User talk:Slatersteven

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I think you meant to say Option A on September 11th talk page on the discussion. Would you like to correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks#RfC:_Infobox_collage Cena332 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Slatersteven,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Even thought the FAQ has addressed the subject, it can certainly be discussed again. No censorship. Very unprofessional and un-Wikipedian-like. Yusuf Michael (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Make Wikipedia Great Again and Make this Article Unbiased Yusuf Michael (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I still do not see what this has to do with me. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I am not a professional, if you are you need to read WP:PAID. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

https://x.com/yokthanalop/status/2007732376890417241?s=46 Accept that Yok is unpopular. The truth is 2020 Thai protest did not exist. ~2026-68860 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

What has this to do with Trump? Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Truth always truth please that Thai students protest did not exist. ~2026-68860 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, what has this to do with the Trump article? Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi--

Could you explain your revert? Is it because of content or unclear wording?

If it's because of content, it's backed up by the sources and should remain, if it's because of wording it can be fixed. Thank you Razgura (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page, and my edit summary explains my objection. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I find your response contradictory and severely lacking in internal consistency. During our previous discussion regarding the Satanic panic article, you left a thread on my user talk page regarding the dispute. This is despite the fact that on the satanic panic talk page, there is no recent and non-archived discussion. During the discussion on my user page, I repeatedly suggested creating a thread on the satanic panic talk page. While you are under no obligation to do this, this is a typical process for dispute resolution and is required. You stated "As to why here, becasue I am talking about Your actions." How does this rationale not apply to this thread? Either you have a problem with people reaching out regarding disputes on talk pages, or you don't. I will assume good faith, but this gives the appearance of someone who objects to other people contacting them on their personal talk page, but has no problem doing the same to other users. I humbly ask that you reflect on this dichotomy And basically " pick a side".

In line with previous discussions regarding your reverts, I still don't understand the meaning of "Were they in response to his call, orm was he resposnsing to them?". I say this in a genuine way, not to insult, but I feel many users are unable to understand the intended meaning of your edit summaries. The revert removes sources that were added by @Razgura. What is your objection to these sources? I genuinely believe the onus is on you to at least create a new talk page topic And discuss why you believe it appropriate to remove those sources. Your edit summary simply doesn't touch on that. This message is meant to be helpful, and state my case, which in past cases, other editors have agreed with me. On Wikipedia, we seek consensus on article talk pages. The onus is on you to explain why you reverted something In a relatively detailed And unambiguous manner. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS it is down to those who want to make a change to get wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I Believe your understanding of the two policies you cited is non-orthodox. You have to justify your reverts. You cannot revert for no reason. When you don't create a talk page thread, when you have been asked to make a talk page thread, when you have a double standard between others, user pages and your user page, it can appear as though reverts are happening for no reason and are not constructive. You seem to be under the impression that literally any change to an article has to be backed up by consensus and it would seem for every edit you would want somebody to create a talk page thread. This is not how Wikipedia works. You are the one reverting. You are the one creating the dispute. You must provide a justification that other editors can understand for a revert. I strongly suggest you review Help:Reverting, Especially this passage.

---

---

Before performing a revert, carefully consider the consequences of dismissing another editor's contributions, as well as any subsequent edits linked to the original change. Assess the specific elements of the edit that are problematic and contemplate the editor's intentions. Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. If only a portion of the edit is objectionable, a partial reversion may be more appropriate; complete reversions should be used sparingly and are effectively executed using the undo tool.

In the edit summary or on the article's talk page, provide a succinct explanation detailing why the change is being reverted or why the reversion is beneficial. In instances of blatant vandalism, clearly disruptive edits, or unexplained content removal, a brief explanation may suffice. However, in situations involving content disputes, offering a well-reasoned and politely worded justification is important to avoid unnecessary disagreements and to promote constructive collaboration.

---

---

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are not abiding by this, again, I will assume good faith. Your justifications are brief and I do not believe they qualify as well reasoned. You need to address the central point, you need to provide an argument as to why those sources deserve to be reverted. You are an experienced editor. I feel you should have a clue by now. Your opinion, which I understand as that you believe it is within policy to revert complex edits with one sentence justification, and that the user who you reverted has the onus of creating a talk page. This account is new, but I am not new to Wikipedia. This is my only active account BTW. Please feel free to correct my understanding, but my view is that your opinion is not widely shared among editors and I believe it to be a fringe interpretation of policy. Please try to consider a new perspective. Ask the people you are reverting If they agree with your interpretation of policy. Thank you. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You cannot give a complex answer in an edit summary. As such it is down to those who want to include content to make the case, not down to those who want to exclude it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes you absolutely can. I would like you to spend more than 6 minutes considering my argument and refute my central point re: Help:Reverting. 2 sentences cannot even address half of my arguments. First of all, your edit message can absolutely be more clear and coherent than "Were they in response to his call, orm was he resposnsing to them". Your response is 66 characters and does not make any sense in the context of the original edit or your revert. You have up to 500 characters to explain your argument. You barely used 10% of the available space For a sentence that is frankly incomprehensible. You still haven't explained what you meant by that edit summary. I can only assume good faith for so long, you know about the hierarchy of disagreement. You are on the level of contradiction because you have not provided a coherent argument as to why the revert should happen, only that the onus is on the editor To seek consensus for the change, even though Help:Reverting clearly requires You to create a well-reasoned justification. What is your problem with creating a talk page thread to discuss your reverts? Is 5 minutes of time writing a justification really too much for you? Please provide a justification for why the edit was reverted, try to wait at least 10 minutes before you read this before responding, because it's increasingly appearing as though the revert happened for no reason. In order to continue to discuss in good faith, I really want you to refute my central points, or at least say that you are not capable of doing such. Otherwise, it's very difficult for me to assume we are discussing in good faith and it feels like I am playing the fool. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss my objections to that edit here, I have said take it to the article talk page. My summary was clear, I disagree with the edit interpretation of events. That will be my sole explanation here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And why do I have to explain myself to you, its was not your edit I reverted, you have not even made edits to that page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand this. Before, when you reverted the edit, this was a disagreement between two people. That is one to one. Everything you do on Wikipedia is public. Now, the disagreement is two to one, because someone else has chipped in. The onus is on you to justify your revert. Do I need to revert your revert for you to see that I am involved in this dispute? Oh wait, I can't, because you undid so much That it can't be automatically undone at this point in time. Everyone's opinion is valuable so long as it can be logically justified. Your responses are brief and do not address the central point. Many, many people have come onto your user talk page to express this to you. You appear indifferent. You keep reverting people's edits, leaving a one sentence justification that doesn't make much sense, Then during a discussion, you just reply with one to three sentences. Who else is on the side of " actually I can revert anything I want, I just have to type in "Were they in response to his call, orm was he resposnsing to them?' That's not even a justification. That's just a question. A justification would state why why you are removing sources from sky news and iranintl. The edit summary seems to make it seem like you don't understand the subject and are asking a question. Anybody can join any side of a dispute on Wikipedia. And it's very clea the purpose of my communication is genuine concerns regarding your edits. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I said what my objection was, I have repeated it here, take it to the article's talk page or stop posting about it. I will not be responding to you about it here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And I sugest you read WP:HARRASMENT. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of harassment. I'm allowed to participate in discussions on your talk page. We're entering bad faith territory here. As I previously stated

And it's very clear the purpose of my communication is genuine concerns regarding your edits

That is not, and is never harassment, unless I was to be somehow disrupting your enjoyment of Wikipedia. I have been incredibly civil throughout this. Please read the article

---

Hounding: requires " is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor."

Harassment: "making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information"

I do not look at your contributions. I do not watch any of your pages. I've looked at your user talk page a few times. Harassment doesn't apply when I've only contacted you a few times, I only found your users page because someone pinged me, and when I have genuine concerns about your reverts and your understanding of policy. Why don't you read Wikipedia:AOHA? Harassment is not " I keep making reverts that don't make sense and people discuss it on my user talk page". Your reply indicates that you've stopped perceiving me as acting in good faith. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of harassment; I asked you to read it. I have been blocked for harassment for doing exactly what you are doing, refusing to let a matter drop after being asked to, wp:badgering someone for them to answer your question in a way you want it answered. Now I have asked you to drop it, you are not going to get the answer you want here, and now you will get no answer from me here to any question, I have better things to do. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I think the accusation of badgering is at least acceptable, I would have appreciated if you had lead with that rather than harassment. You were blocked for edit warring for 1 day, 17 years ago. I disagree that I am badgering though. I will be taking this to the article page. When I re-read this it seems to follow This general direction rather than badgering. Elements of badgering include "arguing people into submission", requiring someone to say something to " satisfy" you, proof by assertion, making demands, policing viewpoints, etc. I haven't done amy of those things. The reason I emphasized the central point so much is because I see that as fundamental to how Wikipedia wants editors to conduct discussions. The diagram I sent is used in policy. It's something I always strive to do. You don't have any obligation to reply to anyone's thread including my own. However, when you do decide to engage in an argument, It is expected that you discuss to the best of your ability and meet a certain standard. I feel this is a universal expectation. I don't think this is productive. While I see it as very hypocritical that you don't want to have this discussion whilst having similar discussions on other's talk pages. There is no version dispute on the article, your changes stand. I feel I am allowed to commentate on and criticize your logic so long as things remain civil. I will refrain from further comments on your user page regarding this, my opinion is that you never substantially engaged with my argument and all I was trying to do was literally get a response from you that was more than a couple of sentences, I still don't understand if WP:onus/consensus Is your only justification for the revert and I still don't understand your edit message. I disagree with your characterization that this is also " refusing to let it drop", I feel that would apply much more in a case where both sides equally understand each other's argument. Refuting my central point is not a request for argument, it is genuinely a way of clarifying what you mean and what you believe. Had you not made the harassment comment, I wouldn't have replied when you said That you won't be responding And my previous reply would have been the last reply. You brought up harassment, I replied once, you bring up badgering, this is my last reply unless something outrageous is said. Please do better. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted content in an article, Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but that material is not backed up with a source. If you could resubmit your change with a citation to a reliable source, by all means. Thank you. — W.andrea (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, if you are in need of a guide on how UALosses works I can provide it Lazarbeem (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

And you need to explain how to filter by battle when it only does not by Oblast. Slatersteven (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I can do that. There's a drop down menu on the home page labeled "Category". Click it and it should show: All categories, Battle of Mariupol, Battle of Bakhmut, Battle of Krinky, Kursk Operation, and July 2022 Chasiv Yar strike Lazarbeem (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

On the articles talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that what I added in the aftermath section was not syth but was a copyedit from the article: Alt-right. However I probably should have labeled by edit as a copyedit, my bad. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. I just wanted to let you know here because I didn't want to break the revisions rule which states that no editor can make a revision for 24 hours after making one Lazarbeem (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Then make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

ok Lazarbeem (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Steve, why have you added back in the citations in the lead section at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? There is no need for them, per WP:LEDECITE we shouldn't have them. FOARP (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I just undid all of your edits as they had been made without agreement, the cites in the lede are in response to previous talk page discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It is - or at least should be - possible to edit WP:BOLDly even on this page. As for the Leadcites, whilst there was an argument between editors, I cannot see a significant controversy that needs to be addressed by having a bunch of duplicate citations in the lead section for no obvious reason. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That is a discussion for the article's talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There was a discussion where someone asked what the citation was... but this is a duplicate citation. No actual controversy.

There seems to be a bit of stickiness in allowing any editing to go ahead at all here. Simply opposing/reverting all edits regardless. I'm not sure how to explain that. FOARP (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That is because it has been a battleground for 4 years, and much of it is a compromise dating back all that time. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This article has not existed 4 years. This article does not have to be the product of the trench-warfare between different sets of partisans who battle over each letter and punctuation mark. Taking that mindset into every article associated with the conflict is not productive.

You can see the problem when you look at the citations - still lots of breaking news stuff from 2022 that anyone can see is sketchy as a source here in 2026. I mean we're talking about this on the main talk page but should the idea that Belarus invaded Ukraine really be supported by a blog-post buried a dozen-or-more pages deep on the BBC's live-blog from February 2022? But that's where we are apparently. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You yourself pointed out the content was copied and pasted to create a new article (as a result of discussion), thus yes, the content had existed in that form for 4 years. And there is not been trench warfare, there have been many changes since then. So please stop the hyperbole. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RGW might make sense if I was trying to edit WP away from its policies towards something that "rights great wrongs". Last I checked preferring secondary sourcing wasn't an example of RGW, nor was removing cites from the lead section, but instead something written into our PAGs.

But we're going round in circles here: for what ever reason you think that the content of an article can't change. I don't think you're doing that to right great wrongs, I don't think you actually have a strong conviction either way on the page-content. Instead I do think you tend to say things have to be the way they were because that's the way they were. I think you're doing the same on other battle-ground pages that are outside this topic area as well (e.g., List of Largest Empires, Axis Powers) and a lot of the time that's OK because the changes are often just vandalism, but treating everything like that is misguided and in some cases serves just to reify the successful edit-warring of others and block attempts to bring content closer to our PAGs.

Anyway, I've said enough. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, will it be possible to move the further Indian strikes section down on the page ? It would fit it more better with the timeline 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but just do that, no textual changes. a straight copy and paste.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood, Thanks 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Done it as a tier3 subsection, should it be a tier-4? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(Whoever is was at the WMF that decided that 3 tildes and 5 tildes are valid signatures should be removed from any position where they design user interfaces.) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I keep on missing or adding one, it's too easy to miscount. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Historical anecdota: "~~~" dates back to rSVN28 in the initial development of what is now called Phase II software, written in October 2001 and deployed to Wikipedia in January 2002. The author of that commit is Magnus Manske who never was a WMF employee as the WMF didn't even exist at the time. ~~~~ dates to rSVN228 (March 2002), also by Magnus Manske. ~~~~~ (Five tildes) was added much later by Timwi in rSVN2773 (March 21, 2004). Timwi likewise never was a WMF employee. None of these commits have any explanation of why they did what they did or how their behavior was chosen. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I finally found out where ideas like "let's make the most common typo on Wikipedia silently give wrong results that our signature bot isn't programmed to fix" come from. This video explains everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Upf_B9RLQ

How many of the following would you have guessed after years of editing experience?

• ~ (one tilde): ~
• ~~ (two tildes): ~~
• ~~~ (three tildes): Guy Macon (talk)
• ~~~~ (four tildes): Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• ~~~~~ (five tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• ~~~~~~ (six tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)~
• ~~~~~~~ (seven tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)~~
• ~~~~~~~~ (eight tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Guy Macon (talk)
• ~~~~~~~~~ (nine tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• ~~~~~~~~~~ (ten tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• ~~~~~~~~~~~ (eleven tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)~
• ~~~~~~~~~~~~ (twelve tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)~~
• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (thirteen tildes): 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Guy Macon (talk)

  I'd probably have guessed 1 through 5, and then been wrong about everything after that. And yes, you have a point. Although it is at least consistent; constructions of tildes always parse 5 tildes as many times as possible. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you Responded to an edit request by a non-EC user, but I think it might have been better to simply remove their topic, since they are not allowed to comment like that on the talk page. Your reply invites debate, which is exactly what they aren’t supposed to be doing and what the article protection is meant to prevent.

I assume you did this with the best of intentions, (and I also assume the IP had good intentions as well) but the result is that the request can’t be simply removed anymore. Slomo666 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)