User talk:Slatersteven

The Bugle: Issue 224, December 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franco-Prussian War Op-ed: Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

MiG-21

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

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

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

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

Francis Dore

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

Genital modification and mutilation

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

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

Stop Edit Warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

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

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

Copy edit

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

Typo

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

My bro, READ the British gov pages before you revert

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

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

Talk: Donald Trump lead sentence discussion

Hi Slatersteven,

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

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

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

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

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

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

hello

hello 71.223.94.48 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

hi. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Categories

The reason why is in my edit summary. Per WP:SUBCAT, Each categorized page should be placed in the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 226, February 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

good evening

how are you? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks 71.223.155.247 (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia free? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

There is not cost to use it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:TAGTEAM and WP:BITE

Hi Slatersteven, I’ve noticed that you have posted several brief comments on my talk page, referencing policies such as WP:USERNAME and WP:SPA without providing clear explanations. If you have specific concerns about my edits, I would appreciate it if you could articulate them in a constructive, policy-based manner rather than leaving one-line remarks that do not contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Additionally, I am concerned that while you appear to have endorsed Valjean’s threats of administrative action against me, you have not acknowledged their repeated personal attacks and WP:AGF violations towards me. I would like to understand your reasoning for this apparent selective application of policy. I would also encourage you to review WP:TAGTEAM, which discourages coordinated enforcement of an editorial stance, as well as WP:BITE, which reminds experienced editors to be welcoming rather than overly aggressive towards those engaging in discussions in good faith.

Moving forward, I ask that if you wish to engage with me on Wikipedia, you do so in a constructive, policy-driven way rather than with vague references or implicit endorsements of others’ actions. Otherwise, I kindly request that you refrain from further unnecessary messages on my talk page. Thank you. Iispepsiokay (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I note you changed your user name, so in fact it was a useful warning to you that it might cause issues. As for SPA, it is clear what it means, you have only edited in one topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now read WP:SPA. It will be useful for you to read WP:TAGTEAM and WP:BITE Iispepsiokay (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So then you agree that you were in fact only editing in one (contentious) topic area? Also I am aware of them and would point out that I have not even commented in the thread where you are in dispute with Valjean (so hardly tag teaming). You might also therefore need to read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So you don’t apply WP:BITE to yourself? Good to have that clarified.

You endorsed an admin threat against me while ignoring repeated personal attacks and AGF violations from Valjean. That’s selective enforcement, not policy.

WP:SPA isn’t a policy violation. If you have an actual issue with my edits, say what it is. Otherwise, dropping vague policy references means nothing. WP:TAGTEAM doesn’t require direct coordination—consistent editorial alignment is enough.

If you want to engage, do it properly. If not, I’d appreciate you not wasting time with one-line policy drops. Also, listing the number of editors who’ve asked you to stop posting on their pages isn’t the best look. Iispepsiokay (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Nothing it that says that you can't be warned if you are (or are about to break) a policy. As to my user page, it is for my benefit to remind me. I also suggest you read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

And I note as well you have still not edited except about the one topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add that (in effect) daring an admin to give you a perma block, and asking they delete all your content, is not the threat you think it is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Please consider using standard user warning templates

@Slatersteven: Please use standardized warnings such as those at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. It helps administrators such as myself to evaluate how many & what level of warnings a user has received.

I use Wikipedia:RedWarn & Wikipedia:Twinkle to semi-automate user warnings, although others seem to prefer Wikipedia:Huggle. Peaceray (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

DRASTIC

If you wish to delete the article on a notable subject with sufficient sourcing, you need nominate it for deletion as per WP:AFD, after reading WP:BEFORE. Since I do not believe the article should have been redirected, I removed the redirect, and referenced the policy in my edit [2]. Your revert of my page restore asking me to nominate it for deletion [3] is both puzzling and contrary to policy. Please undo your revert. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant, but as I recall there was a discussion about this, and the result was redirect. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such discussion. The policy for deleting pages on notable subjects is quite clear. I even added a new source from Le Monde, the most popular daily newspaper in France, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the subject. Please undo your revert and file an AFD with your argument on why the subject is not notable. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will afd it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how you misunderstood me now twice. You did not AFD it as I requested, instead filing it as a redirect for deletion, failing to link to the discussion where the MERGE decision was made. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

That is because it is a redirect you altred. It is not in fact an article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No, an article on a notable subject with reliable sourcing was redirected to another article in what looks like an attempt to sidestep the community deletion process, and you have yet to provide a link to that consensus discussion. Please delete the REDIRECT discussion and post a proper AFD as I kindly requested. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You altred a redirect, by just adding content, it remained a redirect, so when I went to AFD it, it treated it as a redirect. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 227, March 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture Timeline: This month in military history

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) 11:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Kindly strike out or remove the false accusations of edit warring you made at my talk page SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I see (what look to be) edits by you on the 13th at least 3 times, undoing other user's edits and at least 3 on the 14th (including a straight-up revert). Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Please indicate which edits these were? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

[[4]] first removal of content added by another user, [[5]] second, [[6]] Third. [[7]] fourth, There are more. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Your characterization that these specific edits are part of an edit war is absurd. Please tell me what is objectionable or controversial about moving content to different sections/pages, correcting translation errors, and copy-editing? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Being right is not a justification, read then policy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.

An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.

All the content you objected to was added to the article no later than the end of August 2024. I performed a series of routine copy-edits on long-neglected sections of the page, which have since stood unchallenged. There's nothing warlike about it. I stand by my edits, since you seem to have such a problem with them I encourage you to contact the authorities. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

And I stand by my warning you may have been about to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you refrained from baselessly assuming bad faith on my part. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. And with that this is my last reply. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Crossfit record

Please revert your change to my change. I actually wrote the original language, then discovered I had included her wrong placing and made the change which you subsequently reverted back. Please go to https://games.crossfit.com/athlete/65675 to see that MTG came 62nd in her age group in 2015 (and not 47th). Thanks Kransky (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Title of "Saint" edit warring

I've started a talk page discussion on the recent dispute for Talk:Simon of Trent#Title of "Saint" edit warring. Let's work together to find a solution there.

Vegantics (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)