User talk:Apteva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


During the last year, Wikipedia has added 300,000 articles, and lost 290 very active editors (who made over 100 edits per month), and 2200 active editors (who made over 5 edits per month). Wikipedia is not writing itself. Many of those "articles" are redirects and stubs, but all of them require maintenance. Wikipedia has more readers than a year ago, but less active editors. This is not a good trend. The reason that I want to have all restrictions removed, is so that I can be one of those active editors. This is an alternate account. Even with this account unblocked, I would not be able to update hundreds of vital articles until the restriction on using alternate accounts is removed. The reason we allow alternate accounts is because they are necessary. There are several reasons for this, but mostly for testing and privacy or security. Alternate accounts have never been abused by this editor, so it is important to remove that restriction, so that those hundreds of articles can be updated. One of the edits that I would do, if I was unblocked, is add the letter "f" to a file name. It is marked as a dead link, but the extension is simply missing the last letter. It is a pdf, and the f is missing, but instead of it being added, it was marked as a dead link.

I see that many bird names have been renamed, which is a shame - "what is written is less regarded than the style it's written in". Birds actually have a naming authority, and it is more than bizarre to choose to make up our own names in an encyclopedia, instead of using the correct bird names. It is somewhat comical to see that "a sock of a blocked user" initiated one of the move requests. Does this mean that their edits are valued or relished? When Wikipedia started, the original advice was to capitalize all species names, which is done for some, and is done for all common names of birds, and then someone noticed this was goofy, and for a long time there was insistence by the bird lovers that bird names really are capitalized, but has now reverted to only proper names. Sigh. Bird names are proper names. But as I have often stated, I follow all guidelines and policies, even when I disagree with them. In this case I would likely if asked about an article about a bird name, say, well the actual name is "Crowned Crane", but we call it a "crowned crane". If asked why, I would only be able to say, "because we are stupid". After all isn't most of Wikipedia written by 5th graders? It is more than comical to see a sentence that says so and so calls them the "crowned crane", and then look up the cited reference and see that it says no such thing, but instead says "Crowned Crane". ("Each of the two Crowned Crane species") Apteva (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

". This is an alternate account. "
Please tell us clearly: are you operating an alternate account at this time, despite your block? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No. I am not making any edits and will not until I am unblocked. This is not my primary account. I have created many articles with my primary account that I can not edit until the restriction of using alternate accounts is lifted. Many of those articles have not been updated in a year and a half now, because of that restriction, and now show information that is a year and a half old, as no one else is updating them, and it is inexcusable to not allow me to update them. Many of the articles that were created by this account have not been updated in the year since I have been blocked. The articles that are more in need of updating are the ones that I would be editing from my primary account. The only edits that I make from this account are RCP, RM, and solar. This account was created for the purpose of becoming an admin and to make edits that I could not make from my primary account. Obviously the converse is true - I can not make edits from this account that would be made from my primary account, which is why those articles languished for six months while I continued to update the solar articles. NB: Sockpuppetry would only apply if I was using two accounts to participate in the same discussion in order to make it appear that more than one person was taking that position. I have never done that and never will do that. I only use alternate accounts in a manner that is allowed. The reason we allow them is they are required. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
An unblocked editor can edit any article from any account. There are no restrictions (other than individual topic bans). It is most rare for an alternate account to be permitted, simply to edit a different area of interest (it does happen, but very rarely).
This is your primary account. You don't have any other accounts. You had another account once, as I recall, but it was indef blocked as an unnecessary alternate account. You have given no valid reason to restore it. There is no need for it, simply to edit a different set of articles.
Blocks are also (in general) applied to the person, not the account. Any personal blocks you have (as at present) apply equally to all accounts.
As you have no other accounts, this becomes your primary account. Disputing this is seen as a wasteful disruption on your part. WP does not recognise your reasoning or justification here, and your continual advocacy in its favour was long ago seen as tendentious and disruptive. Your best route to having any account is to accept that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Not true. This is an alternative account, and there are many edits that I can not make until I have access to my primary account restored. I may, though, create another primary account, but it will not be this one. I edit an article on blue widgets from my primary account. I can not edit them from this account due to privacy issues. When access to alternate accounts is restored, I will once again be able to edit articles about blue widgets. In the mean time the articles on blue widgets are getting out of date and in need of updating, as the slack has not been picked up. Calling this "my only account" or "by default my primary account" is simply a lack of understanding of how alternative accounts work. They are not a replacement, they are essential. Apteva (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Calling this "my only account" or "by default my primary account" is simply a lack of understanding of how alternative accounts work."
One of us is insane. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not likely. Alternative accounts are created to edit things that can not be edited from your primary account, or at times that you can not use your primary account. I have a lot of things that I would like to edit, that I would do if the restrictions were removed. That is all that I am asking, that I have the same restrictions as everyone else. As in "none". I will use this account for the things that I can do from here, and I will use my primary account for the things that I can not do from this account. But no, this is not my primary account, and restricting me to one account does not make this my only account, it just means that until the restriction is removed I am partially but not completely blocked. The edits still need to be made. Who is going to make them? Apteva (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "An unblocked editor can edit any article from any account" That is categorically false. While it is theoretically true, due to several reasons, it can not be done in practice. In my case it is because of privacy, but it could just as well be for security, for example not wishing to log into a secure account from an unsecure network. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have a specific need that can not be met other than by using an alternative account. Of the two accounts that I primarily use, I would be happy to flip back and forth between them once a month, but that is a little silly. What that would do though, is keep each set of articles no more than two months out of date. Right now the articles that I would be editing from the primary account are now about a year and a half out of date. Some of them have had some edits made, but many have a lot of things that still need to be updated - and some are relatively highly traffic. Suggesting that I edit them from this account is simply not going to happen. I can not give up my anonymity. Apteva (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What is undeniable is that I do thousands of quality edits on subjects that I can not edit from this account, and will not be able to get back to editing them until I either create a new account or simply go back to the same account that I have been using. It only hurts the project to keep the one account restriction in place for me. That is not a restriction that anyone else has other than for very specific reasons. I just need to be treated just like every other editor, and have the same restrictions that every other editor has. Apteva (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate edit[1] which changed the heading of the discussion of bird capitalization from a neutral heading to a biased heading, which is both prohibited, and makes a search for the discussion fail. I would recommend reverting this edit. The correct way to do this, since no edits can be made in an archive, is to unarchive it[2], revert that edit, add a plain text alternate title "Common name bird decapitalization", and then re-archive the section. However, it is a bit messy to just undo the archiving, because it was archived into two archives, 156 and 157. The closed discussion was archived into Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156. Whether manually unarchiving it will allow the above edit to be reverted is to be determined. In any case it should be manually put back into the same archive (156) after the edit is made, instead of creating yet another duplicate in the archives. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I advise strongly against you attempting to unarchive a closed discussion. I would advise anyone against this, but especially you. I have never seen you demonstrate the political and WP competence to achieve such a thing without causing annoyed chaos, with repercussions upon yourself.
If you really wish to do this, and if you're unblocked to permit it, then I would advise instead simply starting it as a new discussion thread and linking to the old thread in its archive. Possibly quoting short points from it, at most. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not understand the question. This is a discussion that ran from April 4 to April 25 and was closed on May 1. It runs almost 64,000 words and 461,000 bytes. There is no possible way that anyone can rename the section heading of a closed discussion, for many reasons, yet this is what was in fact done on May 3. That is what needs to be reverted. The process of fixing something that has already been archived is a little bit complicated, but it is pretty straightforward. First it is unarchived, the correction is made on the talk page, and then it is restored to the archives. Anyone can do that, but it is important to not get tripped up and accidentally create duplicate archives (MOS talk archives already have examples of this) or leave something out of the archives. This is not an issue of "starting a new discussion". It is simply a matter of correctly archiving a closed discussion, with the heading that it had while it was being discussed. Apteva (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
As to my own archiving skills I have no idea what your concern is, as there is nothing to worry about there. I have many times set up, repaired, added navigation, and adjusted archiving, and am not aware of anyone ever having any issue with anything that I have done. If they did it was a lack of understanding of archiving on their part, not mine. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that editors have confused the word "title" in the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. Article titles are determined by the WP:AT policy. The page MOS/Titles exists to show how to indicate the title of a work within a page, not how to title an article about that work. All of that page that refers to the naming of a article title needs to be moved to WP:AT and its sub-pages. Apteva (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


This is a two part question. First, what do I have to do to get unblocked, and second, what do I have to do to have all editing restrictions removed? There are four. Blocked/prohibited from using alternate accounts/prohibited from using email/prohibited from discussing "the letter Q". Each can be addressed separately, or as a group. Obviously there is a lot that I would be able to contribute that I can not now, because of these four restrictions. Theoretically blocks and restrictions are only imposed to protect the encyclopedia, but in fact the sole function of all four is to hurt the encyclopedia, prohibiting quality edits, and nothing else. Apteva (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


June was a pretty good month. I did about 500 edits, and learned how to create SVG bar, line, and pie charts - and how to translate them within the same file into any language. Unfortunately this has been of little to no benefit to the English Wikipedia, because I have no way of pointing them out or replacing outdated charts with new ones. To do this, I need to have all restrictions removed. Just as if I was a new editor. To that end. I am making another unblock request, as I believe it is more than warranted. I have zero interest in discussing anything that anyone wanted me blocked for. I only wish to do things that are completely non-controversial, and completely of benefit. Apteva (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Apteva (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

This block has outlived its usefulness. I have no interest in performing any action that led to the block, and am only interested in making non-controversial positive contributions. Most importantly, I need the freedom to use my primary account. This is an alternative account, and I can do some things from it, but many things I can not do from this account. Apteva (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As a previously uninvolved admin I have spent some long time ploughing through this entire thread. I cannot any previous instance in which a blocked editor appeared so unable for so long and in the face of so many adverse comments to recognize the degree of disruption his editing had caused. An understanding and recognition of this is necessary as a pre-requisite for unblock. As a separate issue, and given that both are equally anonymous (unless either uses your real name) are you prepared to tell us the name of your primary account? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Yes check.svg Done "An understanding and recognition of this is necessary as a pre-requisite for unblock."

  • Listen, I fully understand that some people have called it disruption, and what it was, but it clearly was never disruptive. I was simply pointing out an error, adnauseum. Nothing wrong with that and users must always be encouraged to do that. Otherwise we portray inaccurate information to users. The latest debacle is bird names. Bird names are established by the Ornithologists, and they have a "quirky" way of using all capital letters. It was a disaster to recently rename all of the bird names to common names instead of anywhere indicating the actual name of the bird. You end up with goofy things like "Ross's gull", which in the references is called "Ross's Gull". I fully understand that there are "Soup Nazi's" who simply want to control how Wikipedia is presented, no matter how goofy their choices are. That is not why I am here. I am here just to make non-controversial changes - like correcting spelling, adding images from commons, things that absolutely no one disagrees with, and are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Others can work things out with the "Soup Nazi's". I am not interested in that issue. I can note that it is a problem, but that is not why I am here, and not a subject that interests me. It is a subject that affects me, and all users, and hopefully wiser heads will prevail in the future, and the MOS will be cleaned up to 1) remove all article title suggestions (those belong in WP:AT) 2) remove all suggestions for good writing - those belong in essays, not in guidelines. But someone else will have to do that - that is not a task that interests me. As to telling you the name of my primary account, I will create a new account for that purpose, as both of the accounts that I have been primarily using are not appropriate for that purpose. The problem comes in with editing renewable energy templates, which require edits from both accounts, as they are used by both accounts, so to solve that problem, a third and new account will be used for them.
    • So in summary:
      • Yes I understand the "problems" I caused (pushed someone's button and triggered a 500,000 byte discussion on whether I was causing a problem - trust me, if it takes that long to decide - it was never a problem)
      • No I am not going to continue that behavior
  • As such there is absolutely no reason for me to not be unblocked. None. This is what I am going to do when I am unblocked. Growth of photovoltaics has a table that says 2008 at the top, and 2009 at the bottom. Both can not be correct. No one can disagree that that is a valuable edit. And will anyone else do it? Maybe, eventually. It has been like that since 2012. I never noticed it until now. Will anyone else notice it? And if they do, will they click edit? We likely have over 1,000 times more viewers than editors. The other 999 see errors but do not want to or are chased away by the "Soup Nazi's" from fixing things. How many other indef editors can make useful contributions? Probably a lot. We used to have about 4000 very active editors, and have less than 3000 today. Each year we have more readers and less editors. We are simply doing something seriously wrong, that has since April 2007 discouraged, instead of encouraged editing. We need to change that. Now. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As to the comment on User_talk:Anthony.bradbury, "Certainly if he is ever unblocked, which currently is of low probability, it will need to be on the basis of a single account restriction". First, that is "he or she" thank you. "Its identity" is perfectly acceptable. Using a gender is not. Second, absolutely not. We allow alternate accounts because they are necessary, and they just as necessary to me as anyone else - or more so. I have never abused alternative accounts, and only used them in a necessary manner. It may not be a secret to some people what other account I am using, but Wikipedia has many millions of users, and I can categorically guarantee that it is a secret to the vast majority of them. And publishing it here or anywhere is a violation of my privacy. That is another reason why I need to switch to a new primary account. And third, I am only blocked on English WP, I am not blocked anywhere else, and I continue to make thousands of valuable edits - the English WP could take advantage of, but only because of not being unblocked here, can not. That needs to be rectified. I urge you to reconsider, and unblock me. I can actually promise that I will not be making more than about 10 English WP edits during August, because I am busy with other things. But WP will benefit from those few edits. Which means, per WP:IAR, I must be unblocked. Apteva (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see Purpose and goals below). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see Requesting blocks).

It is clearly demonstrated that I am not going to damage or disrupt WP, and therefore there is no reason for me to be blocked. Yes I would be blocked if I picked a fight over any number of things, but no I am not going to do that. All I am going to do is make necessary edits. Apteva (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Anthony Bradbury - could you please review this again? Obviously the reason for the block is now ancient history, and no longer applies. I will not repeat the actions that caused the block, and will simply go on to make useful, productive edits, that everyone will be glad that I am making. Obviously I understand the reason for the block. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


  • (due to my previous involvement with this user I am not commenting here as a member of the arbitration committee but in my capacity as an administrator)
  • Apteva, it has long been known that user:Delphi234 is your other account, the one you insist is your "main account". This has not been a secret for a very long time. Since the identity of your other account is known, and neither account name appears to be a real name, nobody (and I mean literally nobody) has any idea what possible sense it makes for you to claim that you need to make some edits with one account and some with the other for reasons of privacy. This nonsense is a large part of the reason you were formally restricted to one account to begin with. It was easily demonstrated that you had used both accounts to edit in the same topic areas. Anyone who feels compelled to dig up the relevant ANI threads can see for themselves how this evolved. As Anthony has tried to tell you, you need to start making some sense before you will have any chance whatsoever of ever being unblocked under either identity. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Welcome to the real world. People do not "make sense". They are what they are. You may not like the fact that I insist on privacy, or anonymity, but that is a requirement that can not be changed. That absolutely requires alternative accounts. That part is widely understood, at least by some users. What I need is very simple. The ability to create and use alternate accounts, and edit with all of them. In no case have I ever used alternate accounts in an inappropriate or prohibited manner, or at least not intentionally. I can point to at least one template that was at one point but not intentionally, edited by more than one account. And I would be happy to have such edits oversighted so that they are completely removed. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    This edit makes it clear that Apteva is still editing: "June was a pretty good month. I did about 500 edits." So Apteva either has another account besides Delphi234, or is editing as an IP. —Neotarf (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I had the same thought, but if you read the rest of the comment it sounds more like a reference to their commons account. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so it was. Delphi234 had close to 500 edits on Commons. —Neotarf (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia has over 100 projects, and my edits are spread out over at least a dozen projects. Normally most are on English Wikipedia or Commons, but not necessarily. There is no reason, for example, that all of my edits one month might be on, say Swedish Wikipedia. Even though I understand no Swedish, there are still valuable things that someone who does not understand the language can do. "Outing" an editor is pretty trivial, and must never be done. We identify socks after they have made no more than one edit. When that edit is used to vote twice, that is a valid block. When it is a valid, useful edit, that was just done to evade a block, per WP:IAR, it must be permitted, and no sanctions may ensue (Our Dear Leader commented "good luck on enforcing that rule"). I don't make the rules, I just follow them. Like anyone else, I make suggestions, but it is up to all of us to respond to the suggestions of others, and either make Wikipedia better or worse. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually the more correct statement would be that Wikimedia has roughly 800 projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew it was a lot. Being blocked here leaves me with no shortage of projects to work on. But being blocked here only "cuts off your nose to spite your face", and is counterproductive. Apteva (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You have asked me to review my decision regarding your unblock request; I do not usually make more than one determination on the same request, and will not do so now. We have a large number of other admins available. I would say, however, that in my personal view an unblock would require an acknowledgement from you that the editing for which you were blocked was indeed disruptive, and an agreement to use only one account. Anonymity is not increased in any way by the use of multiple accounts, and your implied reasoning claiming the need for two makes no sense. The only way in which your identity could be compromised would be if you, personally, divulged it, which I assume you have not.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple. We allow alternative usernames because they are necessary. They are necessary to me, and restricting me to one means that there are hundreds of pages that I can not update, pages that are severely in need of edits. My editing for which I was blocked was perceived as disruptive, but categorically was not. I know that it was perceived as disruptive. But that was a false assessment. I was pointing out an error. As long as the error persists, it is valuable to point it out, even if you have to do it a hundred times. It is never disruptive to do that. It is perceived as disruptive, but it is in fact not disruptive. What is disruptive is to not fix the error. What is disruptive is to even discuss whether a valuable editor should be blocked. What is disruptive is to block them. What is disruptive is to not unblock me and remove all editing restrictions, so that I can edit the same as any other editor who edits for the first time. That is what is needed. I have no problem backing into it in stages. For example, to be unblocked in this account for six months, and then if that goes well, to free up the opportunity to use my main account, or actually, to create a new primary account, and use all three.
We have something called Admin review, and I believe there is also an editor review. Feel free to review me in six months after unblocking this account, and then removing the single account restriction.
To err is human. To be willing to admit your errors is divine. Are you up to the task? I am. And I can take blame even when I am blameless. But what is necessary is to move forward and let the past be in the past. Right now there are thousands of edits that if I did not make them, they would likely languish as a spelling error, or a broken link, or a word out of order, for months or years before someone else corrected them. That is of course, out of the billions of edits that need to be made. Four million articles means an awful lot of maintenance. And about 80% of the errors that I notice do get fixed by someone within the next year. But 20% do not. The error that is noted here has not been fixed. Here is another one. SEGS produces power both from solar and from natural gas, and there is data available for the monthly production from each, at least for the last decade, and would be a useful addition to the article. But even though I know where the data is to add it, how many others will figure out where it is, and who will add it if I do not? It is on the list of things to do when I am unblocked. There is absolutely no reason to force errors to stay there, and omissions to exist, just because an admin is too proud to admit that they made a mistake. We are losing good editors, but blocking them is not acceptable.
Whether my reasoning for use of alternative accounts makes any sense to you or not simply indicates a lack of understanding of how and why alternative accounts are legitimately used. You can read the section on them at WP:Sock. They are both legitimate and necessary. Even if we required that everyone only use their real name, they would still be necessary, for example for testing purposes, and where you knew your password could be stolen. I only use them in a both necessary and legitimate manner. Restricting me from doing so leaves a big hole in what I can do to help the project. Due to the fact that the issue is privacy I can not explain in more detail, publicly, without compromising that very privacy.
Your statement "Anonymity is not increased in any way by the use of multiple accounts" completely misses the point. You do know that privacy is one of the reasons for using alternative accounts, I hope. Yes we are very good at ferreting out sockpuppets and neatly linking them together, but that is only done when those accounts are used inappropriately. In some cases they are already linked. For example, a user might have an account called Brad, and one they use at work and call Brad-work, with a link to the account. But that can not always be done. A user can take a photo of them self, and not wish to identify them self, and so upload it using a throw-away account, just to maintain their anonymity. There is no requirement of linking an alternative account, unless it is being used to edit policy pages. I am not convinced that "The only way in which your identity could be compromised" would be if I reveal it myself. There are multiple examples of users being "outed", and doing so is in my view, actually fairly trivial, but simply must not be done. There are serious real world consequences. Apteva (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's what you sound like to everyone else:
"I have been unfairly persecuted by people who do not understand that I am so smart and so vital to this project that the rules do not apply to me. Even if they did, I am the only one who understands the rules and despite my efforts to explain them to these other, inferior users the rabble have decided the rules do apply to me and, with their tiny brains, have decided to unfairly sanction me. The only thing I can do is keep repeating the same arguments again and again and again and again in the hope that your rodent-like minds may finally understand how great I am and how detrimental to the project it is that I am blocked."
I think I finally get it: you need two accounts because your massive ego is just too huge to be constrained to one... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Your attempts to belittle quality editors makes me wonder why you are still an Admin. No, I have little ego. Wikipedia is edited by people with IQs from 80 to 180. How smart someone is is not particularly important. There is no one here who is more valuable than anyone else. Being an Admin is not more valuable than being an editor - it is just a different role with different tools. Yes I was wrongly persecuted, but that was ancient history, and I have long ago dropped the torch on trying to fix the fact that we do not spell things the same as the majority of the world. There are too many other things to fix to worry about how many pixels there are in punctuation. I believe that you were the one who suggested a 2013 moratorium on discussing the topic, which I agreed to, and kept.
The only thing that I am saying, is that just like everyone else, I am a valuable contributor to the project, but can not contribute to this wiki if I am blocked here, and can not contribute fully if restricted in any way. All I am asking is to be treated the same as anyone who has never made even one edit. It plain and simply hurts Wikipedia for me to be blocked. That is categorically undeniable. Not because I am smart, not because I am valuable, but because the edits I make improve the encyclopedia. At the high water mark in June 2007 we had I think about 4400 high volume editors, making more than 100 edits a month. We are closer to 3000 today. What happened to the other 1400? Why are we gaining readers and losing editors? That is the only issue to address. Is it because of bullying by Admins such as yourself? Is it because people get tired of "arguing about trivia with morons"? Something is seriously wrong with the culture of Wikipedia, and it needs to be changed.
I do have a large need for privacy, and obviously can not explain in public why using two accounts assists maintaining my privacy. I believe that I attempted to e-mail you an explanation which was also not understood. But I would not try to understand users, and focus more on what users are doing. Are they helping or hurting. I have made 10,000 quality edits, and will make more. As I previously stated, I can not promise to make even one edit if unblocked, but likely will - and they will obviously be useful. Can anyone else make them? Yes. Will they? Maybe - eventually - but we obviously need all the edits we can get.
So the only thing that I am saying is that I am ready and willing to help, and have only one obstacle between helping - which is that I am currently blocked. That is the only thing that needs to change. I continue to be thanked for my edits, I was just granted autopatrol status on another project, because of the recognition that my edits do not need to be checked. So why am I blocked here? Do you really think it is so important to have a table that says 2008 and 2009 that I be blocked so that I can not fix it? Do you really think it is so important that no one know what the output of SEGS was for 2013 that I be blocked so that I can not add it? Is it really so important that no one know the output of some of the SEGS plants in 2012 that I be blocked so that I can not add it? Per WP:IAR, it is acceptable to just create a new username and go right on editing, but I am fully aware that will simply be used against me so I am not taking that route, and am simply patiently waiting to be unblocked. But as months stretch into years this is more than absurd to continue the block. Apteva (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I keep the welcome message on this page, instead of archiving it, is so that I can refer to it often. The first of the five pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Wikipedia if it does not provide accurate information is not very useful to anyone. So why do we insist on spelling things differently than the majority of the world. We have an article about a bird, and it gives the name of the bird, with a link to a reference. But when you click on the reference, the spelling is not the same - albeit in the capitalization, but capitalization matters - in a spelling bee, students are always failed if they do not use correct capitalization. The recent decision to force bird names to use common names instead of correct names is not good. Yes most of the world calls it a Bald eagle. But that is not the correct name, which is Bald Eagle. You would think that would be in an encyclopedia, which "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias". The previous way of doing it, which was to use the correct name in Ornithological articles, and the common name elsewhere, made a lot more sense than pretending that the name is really "Bald eagle". I seem to recall someone else saying, so if there is an association of motorcycles that decides the correct name of motorcycles we have to use it? The word "official", means "because I said so, and I have the authority to do so". Are those official names? The Ornithologists agree that their names are official. Who are we to disagree? Can any motorcycle association claim to define official names for motorcycles? Probably not. The question was more of a straw argument. Birds do have a recognized naming authority - and so do comets. We do not always defer to actual names, but always at least indicate what the actual name is. I suppose that a compromise would be to write the article Bald eagle, Bald eagle (Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus)[3], but just using the correct name seems much simpler. Apteva (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Maybe another 300 edits. I have been mostly working on translations, and they are very slow, so some days I am only able to make one edit. Who knew there was a language called "Sinhala" that is the primary language for 16 million people, but has barely over 11,000 articles? Apteva (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)