User talk:RBut

Welcome

Hello, RBut, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! --Animalparty! (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

comparing articles to other articles

Hey, RBut, I didn't want to restart the conversation at that article talk, but you said "There are so many synopsis on wiki that are just as long, even in identical articles (of documentaries). Which means in depth synopsis are not an issue," which isn't accurate. There are many articles on Wikipedia in which things aren't done correctly, and the solution is always going to be to fix those other articles. We don't make an article worse in the name of consistency. There's information at MOS:PLOT about overdetailed plot summaries, and at WP:OTHERCONTENT about why the fact something is done badly in another article isn't a good argument. Hope this helps! —valereee (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Hi, thanks for the info. It definitely makes sense for movies and tv shows, as even the MOS article itself is directed at, e.g. "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction", as well as in the "Contextual presentation" section that was referenced (it is clear that it is directed at fiction). Personally, I heavily disagree that an article is made worse with longer synopsis when it comes to documentaries and books. I view a two thousand word summary as a lot more valuable to a 500 - 700 word one. I'm extremely thankful to the editors that create these, and I do not understand why this is condemned when it improves the article. That is the only reason why I choose Wikipedia when I read summaries on books and documentaries. As an off note, the OTHERCONTENT article is an editorial. Since they are opinions it doesn't really make sense to pay attention to them. If these are the rules of wiki they would be implemented. RBut (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RBut, the fact it's an essay doesn't mean it's not excellent advice, and you're incorrect that Since they are opinions it doesn't really make sense to pay attention to them. The fact it hasn't been added to policy doesn't necessarily mean an essay is not worth paying attention to. That essay in particular is very well-regarded, but in any case it's also my personal advice to you that you stop making the argument that "other articles are bad so we should make this one bad too, for consistency's sake". It's just not going to fly. And you can disagree all you like with it, but consensus has not been that 2000 words of plot summary is better than the 400-700 words recommended at MOS:PLOT. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (The Game Changers and Talk:The Game Changers) for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

We are creating a synopsis. I suggested one that was too long (editors jps and Dumuzid pointed it out), since I have seen many wiki articles of identical pages (of documentaries, books and etc), that have far succeeded the 500 - 700 word MoS recommendation, I made the mistake and disputed the decision of jps and Dumuzid. This sparked some outrage. I apologized, explained my self, and moved on from the in depth synopsis. After several days, I progressed the creation of this synopsis, by proposing another version which fit the MoS, of 500 - 700 words. jps and Dumuzid have again responded, saying it is still too long. jps suggested a 10 line synopsis, which is around the half mark of the MoS recommendation, which I was about to propose, but got blocked. I believe this block is a mistake as all three of us have been respectful to each other, as well as collaborative. We did not have many issues before I created the dispute. I would like to move past it, and finish the synopsis. I am confident the following one, of 10 lines that I were about to propose, would have been the finisher. The last synopsis that we were about to add to the Game Changers page. So please, consider unbanning me from the GC page. I know I have made a mistake with the dispute thread, which escalated this and even got an admin involved. We are almost finished creating the synopsis. After that is done, all three of us are done on the Game Changers article. Thanks. RBut (talk) 10:43 am, 16 November 2021, last Tuesday (7 days ago) (UTC+1) Vanjagenije (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2021 (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.

I told you several days ago that you were becoming disruptive at that article with this, and you told me that you were moving on, but you've started back up with the same arguments. —valereee (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I am moving on from the in depth synopsis. The consensus was that it was too long. Few days later I proposed a new synopsis that fit the MoS recommendation of 500 - 700 words, to progress it. The two editors who are involved in that thread (jps and Dumuzid) have responded, saying it is still too long. I was about to further progress it, and propose one as jps has suggested, a synopsis of 10 lines. We are doing quite well over there. Well mannered, respectful, collaborative, and in accordance to wiki's guidelines. We are almost finished creating it. I believe the one of 10 lines will be the one, which I was about to post on the GC talk page.

You're conveniently forgetting that another editor (me, also the page creator FWIW) was also involved in the talk page discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: What is this in regards to? RBut (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RBut: I legitimately can't tell if you're being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse at this point. Nevermind, this is up to the admins to deal with anyway. Funcrunch (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Hi. To address the three points in the second point. I was about to propose the 10 line synopsis, and since that is what the other editors requested, it was likely to be the last edit that I would make on that page. Does this adequately address 2. and 3.? As it is not disruptive and is a useful contribution. As for 1. Yes I understand that I have been blocked for being contentious on that article. But since we are almost finished, and I have given you my complete plan of action for the article, no such issues will be present. Is this sufficient for 2.?

Thanks. RBut (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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 Wikipedia'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.

Alexbrn (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even visited the COVID 19 wiki page, less so made any edits. I think you might be mistaking me for somebody else. RBut (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appalling edit of yours was about COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that was on a Vegan page 4 months ago. It still follows Wikipedia's guidelines as it is a secondary source, I am not understanding how it is appalling? RBut (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Sky News is WP:MEDRS, there's a problem. The warning is thus apt. Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be condescending. I'm listening. Is Sky News classified as non reliable? because I was under the impression that it was a secondary source, in accordance to guidelines. If Sky News is an issue, similar articles have been published by other sources such as the New York Post, Independent, IrishTimes and many more. So other sources can be used to replace Sky News. RBut (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: You might be mistaking Sky News for Sky News Australia. The source I used is the British Sky News, rather than the Fox News of Australia. "Sky News Australia has no relation to the British Sky News." Does this address your concern? Should the revision be revisioned? RBut (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:MEDRS and in particular WP:MEDPOP; lay sources are not reliable for medical claims. Alexbrn (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. My bad. RBut (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: If you're done biting over "appalling" behavior, you may be interested in the original study (primary, of course), a response in The Conversation and select expert commentary compiled by the Science Media Centre. The world won't end because a single sentence was added improperly to Wikipedia. Have a very good day, and stay healthy, one and all. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

Do not use Wikipedia to encourage copyright violation. Scihub is blacklisted for a reason, and finding ways to advertise it while avoiding the blacklist is bad, and likely to attract sanctions if repeated. Alexbrn (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: It is more complex than that. I understand why Wiki as an organization cannot support SciHub, but there is no reason why any of us editors should enforce this rule. If somebody references SciHub as an excellent option, and nobody reports them, no bad will happen.

A right to science is a human right. These journals charge ridiculous prices for access to a single study, or access to their journal for a year. And if a person is active, they would need to subscribe to 10+ journals. Enforcing such rules (I'm talking about us, the editors), takes away the ability of underprivileged people from accessing science. Most editors cannot afford such luxury. We are from a very diverse number of countries. Also consider that the authors of the paper do not get a cut, they get nadda. They do not care if their papers are shared freely. They support it instead. SciHub is a subject of many research papers, check them out and you will find that the major consensus is support for the site, apart from journals. By the way, you can even contact an author of a paper and if they get a hold of your email, chances are they will send their paper to you for free.

The rules are here to serve us, we are not here to serve the rules. If a rule, such as one that takes away the human right to science, flips that around, we have a moral obligation to break it. Hopefully a compelling point was made, and that you will turn a blind eye next time if somebody happens to mention SciHub. RBut (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki have an excellent article on Sci-hub, you do not need to dive into the literature to observe the massive support for it:

"Sci-Hub has been lauded by some in the scientific, academic, and publishing communities[9][10] for providing access to knowledge generated by the scientific community, often from some share of public funding.[11] Publishers have criticized it for violating copyright,[5][12] reducing the revenue of publishers,[13] potentially being linked to activities compromising universities' network security (although the cybersecurity threat posed by Sci-Hub may have been exaggerated by publishers),[14] and instigating publishers to make paywalls stricter.[15] Elbakyan responded by questioning the morality of the publishers' business and the legality of their methods in regards to the right to science and culture under Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while maintaining that Sci-Hub should be "perfectly legal".[16][17][18]" RBut (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it simple: if you use Wikipedia to point to sci-hub (no matter how ingeniously) you will get banned. See previous ANi report here.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: What do you think was accomplished by bringing him up to the admins? Did this improve anything? RBut (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helped educate a reader about the need to keep Wikipedia operating according to its WP:PAGs, and the reasoning behind that is to keep editors and the WMF out of legal jeopardy. If you want to fight this battle, don't use Wikipedia as cover. Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Editors will not get sued for referencing SciHub, nor Wikipedia as they are not directly supporting it. It is merely mentioned on talk pages by editors. Just as Youtube are not responsible for the comments on their site. In my opinion it is better to protect the right to science by turning a blind eye, than to directly oust editors (if an admin happens to come across it and warns somebody, I understand that.) RBut (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COPYLINK. Anyway, you now know what (not) to do on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telling editors to check out SciHub when they are unable to access a study is not the same as referencing SciHub as a source. The COPYLINK article focuses on the latter. RBut (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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.

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.

Generalrelative (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Revolution of Dignity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]