yourself in any way, another reason why I asked you to stop. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You posted on MY Talk page first, twice, both times making false allegations. And you repeated one of your false allegations on the article Talk page. Do you understand how serious THAT behavior is? I asked the others to stop engaging in their belligerant behavior on the article Talk page. That is ALL I did. And I cite relevant portions of Wikipolicy explaining what they were doing wrong. Again, you said NOTHING when they took the discussion off the rails. Your criticisms are misplaced, inappropriate, and unwelcome. I will not reply here again as it's your Talk page. You are welcome to leave comments on my Talk page about anything other than Wikipolicy and my behavior - until such time as you demonstrate that you are actually reading and understanding the policies you're referring to.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you or did you not imply you would report the user? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not. They keep challenging me to escalate disagreements about that article to Arbcom and other parts of Wikipedia. And all my comment does is mirror his intention, which he immediately confirmed with this reply: "Yes, I very much want this." To which I replied: "Well, at least we know what you want. Good luck with that. It's not the Wikipedia way, of course."

How is it that you missed those two comments, when that branch of the discussion ended there?

Please let this end here. There is no need for any further discussion.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

AFD

• Special:Diff/1080783286

For best results, please leave monitoring the discussion to me. I've got my administrator hat firmly on, and I've expressed zero opinion in the discussion, not even doing the sorts of things I normally do like challenging poor rationales to make them better. You're the nominator; you're actually involved. I don't want people levelling accusations at you for partisan refactoring. Let me be the person accountable for any refactoring of the AFD discussion.

I'm popping my head in from time to time, and I already posted a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard for other administrators to keep their eyes peeled, too, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#COVID-19 sanctions warning in an AFD discussion. I hope that we can get through this with nothing more serious than two warning boxes and me refactoring some things; we're doing well so far.

For the record, I'm going to leave that edit reverted; with no prejudice, however, to someone who comes along to argue counter to ජපස in a proper fashion. Discussing whether the subject has or has not requested deletion, and the application of our deletion and BLP policies thereto, is very much within scope.

Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

CEASE YOUR HARASSMENT IMMEDIATELY

Read this policy on Wikipedia harassment and stop harassing me. You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page.Michael Martinez (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am warning you that you are breaching policy and in a DS area. By the way, I can still leave warnings when you breach policy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You are the only one breaching policy by making multiple false accusations.

I have asked you to stop.

I have advised you I will regard continued false accusations and unnecessary argument as harassment.

I have asked you NOT to post on my Talk page unless you read and understand the policies you keep misusing.

I have asked you to just let this whole matter drop.

You have refused all of these requests.

I will point to these diffs if you push this up into some sort of easily avoided dispute resolution process.

PLEASE STOP. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I did let it drop, this is a new issue, and I did not only accuse you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You didn't let it drop. You added another false accusation to the list. And I would LOVE to stop leaving comments here but you keep violating yet another Wikipedia policy by taking this argument to multiple pages. So, either you stop harassing me or we discuss it here. You've made no attempt to discuss anything on my Talk page. There is no need for you to post there again, especially you want to make more false accusations. Just tag me here and I'll add the diff to my list for future reference if you insist on keeping this up. Michael Martinez (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, another, it was not the same thing "let it drop" does not mean "stop communicating about me", it means drop what you are currently doing, I did (as I did not reply to you last thread here). Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I also find it a bit hypocritical to tell me to stay off your talk page, but to come here with and warn me in really quite an offensive way. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will also ask you again not to shout, any more shouting and I will just delete the thread without a response. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Michael, it has been a long time. We know each other from past SEO industry events and media. Steven (the owner of this page) is generally a good guy and I recommend not arguing with him further. If you two have a disagreement, perhaps I could help? Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Civility

I appreciate your attempts to keep the peace. It's good work. MarshallKe (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed a comment of yours

Hi Slatersteven, you responded to that brand-new account that commented at Talk:Ivermectin just for an ad hominem argument against Alexbrn. I removed that comment, and your since it was solely a reply to the other. I hope that's ok, and feel free to revert if it's not. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As it was indented as a general comment (rather than a specific reply to a user) it should not really have been removed as there is a tad too much soapboxing going on there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Restored, with my apologies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, it I was that worried I would have restored it myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Slatersteven an employee of the Wikipedia organization.? Odonanmarg 25 May, 2022. Odonanmarg (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please not ask new questions in a year old thread? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankit solanki982 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know, I started it, despite your best efforts to deflect it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Low quality and out-dated sources on Azov "Battalion" article

Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?

Can you explain why you have ignored the leading academics on this field (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, and others) as well as AFP, BBC, DW, CNN, WashPo,, Financial Times, USA Today, et al?

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Looki at one source (DW), it does not say they are not Neo-nazi. There are (Jin fact) 4 uses of the term "Such associations would be described as "free comradeships," or organized neo-Nazi groups, in Germany, Andreas Umland from the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies, told DW" "Umland said Azov had drawn early attention by using the the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol as its emblem. "The Wolfsangel has far-right connotations, it is a pagan symbol that the SS also used," said Umland. "But it is not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine."" "The Azov Regiment wants the symbol from the Nazi era to be understood as stylized versions of the letters N and I, standing for "national idea."" and "Ukraine: Anti-Putin protests with Nazi symbols". So I am unsure this is enough to say they are not Neo-nazi, and certainly not enough to overturn other RS saying they are. Also when I launch the RFC I will base it on the options users have chosen, not what I have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You're literally quoting my source, which quotes Umland. I never said "they are not neo-Nazi". All I ask is that the article reflect the RS. As it is, there is not a single RS in the spattering of magazines and tabloids that follow the words "..is a neo-Nazi".

So why are you actively trying to keep these RS out? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it quotes someone saying it, it does not say it themselves. Thus it could be used for "which Umland says is untrue". This is being discussed at the talk page. I am not saying they can't be used, I am saying they can only be used for what they actually say. And one bloke saying something does not overturn mutiple RS. As I said this is being discussed at the talk page, there is no point in making the same arguments here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Majestic greetings. It's a shame the attack on Wikipedia in English these days. I imagine the community is aware of it. There are a lot of sockpuppetry who wear false flag, to duller the information. This includes sockpuppetry, who "backing" removing the term "neonazi", based on faulty arguments, which do not lead to any good port. Just lengthening the discussion. Leaving on wikipedia, outdated information, and to a good prospect of the population, misinformed.--Berposen (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but we must also be warry of socks from the other side as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy. --Silverije 22:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

New users at Azov

Hi, Slatersteven, as Azov Batallion is one of the more contentious articles within an already contentious topic area of the encyclopedia under AC/DS, the temperature there is elevated and new participants are sometimes viewed with suspicion, when they should be welcomed. Sometimes a welcome might turn out to be misplaced, but we don't know that at the outset. Disconnected Phrases is a brand new user, and other than some unfamiliarity with how we title sections and with some other of our principles, all normal for a new user, Disconnected Phrases still deserves the benefit of AGF. Whether I happen to agree with the appropriateness of the open letter by parliamentarians they raised there is beside the point; even if their presentation of the issue has some rough edges, their raising it seems clearly to be an attempt to improve the article, and comments about SOAP and NOTFORUM were out of line. I respect your comments site-wide enormously, and I suspect you may be frustrated by bad actors in the E. Europe topic generally, and at that article in particular which strains our ability to AGF, but let's try anyway, and especially, please welcome the newbies. Thanks for all you do to improve the project. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC for Azov: any timeframe envisioned for the inauguration of this long-awaited and most auspicious of occasions?

Firstly, let me express my utmost gratitude to you for having the gumption to undertake this duty. I haven't been editing on Wikipedia long, or at least not very much, but the Talk Page of that article, the jig-saw maze-like accumulation of sources - many appearing to outright contradict each other (very rarely IMO, if one simply applies WP:RS, especially the peer-review and time-sensitive aspects of our policy) - the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:OWNERSHIP sensibilities, must be an absolute nightmare for you to sift through.

Secondly, how close are you? Is there anything I can do to help?

Regards,

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @EnlightenmentNow1792:, Encountering a maze of contradictory sources is not unusual in political or other contentious topics. I'd recommend you read up a bit on WP:DUE WEIGHT. Most new users get on board fairly quickly with WP:Reliable sources, and then wit the related issues of WP:SECONDARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT sources. The core topic of WP:Neutral point of view may arise as well, and that's a fairly easy one to understand. But WP:DUE, which is a subtopic of NPOV, is a little harder to get a grasp on for some reason. (I've seen ten-year veterans who never quite get it.) In any case, try pondering WP:DUE for a while, and see if that gives you some insight into how Wikipedia handles multiple conflicting sources. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice @Mathglot, but don't worry about me, I do this kinda for a living, and have been for almost two decades now - I was just trying to impart upon Slatersteven how impressed I am at his bravery in taking the task upon himself. (On these particular sources and on topics focused on this particular part of the world, I'm something of an old hat, I speak and read Russian, having only very recently returned from a 5-year-long residency in Moscow. :-) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A Glass of Kvass for you!

	An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class
	In thanks for - and to help you keep cool during - your continued patient efforts towards the ultimate goal of improving article quality in the too-often-over-heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow mate, I am amazed, well done!

You're a true Hero of Wikipedia. Very selfless and brave of you. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe you should have let me do it my way, as I may have known what I was trying to achieve? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Never seen anything like it. Amazing stuff. Now let's go get this article to GA status, hey?! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I invite you to participate in good faith at the Dispute Resolution this time. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ethnicities_in_Iran_discussion —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Make sure western ukraine thread stays; THAT IS NOT A FORUM THREAD, DUH!!!

since you blocked it, i want you to put this link there and it will shut you all up, you will post:

nato to western ukraine is what's on negotiating table, proposed by military analyst ljupce lubek but nato is afraid to do much and they are playing putin;s game: www.google.com/search?q=nato+into+western+ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.53.15 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

what kind of wikidiot are you, you dont give people chance to reply, you simply block the page, restore the link as explained, you are killed thread which improves article, DUH!

We have policies (such as wp:npa which you really need to read). Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

you have wikidiot policies time wasters like you created to have excuses after excuses, restore the thread as explained above and clearly you are wrong!

And you will get a block. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Note (as well) I have tried to ask the question people have claimed was being asked, but worded correctly so as to be clear as to what it is asking wp:coi. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

dude, bring it on, no wonder wikipedia is never taken seriously as succinctly proven archive.is/Y0BB nothing but mistakes and drama!, you will have to keep ukrainina 2022 war blocked forever as i will repost that and i had people agree with me but no consesus was reached, yet the thread is valid, so you are at fault here, blocking me is like a breeze to me...

I have reported you, and the attempts to hack my account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

dude, you need medical help, final warning to restore the thread!

Please read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, you won't gain anything from attacking others, except for a block of course. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Which they now have. as do all the proxies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Couldn't find the NOTFORUM barnstar!  :) But, if you can keep your head, etc. All the best! SN54129 14:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs, you are the king...its good to be the king. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't find that elusive NOTFORUM barnstar either but I found a puppy

ARoseWolf has given you a puppy!

As the king of keeping your head you get this puppy I just found wondering around Commons. Malamutes are a wonderful breed. Enjoy! --ARoseWolf 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

ARoseWolf 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Remember a puppy is not just for Christmas, you can use the left overs on boxing day. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Hello Slatersteven, noticing your revert, I was wondering why. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I could not see why this needed to be added. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at reference 71 --> External link in |title= (help) = Category:CS1 errors: external links You can help too if you want to clean up Lotje (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And, this does not explain why you need to add the text of a tweet verbatim, as this is just about his membership of a cuscuses. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you suggest to have the Category:CS1 errors: external links removed?? Lotje (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Add the title "syria tweett"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

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 military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

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) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this now before you get a boomerang for not dropping it. I did warn you to read policy before you launched it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope as well you make no more bad-faith accusations of hounding.Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think I would get a boomerang? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you read what has been said about the is no case for me to answer and you need to stop it? Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are very lucky it was closed before you dug a deeper hole.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Greetings,

Came across your recent edits. If you are further interested in topic may be you would like to join a discussion @ Talk:Superstition#Definition in lead besides I am also looking for article expansion help @ Draft:Irrational beliefs if you find topic interested in.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That really was not a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

cope more angloid 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:ADBE:2DD:73B6:75C0 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	"I would argue if both sides are unhappy that means we have what we should have, balance." Very nicely said. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}

Civility

I appreciate your attempts to keep the peace. It's good work. MarshallKe (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ankit solanki982 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know, I started it, despite your best efforts to deflect it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Low quality and out-dated sources on Azov "Battalion" article

Why do you continue to insist on using outdated, low-quality sources in order to label the contemporary Azov Regiment as a "neo-Nazi" unit, when I have provided you with many more, higher quality peer-reviewed academic pieces and more recent reports/features from highly reliable news outlets, that explicitly refute such a characterization?

Can you explain why you have ignored the leading academics on this field (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, and others) as well as AFP, BBC, DW, CNN, WashPo,, Financial Times, USA Today, et al?

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Looki at one source (DW), it does not say they are not Neo-nazi. There are (Jin fact) 4 uses of the term "Such associations would be described as "free comradeships," or organized neo-Nazi groups, in Germany, Andreas Umland from the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies, told DW" "Umland said Azov had drawn early attention by using the the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol as its emblem. "The Wolfsangel has far-right connotations, it is a pagan symbol that the SS also used," said Umland. "But it is not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine."" "The Azov Regiment wants the symbol from the Nazi era to be understood as stylized versions of the letters N and I, standing for "national idea."" and "Ukraine: Anti-Putin protests with Nazi symbols". So I am unsure this is enough to say they are not Neo-nazi, and certainly not enough to overturn other RS saying they are. Also when I launch the RFC I will base it on the options users have chosen, not what I have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You're literally quoting my source, which quotes Umland. I never said "they are not neo-Nazi". All I ask is that the article reflect the RS. As it is, there is not a single RS in the spattering of magazines and tabloids that follow the words "..is a neo-Nazi".

So why are you actively trying to keep these RS out? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it quotes someone saying it, it does not say it themselves. Thus it could be used for "which Umland says is untrue". This is being discussed at the talk page. I am not saying they can't be used, I am saying they can only be used for what they actually say. And one bloke saying something does not overturn mutiple RS. As I said this is being discussed at the talk page, there is no point in making the same arguments here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Majestic greetings. It's a shame the attack on Wikipedia in English these days. I imagine the community is aware of it. There are a lot of sockpuppetry who wear false flag, to duller the information. This includes sockpuppetry, who "backing" removing the term "neonazi", based on faulty arguments, which do not lead to any good port. Just lengthening the discussion. Leaving on wikipedia, outdated information, and to a good prospect of the population, misinformed.--Berposen (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but we must also be warry of socks from the other side as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)