User talk:Vegan416/Archive 1

June 2020

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gilgul 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 the 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. Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Zainab Chaudry have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "did not appear constructive"? The goal of Wikipedia is to publish the truth. Not to be "constructive". Vegan416 (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm HorseyMcHorse. Please do not add subjective edits that are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy as you did with Zainab Chaudry. If you'd like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thanks. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@HorseyMcHorse I disagree with your opinion. The word "acceptance" is clearly required there. Without it, it seems as if the LGTB materials taught in school are part of the sex education, which the sources indicate clearly that it isn't. These materials have no explicit sexual content. They deal only with the social acceptance of LGTBs. Vegan416 (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Political views of Albert Einstein. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm I completely disagree with your opinion. I have not added original research. I brought a very reputable source for my claims. Tom Segev is a well known and respected historian of the history of Israel. Vegan416 (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

On the page of the source ([1]) that you provided, Segev does not say that "this extremely negative view about Menachem Begin was common among Labor Zionists in those days", as you claim in your edit. Deducing this from the text is a school book example of wp:original research. Please have a look at the policy. - DVdm (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

Well, I should have thought that explicit words from the leader of Labor Zionists calling Begin a "Hitlerist" will be enough to show that "this extremely negative view about Menachem Begin was common among Labor Zionists in those days". But if you think otherwise then here are a few here are more sources that say that even more clearly:

1. "Mapai's shrewd politicians constantly used Herut's past radicalism, extremist rhetoric, and commitment to the dream of "Shtei gadot laYarden zo shelanu zo gam ken" (There are two banks to the Jordan River, this one is ours and the other, too)-a principled rejection of the partition of Eretz Yisrael and the aspiration for a military conquest of the Kingdom of Jordan-to keep it out of the pale of complete legitimacy".

https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/ACLURM018927.pdf

and here

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=CiuNDwAAQBAJ&q=herut#v=snippet&q=herut&f=false

2.

"They were branded as criminals, violators of the law, 'a bunch of lunatics', 'wishy-washy thinkers',

'degenerate personalities', wielders of 'a knife in the back of the Yishuv', rhetoricians 'filled with poisonous and poisoning influences' exhibiting a 'criminal countenance'".

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30245769?read-now=1&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

3.

"The political climate in Israel in the first two decades of independence tended to de-legitimize Herut. David Ben-Gurion pursued a deliberate and effective policy of isolating and ostracising Herut. His famous principle for forming coalition governments was ‘without Herut or Maki’, Maki being the acronym of the Israeli Communist Party."

https://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Fighting%20Family.html

Is this good enough now if I add those references? Vegan416 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you write, make sure it is explicitly and directly supported by the cited sources — preferably wp:secondary sources, by the way. Never draw conclusions from a source. If the source doesn't say it, Wikipedia cannot say it — by design.

And let's not overdo it. I think that what is currently said in that paragraph is already sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

I'll add this sentence: This delegitimization of Menachem Begin and his Herut party was not unusual among Labor Zionists in those days, and the first Israeli prime minister Ben-Gurion has also used similar expressions against Begin. Vegan416 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

References

You can't do that. It's not in the book and not in the review. Please read the policy article. - DVdm (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

1. Well I think you are wrong. And here is yet another source, describing the first election campaign in Israel in 1948:

"Even the old slur comparing Revisionist Zionism with fascism seemed to have lost much of its force. Still, a particularly provocative example was published in a propaganda leaflet titled Niv-Hahayal (The Soldier’s Expression), which was distributed by Mapai in early January. In it, pictures of Begin and Mussolini raising their arms were juxtaposed under the heading “The same shape—the same content.” The captions under the pictures said “Il Duce” and “The Leader Begin,” respectively, and in the Yiddish version, since not all the soldiers could read Hebrew, the parallel terms were “Der Dutche” and “Der Führer.” Herut members were furious about the offensive publication, which reminded them that in the past Ben-Gurion had called Ze’ev Jabotinsky “Vladimir Hitler.”"

Israel Studies Review, Volume 31, Issue 2, Winter 2016: 80–100

https://www.tau.ac.il/sites/personal.tau.ac.il/files/media_server/395/Israel%20Goes%20to%20the%20Polls.pdf

2. However I am willing to make a slight change in the wording: "This kind of delegitimization of Menachem Begin and his Herut party also appeared among other Labor Zionists in those days. Thus the first Israeli prime minister Ben-Gurion and his party's propaganda have also used similar expressions against Begin".

I don't see how an honest person could say that his sentences are not supported by the sources I brought this far. Vegan416 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, an honest person would see this as a very plausible conclusion from sources, and perfectly fit to write in a book about that subject. Congrats . But not for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and certainly not for an article about Einstein (see wp:UNDUE). You make a conclusion from a text. That is plain wp:synthesis, a form of wp:original research. If you write this in your book, and someone cites this in another book or in a journal article, then, and only then, can that be used a wp:secondary source for your claim.

Have you carefully read the linked policies? If not, here they are again in a row: wp:Original research, wp:Synthesis, wp:Secondary sources, wp:UNDUE. These are policies to which we must adhere — see wp:Policies. - DVdm (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

Well, surprise :-) I had read all the linked policies and I still don't agree with you that they are relevant here.

1. Regarding the "secondary source" issue - all of my sources are secondary sources from well known academic researchers in the field of the history of Israel and Zionism.

2. Regarding the "Original Research/Synthesis" issue - certainly the last wording doesn't contain any OR or synthesis. It's not a conclusion from the texts. It is a summary of what the texts say. These are the facts:

• Einstein et al said in the letter against Begin that his party is like "the Nazi and Fascist parties"
• BG said in his letter and his party propaganda that are quoted in my secondary sources that Begin in the "Hitlerist type" and hold racist and fascist views.
• So saying that "BG used against Begin similar expressions to those used by Einstein et al" is not a conclusion from the texts. It is just a summary of the texts.

3. Regarding the "undue" issue - I don't see how this is relevant at all here. There is no dispute at all about the facts I brought. Everybody agrees that BG and his party said those things about Begin. So there is no opposing minority and majority viewpoints here, and therefore no issue of giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Vegan416 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you don't agree with our basic policy. From wp:Original research:

This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the the material being presented. And the note: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research.

- DVdm (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

No. I accept the policy (well, I don't have a choice do I?). I'm just saying that your claim that I am not following it, is not correct. In other words please explain what conclusion I reach in my addition that is "not stated by the sources"? Vegan416 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to explain about the fact that your phrase is a conclusion drawn from various sources. - DVdm (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

And if I added a reference to this source which already appears in this wikipedia article would it be ok then? ref number 43: "Was Einstein a Zionist" Zionism and Israel Information Center. There we find:

"Like many Zionists, Einstein deplored the violent tactics of the Irgun and the LEHI. Einstein was opposed to violence. He wrote a famous letter to the New York Times in 1948, asking that their leaders be denied admission to the United States." Vegan416 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That does not directly, explicitly support a phrase like "This kind of delegitimization of Menachem Begin and his Herut party also appeared among other Labor Zionists in those days. Thus the first Israeli prime minister Ben-Gurion and his party's propaganda have also used similar expressions against Begin." Not even close. - DVdm (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Vegan416! I noticed your contributions to Political views of Albert Einstein and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. You should be aware that there are special rules in place for content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The term "related" in the phrase "any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict" is used in a broad sense, so your edits to Political views of Albert Einstein may be within scope of the restrictions. An admin like User:ScottishFinnishRadish would likely be able to confirm whether you can continue or whether you need to wait until you receive the extended confirmed privilege after 500 edits.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Palestine/Israel conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

 Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland

I find this to be an extreme limitation. There is no warning in this article about that. Vegan416 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It is an extreme limitation that was put in place by the Arbitration committee due to a history of disruption in the topic area. Until you have made 500 edits you are prohibited from making any edits related to the Palestine/Israel conflict anywhere on the English Wikipedia except for edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

How broad is this limitation? Does it mean I cannot make any edits relating to Israel? To antisemitism? To Jews? To Arabs? TO the middle east? Vegan416 (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It is broadly construed, so you should stay away from edge cases where you're not sure if it would apply. Editing about Israel, antisemitism, Jews, Arabs, or the Middle East is fine as long as the edit doesn't relate to the Palestine/Israel conflict. If you're unsure if something is covered feel free to reach out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Vegan416/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Vegan416! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tachash (February 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MicrobiologyMarcus were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tachash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@MicrobiologyMarcus

1. Thanks for your comments. I have changed the style to a more NPOV.

2. I also added more sources. The article contains now multiple in-depth, secondary, reliable independent sources: including 4 encyclopedia articles dedicated to this subject (in English and Hebrew), 3 papers that appeared in academic journals, a chapter in a scholarly book and some more.

3. Regarding the issue of importance, I would mention that there is already an article about this subject in 5 others wikipedias including in Hebrew, Russian and Portuguese

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%A9_(%D7%AA%D7%A0%22%D7%9A) Vegan416 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tachash (February 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Utopes were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tachash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Tachash has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tachash. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon

How can I see the deleted article to check why it was deleted? Vegan416 (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You can view the history of Tachash at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tachash&action=history&offset=&limit=250 . I do not see a consensus discussion that blanked and redirected the article. What I do see is that the previous versions of the article were the work of banned sockpuppets. I don't see a reason why good-faith users twelve years later should not be allowed to construct an article summarizing the long controversy over what is meant by Tachash. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon

Thanks. Other reviewers said there is OR in my article. I don't think there is. But to make sure I'll redraft anything that might look like OR to the casual reader, and them resubmit. Vegan416 (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Tachash has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tachash. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon

Is it possible to respond to these comment in situ, i.e. in the page Draft:Tachash? Vegan416 (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It is possible and permitted to respond to the comment in either of two ways. The first is with AFC comments on the draft page, Draft:Tachash. Use the Comment feature of the AFC tool to do this. Please do not simply put comments on the draft other than with the AFC tool. That is because comments put on the draft with the AFC tool will be removed if the draft is accepted and moved into article space, but comments that are put on by normal editing will have to be removed manually if the draft is accepted. The second way to respond is on the draft talk page, Draft talk:Tachash. Comments that are put on the draft talk page will remain on the article talk page if the draft is accepted. I hope that this is clear, and that it answers your question. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Vegan416 (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Tachash has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tachash. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong

Please explain how this is OR. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH THERE. EVERYTHING IS TAKEN FROM RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES Vegan416 (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to respond to these comment in situ, i.e. in the page Draft:Tachash? Vegan416 (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Vegan416! Your additions to Ayyalonia dimentmani have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source. You must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. Read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Our policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Daboia palaestinae, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: the cited source says:

"Daboia palaestinae was also predicted to occupy a patch of suitable habitat inside modern Egypt, but separate from the species’ core range".

It does not say that it "is probably mentioned in a list of venomous snakes in ancient Egypt." as you claim in this edit. - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

1. Thanks for your diligent enforcement of the "reliable sources" rule, but you are wrong here. You only looked at the abstract of the article. I read all the article, and it does explicitly say what I said. On page 2 of the article there is a table with the identifications suggested in the literature for the snakes in the papyrus. And Daboia palaestinae is mentioned there as a possible identification of snake #26 there. Also further in p. 8 there is this sentence: "Daboia palaestinae is currently found in the Levant, but during the mid-Holocene would also have occurred in the northern part of ancient Egypt". If you don't have access to the full article I can send you a PDF copy.

2. The article gives this book as the source of this identification

"Die Schlangennamen in den ägyptischen und griechischen Giftbüchern". I can add it as an additional source if you want. But I don't have access to it to check it myself (plus I don't read German). Vegan416 (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, my fault. I should have looked closer. I have undone my revert: [2]. - DVdm (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Vegan416 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Mouse. - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: Seneca's epistle XLVIII says:

Mouse’ is a syllable.[3] Now a mouse eats cheese; therefore, a syllable eats cheese.” Suppose now that I cannot solve this problem; see what peril hangs over my head as a result of such ignorance! What a scrape I shall be in! Without doubt I must beware, or some day I shall be catching syllables in a mousetrap, or, if I grow careless, a book may devour my cheese! Unless, perhaps, the following syllogism is shrewder still: “‘Mouse’ is a syllable. Now a syllable does not eat cheese. Therefore a mouse does not eat cheese.

It does not say that the popular belief that mice eat cheese "may have started at least as early as the Roman period" as you claim in this edit. - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

In this issue you are more correct than in the Daboia paelestinea issue. But l’ll still make the following counter-points:

1. I phrased my edit the way I did because I wanted to make as little changes to the current phrasing of the text as possible. But now I see that this can lead to some misunderstanding of what I actually meant to say. A rephrasing of the passage to something like this reflects my intended meaning more accurately:

“It is very common to associate mice with eating cheese. This association appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca. But in fact most mice do not have a special appetite for cheese. They will only eat cheese when lacking better options.”

2. The Seneca reference is not at all my own "analysis". I found it in several sources on the web, such as this one:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/09/mice-dont-like-cheese/

The reason I didn’t refer to these sources is because I wasn’t sure if they are considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. So I preferred to go directly to the primary source.

3. I understand perfectly that the policy of Wikipedia is to prefer secondary sources whenever possible and I accept this policy (though it is somewhat contrary to the habits I acquired in the years I did in research in academia). But the Wikipedia policy does not totally ban primary sources. In particular primary sources can be used to testify about their own content as is stated in the example here:

“The novel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot, the names of the characters, the number of chapters, or other contents in the book. Any educated person can read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and discover that the main character's name is Elizabeth or that there are 61 chapters”.

And that is the case here in the rephrased version of the Seneca reference. I use a reference to a book by Seneca to establish a fact about the contents of that book, namely that Seneca made in there an association between mice and eating cheese. Any educated person can read the letter of Seneca and discover that he makes there an association between mice and eating cheese. No special analysis or special expertise (in history, zoology or cheese making) is needed to verify that this fact is supported by the source. Vegan416 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's not in the source, we do not say it in Wikipedia. If the source does not say that the popular belief that mice eat cheese may have started at least as early as the Roman period, then WIkipedia does not say that the popular belief that mice eat cheese may have started at least as early as the Roman period. Even if you do find a source from that period that suggests that mice like or don't like cheese, the source does not say that the belief "may have started then". That is plain wp:original research and wp:SYNTH. Try re-reading the section User_talk:Vegan416#Original_research of your talk page some time. It's all there. Stop wasting your time trying to weasel in your private conclusions from sources. - DVdm (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

1. I have already admitted in my previous comment the that the phrase "may have started at least as early as the Roman period" was misleading because the source does not say it was a popular belief then, and this wasn't my intended meaning. But my point in the previous comment is to know what you think about this sentence: "The association between mice and eating cheese appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca".

Would you also consider this as an original research? I definitely don't think that this sentence is original research (based on the policy pages I quoted in the previous comment), but it's not clear to me what you think. And this is very important for me to know, because you threatened to block me without warning if I publish "original research" again. So I need to understand what is exactly your definition of "original research".

2. I also reject your insulting accusation that I am trying to "weasel in" my "private conclusions" from sources. I already explained to you that this Seneca quote on mice and cheese is NOT my private discovery or conclusion. I never read Seneca's epistles (I only read his book on comets). I first learned about this association between mice and cheese in Seneca in someone's else website as I showed you. And I'm not trying to "weasel in" anything. As you can probably understand yourself it's highly unlikely that anyone would have any stakes (financial, political, religious or whatever) in the question exactly when did the mice-eat-cheese myth started. And I couldn't care less if this subject would appear in Wikipedia or not. This has become a much more general question now since you threaten to block me if I'll do again what I did on "Mouse". So I must know what are the limits of this threat. Vegan416 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is synthesis. You draw a conclusion from what you read. You need a source, other than yourself, that says: "The association between mice and eating cheese appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca". - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

And what about a sentence like that:

The name of the main character in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is Elizabeth Bennet.

It's been years since I last read this book but, without checking it, I'm willing to bet that this sentence or anything equivalent to it doesn't appear anywhere in the text of the book. Using your words "That is synthesis. You draw a conclusion from what you read". So according to your logic this too is "original research", and if I will write such a sentence in wikipedia you will seek to block me without warning. Am I correct? Vegan416 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No, your are not correct. You have been warned. Original research and synthesis have been explained to great length. If you don't understand the policies (and/or don't agree with them), you can go ask (and/or contest) on the relevant policy talk pages. Here, you are wasting your time. - DVdm (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@DVdm

1. No. I understand the policies and agree with them. What I have doubts about is your personal extreme and seemingly inconsistent interpretation of them. For example you haven't explained what is the logic behind making a distinction between "The name of the main character in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is Elizabeth" which is legit in your eyes, and "An association between mice and eating cheese appears in the writings of Seneca" which is not legit in your eyes. But in any case I'll take up your advice and raise this question in the relevant policy talk page. I'll tag you there so you could respond there if you want.
2. This is a direct quote of what you said in the beginning of this thread: "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Mouse." Bye for now.

Vegan416 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Disruptive Editing

Please refrain from your disruptive editing to Zainab Chaudry by adding subjective edits that are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@HorseyMcHorse

There is nothing disruptive or NPOV in my edits. You are the one being disruptive here. In particular your claim that "there is no evidence that these books depicted families" is false. This is explicitly stated in the beginning of the only officially reliable source that you left to this issue:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-09-25/lgbtq-muslims-evangelical-republican-christians:

"For months, hundreds of religious parents have regularly rallied outside a Maryland school board building, aghast at curriculum featuring books that portray LGBTQ+ families to elementary school kids."

If you don't respond why you wish to delete what the source is saying within a week, I'm going to revert your revert, and if you will revert it again I am going to take this to the talk page of this article and all the way up to formal arbitration if needed. Vegan416 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the references, religious families are not requesting to opt out of books featuring LGBT families. They are requesting to opt out of ALL LGBT materials, whether they feature families or not. The word "materials" is more appropriate as it is inclusive and factual and adding the word "families" is limiting. HorseyMcHorse (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@HorseyMcHorse

Then I have an even better idea. I'll change it to:

"In 2023, Chaudry supported a protest by Muslim, Christian, and Jewish parents demanding a right to continue to opt-out of all learning materials that mention the LGBT phenomenon, including several books that portray LGBTQ+ families to elementary school kids, that were made mandatory by the Montgomery County School Board in Montgomery County, Maryland".

Surely you cannot object to this change, since it is all inclusive exactly as you said yourself just now... Vegan416 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@HorseyMcHorse

Waiting fir your response Vegan416 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Private space missions

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 25#Category:Private space missions. – Fayenatic London 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't object. Do I have to do anything? Vegan416 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

nableezy - 16:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

Please take care to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you've made ~40 comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in just the past few days alone, all regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict WP:CTOP, and all in just two sections (ADL and Norman Finkelstein).

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like most of the participants in that discussion have made a lot of comments on these issues. I didn't bother to count the exact number in my case or theirs... Vegan416 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Two wrongs don't make a right though. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please abstain from bludgeoning regardless, and if you see others doing so let them know on their talk page or report it if necessary. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. It's the first time I hear about WP:BLUDGEONING and it sounds somewhat subjective. Vegan416 (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS

I also want to point out that the page you referred me to carries the caveat "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". It also doesn't explain how much is too much. The only thing it says by way of quantification is "It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion". Well. I definitely didn't reply to every comment in those discussions. Not even half of them. There are so many of them that even if I wanted to do that I simply don't have the time for that... Vegan416 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We are required to edit "carefully and cautiously" in this contentious topic area. I know you're not the only one doing it but please be considerate of not bludgeoning and avoiding WP:Battleground and WP:Tendentious editing. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not editing. This is a discussion about reliability of sources. Vegan416 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia discussions" are explicitly referred to in the second sentence of WP:Battleground. Please read and familiarize yourself with these policies and guidelines. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS

Well, that page doesn't answer my question either. How much is too much? Can you refer me to a policy page which gives a number - how many comments can you make in a discussion page per day before it is considered "bludgeoning"? Vegan416 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Good question. There's no fixed rule on a limit to the number of comments, and the context and quality of the comments need to be taken into account. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not something I can work with. You'll need to come up with something more speicifc. Vegan416 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:Battleground is a part of the page WP:What Wikipedia is not, and is official Wikipedia policy. Simply saying "that's not something I can work with" might not be the best response.

This topic area is not easy to edit in, involving a lot of nuance, and has a higher required competence than other topic areas.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS

What I meant by "that's not something I can work with" is that you need to give a number for this "bludgeoning" prohibition. Nobody can work with a vague definition like "There's no fixed rule on a limit to the number of comments, and the context and quality of the comments need to be taken into account".

For example I feel that I was not bludgeoning at all in the discussion regarding the ADL etc. You apparently think otherwise, or you wouldn't have contacted me. So how do we decide which of us is correct, when there is no clear quantitative definition in the policy pages? Vegan416 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS

I have to go, so let me summarize what I think. The WP:BLUDGEONING gives two possibly quantitative indications about what is BLUDGEONING: 1) replying to every comment, 2) dominating the discussion. As I already explained I certainly didn't reply to every comment or anything close to that. Also, since many people on those discussions commented there no less than me, then I wasn't dominating the discussion either. So I don't think my behavior there can be described as BLUDGEONING according to this "policy" page. Vegan416 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. If a sufficient number of contributors in the community find that you are misbehaving, then you better stop behaving like that, or you're out. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, so far the only person who said I was "bludgeoning" in the noticeboard discussions on ADL and Norman Finkelstein, is @IOHANNVSVERVS. And he didn't even participate in these discussions. None of the people who actually participated in these discussions complained that I was "bludgeoning". Probably because most of them, on all sides, were behaving in the same way that IOHANNVSVERVS thinks is "bludgeoning".

So what am I to make of all this? Vegan416 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Op/eds and weasel

Please don't add content to articles that cites op/eds; those are not reliable sources. See WP:NEWSOPED. This is especially true for WP:BLPs. Also, "has been described as" is WP:WEASEL.

Adding controversial or negative content to a BLP cited to an opinion piece with the prose "has been described as" violates multiple editing policies. Please don't do this. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what incident you're talking about but this is not this user's first BLP violation.[3] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think he talks about NF. I did add there a ref to an opinion piece by mistake, in addition to many others. But what BLP violations are in what I said about Yanis??? All the refs there are to reliable news articles. I'm also flattered that you searched my edits with a fine-tooth comb up to half a year ago... Vegan416 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"But what BLP violations are in what I said about Yanis???" This was explained to you on the talk page of that article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The talk page discussion there doesn't say anything about the "BLP violations" mentioned here by Levivich. They claimed that I should have included Yanis' response, which is not relevant in the current case as NF didn't make any comment about his Unz Review involvement in any RS. They also said something about WP:AGEMATTERS which again is not relevant in the current case. Vegan416 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be WP:Not listening. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, the policy issues with the edit half a year ago were different from the policy issues with yesterday's edit that Levivich is talking about. What is you point in connecting two unrelated issues separated by 6 months from each other? You should "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Otherwise it is WP:NOPA violation. Vegan416 (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)