User talk:TheSpacebook

Not to be confused with The Space Book.

This is my talk page by the way!

Feel free to drop me a comment TheSpacebook (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing and violations of the Law of Holes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It seems unfair, and out of policy to start up a new proposal on a page which I can’t edit to defend myself. Two lies/misrepresentations have already been made about me particularly after their reply to Yamla "I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material" is a complete lie. I was sanctioned for editing my comments and haven’t done anything since by block, so opening this new sanction doesn’t seem to be policy based. We've already lost one good admin over this user, it's time to put an end to the nonsense violates WP:NOPUNISH as per, Blocks should not be used: to retaliate, to disparage, to punish; or if there is no current conduct issue of concern. :Most importantly, the reasoning behind the new sanction is (underline added) banned from posting to project space and project talk space, with the sole exception of responding to complaints against them, which is nonsensical, with the reasoning because they edit their posts repeatedly after posting, and that they don't know when to post to noticeboards as the comments I edited (the reason for the sanction) were the ones I was responding to complaints against me. So how does this solve the "problem" the proposer is trying to solve? I quite busy this weekend, so I won’t be as active on this, but I hope the discussion is bought back to policy, and not to WP:PUNISH me, and also note that I’ve already been sanctioned for editing comments, and haven’t done it since my block. To note, I have began to edit articles since my block, albeit three. But I hope editors can assume good faith. I bought the Nazi symbolism issue straight to the AN, as I didn’t want to open up a lengthy deletion debate which could turn anti-Semitic, by those defending the userbox. I recently programmed a solution to the suicide line issue which met in the middle of the debate about disclaimers and inclusion (User:TheSpacebook/lifeline). I also have some drafts for some main-space articles, but I must go through each claim and fact-check each source. This is getting long, but I hope editors can look past my blunders, and focus on my intentions. I feel as though this is how intentional-vandals are dealt with. But admitted, I do need to work on comment-editing. But I have made improvements as I haven’t: edit-warred, canvassed, and I have been sensitive around contentious topics (hence keeping my drafts offline and checking each claim). No one can deny that I’ve made improvements, but now my room for improvement is the comment-editing. The improvements on those other issues shouldn’t be ignored.

Decline reason:

You have made 202 edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard in the last 19 days. It has been explained at that noticeboard and this talk page how excessive tweaking is unnecessary and disruptive. The block was to prevent disruption to other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

---

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’ll also give a special thanks to @Levivich and @Yngvadottir for holding those other editors claims to account and steering the ship over there. It is greatly appreciated. But I feel as though I must have the right to respond myself, as such false and misrepresentative claims are not appropriate for a discussion regarding a proposed ban. TheSpacebook (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The latest comment Cut the head off the snake, let them actually edit articles, and grow up a bit seems to also violate WP:NOPUNISH. TheSpacebook (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's clearly preventive and in fact generous as it allows you to continue to edit articles and develop your skills at editing. Surely that's something you want? Your actions outside of article space have been disruptive and consumed a lot of other editors' time, and that has now been prevented for short while. You were heading for a community ban and hopefully this will help ensure that won't happen. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

see, the really discouraging thing is that I told you hours and hours ago that SFR did you a favour. Everyone told you to shut up and edit some articles. Everyone. On both sites. I may yet support a CIR block. Dude. Shut UP already. Elinruby (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Not sure if you want to hear from me right now, but as I said at AN, I think you've been doing good too. So, when you return:

1. WP:ASSUMECOMPETENCE: It's a redlink. Maybe there's a note somewhere it could point to, but basically, you need to assume more competence in fellow editors. You didn't need to highlight your points, or leave important notes, or repeat again and again the same points. When people ignore or seem to ignore your point, assume it was not convincing rather than assuming it was completely missed. Assume people won't vote to ban you without reading the whole thing carefully and independently verifying the salient points or asking you for clarification if there's something needing clarifying.
2. Just because people said "don't edit comments that have been replied to" doesn't mean "it's completely fine to edit a comment that has not yet been replied to, a dozen times." People won't know when to read your comment seriously when they don't know how many more changes you're going to make to it before you stop. We need WP:DIFFS a lot. Making a zillion edits makes it impossible to find them. When someone is looking to find a diff for one of your comments, it necessitates going through 50 revisions to find the one diff that adequately represents what you actually wanted to say. People who want to edit the page or section have to wait or retry every time you make one more edit between them clicking the edit and publish buttons. If you can't spot all the typos before publishing, consider leaving some of the typos as they are, especially the ones that have little or no effect on what you mean. If you say something and later think you should have used a different phrase, just let it go. If you say something and you later think you could have said more, ask yourself whether it's important enough to make a whole new comment to say it. If it isn't, it does not need to be appended to the existing comment. If you need a hard rule, here's one: you get one edit after you publish your comment to add significant text to it before it's replied to, zero if it's been replied to already, you get an average of one typo correction edit per comment, and try to never be the person with the most edits or most volume of text added to any thread on Wikipedia, ever. If you are on top, wait till you would still be second after you make the comment you want to make. Even in a dramaboard thread about you, you don't need to correct everyone, reply to everyone. For one thing, what you see as setting the record straight, almost all the time, is just a difference of opinion between a third objective party and you who can not by nature be objective about yourself.
3. Don't go back and edit your comments from places where the conversation has already moved on from, even if they have not been directly replied to. People will have read them and taken them into account. When people come back again, they will look for new developments at the bottom or in signatures in existing branches. They're not going to read the comment they've already read in case there's someone like you goes back and adds text to existing old comments. When you have to change existing comments, follow WP:REDACT; you may want to read the rest of that page too. People know to watch out for the strikethroughs and underlines and notes that may explain those. Again, these need to have been done for important reasons, reasons that are worth taking time and attention of readers.
4. As it says at the top at AN, if you're new and find yourself wanting to post to AN, post to the Teahouse instead.

Regards, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• What they said ^. I'll add:

Admins can see deleted edits, so presume they are taking those into account when looking at your contributions.

One of the first responses to you at AN made an important point: For the vast majority of issues, you should go to the editor's talk page first. The userbox creator, KomradeKalashnikov, modified the image in the user box as soon as they became aware there was an issue. Done and dusted. (I know you rejected the suggestion at AN. That was an unwarranted accusation of bad faith). Talk to people first. It's a matter of respect, and also saves the time of an unneeded noticeboard discussion.

Obey big coloured boxes and other warnings that appear at the top of pages. There is very, very rarely a reason to think they don't apply to you or your concern. Your failure to give KomradeKalashnikov a talk-page notification when you opened an AN section about the userbox they created violated a big yellow notice that appears when creating a new section on that noticeboard. Your many edits to the section after it had been closed all violated a clear instruction not to modify the hatted section; you even added to the admin's statement closing it. (I would have expected those changes to be summarily removed; you're lucky not to have received a strongly worded notice about them on this page.) Your move of the house article while it was at AfD broke a rule that's clearly stated in the AfD templates—because it breaks them.

The project has many, many policies and guidelines. I was going to note that your first housekeeping edit to this page was to remove the "Welcome" template you were given, but it happens that you got one without many links (although it did link to the Teahouse—note that that's a help space for new editors, not a noticeboard to suggest policy changes). I think you might find this master index useful for looking things up. If you prefer, this is the template I usually use to welcome people. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I went to WPO on Carrite's recommendation. I don't think I found what I was looking for. But,
  1. As you can see, someone else promptly corrected when a quote was mistakenly attributed to you.
  2. You said no one will see it if you posted here while you can't at AN. I don't know if you are aware that pageviews can be checked. This page was viewed 500 times yesterday. It may be 500 more times today, while only a dozen or so editors have edited the AN thread about you.[1]
  3. See also: WP:WL.
  — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban from Project space

Per the consensus at this AN thread, you are topic banned from project space and project talk space, which would be Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk:. An exception is responding to complaints about yourself. At this time, I will not enforce this with a partial block, but another admin is free to levy one if appropriate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)