User talk:Robenceic

Welcome!

Hello, Robenceic, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes must be verifiable in reliable sources

Hi, Robenceic, and once again, welcome! I notice you have made some changes to country-related articles like Roman Empire and Fascist Italy involving changes of flag, emblem, or formal country name. Thank you for your detailed edit summaries in these and other contributions, they are very much appreciated. All the same, it is not enough that you feel that some change is an improvement, even with a detailed summary like you provided—there has to be a Wikipedia policy- or guideline-based justification for it.

For example, you gave a detailed summary for this change of yours changing the flag at Roman Empire, after your previous, similar change attempt had been reverted by another user. You stated twice in your summary that you believed it to be an improvement, and challenged the other user to provide sources why not. But according to our guidelines, this is backwards. As User:Remsense pointed out to you the second time they undid your flag change (diff), the onus is on you, the person making the change, to provide justification for it. In addition, your justification should provide a reason based on Wikipedia guidelines or policy, in particular, what reliable, published sources have to say about the issue. Your justification of "I believe the Roman Empire flag works better in the context of the article and offers a clearer representation of the subject " just doesn't cut it; we editors all have our own opinions, and if we edited articles based on our opinion, there would be chaos.

Two reverts like this means there is a content dispute going on. At this point, you should either accept that this flag change is not going to go through, or, if you believe there is independent, reliable justification for it, then you should initiate dispute resolution by going to the Talk page at Talk:Roman Empire, start a new section there, and lay out your arguments why you think your flag change is an improvement. Other editors may weigh in with their thoughts about it. Wikipedia works on the principle of consensus, so after discussion among editors, whatever the consensus view is, that will be the basis for whether the flag gets changed or not. If discussion among editors is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, there are other, more formal, and weightier procedures that can be used; but the place to start is just by discussing it on the Talk page with the other editor.

I noticed other examples of adding your opinion to articles without any source to back it up, such as here at Apollo 12, here at Western Roman Empire, here at Dixie, or here at Erbsenmuster. All of these edits (as well as others) were swiftly reverted by other editors. Your edit summaries in all of these was exemplary, so keep that up, but it is important for you, as a new editor, to recognize early in your Wikipedia career that we do not add our opinion to articles, and everything must be verifiable in reliable sources. If you are working on the Roman Empire article, even if you are the chair of the Classics department at Harvard or Oxford, you still cannot add your opinion to an article; it *must* be verifiable in published, independent, secondary, reliable sources. There are other important requirements, such a neutral point of view, but WP:Verifiability is the minimum bar. Going forward, please be sure that every one of your edits is independently verifiable; our opinion of "what is better" plays no role at Wikipedia, and it is very important to understand that. If you have any questions, please feel free to {{reply}} below. You can always ask questions about Wikipedia editing at the WP:Teahouse, and you are welcome to contact me at my Talk page. Thanks, and I hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mathglot,

Thank you for reaching out and for taking the time to provide such thorough and constructive feedback on my recent edits.

I’ll take the time to revisit and reflect on why those contributions were reverted. Going forward, I’ll make sure that every edit I make is supported by reliable sources, and I’ll avoid introducing any changes based solely on opinion.

I also appreciate the reminder about the resources available to me and your offer to answer questions. I may reach out as I continue to familiarise myself with Wikipedia’s policies and processes. Your message has provided me with a clearer understanding of how to contribute constructively, and I’m grateful for the thoughtful way you approached this feedback.

Thank you again for your patience and for pointing me in the right direction. I’ll do my best to apply these lessons moving forward.

Best regards,

Robenceic (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome; feel free to ask for help anytime. There is another help option available to you: if you start a new section here on your Talk page with a question, and add {{Help me}} to your question (that is, the string 'Help me' enclosed in double curly brackets), that will cause an experienced editor to drop by and answer you here, so it will always be easy to find the response and refer to it. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum: although we always assume good faith regarding the motivations of other editors, including their reverts, that doesn't mean that every editor necessarily acts perfectly in accord with our myriad policies and guidelines or even knows what they are; and some bad faith actors do exist. So, if upon reflection of your previous edits you believe there is good justification favoring an edit of yours that was undone, by all means go to the Talk page and talk it out. Think of the goal not as "who is right", but rather, "how do we reach the best resolution for the article". A bit of Zen detachment helps. There are ways to attract other editors to the discussion, or third opinions, if needed. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deftones

Deftones, a neo-nazi group? Either you don’t know what a neo-nazi is or are unfamiliar with the music of the deftones. 2604:3D08:F180:C500:F842:ADC6:5757:25 (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a history of them aligning with or expressing support for problematic views, which ties into the broader, controversial associations that can be found in certain elements of their music and imagery. Deftones is a neo-Nazi group. Some members of the band have openly associated with far-right, anti-Semitic, and racist groups.

Source: https://heavymetaltherapy.co.uk/be-quiet-and-gaze/

Best regards,

Robenceic Robenceic (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cue the laughing Jameson gif... you're serious? mftp dan ^oops 14:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did you read that article you linked? How is that a valid source and how does it even say what you're suggesting it says? Your edits and citations are so absurd you must be trolling. MuEmpireX (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be actually out of your mind. This is some random dude's blog post talking about the evolution of his musical taste in metal. The part talking about Deftones doesn't refer to anything close to Neo-Nazism. mftp dan ^oops 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me by mistake? You and I agree. Sorry if I misunderstood, I'm not familiar with wiki-reply format. And I'm old and dumb. Peace. MuEmpireX (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just wrote at the same time I did so I had to get around an edit conflict. Sorry for the confusion. I should have indented differently. I think we've poured enough gas on the fire though, let's wait for a response now if there is any at all. mftp dan ^oops 15:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robenceic: This diff looks very bad - can you tell us how you came to make this edit, and explain why you should not be blocked from editing for making it? There does not seem to be anything in any WP:RS that suggests this might be true. — The Anome (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @The Anome,

I would like to sincerely apologise for the edit associating Deftones with neo-Nazism. That edit was a severe lapse in judgment, and I deeply regret any confusion it may have caused.

I did not independently verify the accuracy of the neo-Nazi claims made in the edit. This was a lapse in judgment, as I should have researched evidence before proceeding with such significant changes.

I have taken the time to reflect on this mistake and have reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines on maintaining a neutral point of view and properly citing reliable sources. I am committed to ensuring that my future contributions are accurate and respectful of Wikipedia's community standards.

I understand the severity of this mistake and sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn from it. Please know that I will take all necessary steps to ensure this does not happen again.

Robenceic (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could please respond to The Anome instead of the LLM you fed their message into? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the rest of their editing history. They explicitly lied about having >6000 edits by using the 'Experienced Editor' service award and about the date they joined (9 November 2024, not 13 October 2023), possibly to evade accountability by seeming more "credible" (this isn't how that works if that's what they're angling at). Literally their entire edit history is dedicated to describing article subjects as Nazis and adding the Nazism sidebar with no additional sources. Even in the event these things are true (which I see no evidence of with the egregiously disruptive edit to Deftones), it's clear to me this editor is WP:NOTHERE. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

— The Anome (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]