User talk:Slatersteven

Nomination of JetBlue flight attendant incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JetBlue flight attendant incident, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetBlue flight attendant incident (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 244, August 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, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Nick-D and Simon Harley look at six 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) 23:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2026 Backlog drive

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. 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) 22:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

September 2026

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Nathan Cofnas. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.

Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hello, I'm Fakescientist8000. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:03, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did, I stated it was irrelevant, as she has not done it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I've had it

I can't deal with that pedant anymore today. If anything happens to encourage them to stop let me know but otherwise I'm done with Wikipedia for the day. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Because: IS RETIRED AND ON A WIKI BREAK, HE WILL KEEP EDITING, BUT HE IS RETIRED, ITS TRUE SO IT IS, it says so in black and white!!!! Made me laugh, and also, a lot more often than not you also offer genuinely neutral and policy based input, and unlike others, you're not afraid to hold people harming the website accountable. TylerBurden (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you please put my comment back?

Not sure why you removed this. Is this about the unformatted google docs link I deleted? Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. You can vote here. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Superfluous comment

This comment extended the auto-archival by about five days. Consider removing it? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 23:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 245, September 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) 09:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That was a sage comment

Thanks! BusterD (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I know my onions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Needed a serious editor to show up. Glad it was you. Thanks! Trying to keep the good fighters fighting the good fight. It's hard to convince people that disagreeing vigorously is our entire reason for being. I call it user engagement. I just want the best possible fistfight. One that ends after the bell rings. BusterD (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

re this diff to Astrology

Moved to Talk:Astrology § Freeknowledgecreator copyvio

Comment threading

Hi Slatersteven, some of your recent comments, such as at Talk:2026 Iran war, appear to not be properly threaded and it's difficult to tell who/which comment you're replying to. Cheers. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Because it was addressed to everyone. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought that was clear... BusterD (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

For the future

Maybe your position would be stronger if you asserted facts that you learned through research and not merely resorting to personal anecdotes and opinions. It's never too late my friend. You're welcome. GLORIARUSSIYA (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Err, we base our articles on what RS say, not on our own research; read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Super intelligence force has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Super intelligence force. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your kind help, at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I came across that particular book in my research to try to expand that particular article. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

It might not be needed as there seem to be two sources that may already support it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

My point was also that I want to use that book as a reference more. I acquired the book a a reference, and I wanted to establish the book's reliability at that noticeboard, before citing it more. I wanted it to be stable. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The point still applies; if it adds nothing new, why do we need to use it? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to use it for other new facts. If that's alright as a reliable source. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, thanks for your help, and attempting to help.I'm trying to help with research and references and adding directly relevant info about the subject of the article. Hopefully this will all get resolved, through discussion, at the article talk page. Again, thank you, and I appreciate you and your efforts. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

I apologize for my mistake. Pachu Kannan (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Revert

and no, this was not the resojn it was rmeoved.

hello, I did not understand the rv in engrish, could you explain a bit further what you meant at the AQ article? thx @Slatersteven 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Make a case at talk, and no, this was not the reason it was removed", typos. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

oh ok then, if anyone will reply tho. speaking of which, could you perhaps work on updating the AQ article overall? it is quite outdated, thanks. can't really see the motive over why it was removed other than no need to link their website. 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Well for one, it was never removed as being illegal, and the palce for any content discussion is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

including the other edits done by people (including me) without the need of a talk page? 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

and for the record, I did very much open a subsection in the talk page, in which no one seemed to comment, if you are willing to look, which led me to believe there was not much activity there to begin with 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You did, when? Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

unrelated to the As-Sahab link, specifically the Other anti-(insert country/geopolitical term) sentiments? subsection 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

What? No wonder you got no response if you put it in an unrelated thread, try again, this time in a dedicated thread. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

im sorry, by subsection, i meant a dedicated thread, specifically in the talk page, you can check it out 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 18:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

the dedicated thread I posted is over a month ago Talk:Al-Qaeda 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 18:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

What the one you appended to another topic, sorry no, you need to start a whole new thread, titles so people can find it, and with that I am now bowing out, you have been reverted, follow wp:brd and raise a talk page discussion, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

so, do you get my points or? 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

and finally, the media wing (As-Sahab) is THE official media wing of AQC, and AQ in the Indian Subcontinent, hence the videos in Urdu. 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

There is also no need to ping me, on my talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

ik, that is just my style :) 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 17:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Open up a thread in talk, I will not discuss it here. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I provided my reasoning over why I contacted you directly in the first place. right now, i am simply trying to understand your logic here. it isn't a personal attack, I am simply genuinely curious 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 18:07, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

And Im have answered you, this is not the place to discuss article content. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 246, October 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 on Australian and Canadian subjects 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) 10:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Richat-Atlantis arguments

Hi Slatersteven,

I was wondering why you removed my contribution listing the arguments put forward by proponents of the Richat Atlantis hypothesis. Could you clarify which Wikipedia principles or guidelines you believe justified its removal, and why you considered the material unsuitable?

I feel that the section on the Richat Structure in Hypothetical locations of Atlantis is already the shortest compared to the descriptions of many other proposed locations, which are often considerably more elaborate. I believe my contribution added value by outlining concrete arguments made by proponents of the hypothesis, providing references to Plato’s original texts, and including academic citations to archaeological publications.

I understand that Wikipedia has standards regarding neutrality, verifiability and reliable sourcing, but I would appreciate knowing specifically which of these standards you felt my contribution failed to meet, and on what grounds you decided to remove it. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

My summary made it clear, and this is not the place to discuss edits, that is the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

If your summary made it clear I wouldn’t have posted this question. You didn’t provide any real arguments for your deletion, so I’m disappointed that you refuse to give any real reasons for doing so. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

As I said, this discussion is for the article's talk page. If you start a thread there, I will be happy to give a fuller explanation. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Geography of Halloween

Hello Dear :)

Could you be so kind to explain why you deleted my edit on this article. Isn't it worth mentioning how Halloween is celebrated in Palestine? PinkFalafel (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the article's talk page.. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

If you insist dear :) PinkFalafel (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Dont get sarky; it's common practice to discuss edits at the article talk page where other interested parties might see it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

Proving someone is wrong, is not a personal attack, it is just proving he is wrong and he is pushing an agenda, ok Dear :) PinkFalafel (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

I AM NOW ASKING YOU TO STAY WAY FROM MY TALK PAGE, IF YOU CANNOT BE CIVIL, DO NOT COMMENT HERE. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2026 (UTC)

AGF

Please see WP:AGF. When an editor corrects another editor on a talk page citing primary sources while clearly saying so, it is not correct to bring up WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, as no mainspace edit was at stake. I could accuse you of WP:V and mulitiple other violations for claiming the DEFUSE proposal has no signficance when multiple editors have brought RS showing otherwise. Please read the source material of the subject you're discussing. ~2026-58018-84 (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Yes it is as [[wp:v] is clear: a source must explicitly say something to make a claim it is supporting. You have been asked to quote from these sources and have failed to do so. That is not assuing bad faith; that is you not doing something. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

The talk page is not just you and me. Editors have provided sources, yet you continue to say things indicating you haven't read them at all. I will create a section on the page for wording and sources. ~2026-58018-84 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

And every WP:RS that I have read has not supported any claim that this was a realistic scenario, as it had never been funded. So at this point it is down to those making a claim to find (and quote) RS that do treat it as one, and no engage in wp:or to look a 3 or 4 different sources and draw a conclusion that none of them draw (that is wp:syntheses, and I am now going to continue this here either. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Whether it was funded or not is not the question, which is why I questioned whether you read the RS on the topic, and still do. Some experts quoted in RS expressly say the work could have been carried out without funding, and no experts say it definitely didn't, because we can't know. The text that was in the article for nearly five years didn't make any definitive claims one way or another. ~2026-58018-84 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

And we still need sources saying it (as in the specific project) represents a realistic proposition, not that other projects have continued without our funding. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

And we have reliable sources saying exactly that. And you obviously did not read them, despite them being linked from the discussions. ~2026-58018-84 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

And read wp:badgering it is clear you are not going to change my mind without you providing a direct quote, and continuing to insist I do change my mind is going round in circles. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

The sources are in the discussion, and I even named some of the experts quoted in my last post. If you are going to participate in the discussion, please read the sources. ~2026-58018-84 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

Still no quote, so I am now closing this with "prove me wrong with a quote or stop", I am bored with wasting my time. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2026 (UTC)

I will post several proposed wordings and sources in the page. In the meantime, please AGF and read sources when provided. ~2026-58018-84 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2026 (UTC)