User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/February

Conscription in WWI

Apologies.

And hi. I have been looking at the time stamps on the WWI article and talk pages. It is clear that after I posted on the talk page I messed around for hours getting my actual edit polished and posted. Meanwhile you replied and posted. Oblivious to this I put my edit straight over yours. This no doubt came across as tiresomely rude. In fact it was just thoughtlessness as to the possibility of someone having posted in the meanwhile. I am upset at my carelessness and would like to apologise for it. No wonder you rapidly reverted me. And were rather curt. (Assuming that you usually aren't.)

I am not sure that we do or will see eye to eye on the WWI article or the place of conscription within it, but I hope that we can discuss it without you believing me to be a boor; at least not without better evidence.

Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No probs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian hacking

Re: the discussion at AN/I - I've often wondered what exactly was gained from the hacking and how it possibly could have influenced the 2016 election? Russian espionage has always raised a caution flag for as long as I can remember - but the caution was over the spread of communism by the USSR. That isn't the case anymore because there is no USSR, so what exactly is the threat by Russia and why are we afraid of them? Assange denies that info leaked via Wikileaks came from Russia. Why has MSM ignored that fact? Two last questions - (1) isn't it possible that Smart VPN could have been deployed to make it appear the hacking was coming from a faux location without tracing it back to the true origin? (2) If Russian hacking was known by the former administration, why was nothing mentioned about it in the 2008 and 2014 2012 elections? Perhaps I'm being overly skeptic...^{Atsme📞📧} 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The last is the only point I think worthy of note. I do not understand why this is now an issue (as I doubt it is anything new). One simple answer maybe it was more concerted, or maybe this time it was successful, or maybe...but then there are many many reasons why now is different (if it is).

As to what can be gained, A USA fighting itself is not a USA fighting modern Russian imperialism. Assuming this is not Russian payback for Ukraine, or the expansion of NATO. Assuming Putin is not just a psycho, assuming, but then I can go on here (all assuming (of course) that the end of the cold war did in fact change anything).Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme you are in orbit now. Which administration in 2008? If sockpuppets get caught by a few volunteer Admins on Wikipedia, what makes you think they don't get caught by the intelligence agencies of 100 world governments? SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Did your aluminum hat pick me up on the radar? I corrected my typo re:the 2014 election, but you might want to re-read what I was referring to when I said "elections". It is my understanding that the origins of VPNs are undetectable. Is that not the case? Has some anonymous Russian deceived me into believing that? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is one of the best explanations of how the Trump/Russia interference in the election worked, and from a subject expert. All of the parts have been proven to exist:

In the report, Steele spoke of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin… an intelligence exchange had been running between them for at least 8 years."

Members of the Obama administration believe, based on analysis they saw from the intelligence community, that the information exchange claimed by Steele continued into the election.

"This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of "microtargeting". Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

"You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic," said the former official, "you know where to target that stuff when you're pushing it back."

This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.

"If you need to ensure that white women in Pennsylvania don't vote or independents get pissed in Michigan so they stay home: that's voter suppression. You can figure what your target demographics and locations are from the voter rolls. Then you can use that to target your bot."[1]

Today we got even more confirmation,[2][3] but we already knew this, except for an important detail. We didn't know that Cozy Bear was actually infiltrated by the Dutch. We only knew that multiple foreign, allied, intelligence agencies incidentally picked up on communications between Trump people and Russians planning to steal the election. They literally listen to them and recorded them. Mueller no doubt will use this, if he has to, but, to avoid outing sensitive sources, would probably prefer not to.

That alarmed them enough to pass on the information and warn the FBI and CIA. Unfortunately they were very slow (over six months) to react, and by then the election was underway and they were even more afraid to do anything lest they be accused of interfering in the election. Then Comey did anyway, and the statistics clearly show a huge, dramatic, and instantaneous shift of voters away from Clinton. Of all the factors that might have caused her to lose voters, that is the one that is proven to have been strong enough to lose the election, and even then she still had nearly 3 million more. Comey will forever be blamed for costing her the election, and yet the GOP is trying to claim he and the FBI were trying to help Clinton. That makes no sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of this. Julian has more credibility - he fights conspiracy theories, he doesn't create them. There's also this fiasco to consider, and this little jewel. I'm also more inclined to believe that the whole Russia thing is a cover-up, and the shake-up in the FBI is verifying it more and more. I'll just wait patiently for the real story to break...maybe next week. Unlike the MSM, WP doesn't need bait & click revenue, and I'm seasoned enough to know not to get excited about breaking news, unsubstantiated allegations or conspiracy theories that have no teeth. Enjoy the weekend!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL, Asange fights conspiracy theories?, he is a self serving agranditist who gives naf all about anything but his own image (how long does he take all day looking like ma bond villain?). Of course Russia tried to interfere, the US has done it, we have done it, everyone does it. Trump is a bent business man (are there any who are not?) who (I have no doubt) would sell his own mother for a good price, why the hell would he not sell out his country? Of course this is all my opinion, and thus not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

And Russian interference made you change your vote, right? Like I said...wait for it. We're in for some surprises in this, the best of times and the worst of times, the age of wisdom, the age of foolishness, the epoch of belief, the epoch of incredulity, the season of Light, the season of Darkness, the spring of hope, the winter of despair, we had everything before us ... except the damn memo. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Rationale?

Re your advice to me here, can you say what your rationale was? Apologies for naïveté. Humanengr (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In essence it is exactly what you were accused off, not letting go of it. There comes a point when (even if you may not be wholly in the wrong) not dropping the stick is going to be seen as tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NVIC

could you delete the line, "here is a little help" from your last comment at talk:NVIC? we don't need anything that could be taken as a PA in this content dispute. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it is a PA, it is helping them by providing what is the dictionary definition.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

?

your not giving any real explanation on the deletion of my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkekin (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did, I left a link for you to read. That tells you all you need to know. But to surmise.

Wikipedia does not generally have articles on unnotable topics (in other words you need to establish notability with references to in depth mentions in RS). We (generally) do not have articles on subjects that do not yet exist. All material in an article must be supported by inline citations to RS. Your article failed all three.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to check for copyvio

Hi Slatersteven, and thanks for your work reviewing new articles. Please remember to check for copyright violations. The particular one I saw was Sree Narayana Guru College of Engineering and Technology, which had extensive copying from the school website. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Slatersteven/Archives/2018, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

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 Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Slatersteven, We tried to publish the final article prepared in the sandbox (in russian wikipedia). This is a translation of the article already published in English wikipedia. Apparently we do not know how to publish an article in Russian wikipedia. Although the text was translated by a Russian professor it is not clear to us how to operate in russian wikipedia. Any suggestions how to publish a new article in a foreign language? Accept our appologies for making such a simple mistake. Keiko77 (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Marianne Kreuz

Hello Slatersteven. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Marianne Kreuz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. SOWHY 08:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Malena Morgan

Hello Slatersteven. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Malena Morgan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: how is "was on the cover of Penthouse" not a claim of significance? Thank you. SOWHY 08:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your right should have been speedy deleted as a recreation, my mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take note

Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.

I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Prashant Mehta

Hello

The said person Prashant Mehta is the renown business man and Managing Director who start the company Rajesh Exports which is ranked 295th on the Fortune Global 500 I think the article should not be deleted.please let me know what changes and improvement is needed to make batter.

Regards Nikhilarora0903 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If he is you can find RS that have talked about him (not anyone else).Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's now up to the WP:AFD closer. I have nothing to add to what I said in the AFD discussion. Nevertheless, I can say that I did get some mild entertainment out of demonstrating to my own satisfaction that he didn't pass WP:NBIO either as a businessman or as a possible criminal; something strangely not mentioned in the article, but now well sourced. It took me the usual 30 minutes to find those links. Narky Blert (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Foutanga Babani Sissoko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The page HR Aqib hameed should not be deleted as more info and refernece will be added soon . Gpstudio13 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You should make this point on the AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are deleting our movie Wikipedia page

Need help for approval Aliya Pr (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Don’t Delete When Obama loved Osama - Approve

Web link is mention there. Please check on Google every where this name when obama loved Osama. Please Dnt Remove or Deleted. Aliya Pr (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read wp:crystal, at this time I doubt it passes it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)