User talk:Vack Xu

Welcome!

Hello, Vack Xu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as C14H12N6O, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 07:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Vack Xu! Your additions to Recreational use of dextromethorphan 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, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 20:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pterostilbene, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Use WP:MEDRS reviews. Zefr (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

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

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

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

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia 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. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif

You may only create edit requests at this article talk, which is extended-confirmed restricted. Valereee (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"Lolbertarian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lolbertarian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20 § Lolbertarian until a consensus is reached. SomeRailfan (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

"Lolbertarians" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lolbertarians has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20 § Lolbertarians until a consensus is reached. SomeRailfan (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Civility at Müllerian agenesis

Hi! I noticed your discussions regarding content at Müllerian agenesis, particularly with another editor whom you appeared to have been in a dispute with, ~2026-39424-31. On both the talk pages for the article and the editor, you respond to other users' concerns about consent and child pornography in a rather terse and emphatic manner. For example, at the article's talk page, you wrote, "First, You cannot remove the image before you get consensus," "And you claim that you have got consensus? That doesn't make sense," and "Is it clear enough?" At the user's talk page, you wrote, "Last warning: It is vandalism if you keep doing like that," "And it is not a good faith for discussion," "Sorry, principles don't care about your feeling," and "Claiming exceptions needs hard, solid evidence, otherwise illogical."

I understand its frustrating to see others be unaware of policies. I understand its frustrating to see them break those policies. I understand its frustrating to have disagreements in general. I really do; you'll see that I was also involved in this particular dispute by the message I posted on that talk page a few hours before you posted yours. However, its imperative that you remain civil and assume good faith in circumstances such as this. Those are some of the most foundational policies at Wikipedia, as we want to foster a community in which everyone feels free to contribute their thoughts without being dismissed or insulted.

You appear to break both of these policies in your discussions. Strongly-worded warnings targeted directly at others rarely receive good responses, especially when they're given in your first interactions with them. Asking rhetorical questions isn't necessary either and only serves to makes others feel unwelcome. Saying things like "principles don't care about your feelings" directly dismisses others' perspectives. And accusing others of acting in bad faith without due evidence hardly serves any end. As an editor who's been here for a year, others will look at your comments, go to your user page, see the length of time you've been here, and assume that this is the state of decorum across the entire Wikimedia movement. I apologize if this sounds confrontational, but I feel that these are important points for you to consider.

Regarding the dispute itself, I think a strong case can be made that those with whom you were in dispute are acting in good faith. To me, their concerns are quite fair: because Müllerian agenesis is usually diagnosed in adolescence, and consent isn't always guaranteed in medical photos, one might begin to suspect whether the existence of a photo depicting the condition and the subsequent use of it may violate some severe ethical principles. They're clearly passionate about this, which makes sense because these are serious concerns that could mean sexual images of minors are being used and archived on a major site that millions of people access daily.

I implore you to consider this when dealing with disputes in the future. Specific policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are not an end in themselves, but means to an end, that end being a collaborative project toward the dissemination of knowledge that can be furthered by anyone and provided to everyone. If you simply attach yourself to the letter of a policy—WP:CON—without taking into account its spirit, you'll undermine that goal by, in this case, making people who have legitimate and serious ethical concerns think that Wikipedia knowingly hosts child pornography, with abrasive editors preventing the removal of it. I'm sure that's not an accurate representation of who you are, and I'm sure you wouldn't want others to form that opinion. I hope you'll become more mindful of this in later interactions. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hard words ≠ impolite or offensive. There's a difference between them. I am just urging them to follow the principles, which is deontological ethics. Thank you for discussion, regards. --Vack Xu (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

In case you have interpreted "Trabajo Propio" as a name of a person, the discussion would have benefited, and would benefit from less comments from your account, as these have then repeatedly shown partial knowledge of policies and partial understanding of situations presented in a way I'd describe as "loud" for the lack of a better word – more loudly than appropriate for the level of understanding shown in these messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding the Spanish word. But I don't think this mistake is serious enough to silent me from the discussion. --Vack Xu (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're not being asked to participate less because you misunderstood the Spanish phrase in File:Agenesia de vagina2.png. You're being asked to participate less because others view your comments as demonstrating a lack of knowledge regarding our policies and guidelines, as well as when and how to use them to defend your position. I'd go further by noting your conduct throughout this discussion. You've been engaged in a dispute involving extremely serious and legitimate concerns regarding violations of consent and the distribution of child pornography. Instead of addressing these concerns in an empathetic manner, your replies have come across as terse and confrontational. I'd go even further by noting how you've responded when others approached you about this. In my earlier message, I came to you asking that you be more empathetic in your discussions—if not in this one, at least in the future. You responded with another terse reply that signaled you wouldn't make that effort. You've just received a suggestion to drop out of this discussion because of your partial understanding of Wikipedia's policies. You responded by misunderstanding the rationale behind this suggestion, similarly signaling that you wouldn't make an effort to change. I get that you want to contribute your thoughts and opinions here. That's always a respectable thing to want. But when the manner in which you do so prevents others from doing so too, maybe it's best to sit back for a while. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, hard words ≠ impolite, offensive or insulting. The problem now is not I falsely accuse the account, it is the account falsely accuse me of lying. --Vack Xu (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources for categories

Last year you added a large number of categories for CYP enzyme inhibition, like this . You generally provided no explanation and cited no sources. I reverted that edit because I initially could not find a source to support it. I have now found one , so you are welcome to reinstate it with the source. You really need to provide sourcing for biomedical claims like this (WP:CATV, WP:MEDRS). I would greatly appreciate if you could go back and cite the many category additions you made. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 09:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Turns out I misread that source and it doesn't support this claim, so you'll need to find a new one. Toadspike [Talk] 09:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to DIY transgender hormone therapy. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Regardless of the merits of your argument, it's clear there is no consensus for the inclusion of this content. (t · c) buIdhe 07:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Warning back to you: Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS.

Your report is factually incorrect and appears to be a false accusation.

I have only made exactly two reverts within the last 24 hours, which does not violate the 3RR rule.

My first revert: 06:55, 23 July 2026

My second revert: 01:56, 23 July 2026

The third latest revert is 06:38, 22 July 2026, which has already longer than 24 hours. And even if there're 3 reverts, it doesn't violate the rule. Only a fourth revert violates it.

I have strictly followed the rules. The reporting user is making baseless accusation and is entirely invalid.--Vack Xu (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, you can be edit warring even without making three reverts. (t · c) buIdhe 10:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)