User talk:Apteva

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

Welcome!

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)

Standard offer[edit]

The reason for this request is very simple. Here is what the standard offer is:

The standard offer
It's simple:
Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Done.
Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Done.
Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. Done.

First, the allegations of sockpuppetry are completely false. I have done nothing but wait patiently to be unblocked. In the meantime I have found another niche to work on to help with the 800+ projects that make up Wikipedia, and have done another 3,000 trouble free edits on top of the 10,000 trouble free edits made before I noticed that some items were not spelled correctly and brought up the issue. While I would expect spelling to be important for an encyclopedia, well, that is not an issue that I am going to bring up. Someone else will figure that out and figure out a simple solution. In the meantime things get spelled the way they get spelled. It is totally false that I make up my own rules. I carefully read the guidelines and policies and follow them. It is totally false that I do not work collaboratively. I often propose sandboxes for editors to make suggestions, and so on. I admit that I have in the past been way too vocal, and I promise to tone it down. In fact no one will even know that I am editing - all of my time will continue to be spent on the niche that I have been working on, which will occupy my time forever, and my only editing on en-WP will be fixing the occasional error, updating the occasional file, fixing a broken link, providing a reference, updating the caption for a file, or replacing an image with a better image. And occasionally creating a page or helping to bring one to GA or FA status. While I can do all of that on almost 200 other Wikipedia's it is important to also be able to do it on the en-WP as well. You can see what I have done to the da:SEGS article, and how sorely out of date the en:SEGS one is (it looks spiffy until you realize that most of the tables were created by me, and it screeches to a halt in 2012 - and only includes half of the plants after 2002, I-IV, while the da article covers all nine - and includes production from natural gas, from 2001-2013).

To give you an idea of just how few edits I will be making, following are the only edits that I would have made in November through today.

  1. Variable renewable energy fix link to solar farms (use solar farms)
  2. Photovoltaic power station format references
  3. Solar cell#Manufacturers and certification replace image with File:Photovoltaics cell production.svg
  4. Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia update case count in image caption
  5. create Mount Signal Solar Plant
  6. Cost of electricity by source#Photovoltaics Swanson's Law is 20% decrease in price every doubling of cumulative shipped volume
  7. Efficient energy use#Organisations and programs rm Africa from Iceland - revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efficient_energy_use&diff=532183975&oldid=531671737
  8. IGCC remove second link for Integrated gasification combined cycle
  9. Cost of electricity by source#Estimates add image File:LCOE US Plants Coming Online in 2019.svg, close parentheses (IGCC) in table

And I would have only done 7 edits in September and none in October. As you can see, that is not a very long list, even though I made over 250 edits so far this month, more than that in October, and over 400 in September. Some of those may have already been done, but basically, there is no reason to have any restrictions against me and a lot of reasons to remove them. I would be happy to answer any questions that anyone has. Broken and dead links do not fix themselves, and I am happy to help, time permitting. Apteva (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the notice about sockpuppetry as it is categorically false. I did not know about the "investigation" and could not respond even if I had known about it, but the only thing I have been doing on enwiki is patiently waiting to be unblocked and have not made a single edit by any account other than of course to talk page. I am neither a sockpuppet nor a sockpuppetor. We do though, allow alternative accounts because they are necessary. The sockpuppetry investigation was nothing but a fishing trip, and only turned up that this is an alternative account (duh). It did not show one single edit by any account, none. It could not because I have not made any. This is though, a shared IP address, and if it showed any edits under this IP address they clearly were not done by myself. Please also restore Pending changes reviewer, Rollbackers, Autopatrolled groups as all of those will all be useful and clearly are warranted. Apteva (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

2nd unblock request[edit]

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:

No, User:Wbm1058, I have not secretly reincarnated himself, and have only been waiting patiently to be unblocked. The accusations of sockpuppetry are categorically false. But I am not able to work on RM not just because I am blocked, but because I have discovered over 5,000 images that need to be converted to SVG, and almost 6,000 SVG images that need to be translated, and will be busy forever doing that, plus updating the thousands of images with time sensitive data that need to be updated, like population graphs. But I will be able to answer questions. The reason that I would like to be unblocked is that it is 100% clear that the previous behavior that got me blocked will never be repeated, and I occasionally find important edits to make. Like one issue that I noticed in December that was not fixed until June, after that page had in the interval been viewed 6 million times! And updating the SEGS page to say that it has always used both solar and natural gas and provide the output through 2013, as was done to the Danish and French wiki sites. Like fixing the broken links to the NTSB in 2002 United States airtanker crashes page which I figured out where the links have been moved to on that site over a year ago. But that page gets only about 20 views a day, so it could be almost forever before anyone else notices the broken links. If you have any questions about my being unblocked, I would like the opportunity of answering them, instead of simply rejecting the request and then my answering them, as if the answers did not even matter. Wikipedia does not write itself, and I can provide useful edits, and would like the opportunity to do so. I have helped at least four pages reach GA status, and can do the same for more pages in the future. While all of those pages are still GA, there is a former FA page that gets over 30,000 views each day that I would like to bring to GA or FA status. It is currently listed as a level 4 vital article (the highest importance). So the upside of unblocking me? It helps Wikipedia. The downside? Nothing. Apteva (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

1) Your block log is extensive, and your unblock request doesn't give me much confidence that you won't repeat past mistakes.

2) You have an active account on the Commons, and you help with images there.

PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 13 December 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 until your block has expired.

User:PhilKnight, these are absurd reasons for not unblocking me, and as pointed out only hurts Wikipedia. Is that your intention, to make Wikipedia worse? Then you should resign your adminship, because you are hurting, not helping Wikipedia. I am sure though, that in most of your other admin actions you are helping though. But not this time. All of the previous blocks (not counting early on when I did not know of 3RR and a warning would have been better) were for only one reason. I thought it would be a good idea that Wikipedia spell things correctly, which it does not, because of only one reason - it lets the MOS determine spelling, not how things are actually spelled. But I have set that issue aside and will not bring it up and thus will never be blocked again. Why is that not as blatantly obvious as it is? You can even read the entire list of edits that I would do above, during the first three weeks of November. Have any of them been picked up by anyone else? None. You seriously think it is more important to block a good editor (me) than it is to have redlinks stay redlinks, references stay unformatted, articles not be written? As to images, many of the images that I create would strongly benefit articles, and I do put them into other languages when I create them, but it is stupid to not allow me to add them to the wiki that is read many times as often as any other. It is not as if I have created a few images. More like over 1,000. Your review is rejected, and I ask you to reconsider or let someone who is actually interested in helping Wikipedia review this request and unblock me. Your "reasons" are not reasons.

Like I said, give me the opportunity to answer your questions instead of acting as if the answers did not matter. Wikipedia is too important to stop someone from helping who wants to help and will be able to do that only in a manner that is helpful. Many of the errors that I would be able to fix are very important. Like not promulgating the erroneous statement about Swanson's law that someone would only find out about if they clicked the link, and we know that few readers are going to do that. Do you actually like having a table say "Integrated Coal-Gassification Combined Cycle (IGCC" instead of closing the parentheses? Who else is going to fix that and when? That article has been viewed roughly 235,000 times since that error was introduced, and 200,000 people, if that many were unique viewers, either did not notice it, or did not realize how easy and important it was to just click edit and fix it (or just let it confirm their conviction that Wikipedia is not well written). I do fix things when I see them. The only thing I have not been able to fix is the above mentioned issue that got me blocked, and as mentioned, I am not going to bring that up, because I am not here to be blocked. I am nothing but a quality editor who will benefit Wikipedia by being unblocked. So the choice is yours. Help Wikipedia by unblocking me, hurt Wikipedia by not unblocking me. An easy choice. Apteva (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to create a new unblock request for someone else to review, but you cannot remove the decline from an admin. only (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
What in six months? That is stupid. Ever heard of WP:IAR? The only edits that I am going to be making are similar to the ones listed and it is simply impossible to be blocked for doing edits like that. And completely idiotic to stop me from making them. By not allowing me to get a fair review you, User:Only are only hurting Wikipedia. Not good. Apteva (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, you're welcome to create a new unblock request, you just can't delete the one that's already here. I never said you weren't allowed a fair review. I simply said you need to retain the review of PhilKnight. only (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I can not create a new unblock request for another six months, but I do ask you to overturn this one for good reason. The reason is 1. The reason for the previous blocks simply is not going to be repeated. I have already listed the only types of edits, and in fact the only edits that I would have made during the first three weeks of November. And 2. I am clearly a quality editor who has made over 10,000 useful edits before being blocked and another 3,000 after being blocked (on other WMF projects of course). Wikipedia only benefits from my being unblocked, and only suffers from my being blocked. In six months how many of the above edits will have been made? Maybe half of them. What earthly reason is there to make an edit wait when a good editor is available just waiting to be unblocked? I did carefully retain the review of PhilKnight, but that was exactly what I wanted to avoid - a review without asking even one single question. Like, "what about your extensive block log?" Answer: That was all for only one reason - and I am not going to pursue that ever again. All of my available editing time is taken up on images, but I do find a few edits now and then that need to be made, and I am good at bringing articles to GA status, a talent that is in short supply. And "What about your just working on commons?" Answer - how would that make any sense? I created an image that shows nuclear proliferation, called Nuclear proliferation.svg, that would make a whole lot more sense in the Nuclear power#Nuclear proliferation section instead of the one that just shows the arsenals of the US and Russia, and does not directly relate to proliferation. I have not just created a few images, but over a thousand, and as I create SVG versions I replace them in other language wikis for the outdated PNG ones, but what bizarro world do we live in that I can not replace them on enwiki? That needs to be corrected, and now would not be soon enough. When I create the SVG population charts, using 2010 data, to replace the PNG ones with 2003 data, I normally also update the PNG chart so it also has 2010 data, but SVGs are clearly superior, and it is silly to block me just so that readers can not have easy access to the SVG images, just so that readers can see red links instead of blue ones, just so that readers can not find an article on the Mount Signal Solar Plant, just so that 30,000 readers a day can read an article that is not even GA, because that is the only thing that blocking me is doing. It is not blocking me for any valid reason. If you are unsure, unblock me and in five years check my edits and block log. You will find no new blocks and you will find no edits that are not similar to the nine that are listed above. None. What is the harm in that? None. I am a content creator and copy editor, and while I have little time to do that, because I am instead doing that with charts and diagrams, the time that I do have for enwiki is valuable to use. Apteva (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As to not trusting me, the fact is that I have made over 3,000 trouble free edits to other WMF projects since being blocked here - and created four more charts just since filing this unblock request, two of which can be beneficially used on enwiki to replace the charts that they replace (one is used in 8 enwiki articles). Who is going to do that, and when, if not me?. If there was going to be any trouble, it certainly would have showed up there. Why is that not obvious? If I am not unblocked now, and have to wait another six months, that will mean that millions of readers will still not have the advantage of the edits that I would be able to make. Why is blocking me so important to deny readers the opportunity to see blue links instead of red links, find references instead of them being dead links, and read articles that are GA instead of ones that are not? It makes no sense at all. That is the only effect that my being blocked has - Wikipedia is worse than it would be. There is no other difference. Blocks are preventative. How can anyone in good conscience block someone only so that Wikipedia will be worse? Because that is the only thing that you are doing - deliberately making Wikipedia worse - the very definition of vandalism. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I get the attention of an admin who will improve Wikipedia instead of ones that will make it worse? (That is absolutely the only thing that blocking me does.) This is more than absurd to block a good editor just because of something that was done in the past and is not going to be repeated. Any suggestions? This page is watched by 68 editors, certainly someone is still active and can help. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was this page on my watchlist again? Sorry, I can't remember, I haven't been around much these last two years. Oh, here's why, I gave you a piece of advice at the start of this whole thing. In fact it was a full 24 days before you got your first block since 2008. From the look of things you did follow my advice for a time, but ultimately went back to what you had been doing...and it got you blocked. If only you had heeded that advice I gave you...things these last two years might have turned out so much differently for you. If you really do want to come back to the project; then you really need to take a few weeks off, step back, and try to determine for yourself what you've done that has led you down this path you've taken. You're of course welcome to ignore advice once again and keep doing what you are doing, but how far do you think that will get you? Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Very good advice. Actually though I have not only taken a few weeks off but have taken an entire year off, and have as a result long ago (probably about two weeks after being blocked!) decided to completely abandon the issue that was so important to me that it got me blocked. I have found myself quite useful on other WMF projects though, and have racked up another 3,000 plus edits over the last six months to a year, and have found a niche that will keep me busy there forever.
So I have abandoned forever the issue that got me blocked, and will never bring it up again. That is the salient feature of this saga that no one seems to realize. How to find out? Unblock me. There is no other way. The problem is that the charts that I have created need to be incorporated into articles. I have done that on languages from Arabic to Zulu, but it is important that they are included in the largest wiki, the English wiki.
All I want to do is necessary edits - edits that are not getting done by anyone else. But this is not even my primary account, it is an alternative account which has always been and will always be operated in a manner that is permitted for alternative accounts. What I would like though, is to be unblocked so that I can request a standard offer, either now or probably better six months to a year from now, and have all editing restrictions removed so that I can go back to using my primary account. That is the account that I really need - so if you wish you can unblock that one instead of this one (you can email me if you are unsure what it is).
@Fluffernutter:And as to not following the rules and not collaborating, the only reason the welcome notice is at the top of this page is so that I can refer to the rules, the same rules that everyone follows, and follow them. And I routinely collaborate with others. I got a request to help bring an article to GA, for example, and we worked together on it. And it is still GA today. Apteva (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: This is being repeated because you might not have seen it. No I have not secretly re-incarnated myself, and have only been patiently waiting to be unblocked. If you miss me, just contact any admin and ask that I be unblocked. Or become one yourself. I will not though, be returning to RM, for two reasons, but will be able to answer any questions. The first reason is I am going to stay far away from the issue that got me blocked, and the second is all of my WP time is being spent on creating and translating SVG files, and with 6,000 files of each that need that done, that will occupy my time forever. But when those SVG files are created, they need to be incorporated into article pages, and while I have been doing that on other wikis, and for the ones that are translated, that also needs to be done on the enwiki. For example one article uses a chart with 2007 data, while there is an SVG chart available that has 2013 data. I typically notice about 2 or 3 edits a week that need to be done in enwiki, and have a backlog of 100-200 since being blocked that are waiting to be done. Like updating Solar Energy Generating Systems to include through 2013. And early next year, 2014. Apteva (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Apteva, that edit was not intended to make a serious allegation, and was probably one that in hindsight, I should not have made. Are you able to file edit requests for the edits you want to make? I suppose if this page is the only one that you can still edit, you would need to make your edit requests here? You may have noticed my failed run for ArbCom, I wasn't really expecting to win a seat but was surprised by the number of flat-out opposes I got. One statement I made in that campaign, in response to a candidate question, was that I was reluctant to block an editor for making constructive edits, so I might be willing to help in that regard, to the extent I am permitted to. The 2007 "US energy consumption by sector" chart says its source is the US Energy Information Administration. The 2013 chart does not provide a reference for the data, other than that it is the work of User:Delphi234. To update to the newer chart myself, I would need to verify the source. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest caution in that good faith suggestion. Apteva did place some edit request here in the past and lost talk page access in part because of them. Apteva, I do hope you are able to return some day and was hopeful that your offer at the end might have offered a better outcome then what happened. In many ways I imagine the tone of your unblock requests does not help your cause. PaleAqua (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
True. We do though need to have a way of blocked editors making a list of edits that need to be made, sort of like how COI edit suggestions are made on talk pages, and just strike out the ones that would be proxy edits, and must not be made.
When you are blocked for absolutely no reason it is pretty hard to know what to say. I am not saying that I should not have been blocked, I am saying that the day after I was blocked an admin should have asked me, are you willing to contribute productively as you have been, and drop that issue? The answer is obviously yes. So yes I am ready and able to return today. This very minute. I will not be making very many edits though, other than cleaning up the 100 to 200 that I know about, because I am busy working on making and translating SVGs, which occupies my available editing time. My return is contingent solely on any admin realizing how ludicrous it is to block one of the only 3,000 very prolific editors that we have, ones who make over 100 edits a month. To give a sense of urgency of unblocking me, there is a growing number of people, readers, who are affected by my being blocked, and it stands today at roughly 50,000 per day - 10 million in six months, 20 million in a year - and in a year it will likely be 100,000 per day who are affected - having to read an article with a broken link, with a dead link to a reference, with an out of date chart or data. It only hurts Wikipedia to continue the block, and absolutely nothing else.
I got my wrist slapped for way too vocally bringing up an important issue that we are simply messing up on, and I am glad that I brought it up. I am not glad that I was blocked, nor is that ever a reason for blocking anyone, but I am not going to bring it up again - at all - and will let someone else figure out even what it is. There are too many other things to spend my time on to improve the encyclopedia.
The Serenity Prayer says that you have to accept the things that you can not change, change the things that you can, and have the wisdom to know the difference. Well I do have the wisdom to know that I can not change that and do have the serenity to accept that. Now how about just granting me a standard offer and allow my valuable edits to be made? Please? Over 20 million people a year will benefit from my being unblocked, and absolutely no one benefits from by being blocked. So if any admin sees this, please, do the right thing. You are not doing it for me, I already know about all of the broken links and dead links, where they should go. I already know about the solar plant that has an article on ruwiki but not on enwiki. It does not help me to unblock me, but it helps all of the rest of the 3,000 very prolific editors, because for every edit that I make, it is one less that they need to make. You are doing it for the 20 million readers who needlessly see those problems that would have been corrected, like the six million in one article alone before someone else finally clicked edit and fixed it. Those are the people affected by my being blocked. There are only a handful of users watching this page, but there are over 500 active admins who could fix this problem - the problem that a valuable editor is being blocked for no reason. Apteva (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Statements like Over 20 million people a year will benefit from my being unblocked, and absolutely no one benefits from by being blocked are probably a big reason that you haven't been unblocked. While you no doubt did not mean it that way it comes across as arrogant and works against you. I recently ended up helping someone with a move request and recalled how good a job you used to do formatting so the the RMCD bot could pick them out properly. Yes I didn't get it 100% fixed, but I'm a wikisloth hopefully someone else will fix the last little bit with user talk link, otherwise I'll probably get around to it eventually .PaleAqua (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. For several reasons, I would like to see you back as an en.WP editor, but I support the decline. You are knowledgeable, industrious, and well intended, but you are not showing an understanding of what happened, and your position has not changed. You were not blocked for your beliefs but rather your behavior. I don't like the prima donna argument that you are so valuable that you must be unblocked. The argument is poor, not on point, and misses the audience. There are editors who do lots of good work but who are also difficult to deal with on certain issues. WP tolerates such editors within limits, but there is a point where the trouble outweighs the benefit. That's what happened in your case. Nothing that you say above shows an understanding of the trouble you've caused; it's about how valuable you are, how you were right all along, and how you were happy to do it. I don't see a genuine mea culpa there ("way too vocally" isn't enough). Maybe you have abandoned the topic that got you blocked, but you held onto that topic so long that it got you indeff'd. That's a behavior issue that can happen with other topics. For some reason, you view the indef as a minor step ("wrist slapped") rather than a significant event. Many people were involved in the decision. I don't see an appropriate level of understanding the issues, and therefore continuing the block prevents recurrance. Glrx (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    The prima donna argument is poor and annoying, but does it matter that it was made? "Nothing that you say above shows an understanding of the trouble you've caused"/"I don't see a genuine mea culpa"—Again, does this matter as long as the user agrees to stop that behavior? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it matters – because I, for one, just don't have confidence in Apteva's competence to avoid such behaviour. Even if he "agrees" to stop such behaviour, I doubt his ability to act in such a way or to achieve such a stop. Nor do I see his contributions as being so valuable that there's a reason to ignore this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    While you do not appear to be an WP:Admin, after I am unblocked, I encourage you to notify WP:ANI the very second you notice even one post on any article or project talk space any time either in 2015 or 2016, and I am certain that any admin will be happy to take appropriate action - laugh you off or block me, as warranted. The fact is that the reason I am here is to improve Wikipedia, and have made many valuable contributions along that line - 10,000 before being blocked, 4,000 after being blocked. Every day an estimated 50,000 people would benefit from my being unblocked. And that is only because I would have been making about 2 to 3 edits a week, 100 to 200 that have accumulated in my absence - some of which have been noticed and fixed by someone else, but over 100 that are still waiting to be discovered and fixed and it is a crying shame that I can not fix them for those readers. As mentioned a page was viewed 6 million times with an error that I knew about but was prevented from fixing - for two reasons - one because of being blocked and two because of having too much integrity to just fix it anyway (in violation of the block, by invoking WP:IAR), before someone else finally did. But the proof is in the pudding. And the only way I know of to prove my veracity is to unblock me and find out. Wikipedia operates through collaborative editing, and you are free to waste your time checking my edit history to see if I make any such edits. You will not find any. I will confine my posts to articles, and user talk pages, and almost no user talk pages other than this one. If I find for example, a fully protected page (template for example) that needs to be edited, I will be forced to post that edit request somewhere but will do that on a user talk page instead, such as the primary editor for that page. But seeing is believing. I have myself seen countless vandals who have been unblocked and the next thing the do is vandalize again, but I am not and have never been someone like that. My only task is to improve the encyclopedia. The reason for a two calendar year moratorium on discussion is to allow me to focus on what is important and get a better sense of proper means of discussion. Apteva (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    No, I am not an admin. – And unlike you, I have never made the mistake of pretending to be one and carrying out admin-like actions on other people's talk: pages. One of those little things that's still in the great pile of reasons why I'm glad you're blocked, and for which you fail to appreciate why you're blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    And you will not find me doing that either (posting notices of inappropriate action on user talk pages that were discovered doing RCP - which is one of the most important portions of RCP - to notify the offender of what they did wrong instead of just reverting - most users who do WP:RCP are not admins). Apteva (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Choices. Feel free to re-block me immediately if I even come close to doing anything in any way inappropriate. But the fact is I simply have work to do, and am needlessly being prevented from doing it. There are over 100 edits that I know about that need to be done but no one else has noticed (or bothered to fix even when I have listed them). So there are only two choices:
    • A. Unblock me and Wikipedia gains a valuable editor, very good at finding things that need to be fixed and fixing them, an editor with over 14,000 edits, and who has created over 100 articles.
    • B. Keep me blocked and make millions of people find links that are broken, red links where we have articles ([[solar farms]] is a red link, even [[solar farm]]s would have gone to the redirect from solar farm), references that are unformatted, words that are misspelled, English that is barely English that needs to be cleaned up, pages that are out of date or missing information - or do not even exist.
    • Those are the only two choices. There are no others. There is not some mysterious way that I am going to be a menace - if I wanted to do that it is impossible for anyone to stop me, and so I clearly do not. The simple fact is that all I have done since being blocked is find another way to help, and make a list of pages that need corrections - a list that now has over 100 items, and are viewed by roughly 100,000 people a day - more on the rare days that I notice an issue on a high traffic page, but those are not the problem. Someone else will notice it and fix it, like someone finally did after it being viewed like that six million times more than it would have if I had been unblocked last December instead of today. The more important ones are the less trafficked pages that can go years before being noticed. And every month that goes by the list gets longer, and more and more people are adversely affected by my absence here. The fact is we only have 3,000 very active editors, people who contribute over 100 edits a month, and we categorically need every one we can get. Yes, Wikipedia does need me, just as it needs the other 3,000 like me who also contribute over 100 edits a month (over 400 in December, over 200 in January, for me, and no, none on enwiki since being blocked, even though WP:IAR says I should have just made all of those 100 edits - the reason I have not is surprise surprise, I am not a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeter, and I am simply not going to give any possible reason to be accused of being one - can anyone find even one edit that I am supposed to have made since being blocked that would have made me one? No. And why not? There are none. And please take that silly notice off of my user page unless you can find one to even ask me about. All the checkuser found out is that this is an alternative account - duh - one that has always only been used appropriately as such). Apteva (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I still don't think you're seeing the problem that others, certainly I, see with your actions.
First of all, it's a rude response but "TL;DR". You make your case verbosely, and that isn't helping.
Mostly though, this is not about fixing typos in solar farms. You are not blocked because other editors think there is no need for such edits. You are not blocked because other editors do not think you will make such useful edits. When you were editing, you did two things: one useful, one disruptive. We can live without your useful edits, and we choose to do so if it stops your disruptive edits too.
If you want to convince others that you should be unblocked, then you need to convince us that you will no longer do the disruptive things; because you understand that they were disruptive, and that you agree to stop doing that. Instead you're just telling us, over and over again, how good your constructive edits were. No-one cares about that. You are failing to address the thing we do care about.
As to the socking issue, then your complaint here comes across as petty, whining, arrogant and failing WP:COMPETENCE. It does not aid your case.
You ran two accounts in a way which demonstrated that you fail to understand justifications for alternate accounts. When questioned, you then chose to argue and tell all of us that we were, all of us, wrong. You did not have one blocked because you were disruptive with it, but because you were being blocked for other reasons, you didn't explain a good reason for why you needed two, and then you just kept arguing with everyone as if you were in the right (A Clue: you're not). You have never demonstrated the competence to show otherwise, but you are persistently arrogant in asserting that the whole world is wrong, except you. To make a case of that one, you have to be good at it: you're not. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't even think it's necessary for Apteva to "understand that they were disruptive", as long as Apteva agrees to stop the behavior in question. I've been trying to think of a concise way of clarifying exactly and specifically what that agreement ought to look like, but from outside correspondence with Apteva it is difficult to tell if there is any potential for such an arrangement. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If they don't understand what was disruptive and why, how can we expect them to avoid it in the future?
Thus far, this is the part I just don't have any confidence in. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I do understand why you think it was disruptive and I also know why it was not disruptive (pointing out a necessary improvement - which is still being discussed as we speak). But the simple fact is that I do not have time to do anything other than a few low level edits here. All my time is spent on creating and translating SVGs and I have a backlog of over 6,000 of each that are waiting for me to do. But often those new SVGs when created have new data that makes the image used here obsolete and needs to be replaced. One of them still in use has 2007 data, while the SVG has 2013 data, and as soon as 2014 data is available will have 2014 data. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If one at least understands what, then the editor can not do that thing. An understanding of how or an agreement that it even is disruptive isn't necessary for not doing a certain thing, as long as there is a clear understanding of what. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Big time. I saw something I thought would be an improvement and brought it up about a billion times. Who knew there is a page for persistent issues where I could have listed it and just gone back to editing. Live and learn. Time to move on. I sincerely apologize for all the grief I caused and certainly am not going to make that mistake again. The one thing I ask for is a standard offer so that I can start over, cautiously and very slowly. Apteva (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The one where I said I would obviously agree to and adhere to any agreement that was proposed? Or the one that said that any proposal would be incredibly silly? And not because I would not adhere to it but because absolutely none of my edits are in any way outside of any possible agreement, rendering any proposal totally unnecessary and totally silly. If you want an agreement, here it is:
During this calendar year I will not make even one edit on any article talk page, or on any project talk page. Or get into a long discussion with anyone on their talk page. Long discussions on my own talk page are perfectly acceptable, and are encouraged. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think abstaining from article talk pages is really going to be all that helpful. And I doubt that the calendar year clause is going to fly, but I might be wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The goal is to create a quality editor, which I know I can be, without any restrictions. Apteva (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Participating in discussions is not an option because they take too much time and would stop me from the work I am doing - creating and translating SVGs. The translations are particularly time consuming. So if there was a "good" me, and a "bad" me, which there is not, but if there was, one that worked on solar articles, one that worked on improving how Wikipedia does things, you can not have the bad me even if you wanted them, because they are not available. Wikipedia will need to find someone else to work on those things for two reasons. One, no one wants to hear from me - there are editors who would likely disagree just because I agreed with something. But more importantly, I can not afford the time to participate. The only edits that I will be doing on enwiki are low level maintenance edits, ones that are non-controversial, and necessary. Ones that do not in any way require any discussion. Sure I might participate in another discussion about WP two or three years from now, but when I do it will be only if that point has not been made, or needs to be seconded, and will limit my participation to one or two short posts. Been there done that with anything else. But blocking me so that I will not participate in a discussion four years from now that I might not even participate in is just ludicrous. Unblock me now so that I can do the maintenance edits that need to be done, and block me four years from now if the post I make then is problematic. Yeesh. Be reasonable. And realistic. Apteva (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"[edit]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Afghan War move discussion[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (1978–present)#Requested move 21 February 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

E-mail access[edit]

how do I request restoration of e-mail access? This is not an unblock request. That will come in July. I simply need to file a report. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You'd ask an admin, ideally one that knows more than I do as to why you were blocked. You can do that by pinging one. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess what I needed was {{Admin help}}. I have also pinged the blocking Admin. I was blocked simply because I was trying to explain myself ("Using email to send me a long manifesto of condescending tripe" - and for that I apologize - it will not happen again). I dream of horses Apteva (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Really, really not intersted in having this discussion. I don't even want to know why you think you need to "file a report" with anyone, but if it's something you can't post on-wiki you can email WP:FUNCT or WP:OS or WP:CU or WP:ARBCOM as appropriate. They all have publicly posted email addresses that do not require access to Wikipedia's email system. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Per Beeblebrox; any report that you wish to file will need to go to one of the four groups listed above, all of which can be emailed directly. There is no need for us to restore your email access. Closing adminhelp template. Yunshui  11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Using email directly is not as convenient. How long do I have to wait to have it restored? Is over two years not long enough? Apteva (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Email is no less of a process than logging into the English Wikipedia and then going through the internal email process. Blocks and characteristics of them are inherently inconvenient for the recipient. Restoring status or a portion thereof is not based on the grounds of convenience, especially when there's a very suitable alternate process that would not prevent you from accomplishing the same thing. If it's important enough to you, you will email, otherwise, your block and all aspects of it, remain intact. Mkdwtalk 18:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It does not appear that emailed requests are handled the same as ones that come through the system. Normally when I report something through the system I get a speedy response. The one that I emailed was not responded to for ages. So it is not just convenience, it is so that the report can be acted on in a timely manner. Apteva (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Chiming in here. I can speak from experience here that normal emails are handled just as quickly normally. I had an oversight block placed on my account which involved me having to email the BASC mailing list to get unblocked. I got a response within 24 hours and was unblocked in 48 hours. Who did you email?—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
In general it had been my impression that was the case, but that became dubious when I wrote to arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org on April 30 and received no reply until May 16. One or two days I can understand, but over two weeks? Is there an enormous backlog at that address? Apteva (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably. It can happen. We currently have a 12 day backlog at ACC.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)