User talk:Slatersteven

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) Reply

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

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) Reply

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

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) Reply

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) Reply

[], 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) Reply

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

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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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

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) Reply

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

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) Reply

Hello, I made an edit in the Highgate Vampire page, but it was reverted because it may have been lacking reliable sources. I've found two other sources which support the idea that the character Silas is indeed a vampire, and that the cemetery from the book is based (also) on Highgate Cemetery. Here are the two sources (the second four e is a pdf, since the original page doesn't appear on the website anymore): https://www.scifinow.co.uk/interviews/interview-neil-gaiman-2/ https://netmouse.com/me/portfolio/Neil_Gaiman_Graveyard_Book_Interview.pdf I hope we can reach an agreement over whether to re-add my edit on the page. Have a good day Pannkale (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The place to take this is the articles task page, however, read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello Slatersteven, I think Bobbobet is correct that your "Care about wiki" top-level header is disrupting the flow of the ANI page. Would you consider moving your comment (and the replies to it) to an existing section? I think it's functionally a reply to "My defense (statement by Larry Sanger)". Procedurally, you can include a reply to Bobbobet explaining that you are doing so, to make the change 'make sense'. Thanks. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I love when vandals say this. At least we're contributing to something worthwhile here, LOL toby ^(t)(rw) 17:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I also don't have a celler. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please create a new page on Operation Amistad, Indian relief response to recent deadly Venezuela earthquakes (1)https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-launches-operation-amistad-for-earthquake-hit-venezuela-june-26-2026/article71152657.ece

(2)https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/operation-amistad-india-sends-relief-material-to-earthquake-hit-venezuela-24-nations-join-rescue-effort/4278293/

(3)https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/operation-amistad-indian-assistance-reaches-venezuela-after-massive-earthquake-devastation-101782625683542.html

you can add more sources if you want ~2026-34962-26 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Why>? A lot of nations have sent aid, but why is India special? Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not deep into Ripper-lore, but I loved Babylon 5:s take: . Also glad I saw From hell after LOTR, I think Bilbo would have been ruined for me otherwise. Luckily I didn't notice he was Ash from Alien as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I like the B-5 ripper too (factual errors aside, it is fiction). From Hell was pretty much crap, but I just found it so forgettable I cannot even remember who was in it. A much better take is Murder by Decree (rubbish though the actual theory is). Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have reverted one of of your edits, here. It seems that you removed my edit without giving a proper reason. If you can provide one, I would be happy. Morris (talk with this worm) 14:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No I gave one "This was rejected", you had asked to make the change (well a change) and I had said no, As such, you need to get consensus from otehr editors. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I wish I could but someone archived the section I created. I have no idea why they did it, though many suggestions come into my head. Morris (talk with this worm) 14:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

They said why. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Either way, "This was rejected" has nothing to do with you reverting my edit. You have to give at least a good reason for removing edit except the fact that you "did not like it". Morris (talk with this worm) 14:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You were aware it had not achieved consensus, and still did it. Your edit had been rejected before you made it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are failing to answer my question. Yes I know that you replied "No" in that section. But I have been bold while editing. If you are reverting it, I expect an explanation as to why are you reverting the edit. Because until this point it is still your personal opinion. Morris (talk with this worm) 14:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

And I gave you one, you did not have consensus, and knew it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I guess you may not say that "It was my personal opinion and I dont like your edit and etc". Attribution for advocacy group should be necessery because it clarifies who is collecting those data. My reason to edit is to make it clear who is publishing those data. What is your reason, except your POV, for your edits? Morris (talk with this worm) 14:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I susgest you stop now before you violate wp:npa any more. And read what I said in the thread above yours, and do not presume to know my POV. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

When an editor voilates WP:NPA? I am new here and I just need to know. Morris (talk with this worm) 15:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Then read it, and read wp:agf, you do not get to dismiss editor's concerns over what YOU think their POV is. My reason is and was "obey the rules". Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It seems you know these rules. I assume you can explain this then? "No its not, as you could want us to call Trump a liar for all I know.". you do not get to dismiss editor's concerns over what YOU think their POV is. Whats funny is that those edits has nothing to do with Mr. Trump. Morris (talk with this worm) 15:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I was making the point that I had no idea what edit you wanted to make. And they do, as they put Trump's comments into context. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You, once again, failed to answer my question. They clearly voilate what you quote as you do not get to dismiss editor's concerns over what YOU think their POV is. You said you "obey these rules". Also can you explain how those edits were going to make it seems that "you could want us to call Trump a liar for all I know" got applied? Morris (talk with this worm) 15:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Those edits were clearly about, and only about, attribution of the data. Morris (talk with this worm) 15:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You could have said that, you did not. You never said what edit you wanted to make, and saying what you might want is not saying you did weant it, it was saying "I have no idea what you wanted". Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am going to repeat it again. They clearly voilate what you quote as you do not get to dismiss editor's concerns over what YOU think their POV is. You said you "obey these rules". It is no longer about what I said. Also can you explain how those edits were going to make it seems that "you could want us to call Trump a liar for all I know" got applied? Morris (talk with this worm) 15:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No it does not, it is not a comment on you; it is asking you a question with an example of what you might say. I never said this is what you thought, or dismissed your comments based upon that assumption, but on the fact that you never gave a straight answer to "what do you want?". And I said why your edits were reverted; I am not going to explain it again. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I do not see it as a question. It does not have a question mark and it ends with "all I know". You never said what I thought and at the same time replied: No its not, as you could want us to call Trump a liar for all I know.

As for but on the fact that you never gave a straight answer to "what do you want?, here is that request. If you ignore my commentary and read last sentence it says Please fix the tone and way it is represented without altering the fact. We are not here to settle any kind of matter. We are here to represent an encyclopedia regardless of our views. Morris (talk with this worm) 15:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, but you did not say what tone we needed to fix, and no it was not worded as a question because I was not asking is that is what you thought; I was giving it as an example of what I would object to, if you thought that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, but you did not say what tone we needed to fix > Ahh...there is a snippet of text before the request. and You did know what sentence I was objecting to, yesterday. Anyone with common sense would know that No its not, as you could want us to call Trump a liar for all I know is not something a confused person would say. I was giving it as an example of what would object to > a good example should be written like this: Hello fellow editor. It seems like I am partly confused by your request as I dont understand what tone you want to change. Are you trying to change the sentence so that it look like that Trump is lying, for example? I would love your clarification

You know what? We all make mistakes sometime. And accepting them is healthy part of life. It makes none of us inferior. On the other hand, I would start to respect you. This thread will grow longer and longer because you will clearly not accept that 1) you voilated your own rule you seems to "obey" earlier than me, 2) you do not want the tone to be more neutral and publishers to be attributed, 3) falsely claiming that I was trying to make Mr. Trump to appeared to have lied. Morris (talk with this worm) 16:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I did not, and it is not "my rule." Is it a Wikipedia policy, and I never said that is what you thought. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Okay. Have a nice day/evening. Morris (talk with this worm) 16:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I saw the change on the Casualties totals page and the reasons, but as stated, you should carefully review the infobox on the United Arab Emirates in the 2026 Iran war page with these specific indications that summarize what is written in the text with the relevant sources. UAE: 2 service members killed 1 civilian contractor killed 5 soldiers wounded 10 civilians killed, 224 others injured Total: 10 civilians + 2 military personnel + one civilian contractor = 13 dead 224 civilians + 5 military personnel = 229 wounded

Below are the attacks with dates, information, and sources, followed by the nationalities of the 13 deceased. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think you're right, I stopped at the infobox on the page United Arab Emirates in the 2026 Iran war and at the Casualties chapter at the bottom, missing the 5 wounded soldiers. I noticed after the news of April 8th which reported 10 civilian deaths and 224 civilians injured, there was the lack of two data, precisely that of the 5 wounded soldiers (but the news spoke of civilians and there were already 2 dead soldiers counted previously in addition to the Moroccan contractor serving the Emirati army who died in an attack in Bahrain), but a second news spoke precisely of the attack in Bahrain which counted the Moroccan contractor dead together with the 5 wounded Emirati soldiers ; However, the three Indians injured on May 4 were missing (who were not added to any count on the page except perhaps the general one that brought the injured to 227, but the 5 Emirati soldiers injured in Bahrain were still missing). So, to recap, the total deaths are 13 (10 civilians, 2 military personnel, and 1 civilian contractor), while the total injured are 232 (227 civilians and 5 military personnel). With the three sources, I believe the situation has been clarified, but I think both the Emirates page, the general Casualties page (i.e., the Total and the Emirates chapter), and the general page in the infobox need to be updated properly. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will not discuss this on my talk page, other than to refer you to wp:or, the source must say they were UAE citizens, not that they were killed there. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I also underline that by mistake the Moroccan contractor serving in the Emirati army was also counted among the Bahraini deaths. I also have to verify the inconsistency in the data on Saudi Arabia's Casualties where the general mentions 3 civilian deaths and 23 injuries. On the Casualties page, they mistakenly wrote 29. They are counting from an old source the 29 American injuries from the attack on the American base in Saudi Arabia, already counted as American military injuries. However, there are 14 deaths counted on the Casualties page and not in the general. They died in an Aramco helicopter crash on June 28 and the source says for reasons yet to be verified. However, it must be said that Aramco had been attacked by Iran and heavily damaged, and therefore it could be said that if there had not been the attack, perhaps there would not have been these deaths. The sources need to be checked carefully. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply