User talk:UberVegan

elcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro UberVegan, from WikiProject Editor Retention
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wik.ipedia.Pro, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talk page of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wik.ipedia.Pro. Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wik.ipedia.Pro less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance! Or, better yet, visit The Teahouse where veteran editors are waiting to assist you.
	Policies, guidelines and peer assistance		Help and Tutorials
	The five pillars of Wik.ipedia.Pro. The fundamental principles of the project.		Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
	Main policies of Wik.ipedia.Pro. Wik.ipedia.Pro's main policies and guidelines.		How to start a page. If you want to create a new article
	Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look.		Help. The complete help guide
	Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns.		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space
	Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wik.ipedia.Prons and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.

Again, welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! UberVegan, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wik.ipedia.Pro for new editors to ask questions about editing Wik.ipedia.Pro, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! John from Idegon (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wik.ipedia.Pro, as you did at Michael Moore. Your edits appear to be and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wik.ipedia.Pro's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wik.ipedia.Pro's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Content is decided by consensus. If another editor objects to an addition, your content stays out until you've gained consensus for your change on the article's talk page. This is in no way optional and it is the way Wik.ipedia.Pro has worked for all 18 years of its existence. See WP:BRD for details. No one is claiming that you do not have sources, just that the content isn't useful. Consensus decides questions like that. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. What you are doing now is edit warring. Do not replace your political description of Moore without first establishing a consensus. To do so will likely lead to your editing privileges being suspended. John from Idegon (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: As you can clearly see by the revert of your reverts of my six edits, your edit here is crossing the WP:OWN, NPOV, and WP:BLP line on the Michael Moore page. Your revert specifically placed content into the page that is not supported by the sources. Any further pov reverts of my edits and you'll need to justify all six of your previous reverts. I guess it was you, the editor with 92,963 edits, that was making disruptive edits. UberVegan🌾 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ami Horowitz shows that you are currently engaged in an ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the , which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Quit blanking valid content. Take it to the talk page. Orville1974^talk 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at regarding a possible violation of Wik.ipedia.Pro's policy on . The thread is . Thank you. Orville1974^talk 00:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DoctorAldebaran and "Jewish POV-pushing" by the "Jewish ethnic lobby". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your .

• If you are engaged in an article with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wik.ipedia.Pro's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wik.ipedia.Pro's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wik.ipedia.Pro, as you did at Michael Moore, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: What exactly was "re-added"? The sources that I merged were already there. UberVegan🌾 23:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added back the contested content in the lede. That stays out until a consensus is reached on the article's talk page. As of yet, you are just ref bombing. You've made no argument except WP:OSE and that doesn't hold much water here. Each article is considered individually. If you have arguments to make, make them on the article talk page. If not, drop it and quit wasting others time. John from Idegon (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: All of your comments, and the reasons that you gave for your reverts, were about adding the political descriptors into the "lede". This edit was NOT in the lead, but in the body's section under his political views. As such, it was a completely new and BOLD edit and you or any editor could have reverted it. It wasn't, so how do you suggest that simply bundling the sources is a continuation of "re-adding" content that was reverted in the "lede"? UberVegan🌾 00:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UberVegan! You created a thread called Group reference at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Amotz Plessner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wik.ipedia.Pro. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UberVegan. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by MrClog (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hi, I just saw your email to me but for some reason I can't read it. Please re-send any emails to [email protected]. Feel free to delete this section after you've read it. Thank you. Jtpaladin (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UberVegan! You created a thread called External links section at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UberVegan,

Thanks for creating Unfreedom of the Press! I edit here too, under the username Willsome429 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

An infobox and a description of what the book is about would be a great help to the page.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 22:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As such an infrequent editor, how did you find your way to administrators' noticeboard discussion about me? It seems strange that you'd just stumble upon it. I notice that another infrequent editor, JBlackCoffee52, who also happens to edit the Gatestone Institute also happened to find his way to the administrators' noticeboard discussion about me, which seems strange. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2019, the account "The Kingfisher" was blocked for abusing multiple accounts[1]. You made your first edit two months later in April 2019. Both of you appear to have an obsession with adding 'this person is anti-semitic' content and running interference for anti-Muslim groups and individuals. Your edit summaries are similar, with both accounts saying "fx", "cmt", "cl", "qst", "+links", "-->" and adding "+" without a space before adding a comment in edit summaries. Is that your old account? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're insane! No, I have no idea who The Kingfisher is! Are you crazy???!!! I've learned to add to the summary , where Wik.ipedia.Pro said that I should learn. I honestly never recall saying that any editor was "anti-semitic." Could you show me where that was?

Is this the way you roll, somebody gives you friction so you accuse them of being a sock? This is great! UberVegan🌾 00:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more highly unique edit summaries that both you and the other account used repeatedly, several of which are not derived from that page you linked. You've not as far as I can tell accused any editors of being anti-semitic, but you've added content to pages about how someone is engaging in anti-semitism[2], which is what the other editor also did. Both of you edited the page of the activist Ami Horowitz (known for pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Muslims), and both of you edited the 'Jewish activism' sub-section of Ben Hecht, a screewriter active from the 1920s-1960s. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and the other editor have also made around 20 edits each to the Michael Moore page, including making pretty much the same edit, with the same edit summary.[3][4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it up. I'm now learning the ropes and I'll see how I should deal with your accusations. Maybe by next week, I'll lump you in with a few other editors who have edited the same page and made the same type of edits. UberVegan🌾 04:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Snooganssnoogans, I've always been fascinated that almost every time there was a discussion or RfC, you seemed to be the only one that would point out that an editor is new, or an editor has never edited the page before. Now you're accusing me of being a sock because I happened to edit a few of the same pages as another editor who might have the same interests? If that's the case, let's look at you and Grayfell.

The two of you have edited 262 of the same pages, you making 4,954 edits and Grayfell 3,080. Not only that, the amount of time between some of your edits is somewhat astonishing: 36 seconds, 50 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes...and, you two seem to always agree on the content and make the same type of edits. Using your theory, and considering that the coincidences of making 8,034 edits on 262 of the same pages is astronomical. Here is only first 25 same page edits. This is only my first, there are many more to go.

UberVegan🌾 05:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Snooganssnoogans, between you and SharabSalam, 3,126 edits on the same 81 pages. 36 seconds apart, 1 minute apart, 3 minutes apart. Impressive! UberVegan🌾 06:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans I'd suggest an SPI to settle this. UverVegan, you've been warned about words such as "drivel" on my talk page. Now I see the above. It's almost as though you are asking for a block. Doug Weller talk 06:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened one at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. @Snooganssnoogans: hopefully my filing also notified you. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I’m appealing my NoCal100 sockpuppet block based on one reason: I’m not a NoCal100 sockpuppet. I don’t know NoCal, I’ve never met NoCal, nor do I know who s/he is. See here for detailed request. Thank you UberVegan🌾 20:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're insane! No, I have no idea who The Kingfisher is! Are you crazy???!!!...Is this the way you roll, somebody gives you friction so you accuse them of being a sock? This is great! - UberVegan
...after The Kingfisher was unjustly and unfairly blocked as a NoCal sock, I created a new account: @UberVegan - The Kingfisher.
You already have one open unblock at User:The_Kingfisher. We don't need two unblock discussions for the same editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:48, 13 October 2020 (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.

Epilogue

Sanity prevails (successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee) UberVegan🌾 23:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ARBCOM!!! UberVegan🌾 20:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]