User talk:InvisibleUser909

Welcome!

Hello, InvisibleUser909, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Smoking pipe. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Augmented Seventh 🎱 05:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi InvisibleUser909! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 05:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic panic

It was also an edit war, which you have now altred back to the disputed version. Slatersteven (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly understand what you are trying to communicate. It didn't look like an edit war from the revision history. It looked like a revert for no reason. A substantive response with a minimum of 3 to 5 sentences would help me better understand your position. You have to give justification when you revert. Otherwise Your revert is invalid. " Not a minor edit" is not a proper justification. There is no discussion on the talk page for the satanic panic about this wording so I wouldn't say it's an edit War. Also it appears that you were the initiator Of the so-called edit War with this revision [1]. "Rs doi do not agree" also is not a appropriate justification for a revert without elaborating further on the talk page. Let's keep any future engagement to nuanced, professional communications that directly address the others' Central point. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same material has been changed twice by an IP (and reverted by another user as well) and then by a brand new account. Also (per policy) it is down to those who want to make changes (first change made here [[2]], not down to those who want the page to remain the same ([[3]]) to get consensus for the change. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why are you discussing this on my user page and not the talk page?

2. What is this consensus you speak of? I couldn't find any consensus on the talk page regarding whether to use the specific wording of " unsubstantiated cases" or " allegations". I looked through the archives and I couldn't find a consensus either. It appears you lack consensus for your actions.

3. You still reverted something without discussing this on the talk page. Maybe you could have reverted it the first time and just left an edit message. But if you want to revert it again. You need to discuss it on The talk page.

4. I simply reverted an invalid revert that only appeared to be reverted because it was incorrectly marked as a minor edit. After you did that, You should have created a new topic on the talk page to discuss this specific wording.

5. I agree with "allegations". While many of the cases are unsubstantiated The article States

"""

Anthropologist Jean La Fontaine spent several years researching ritual abuse cases in Britain at the behest of the government, finding that all of the cases of alleged satanic ritual abuse that could be substantiated were cases where the perpetrators' goal was sexual gratification rather than religious worship.

"""

This means a small percentage of the cases under the wide umbrella of SRA could be substantiated partially. Therefore I don't believe " unsubstantiated claims" is proper.

I think this could best be resolved by seeking a consensus from other editors on the article talk page. I disagree with the notion that your actions are based in policy and with your characterization of this as a " edit War". I believe yoir claim that you do not need to seek consensus for this because you wish for the article to remain the same is unproductive and a moot point now that another editor (myself) is involved. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consnesus was achieved by editing, when long-standing content was changed (and then reverted) those who wanted to make the change should have taken it to the talk page. As to why here, becasue I am talking about Your actions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get the point of this. There isn't a topic on the talk page about the specific wording In question. Why don't you go make one and seek consensus for your actions? I'm not really sure what you mean by " consensus was achieved by editing". I reverted the edit because the reason given for revert was not valid. That is all. I have no stake in this satanic panic wording debacle. People are going to think you're reverting for no reason if you don't explain why you revert. I'm not going to rules-lawyer you. You have been at this for 19 years. You know you are supposed to make a talk page topic to seek consensus. If they really are unsubstantiated, it wouldn't make sense for the article to describe a subset of them as partially substantiated. Reaching out to me " about my actions" on my user page would be fine AFTER creating the topic on the article page. What is the pragmatic point of refusing to make a talk page topic to discuss this? InvisibleUser909 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it was long-standing content altered without discussion. Read WP:ONUS, the change was here is an earlier version [[4], hewre is an even older one [[5]], the word "unsubstantiated" Is in both versions. You edited a non-consensus version back in (without discussion). Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]