Jump to content

User talk:Apteva

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apteva (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 30 November 2012 (→MOS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Edit wars

I thought you said you wanted to avoid edit wars over hyphens and en dashes. Why then do you do an uncommented revert of a good-faith move? Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Use hyphens in proper nouns. Read the article. Apteva (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opting in to edit count stats

As User:TheSpecialUser noted in your RfA, could you please create this page with any content so that we can get your detailed edit statistics? (edit count of months and pages most contributed to) Thanks, The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 06:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I recall that there is another way to get that info. It does not show anything very interesting. Most of my edits are as an IP user, anyway. I registered this account in May 2008, and there is a break where I did little to no editing maybe in 2010 or so. Apteva (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do RCP so I edit every article there is, other than that, just check Category:Solar energy - I have either edited or created all many of them. , with few to no exceptions. I do WP:RM, so have a lot of edits to the WP:RM pages. Apteva (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

Moved from User talk:SMcCandlish § MOS
 – This is about Apteva's editing behavior, not SMcCandlish's.
Have a cup of tea, and when its done have another. After three cups of tea we can talk. Apteva (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My original interest in editing this encyclopedia was simply to fix an error, and take pity on anyone reading it without it being fixed. Since then I have made thousands of additions and contributed a hundred articles. As a collaborative media it is essential to discuss the issue, not the conduct of a contributor on article and wikipedia talk pages. The place to discuss content is AN/I and user talk pages. It is never appropriate to name an editor on a guideline talk page, as was done at the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page. While you and I may have a different opinion on the purpose of the MOS, and I do know that you are a frequent contributor of the MOS, I am not. I am a content contributor, not a guideline writer, but I do not appreciate, and can not tolerate, the MOS giving me or anyone else bad advice, as is currently the case with hyphens being replaced with endashes where hyphens are correctly used. So what is the solution? How is this problem to be fixed? Any suggestions? As I see it the MOS is written by about a dozen editors, who evidently are not very respectful of the wikipedia community as a whole. Apteva (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your holier-than-thou "take pity on anyone reading [Wikipedia]" without your magically fantastic input, that is somehow automatically better than everyone else's, is the whole problem. You do not have a collaborative attitude, but a "my way or the highway" stance that is extremely offputting. No one cares that you are certain you are right. WP is not about "winning". It is entirely appropriate, and necessary, to address specific editor behaviors when they become disruptive, as yours consistently have, and to address them at the locus of the disruption initially, without escalating matters further if possible. You appear to be confused about what WP:AN/I's purpose it. It is for addressing specific user behaviors, not content, and in particular it is for seeking administrator response to problems for which users can be blocked. You've been staying clear of those, so there is no reason to take you to AN/I, unlike User:LittleBenW at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#diacriticsagain, who go blocked last week. Whether someone "names" you on WT:MOS is moot, since you sign your own posts there. Your opinion that MOS "gives bad advice" has been noted, by everyone within virtual earshot of MOS and various other places you visit with this anti-endash bugbear, like various WP:RM discussions, etc.; you just will not shut up about your obsessive nitpicks that almost no one else agrees with, and it's getting really obnoxious at this point. This won't be a WP:AN/I matter if you continue; it'll be a WP:ARBCOM issue, and if it goes there it's likely that you, like various other parties before you, will get topic-banned from MOS for incessantly brow-beating disruptive editing, refusal to acknowledge that most other editors just don't agree with you, and your attempts to re-re-re-raise issues again and again after they're already settled, in hopes of incidentally finding a receptive audience if you wear out your opponents. The "solution" is for you to WP:JUSTDROPIT and remember that you are to work on the encyclopedia, not dictate your style preferences to everyone else. MOS is written by the Wikipedians who care to write it and with such consensus as can be forged among them, like all other pages here, and has had the direct input of many hundreds of editors. At any given time there are probably a dozen or so editors paying a lot of attention to it, and this too is true of almost any page on Wikipedia; they change over time as editors come and go, and as editors' individual focuses change. You should be aware that the assumption of a conspiratorial cabal running Wikipedia or any process on it is generally considered a farcical idea, and widely mocked. Most people topic-banned from editing MOS, like PMAnderson, have also taken the "it's a conspiracy!" position, and it has not availed them, but instead made them look crazy. I don't agree with everything MOS says (e.g. I really, really loathe sentence instead of title case for headings – I think it looks completely ridiculous), but I and everyone else but a few cranks, whom your behavior is aligning you with, agree that MOS should be followed, because it is important for WP to be self-consistent. There is not a grammar and style rule in the world that someone will not take issue with, but it is more important that we settle on such rules, arbitrary as some of them may be, and follow them, than simply have chaos. PS: Your principal objection seems to be that I took you to task publicly at WT:MOS, and that is very telling. People who are genuinely correct on an issue never fear public criticism, because their critics are self-evidently wrong, and only serve to make the facts they oppose all the clearer. The opposite has been happening in your case. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Short version: Wikipedia:Nobody cares. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly (talk page stalker)Two points ...
The three cups of tea is pretentious.
Their User page speaks volumes – (NB not a hyphen) – via a UBX to profess outwardly that "This user would like to be an admin. one day".
I rest my case, Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apteva 2

Mind if I give you some advice? =)

Although the choice is entirely yours, I recommend withdrawing your RfA. From my experience, I can guarantee you that it stands no chance of success at this point, and there is nothing to be gained from keeping it open any longer. If you do not, it is likely to be closed by another editor anyways, as is common for RfAs which stand virtually no chance for success.

Oh, and just as a heads up, you may want to read up on our harassment policy — its definition is much more narrow than the interpretation which you seem to have adopted.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apteva, I feel some sympathy towards you, but I'm afraid many of the oppose voters on your RfA raise some good points. Coming from a fellow editor who wishes to become an administrator at some point, I'd like to suggest you forgo future self-nom RfAs. It's unfortunate that some editors may consider this an automatic negative, but having multiple unsuccessful RfAs on your record is probably even more of a negative. You don't need to sit around waiting for your fairy godmother to come; you can always request one. I want your third RfA to be successful. I really do. But that's probably contingent on waiting a while and taking some of these criticisms to heart. It sucks, but there's no way around it. (P.S. If you're still looking for a mentor, I'm both willing and perfectly understanding if you'd prefer someone of greater stature.) Best, BDD (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I am looking for a mentor. We both work extensively on RM's and can certainly collaborate, but I would like someone who has been an admin or crat or stew for a few years. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at the opening paragraph of wp:harassment:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

The specific instances to harassment for 1) Wikihounding 2) Threats 3) Perceived legal threats 4) Posting of personal information 5) Private correspondence 6) User space harassment do not include all of the instances of harassment. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My purpose in self nominating is to prove that it is possible to become an admin by self nomination. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New RFC/U about you

Apteva, I have filed an RFC/U about your behavior, as you had encourage me to do: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Apteva. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was rhetorical. Obviously an RFC/U is not called for. Apteva (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hi Apteva, I am writing to inform you that I have closed your RfA per WP:SNOW. I would advise you take to the constructive advice you were given to heart and perhaps try again in the future. v/r AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that was a bit premature. But I will definitely try again. Apteva (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apteva&oldid=525764844"