Slatersteven

Your revert on Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran

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)

The Bugle: Issue 239, March 2026

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 recent works 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) 12:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Who is your favorite Bollywood Actress?

This user thinks Madhuri Dixit is the most iconic Bollywood actress ever.

 PontinhosEnthusiast (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I have never thought about it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

{{userbox

| border-c = black

| id =

| id-c = darkblue

| info = This user is proud to be a Zionist.

| info-c = white

}} PontinhosEnthusiast (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1219#User:PontinhosEnthusiast --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

A Mile Ahead

Was about to revert that edit on the September 11 attacks article and saw you already did it! Thanks, we've got to stick closer together than ever. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Streaming

I noticed User:Bachcell when they edited a couple of pages related to pseudoscience: This led me to these discussions:

• Talk:Is Genesis History?#Streaming
• Talk:The Battle at Lake Changjin#Streaming availability removed
• Talk:The Eight Hundred#Streaming in US
• Talk:The Last Frontier (2020 film)#relased on streaming services
• Talk:The Sacrifice (2020 film)#Streaming services in US

There are a lot of streaming services that stream a lot of content. Do you think that listing them on the articles for that content improves the encyclopedia? Or would that be like listing every cable TV channel that carries Green Acres?

Not sure what is best here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Same here, it's not like these are widely available. 14:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Where would be the best place to ask for opinions on this?

"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou compose the Holy Reply. Then, shalt thy tildes be four. No more. No less. Four shalt be the number of times thou shalt press the tilde key, and the number of the counting shall be four. Five shalt thou not count, neither count thou two or three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out. Once at the number four, being the fourth tilde reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe clicketh thou thy Publish Changes button."

(Inspiration: The Book of Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 240, April 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works 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) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

About Ayurveda...

Hello fellow Wikipedian! I am not trying to spread pseudo science. I have kept everything that was there before (about heavy metal poisoning and the cancer cure). But to say that a 5000 year old medical system with mostly proven practices and whose unproven and unscientific practices are removed from modern use to be blatantly categorized as a pseudo-science is, I think, disrespectful to the billions of people who use it everyday in their life and have never had any problem with it.

Many people, especially in the west, are still thinking the current usage and philosophy of Ayurveda is the same as that used a 1000 years ago. The changes I made were to show that that is not the case now. Doctors take actual courses on Ayurveda to become certified doctors, use modern scientific analysis to determine illnesses and if the patient does not respond to Ayurveda or needs special care, they refer them to other doctors who follow other schools (western medicine).

This is the reality.

Kindly understand. SatoruVijnani (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Also please look up Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree SatoruVijnani (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

They offer degrees in all kinds of Rubbish. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Re: SPLC Talk Page/WP:BLUDGEON

Thanks for posting on my page in regards to contentious topics and WP:BLUDGEON. I read the the aforementioned policy per your recommendation. My understanding of the policy is that one has to excessively comment on a particular page to be in violation. I have commented about 9 times and you have commented about 23. Could you provide clarification on the specific section of the policy you wanted me to review?Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

No, its if you reply to every post in a specific thread. Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Did I do that? Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have been active in replying to me, and one other user. Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Is being active on a talk page a violation of WP:BLUDGEON? Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

No, but making the same argument again and again to different users can be seen as trying to win by overwhelming the thread. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

DimaMaghrib34 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello Slatersteven,

New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 241, May 2026

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, Hog Farm and Nick-D look at four recent works 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) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Stop the disruptive editing...

You need to assume good faith here. I've attempted to be kind to you and I explained my rationale to you twice for my edits and explained why I used the source I did. There is no rationale for your removal of the content over at the UFO Sightings Wiki. As a gesture of good faith, I also supplied supporting citations from the national and local media that covered the sightings -- but you ignored that and deleted it again anyway. Then, you visit my talk page and WP:LETTER and accuse me of being disruptive which I have not been, make a thinly-veiled accusation that I "know the people involved with the incidents" (I don't and this is in violation of WP:FALLIBLE), and lecture me again on WP:RS when I'm well aware of the rules. Then you stalk the page I created (CARET Drone Incident) and decide to warn people that my "sources may not be acceptable or reliable" there, either. Then, on another talk page, you get into a pseudo-brigade discussion and accuse me of canvassing on "all the UFO pages" (again, in violation of WP:FALLIBLE). I posted it to TWO PAGES. That's it. That's NOT canvassing nor is it "all over the place". At this point, this is beginning to look like borderline WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:GAMING. Please stop this behavior. As I'm reading your talk page, you seem to have a history of trying to win arguments or bludgeon people to death and you've been blocked for your behavior in the past, something that's never happened to me here. That should tell you something. A failure to listen or comprehend what I've said does not justify your behavior. I concur with another user on your talk page: "be better". Thank you. LanaiGuy (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes there is, policy such as wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, Shirt58 notified LanaiGuy about the ANI you accidentally opened for you. You probably want to either remove the notification or provide clarification. I can't get involved myself as LanaiGuy has banned me from their talkpage. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Also FWIW as far as I can tell, LanaiGuy has never said you accused them of making personal attacks. They've said I've accused them of making personal attacks which is correct. I did so because in my opinion they did at FTN. (Someone else at FTN pointed out the same thing.) That said, LanaiGuy does seem to be conflating different editors so I might have missed something. For example, they said I accused them of having a COI but I never did. I only said there was nothing wrong with you asking them if they had a COI as it's a regular thing here if editors seem to have an unusual interest in a topic. (I have no personal opinion on whether they have a COI, since I'm fairly uninvolved in the article in dispute. I also lost interest in the personal attack angle so have not been following it a great deal, since when investigating their contrib history I found something more serious.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

[], a direct reply to me " If you continue to accuse me of attacking you when I am not, then I will rethink things.". Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

They do seem to be talking all this very personally. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry you're right. I missed that. I agree they're taking things very personally and misunderstanding what people are saying. For example re-reading what they said, I've realised now they've taken my comment "I don't give a damn whether you have a COI." to mean I was accusing them of having a COI, but it was not and I think anyone following the thread will likely have understood that. My point was I'd not evaluated the evidence for whether they had a COI as I didn't care, it was not relevant to what I was saying. If they didn't have a COI, that's perfectly fine, they could have dealt with it the same way that the plenty of editors who are asked if they have a COI deal with it, by saying no I don't and moving on rather than taking such offence to the question and saying it was a personal attack/casting aspersions to ask. But they didn't seem to understand any of that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway I'll probably stop here. I thought I'd trey help reduce confusion but in doing so have gotten more involved than I intended. Given their request, I feel it best not to talk about them anymore with the exceptions of the ANs. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Decided to break my word to say one final thing. I'm now fairly certain LanaiGuy doesn't have a COI regarding CARET. So while I can understand why you might have been concerned, if you still are I'd just forget it even putting aside their abandoning the topic. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That was not what I was going to report them for. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)t

Kirk conspiracy theory RS

Hey Slater, saw you reverted the Charlie Kirk conspiracy theory label, can you provide me enough RS labelling him that to be considered wide-spread accepted? As stated I know he held some conspiracy theory views but I can't recall any reliable sourcing actually labeling him an actual conspiracy theorist outside of more WP:RSOPINION pieces. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

They are already in the article; we have a whole section on it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)