User talk:SpaceExplorer12

G, G, & S

No, the edit summary reasoning is factually accurate. The choice to include that specific criticism makes the page less neutral because it is factually innaccurate. This is why it should be removed. Notice the harsher, yet serious and factually based criticism above is left untouched. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say"Removed a brief section of factually erroneous and unserious criticism which does not address the actual content of the book." how is it factually erronoues? What unserioues? How does it not address the content of the book? @Tyrone Jahir Also, Please write the full article name next time SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism in question comes from anthropologist Kathleen Lowrey, who says that Guns, Germs, and Steel "lets the West off the hook" and "poisonously whispers: mope about colonialism, slavery, capitalism, racism, and predatory neo-imperialism all you want, but these were/are nobody's fault. This is a wicked cop-out. [...] It basically says [non-Western cultures/societies] are sorta pathetic, but that bless their hearts, they couldn't/can't help it."

Here, Lowrey is accusing Diamond of using his conclusions about the power of the environment in shaping civilizational development to absolve the European powers of culpability for their colonial atrocities. This is factually erroneous. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond consistently acknolwedges the profound injustices and suffering caused by European colonialism. He emphasizes that the conquests, violence, and destruction of indigenous cultures were unjustifiable outcomes of historical interactions. Diamond explicitly denounces the kind of thinking Lowrey accuses him of:

1. "If we succeed in explaining how some people came to dominate other people, may this not seem to justify the domination? Doesn't it seem to say that the outcome was inevitable, and that it would therefore be futile to try to change the outcome today? This objection rests on a common tendency to confuse an explanation of causes with a justification or acceptance of results. What use one makes of a historical explanation is a question separate from the explanation itself."

2. "Understanding is more often used to try to alter an outcome than to repeat or perpetuate it. That's why psychologists try to understand the minds of murderers and rapists, why social historians try to understand genocide, and why physicians try to understand the causes of human disease. Those investigators do not seek to justify murder, rape, genocide, and illness. instead, they seek to use their understanding of a chain of causes to interrupt the chain."

Lowrey's critisim is unserious exactly because it does not address the content/substance of Diamond's book. The arguments put forward in Guns, Germs, and Steel are not a justification for European colonialism, they are an explanation of how the European powers were able to colonize indigenous peoples in other lands, instead of indigenous peoples in other lands colonizing them instead.

1. "Thus, we can finally rephrase the question about the modern world's inequalities as follows: why did human development proceed at such different rates on different continents? Those disparate rates constitute history's broadest pattern and my book's subject."

At no point in the book does Diamond claim anything like "European colonization was inevitable" or that "European powers aren't ultimately responsible for the atrocities they committed." In fact, he refutes this kind of thinking in the prologue, chapters 3 and 11. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i agreed with you on the talk page already @Tyrone Jahir SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per cent vs percent

In British English "per cent" is correct (although "percentage" is written as one word). Stolitz (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good point sry...forgot about that and was thinking of american english. have a nice day @Stolitz SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its okay, I won't hold a grudge. I was editing pages tagged "use British English" to read "per cent" because it is a quite noticeable error in BrE. No worries. Stolitz (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right. en-GB prefers per cent to percent, but not very strongly, about 2 to 1 in recent years, and Collins is perfectly fine with percent. Of course while the edits aren't mandatory, they aren't prohibited either; however you want to use your time I guess. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

there is no need to give 4 warnings to a user, since i wont write everything here, see the message by someone else here. Notrealname1234 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know but give at least 1 or 2 @Notrealname1234 SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceExplorer12 then why do you comment on AIV report saying "not enough warnings"? Notrealname1234 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because sometimes theres been 1 or 0 warnings @Notrealname1234 SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop commenting.ting on AIV requests. Knitsey (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop commenting underneath AIV reports? If an admin determines that there aren't enough warnings, then they will post a decline to the report. While we (and the admins) all appreciate the help, that job is generally reserved for them. Also, the user that you commented on at AIV now has 3 warnings, and is still continuing. Sometimes it's best to just wait and see how a user's vandalism progression plays out.... Thanks. Sorry if my comment seems harsh, it's not intended to be. Just a friendly reminder to let the admins do their job. That's all. :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F60:6C1F:6C04:BDED:7E5B (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(What the others said.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on some of the above. Always be judicious in adding comments at AIV. It's rarely necessary outside of complex cases or where there is otherwise something that's easy to miss; it's also generally fine to bring immediate attention to cases where edits are not vandalism, but as a matter of etiquette you should do so without using {{AIV}}.

In most circumstances where commentary is appropriate you will also want to provide a ping or {{talkback}} for the original reporter as people will often remove reports on their own once something is brought to their attention.

Superfluous clerking has a tendency to perturb and as with other specialized highly structured venues, less is often more. Not the end of the world by any menas, just something to be mindful of going forward. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart College, Johannesburg

Is doing well on exams really enough [1] to be included on a list of "notable alums"? Especially one with an entry consisting of "he is literally him." Joyous! Noise! 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the he is literally him is nonsense...but the rest I think is notable. Hes all ver there website @Joyous! SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the rest"? Doing really well on exams is great, but what has he done that makes him singularly notable as a person on that list? It's not an honor roll. Joyous! Noise! 19:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do very well at that college? @Joyous! SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong @ToBeFree SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're highly likely to do something wrong if you continue carelessly running into areas you have no experience in, so this is an attempt to make you realize that you're being too fast. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what should I do to get that experience @ToBeFree SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking twice before submitting an edit, thinking three times before reverting someone, having a look at the Task Center for constructive work instead of starting with judging others' work in real time under time pressure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceExplorer12, you're still patrolling recent changes, judging others' work in real time under time pressure. This is not going to end well; please find something else to do for a few months. Take your time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few months!? Why? I like reverting vandalism and other bad edits @ToBeFree SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently like running into trouble by reviewing others' contributions without having the experienced required to properly review them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi SpaceExplorer12! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and since this is your first week here, welcome to Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses

You are making quite a few incorrect or basically useless reverts. This revert removed an encyclopedically relevant detail for the sole reason of "not useful info". If someone won one district and tied another, how is it not useful to include that full fact? You have reverted quite a few edits by Special:Contributions/74.92.69.137. Some of their edits are indeed entirely cosmetic, and at least one was incorrect (although I'm betting you couldn't tell me why it's incorrect), but many of them are valid changes to category order. If you have some substantive objection to those category order changes, that's fine, but you should not be reverting them simply as "useless" when they do in fact have an effect on the rendered page.

So, ease up. Countervandalism is not a race. Getting it right matters more than racking up points, especially when you're new and still learning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine @Tamzin SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add, even if an edit is entirely cosmetic, then reverting it is as pointless as making it in the first place. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic edits take up more bytes worsening loading times @Tamzin SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The wikitext is parsed server-side and converted to an HTML document, which is then cached and served to clients. Two identical HTML documents load at the same speed, regardless of what wikitext generates them. More generally, don't worry about performance. Even for edits that do change the rendered page, we're talking less than a millisecond of difference per pageload. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Maybe slow down more generally. I want to be clear, I'm not mad. We were all new once and made mistakes. Heck, I even got blocked for it! But, if we only have one article on something called Oxenham, then there is no reason for that to be titled Oxenham (surname). And that article is indeed a list (specifically a set index article), not a disambiguation page. Please generally slow down and start asking questions before you leap into things. I'm heading out for errands right now, but maybe fellow administrators ToBeFree and/or Joyous! will be available if you have questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy to help with any questions, or I can direct you to someone knowledgeable if you're in an area I'm not as familiar with. We really do want you to stay, and we appreciate your enthusiasm. Joyous! Noise! 20:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we start with counter vandalims. What am I missing there and how can I improve? @Joyous! SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the reversions you've made, I think your working definition of "vandalism" is too broad. Read over this page, especially the paragraph just before the Table of Contents. I think you may be blurring the lines between "willful vandalism" and "good faith, but poor quality, edits." PS You don't have to @ me in your reply. I've subscribed to this discussion, and I'll automatically get an alert when comments are added. Joyous! Noise! 21:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand. I try to already do that, I'll leave an edit summary other than default if its not vandalism/spam. Here is what I feel vandalism is, am I correct:Intentionally trying to disrupt the encylopedia, defame it or the article's subject, inappropriately advertise, repeatdly removing content, create or adding untrue information that you know is untrue, or similar. SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Higuy6153

Hello SpaceExplorer12. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Higuy6153, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A3 is only suitable for article mainspace. Thank you. BangJan1999 20:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well what tag is appropriate for that. Clearly still useless. @BangJan1999 SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a valid comment that happened to be redundant to a filing made around the same time. As a strict matter of procedure, the correct thing to do would have been to copy it to the main SPI page, but given the redundancy I just blanked it. But there's no reason to delete. It may be of some marginal use to know that two reports were made close together, and deletion would obscure that fact. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of wars between Russia and the Ukraine

The page List of wars between Russia and the Ukraine has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

WP:GS/RUSUKR violation

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of armed conflicts between Russia and Ukraine

The page List of armed conflicts between Russia and Ukraine has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

WP:GS/RUSUKR violation

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of armed conflicts between Russia and the Ukraine

The page List of armed conflicts between Russia and the Ukraine has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

WP:GS/RUSUKR violation

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

SpaceExplorer12, you're clearly trolling. You may appeal your block using a properly formatted unblock request template; I'm likely to revert anything else as an attempt to waste the community's time and assumption of good faith. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2023 (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).

SpaceExplorer12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I have taken a day or so of waiting to respond to this and have realized that I have been a bit rash and gone a bit too fast, and would like to apologize for that. You say that I am clearly trolling. While I now understand that I was going to fast and making a bunch of mistakes, I do not realize why you believe me to be trolling. Trolling is defined as "deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction". I don't believe that to be what I'm doing. If that is what I am doing, it is certainly not delibrate and I would like to know some examples where I have done that and then I can figure out how to improve that. I was officially blocked for "disruptive editing". I understand now that my reverts of good or neutral edits was probably quite disruptive, and I would like to apologize for that. I am trying to work on that;just before I got blocked I applied for Counter vandalism academy, have asked some people on this page, and asked my mentor to help me. I am sorry about the unintentional disruption this caused and I working on it. I would appreciate both help figuring out what I have done and how I can fix it. I would also, like to be unblocked and I will be more careful this time. Thank you and have a nice daySpaceExplorer12 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you don't seem to know what you did wrong, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2023 (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.

@ToBeFree@Tamzin@Joyous!@Notrealname1234 SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceExplorer12 dont really know why you pinged me, im not a admin, so i cannot do anything here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notrealname1234 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying it, sorry. If you are genuinely confused, find something less confusing to do than editing Wikipedia please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2023 (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).

SpaceExplorer12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

same as last time. please tell me what i did wrong and how i can fix it. any reply other than this template is reverted by ToBeFree, but this is declined because I don't yet know what I've done (per 311dot). Please help! Thanks

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. PhilKnight (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2023 (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.

@ToBeFree@Tamzin@Joyous! @331dot

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

PhilKnight (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77541

is closed. Copying over results of review of user talk page, for user's edification.

I can't tell you more than you were told already. There is a long discussion on your talk page with a lot of coaching.
Hopefully, you stopped commenting at AIV. Let the admins make comments if they decline. This was discussed at length under the heading "AIV."
Doing well on exams does not warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. I did quite well, myself.
You don't have the experience to revert vandalism.
We do not generally delete talk pages like Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Higuy6153, and especially not with a template intended for Article space. I think you need to not be tagging for speedy deletion.
Editing about Russia-Ukrainian conflicts is a Contentious Topic and users with fewer than 500 edits and who have been editing for less than thirty days is not allowed. You created three redirects in this topic area with different titles. .
In general this all adds up to a lack of competence. There is plenty of work that the encyclopedia needs done that does not involve these areas. Hopefully, you can describe constructive edits you might make.

There may be other concerns I overlooked. Hope this helps. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77813

is declined. Confirmed sock of Bethsheba Ashe. --Yamla (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]