User talk:Vegan416

Archives

The apostles

I have reverted you additions of "Jewish man" to the Apostle articles. It not a rule that this should be included, MOS is a guideline, and the consensus to make this change is weak as it stands given that you had to change the long standing lead sentence of several articles to include this. Only the article for Judas has this information in the lead sentence. Golikom (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid argument. Consensus can change, especially as I didn't see that there had been previous discussion of this for the apostle (though maybe I missed as I had done a very cursory search). You have to bring a concrete reason why we should deviate here from the MOS. BTW why didn't you remove the words "Jewish man" from Judas as well? Vegan416 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely valid. The MoS is a guideline, not a rule, and in the examples cited in the MoS only one is as explicit as the change you made. Obviously consensus can change - you're welcome to go and get a new consensus established - but currently there is clear equivalence across 11 of 12 articles.

The change to Judas is relatively recent and the cited source doesn't support it. I left it because it's been there for a while and probably serves as the counterpoint example should you wish to take the discussion further. Golikom (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bring any concrete reason why not to include the word "Jewish". Why does it bother you?

Also why do you think someone added the word Jewish only to Judas? Vegan416 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "bother" me, but that's not relevant one way or another. To me it is clearly confusing to label those who were by definition the first Christians as Jewish in the opening sentence. There's an obvious clash of nationality and religion here. You'd have to ask the editor why they only added it to Judas. Golikom (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clash of nationality and religion here. This is simply the historical truth. The apostles were Jews both ethnically and religiously. Most of the first Christians were Jewish both ethnically and religiously. Do you deny that? If not, why shouldn't it be mentioned in the first sentence as per MoS?

What I meant by the question about Judas is that it proves that there is no existing consensus not to include "Jewish". As you admit, you know of no reason to make a distinction between Judas and the other apostles (also remember that Paul is also described as Jewish in the first sentence). It's clear that the fact that the word Jewish doesn't appear in other apostle is just coincidental and not the result of some premeditated consensus. Vegan416 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate let me suggest a compromise. We can write for all of the apostles: "was a Jewish man who became an apostle of Jesus and one of the first Christians". Vegan416 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to believe that 11 out of 12 is a coincidence, especially when the outlier is a very recent edit. And you're being disingenuous about Paul since you made that change very recently yourself. Golikom (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got confused with John the Baptist who had been described as Jewish in the first sentence since 2007.
You didn't respond to my compromise suggestion.

Vegan416 (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accused as a sock puppet

You have been accused of being a sock puppet in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. You should respond to charges on that page. Your silence may be used against you, and if you are found guilty you will be blocked forever, locked, on all Wikipedia projects. 5.47.169.16 (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Your edit to Nazi salute has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive bird species

Hi Vegan: You added the category "Invasive bird species" to the common chaffinch article without adding anything to the article about where and why the species is considered invasive. The article doesn't currently say anything about it being a problem anywhere that it exists outside of its normal range; in biological terms, a species is considered invasive only if it causes harm in its non-native environment. I'll check back in later, but given what's in the article currently, I'd suggest removing that category from common chaffinch. MeegsC (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, corrected. Vegan416 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Zohran Mamdani. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack any editor. I attacked their content. Vegan416 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "I'll ignore the rest of your irrelevant gender identity politics mumbo jumbo." Telling someone they are speaking "mumbo jumbo" seems more than just an attack on their comments. And of course it's also a denial of good faith. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is merely an attack on their comments. And I referred to this sentences of his "I think Wikipedia should not be using white supremacist sources to make claims a person of colour made false claims about his own ethnicity" which is indeed an "irrelevant gender identity politics" argument which have no place in Wikipedia. Vegan416 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is allowed on talk pages and I don’t understand your objection, I see no gender issues. And of course we can’t use white supremacist sources. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained in the article talk page, describing the NYT and Times of India as "white supremacist sources" is false and ridiculous. Also the idea that the validity of sources depends on the skin color of the people they are talking about, is a "racial identity politics" argument, which has no place in Wikipedia. Any RS is valid whatever is the skin color of the people it is talking about.

PS I don't know how the word "gender" got into here, I probably made a typo. Vegan416 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TarnishedPath^talk 08:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mention"

Sorry for the inadvertent "mention" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Sweeney Has Great (American Eagle) Jeans. I fixed the formatting so that all comments were at the same level and used the same "bullet", and somehow the software decided I had pinged you. My apologies! Schazjmd (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit the SAT in my userspace

Hi! I appreciate you wanting to contribute to source assessment, but the SAT in my userspace is meant to be a snapshot of my analysis of sources at the time that I made it. You’re more than welcome to copy/paste it into your own userspace and use it as a jumping off point for your own analysis. Thank you! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC vs AE

@Super Goku V @M.Bitton Just for the record, here is a summary of what really happened in this discussion:

1. I proposed that RfC is a tool to overcome the possible biases of local informal discussions.

2. In response Bitton suggested (twice) that an AE/ANI would be a better solution than RfC.

3. I explained that when I spoke of possible biases of local informal discussions, I didn't mean anything nefarious or against the rules.

4. In response Bitton said he understood this to be my meaning from the start.

5. The logical conclusion from 1-4 would seem to be that when Bitton suggested that an AE/ANI would be a better solution than RfC, he meant it also when there is nothing nefarious or against the rules. And that's what I told him.

6. He denied that.

7. I asked Bitton to give an alternative explanation of his meaning instead of conclusion 5, and he refused.

8. This is the last thing I'm going to say on this (unless Bitton changes his mind and start engaging in real conversation). Vegan416 (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it with your personal attacks (that have been highlighted by a number of editors on that talk page). Don't ping me again from your talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unless Bitton changes his mind and start engaging in real conversation since the aspersions show no sign of abating, I will ping those who are familiar with the subject (TarnishedPath, Abo Yemen, MjolnirPants and Simonm223). M.Bitton (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're all very tired of the constant discussions of Khelif's gender, the speculation of what tests she might be compelled to take, prognostication about the impact to her athletic career, etc. The call for a moratorium is a reflection of that fatigue. At this point the breathless WP:NOTNEWS insistence that every update even tangentially related to Khelif from World Boxing or any other sports organization needs representation on her page has become rather disruptive and I would kindly just ask for some peace on this. @Vegan416 you often accuse other editors of political motivation and yet seem so tied up in WP:GENSEX that you referred to an entirely unrelated matter on Talk:Zohran Mamdani as gender identity politics mumbo jumbo [1] which is something of a telling Freudian Slip in addition to being yet another violation of WP:NPA. I would not normally be this blunt but I believe this is coming to a head and I think you might benefit from someone laying this out for you: Vegan416 I think you need to take a step back from some of these contentious BLPs and take a deep breath. You seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an unwillingness to hear the word "no" from other editors.

I would suggest that, at the Khelif talk page, on the matter of the moratorium, you have been clearly heard. I count 22 comments in that conversation. This is nearly double the contribution of any other single editor in that conversation. I already cautioned you about WP:BLUDGEON on the article talk page and I will do it again now and here: you are bludgeoning that conversation. Frankly M.Bitton has shown considerable patience by not opening an AE filing regarding your comportment there.

Please take this in good faith: I think you have lost perspective here and need to take a voluntary step back for a few days. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have specificaly moved this discussion to my talk page to avoid bludgeoning. You cannot accuse me of bludgeoning anything when I write on my own talk page, because nobody has to read what I write here if he doesn't want to, and it doesn't disrupt any other discussion. But I'll refrain from further notifying anyone else about the discussion here.
I don't see what Zohran Mamdani has to do with the current discussion, but I said that about the argument that the NYT should be avoided as a source in that discussion because it was tipped of by a white supremacist, even though the NYT had independently verified the information and Mamdani also confirmed it to be true. I stand behind my position that if sources are verified and published by a RS, then their initial source's ideology doesn't matter at all.
Going back to the subject of Khelif, I will also point out that your insinuation that I speculated about what tests she might be compelled to take now is completely wrong. There is no speculation about this. The exact nature of the tests she has to take now in order to compete was explicitly specified by World Boxing and several RS. There is really no doubt or speculation here. These are solid facts.

Vegan416 (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question of bludgeoning here is the current table of the moratorium discussion (as produced by the C# program here)

Total Signature Number: 67

Total Text Length: 28030

MjolnirPants comments: 8( 11%). Text Length: 6535 ( 23%).

Vegan416 comments: 18( 26%). Text Length: 5790 ( 20%).

Woshiwaiguoren comments: 5( 7%). Text Length: 3836 ( 13%).

Super Goku V comments: 8( 11%). Text Length: 2713 ( 9%).

M.Bitton comments: 10( 14%). Text Length: 2375 ( 8%).

Simonm223 comments: 7( 10%). Text Length: 2105 ( 7%).

TarnishedPath comments: 3( 4%). Text Length: 1452 ( 5%).

Abo Yemen comments: 2( 2%). Text Length: 971 ( 3%).

Aquillion comments: 1( 1%). Text Length: 547 ( 1%).

Poppa shark comments: 1( 1%). Text Length: 507 ( 1%).

Sirfurboy comments: 1( 1%). Text Length: 473 ( 1%).

DanielRigal comments: 1( 1%). Text Length: 427 ( 1%).

SarekOfVulcan comments: 1( 1%). Text Length: 156 ( 0%).

Halbared comments: 1( 1%). Text Length: 143 ( 0%). Vegan416 (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with M.Bitton and I find your summary here, as well as your arguments at talk, to be highly disingenuous and biased. If you continue to cast aspersions on another editor, I will very quickly (like, the next time you do so) find myself motivated to request admin intervention on their behalf. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had already said above that I'm note going to say anything else about this "AE vs RfC" affair, and I'm not going to break my word. So you are pushing at an open door... Vegan416 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how would you call what you did here? Vegan416 (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would call that a talk page response. What I would call you citing it is "a failed gotcha," and I would point out that it's important that you read things before replying to them or citing them.

I would also note that you have have not stopped talking about this, despite claiming twice now that you were done talking about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I want to talk about the AE vs RfC affair unless Bitton will engage in a real conversation with me. He didn't. But Super Goku V had been kind enough to engage in a real conversation to defend him, so I thought he deserves an answer. And as for the rest I wonder if insinuating that someone is promoting a conspiracy theory is within AGF... Vegan416 (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Super Goku V had been kind enough to engage in a real conversation to defend him That is news to me. All I was doing was telling you that there was a misunderstanding and what it was to you since I didn't feel that things were clear enough given that you started this discussion. (And you rejected my explanation from my perspective, so that should be that.) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was a misunderstanding. I told Bitton that from the start. The problem is he denied any misunderstanding. So there we are. And now there really seems nothing more to say about this minor affair. Vegan416 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

engage in a real conversation to defend him more aspersions (even those of go out of their way to help you are not spared).

As I said previously, assuming bad faith, casting aspersions, misrepresenting what editors say and persistently targetting a living person can only go on for so long. M.Bitton (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Bitton, Where do you see me casting any aspersions on @Super Goku V??? On the contrary, while I disagreed with what he said, I have actually praised him for being kind enough to engage in real conversation with me (in contrast to you). You are ABFing. I may have misunderstood his intentions when I thought he was defending your position. But saying that someone is defending you is not an aspersion of any kind, whether it's true or not. Surely you don't suggest that defending you is a bad thing to do???Vegan416 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding what M.Bitton means. Go back a bit earlier than 1. You suggested an RfC to appeal the moratorium, despite that not being an option that I am aware of. (MORATORIUM does say that they can be lifted early, but not in the way that you were describing.) We discussed it a bit there, though I think my statement of no new RfCs would be permitted for a six-month period following the closing of this discussion might not have been clear enough that I was just referring to ones referring to Khelif's sex or gender. Then you have M.Bitton's response to one of your comments on the RfC line of things. I will admit here that I was initially convinced that M.Bitton's response was more directed at you than I had realized; I was under the impression until recently that M.Bitton was implying that you were being disruptive enough and breaking the rules to take to AE. However, that wasn't what M.Bitton's response was about. (Or at least, I currently believe it is the following. This is why I was wanting them to be more specific.)

To partially quote yourself, (...) informal discussions like this one usually attract mainly editors that are especially intersted in the article in question, and those sometimes tend to be biased toward a position that may be different from the opinion of the wider wikipedia community. (Emphasis mine.) From there, the meaning of the following comment is clear. M.Bitton was saying that if we have disruption from Single-Purpose Accounts (SPAs), then we can take them to either AN or ANI to resolve the disruption you referred to. This wasn't about the RfC suggestion that you had. This whole thing has been a misunderstanding that should have been resolved much sooner, but instead escalated when comments should have been clarified. Hopefully, this clears up this the situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you are not M.Bitton, you at least try to address my points and you engage in a real conversation on the subject from his assumed point of view, so I think you deserve an answer.

1. I'm not convinced by your argument, because contrary to what you said here, I was never talking about any disruption in this context. And my quote you brought here doesn't say anything about a disruption. I already explained here that I was talking about "what naturally happens, without any nefarious intention, when like-minded people, who do not necessarily represent the consensus of the wider community, aggregate around an article which particularly interests them". Of course it is possible that Bitton misunderstood my initial quote you brought, like you did just now. In fact that's what I suggested to him here. But in response he denied any misunderstanding on his side and claimed that he understood me well from the start. How do you explain this statement of his? (This were points 3-4 in my summation above here).

2. As for the ability to have an RFC on a moratorium - I still think you are wrong. And BTW MORATORIUM is an essay, not a policy. But since you raised that question again, maybe we should clarify this by a question/discussion in a relevant forum. What do you think is the right forum for this kind of general policy questions/discussions? Vegan416 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1, I have given you what I have understood. If you are not convinced, then I don't think I will change your mind on it. Regarding 2, I will say that the best venue that I can think of is the held desk, but I recommend against this as I think you are in WP:STICK territory regarding the moratorium. (I feel that way despite the actual discussion not having closed yet. If you are looking for a loophole of some sort, I would advise against searching given the situation and advise that you read the room instead.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to change my mind. I'm asking you how do you understand this sentence by Bitton: "I understood everything you said (from the start) very well."
I'm not looking for a loophole. There is a matter of principle here: Do you think that a local consensus should be allowed to override a possibly different wider community consensus? To use your metaphor, should reading the room prevent us from trying to read the entire city?

Vegan416 (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1, all I cared about was the apparent misunderstanding from my perspective. Regarding 2, reading the room means that I am worried that you are gonna continue to push things until you get blocked from something. But, if you want to push it, then I will point out that you are misunderstanding something. RfC for dispute resolution are to be used when a consensus cannot form locally. However, at this stage of the discussion, I believe that there is a decent change that there will be a consensus. If I am wrong and there is a 'No Consensus' close, then an RfC would be an option. But, at that point, I don't see why you would want an RfC as a 'No Consensus' would mean no moratorium.

If a moratorium was enacted by consensus, then you would have to go back to WP:MORATORIUM. An existing moratorium may be lifted early if there is consensus to do so. That would be your option outside of letting it expire. However, I highly doubt that you will succeed at lifting a moratorium, unless there is something to support lifting it early, which the best example in this case would be that new information comes in that is significant enough. Though note that different editors will likely have different opinions on what would be significant enough in such a situation, so be careful with a potential situation where you believe the information is significant enough, but others don't. I believe that is everything I can say on this. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your assumption that RfC cannot be used when there is local consensus is wrong. Remember that consensus in wikipedia doesn't always mean that 100% of the editors agree. So in case there are say 30% who disagree with the result of the local informal discussion and feel that the local majority of 70% doesn't reflect a similar support in the wider community (because of self-selection bias of the people who are particularly interested in the topic) they can open an RfC to invite the opinion of the wider community. Vegan416 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think such wikilawyering antics would probably be looked upon as disruptive if they were not accompanied by some substantial change in the circumstances of the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Imane Khelif and Talk:Imane Khelif) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vegan416 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was indefinitely blocked about a week ago from editing only one page (Imane Khelif and its talk page) due to BLP/GENSEX violations. This partial block prevents the use of the Wikipedia Library, and therefore hinders me from contributing to Wikipedia in other articles. I therefore ask that the block be removed, and instead of being indefinitely blocked only on this single page, I would be indefinitely TBANNED on the entire BLP/GENSEX area. I can be trusted to respect the TBAN without a technical block, since I have been TBANNED in the Israel/Palestine area for more than a year now, and didn't violate this TBAN. Vegan416 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined. I'm sorry you dislike the consequences of your actions. Yamla (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notify

Hi Vegan416, I'm Roxy. I saw your notification at WT:SPORTS and WT:FEMINISM, and would encourage leaving a similar appropriate notification at WT:LGBTQ as another project which has Sex verification in sports in-scope and a likely interest in that discussion. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 21:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgenderism is an issue of gender and not of biological sex, so I don't think that sex verification tests are really relevant to LGBTQ, but I guess it doesn't hurt to notify that forum as well. Vegan416 (talk) 21:13, 27 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) 00:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]