This is an archive of past discussions with User:Apteva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sveta Planman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
time of use and sustainability”.<ref>http://www.jolier.com/company/ Jolier’s homepage, “The story”] 2010 Accessed 22 September 2011</ref>
Apteva, you seem to have returned to your campaign to deny that the WP:MOS applies to style in titles. This didn't go well for you before, and continuing this kind of disruption, on the edge of your topic ban, is not likely to make anybody happy going forward. So drop the stick, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The convention page that you link references the style guidelines relevant to band name and song/album name capitalizatin: MOS:CT and MOS:TM. By requesting the removal of this section, you seem to be testing the boundaries of your newly clarified topic ban, which bans you "from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." If that's not the point of what you're doing here by suggesting removal of the section that directly references the relevant MOS sections, what is your point? Why not drop it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The section recommending removal of a duplication of NCCAPS was created before the addition referring to MOS was added, and the objection is still valid. The only appropriate change is to replace the section with "See WP:NCCAPS for capitalization, or better, just delete the section. Is it your idea that you can just chase me away from any discussion by adding a link to the MOS? Apteva (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013 - I have blocked you for one month
You seem to be completely incapable of droping your vendetta against Dicklyon. The AE explicitly did not accept your complaint and yet here were are again at ANI with another fatuous complaint of more of the same and failure to back away. Given your unwillingness to compromise, I see no option but to exclude you from editing for a month to demonstrate that the community will not tolerate any further disruption of this type. I'm confident that you will recieve a much longer break if you insist on repeating this behaviour when you return. SpartazHumbug!17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What AE said was that of the six statements, three crossed the line, and as a result, Dicklyon was reminded to not continue. Since then there has been no abatement of the inappropriate behavior that has been going on for many years, although looking back at the last RFC/U, at least Dicklyon has not been calling editors names anymore, so that is a huge improvement, but if on a scale of 1 to 10 name calling is a 1 and a 6 is minimum acceptable behavior, they are making progress, but still not acting appropriately. I recommend either long blocks or yet another RFC/U. In my case, blocks are absurd, because I am not the problem, nor is there anything wrong with any of my edits. In the face of all of the incivility I simply respond professionally and report inappropriate actions to appropriate venues, in this case AE and ANI. It is Dicklyon who has been harassing me, and not in appropriate forums, but in guideline and article discussions. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Very cute. My behavior is not a problem. Wikipedia must not tolerate incivility. I have absolutely nothing against the editor in question, only their actions, which absolutely must stop. A better proposal would be, for example, to fix the problem. Blocking me and not sanctioning the editor simply encourages the incivility. What I will, do though, to make everyone happy, is promise to avoid Dicklyon for the balance of the block period, ending on June 23, 2013, and not bring up their incivility in any forum, on or off wiki, during that period. It will be up to others to do that, should it continue. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so that agreement will be more beneficial to Wikipedia.
Y the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption
Y the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions
Decline reason:
Reviewing the statement you've made, I do not have the necessary confidence to unblock you. You blame the other person for your own misbehavior, and the way you put a limit on your agreement makes me think that as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here. As such, I'm going to decline to unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks. That is very important to me, and it needs to be assumed that it might be important to everyone. It is just basic common courtesy today. Also, I was pretty sure that I had mentioned that, so it made me wonder if the thread was even read before closing it: "It is the results that I am looking for, no calling me by gendered pronouns, no calling me you, no talking about me in a discussion about something else."Apteva (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, FYI, this is a shared IP, so removing the IP autoblock would help, and have no affect on me, but having it could affect others. Apteva (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not at any time "misbehave" and I am blaming no one for my actions. I was blocked ostensibly to stop me from bringing administrative action against one editor, who has been a problem for a long time, and whom I am willing to avoid during the period of the block. If they are abusing me they are of a certainty abusing others as well and someone else can deal with them, I have no reason to do so. And what ever happened to AGF? It is very clear that if "as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here", then what is the point of the block at all? I am not going to return now or ever to "the behavior that got me here", as it was not my behavior that got me here. All we are discussing though, is the period of the block, as what I do after the block expires is not affected by the block, as at that point in time I will be unblocked, and can either choose to self destruct by immediately filing another ANI, etc. and no one is that stupid, not even me. So by declining to unblock, you are categorically saying "I do not believe you", which is the exact opposite of "assume good faith", and extremely poor conduct on the part of any admin. The blocking reason states "Disruptive editing: Complete failure to drop the stick". It is never disruptive to call attention to the inappropriate behavior of another editor. I do a lot of RCP, and no one says, oh I guess vandalism is allowed today, and no one needs to get harassed and say, oh I guess that is acceptable here on Wikipedia, and I better not bring it up, because I might get blocked, instead of the offending editor. I really find this an absurd state of affairs for Wikipedia to allow. So the choice is lose yet another valuable editor for a month or unblock and allow me to go on being a productive editor. If I ever so much as give any hint of poking the bear, as the expression goes, or initiate any disciplinary actions against this editor during this time period, you and any admin have my full permission to block me as a preventative action. It simply is not going to happen. There are too many things that need to be fixed and too few of us willing to help for me to be willing to let that happen. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
TLDR version. I never have done anything inappropriate, and will not give anyone the satisfaction of doing anything that anyone would disapprove of, as there is too much work here that needs to be done. Per WP:AGF it is important to give me the chance to prove that is the case. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime I will post below edits that if anyone agrees with them they can make. Per blocking policy, they may only be made if you agree that they are something that you would like to do. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
AC/DC (electricity) – the article is about all AC/DC appliances, and some editors have attempted to co-opt the article to be about only one type of AC/DC appliance, radios and TVs. The question was asked, which I can not answer, how is 12 V a "mains". Well for anyone who is a trucker, or RVer, they will know, that they plug in their refrigerator, TV, radio, and everything else into the DC circuits just like someone on AC power plugs in their appliances, but they are plugging them into a DC circuit instead of an AC circuit. Also, space stations use a 48 volt DC bus as their "mains" wiring, I believe. (the ISS uses a 160 volt DC mains[1]) And I do know that some electronics has a 300 volt DC bus that is used for that purpose, so DC is very much used for distribution today, both for short distances and long distances (HVDC transmission lines). Basically the lead needs to be fixed like this[2] to reflect the article title, and if warranted, the stuff about radios and TVs can be split into a sub-article. Most of the article is about one type of five tube radio that was both AC/DC. The IPs causing the edit war need to be respected just like every other editor, though. This is somewhat a niche subject area (AC/DC appliances) of which there are many users but few experts, and fewer still who are experts who are willing to edit Wikipedia. Note to editors, it would be helpful to add a history section, and in it include reference to the origin of the band name AC/DC, with a reference.[3] (the AC/DC article needs to have this referenced too. If it is, I did not see where it is) Apteva (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Users are not co-opting the article into anything. The article was written specifically to address exactly what it currently covers. It never has covered anything else so there is nothing to co-opt. A discussion was held on the talk page whether to expand the scope and there was a clear concensus not to do so. The rest of your rant is just bollocks attempting to divert attention from the real goal. The idea of the international space station having a 420km long lead to connect it to a mains supply is just plain whacky. I B Wright (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I am guessing that the article title has changed, but when it was written it was only about AC/DC electronics, but that was quickly changed to AC/DC equipment, which is a broader topic. Electrical includes appliances and electronics, appliances only appliances, although a radio could be considered an appliance. If there was an article called AC/DC electronics there would still need to be a broader article about AC/DC (electrical). I believe that originally a slash (/) was not allowed in article titles, but this was created in 2008, probably long after that restriction no longer existed. Is I B Wright really an appropriate username? I mean I know that sometimes I might be right, but all the time? I see it has been in use since 2006, but 747 is not a whole lot of edits, and if it becomes a problem, a new one can be chosen using the WP:CHU/Simple process. There is way too much incivility going on at the talk page. I would assume that the editor, who has been editing the article for some time, who did the revert of the IP edit revert was not even aware of this user talk page, but if they wander this way they can confirm or deny that. I am not going to summon them hither. The ISS generates its own power from solar panels. Where power comes from does not determine if it is a "mains" or not. Apteva (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The article title has never changed. The article scope has never changed. It was written from day one to cover AC/DC vacuum tube receivers and nothing else. One or two editors have tried to expand the coverage, but it has been quickly reverted. Why do you believe that I B Wright is not an appropriate account name? The international space station's power arrangements are a complete red herring. Any equipment on board is designed to run from a 48 volt DC supply only (if indeed that is the supply system). None of it is likely to have been designed to run from any AC system if there is not AC supply on board. In any case vehicle supplies (of whatever size) are never described as 'mains' electricity. However, since you now are officially a disruptive editor, there is no need to continue this pointless discussion further. I B Wright (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the article, which is instead at Talk:AC/DC (electricity). The paragraph above is not to initiate discussion here but there. And no I am not "officially a disruptive editor", nor have I ever been nor will I ever be disruptive. See the page on disruptive editing for the relevant definitions of disruption. Hint, most people on Wikipedia use the word "disruptive" to mean "I do not like you or what you did", with no regard for the actual meaning of the word, which is "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." I have never and will never disrupt progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Anyone who thinks otherwise has simply not checked my edit history. I develop solar articles, do WP:RCP, WP:RM, and work toward becoming an admin. I would be doing a great deal more, and will again, as soon as the sanctions I am currently, and absurdly, under, are removed. Note also, that the admin who blocked me, and the two who reviewed the block appeal, have disrupted the progress of building an encyclopedia by temporarily stopping me from editing. Apteva (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Bonjour tristesse (film)#Requested move this one was originally subst'd as a multimove but then changed and needs to be corrected so the reason displays (the easiest way to do this is to re-subst it as a single requested move)
Obviously Wikipedia does not care about Wikipedia. This is completely counterproductive and completely unacceptable. I encourage anyone reading this to contact the two admins who made this deplorable decision to forgo the best interests of Wikipedia for what? For nothing, and encourage them to reconsider. Unbelievable, really truly unbelievable. Apteva (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Apteva, but no. WP:STICK, making others waste their time on things they don't want to, facetious complaints about how someone references you, sounds like schoolyard "doesn't play well with others". whatever your valid points and the unfairness & bastardry, you stuck your head up too far too often. Take it on the chin. When you're back, try a different style and we'll all be good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
How is it a waste of time ever to point out that someone else is not playing well with others, in an appropriate forum? Had I not sought action against that editor, they would just keep right on doing that. The problem, though is not that editor, it is how Wikipedia deals with incivility, which we are working on in an ongoing RfC (background). As pointed out in 2012 by Arb motion, what we are doing is unacceptable, and frankly, blocking me for not being willing to tolerate unacceptable behavior is just more than bizarre. As noted, WP:STICK does not apply to vandals and incivility. The editor in question has been through two RFC/U's and by reading the second one their behavior probably has improved, but it still is far from acceptable, and they do not even know what to do themself, even though the answer is right after the question. Stop being uncivil, that is the answer. By having WP reject the ANI and block me is simply a classic case of adding insult to injury. I am here to help the project, and blocking me is an extremely counterproductive move, and really needs to be seen as one of Wikipedia's stupidest's moves. Apteva (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Wikipedia has no clearly defined policy on how to deal with uncivility, and this deficit is being rectified.
*The block did not meet requirements of blocking policy, as it was punitive, not preventative.
*There is no indication that editor will "return to what got them here".
*Editor is well aware that any violation of this trust "will not go well" (a block then would be deserved, as that would be a preventative block, not a punitive block).
All I am saying, is that in the interest of Wikipedia, give me a chance to prove that the unblock was warranted. Everyone deserves that much.
Background information: Editor is a content creator, copy editor, and vandal patroller, who filed AE/ANI requests repeatedly asking for civility enforcement actions, all of which were rejected. Editor recognizes that approach was not working and will "drop the stick" with the hope that a miracle will occur, and everyone will miraculously start being civil (stranger things have happened). Seriously, though, there is an ongoing RFC on the issue, and user will wait until it ends (this could be months or years even) and be very careful in following whatever the recommendation is at that time. User will also, and in the meantime, be careful to disengage from any other editor as needed, as a surefire way of avoiding incivility.
Decline reason:
Having reviewed the AN/ANI threads, the contributions, and a variety of past such threads, it would appear quite obvious that you have been provided MANY MANY chances to prove in the past that the block is unwarranted. I'm not sure how clear "stop or else be blocked" (which is basically what has been said a dozen or so times) was unclear. You refused to stop. Indeed, it took this block to magically get you to understand? No - I doubt that. This block is WHOLLY PREVENTATIVE in nature, and is unfortunately well overdue. Do not ever believe that your positive contributions can outweigh the destructively negative behaviours - they cannot. As Wikipedia is a long-term work-in-progress, protecting the project and its editors from abuse for a month will not be harmful in the long run (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sigh. See the comment above and "thank you for being disruptive" (sarcasm). I have never and will never do anything that warrants being blocked. Nothing I have ever done on Wikipedia can by any stretch of the imagination be considered "destructively negative behaviours". I count one off the wall and completely absurd warning and not "basically what has been said a dozen or so times". Note: Said warning admin is under admin review and that diff would be useful to bring up there. On to Arb appeal. While I see no warnings on my talk page, there was a warning at WP:ANI, which I did adhere to, but that is he or she thank you very much. There is zero evidence that I do not adhere to any warnings. Involved admins can not review unblock requests. Apteva (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This phrase in particular is noteworthy for its absurdity "protecting the project and its editors from abuse for a month will not be harmful in the long run". This block does no such thing. Its sole action is to prevent productive edits. It does not protect the project, and since it was implemented in response to a complaint of incivility, it serves only to encourage more incivility. Incivility prevents many editors from contributing for fear of being harassed and can not be tolerated. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Slow period to get help
Hi, Wikid77 here. Well, I was coming to talk with you, after 5 months, to discuss retracting the useless short-line topic ban, and prepare for your next RfA session, but I see the lull in user activity, with many people on summer break or vacations, has again put you at the mercy of admins with nothing else to do. Beware Christmas and May/June school breaks, when admins get itchy fingers to block people. Now, if Arbcom had acted appropriately, when I warned them you were in continued danger of being further wp:wikihounded (after many rounds to get you both topic-banned AND blocked AND insulted), and if Arbcom had used some far-reaching insight to warn the daily admins to beware schemes to block you, then all this could have been avoided. Clearly, there is insufficient awareness among the admins, about all the games played around WP:MOS. BTW: Google is now showing normal short-line marks in 839/850 (98.7%) of matching webpages, where the rare fringe marks are almost exclusively the peculiar WP:MOS style. At least this will be remembered as a landmark case, where Wikipedia was completely out-of-touch with the world at large. I am working to get WP policies to seek true consensus, and beware loopholes which empower balderdash. I regret that so many other normal people are on breaks or vacations now, and there are few active this month to assist you. I know you spend most of your time planning for major ways to improve Wikipedia, but this might be a good time to search "criticism of Wikipedia" to study various complaints (even if minor), while you are prevented from directly helping in major activities this month. Try to turn their mistakes into a positive experience for the long run. Education of others has always been a struggle against darkness. As Plato said, Those having torches will pass them on. I hope you can find more pleasant ways to spend this time. Next time, "Beware the Ides of May". -Wikid77 (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The basic flaw in your premise is that I'm closer to 50 then I am 40 and that I haven't been at school for over a quarter of a century but please don't let facts get in the way of your posturing. SpartazHumbug!14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Some clarifications: I regret that what I wrote is not easily understood by others unaware of the extensive multi-year background. I suggest to carefully count the hundreds of interactions between User:Apteva and various other editors of the wp:MOS pages, such as regarding wp:RM or wp:DASH or wp:TITLE, and count how many times other editors insult or denigrate (or question Apteva's motives) with attacks posted to an article talk-page, or a guideline talk-page, rather than discussing at wp:ANI or asking motives, here, but instead repeatedly posting such remarks on mainspace talk-pages which should "comment on content not on contributors". After the first dozens of interactions it becomes clear, but please count at least 100 instances (and think carefully about the insults), and then perhaps you will begin to understand a small portion of what has really been happening over the past few years and not be fooled again. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No you made uninformed statements implying that both Fozzie and I were immature and not sensible enough to be admins. The least you need to do is acknowledge that you were talking out of your hat on that one. SpartazHumbug!01:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be completely incapable of droping your vendetta against Dicklyon. The AE explicitly did not accept your complaint and yet here were are again at ANI with another fatuous complaint of more of the same and failure to back away. Given your unwillingness to compromise, I see no option but to exclude you from editing for a month to demonstrate that the community will not tolerate any further disruption of this type. I'm confident that you will recieve a much longer break if you insist on repeating this behaviour when you return. SpartazHumbug!17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What AE said was that of the six statements, three crossed the line, and as a result, Dicklyon was reminded to not continue. Since then there has been no abatement of the inappropriate behavior that has been going on for many years, although looking back at the last RFC/U, at least Dicklyon has not been calling editors names anymore, so that is a huge improvement, but if on a scale of 1 to 10 name calling is a 1 and a 6 is minimum acceptable behavior, they are making progress, but still not acting appropriately. I recommend either long blocks or yet another RFC/U. In my case, blocks are absurd, because I am not the problem, nor is there anything wrong with any of my edits. In the face of all of the incivility I simply respond professionally and report inappropriate actions to appropriate venues, in this case AE and ANI. It is Dicklyon who has been harassing me, and not in appropriate forums, but in guideline and article discussions. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Very cute. My behavior is not a problem. Wikipedia must not tolerate incivility. I have absolutely nothing against the editor in question, only their actions, which absolutely must stop. A better proposal would be, for example, to fix the problem. Blocking me and not sanctioning the editor simply encourages the incivility. What I will, do though, to make everyone happy, is promise to avoid Dicklyon for the balance of the block period, ending on June 23, 2013, and not bring up their incivility in any forum, on or off wiki, during that period. It will be up to others to do that, should it continue. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so that agreement will be more beneficial to Wikipedia.
Y the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption
Y the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions
Decline reason:
Reviewing the statement you've made, I do not have the necessary confidence to unblock you. You blame the other person for your own misbehavior, and the way you put a limit on your agreement makes me think that as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here. As such, I'm going to decline to unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks. That is very important to me, and it needs to be assumed that it might be important to everyone. It is just basic common courtesy today. Also, I was pretty sure that I had mentioned that, so it made me wonder if the thread was even read before closing it: "It is the results that I am looking for, no calling me by gendered pronouns, no calling me you, no talking about me in a discussion about something else."Apteva (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, FYI, this is a shared IP, so removing the IP autoblock would help, and have no affect on me, but having it could affect others. Apteva (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not at any time "misbehave" and I am blaming no one for my actions. I was blocked ostensibly to stop me from bringing administrative action against one editor, who has been a problem for a long time, and whom I am willing to avoid during the period of the block. If they are abusing me they are of a certainty abusing others as well and someone else can deal with them, I have no reason to do so. And what ever happened to AGF? It is very clear that if "as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here", then what is the point of the block at all? I am not going to return now or ever to "the behavior that got me here", as it was not my behavior that got me here. All we are discussing though, is the period of the block, as what I do after the block expires is not affected by the block, as at that point in time I will be unblocked, and can either choose to self destruct by immediately filing another ANI, etc. and no one is that stupid, not even me. So by declining to unblock, you are categorically saying "I do not believe you", which is the exact opposite of "assume good faith", and extremely poor conduct on the part of any admin. The blocking reason states "Disruptive editing: Complete failure to drop the stick". It is never disruptive to call attention to the inappropriate behavior of another editor. I do a lot of RCP, and no one says, oh I guess vandalism is allowed today, and no one needs to get harassed and say, oh I guess that is acceptable here on Wikipedia, and I better not bring it up, because I might get blocked, instead of the offending editor. I really find this an absurd state of affairs for Wikipedia to allow. So the choice is lose yet another valuable editor for a month or unblock and allow me to go on being a productive editor. If I ever so much as give any hint of poking the bear, as the expression goes, or initiate any disciplinary actions against this editor during this time period, you and any admin have my full permission to block me as a preventative action. It simply is not going to happen. There are too many things that need to be fixed and too few of us willing to help for me to be willing to let that happen. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
TLDR version. I never have done anything inappropriate, and will not give anyone the satisfaction of doing anything that anyone would disapprove of, as there is too much work here that needs to be done. Per WP:AGF it is important to give me the chance to prove that is the case. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime I will post below edits that if anyone agrees with them they can make. Per blocking policy, they may only be made if you agree that they are something that you would like to do. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
AC/DC (electricity) – the article is about all AC/DC appliances, and some editors have attempted to co-opt the article to be about only one type of AC/DC appliance, radios and TVs. The question was asked, which I can not answer, how is 12 V a "mains". Well for anyone who is a trucker, or RVer, they will know, that they plug in their refrigerator, TV, radio, and everything else into the DC circuits just like someone on AC power plugs in their appliances, but they are plugging them into a DC circuit instead of an AC circuit. Also, space stations use a 48 volt DC bus as their "mains" wiring, I believe. (the ISS uses a 160 volt DC mains[4]) And I do know that some electronics has a 300 volt DC bus that is used for that purpose, so DC is very much used for distribution today, both for short distances and long distances (HVDC transmission lines). Basically the lead needs to be fixed like this[5] to reflect the article title, and if warranted, the stuff about radios and TVs can be split into a sub-article. Most of the article is about one type of five tube radio that was both AC/DC. The IPs causing the edit war need to be respected just like every other editor, though. This is somewhat a niche subject area (AC/DC appliances) of which there are many users but few experts, and fewer still who are experts who are willing to edit Wikipedia. Note to editors, it would be helpful to add a history section, and in it include reference to the origin of the band name AC/DC, with a reference.[6] (the AC/DC article needs to have this referenced too. If it is, I did not see where it is) Apteva (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Users are not co-opting the article into anything. The article was written specifically to address exactly what it currently covers. It never has covered anything else so there is nothing to co-opt. A discussion was held on the talk page whether to expand the scope and there was a clear concensus not to do so. The rest of your rant is just bollocks attempting to divert attention from the real goal. The idea of the international space station having a 420km long lead to connect it to a mains supply is just plain whacky. I B Wright (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I am guessing that the article title has changed, but when it was written it was only about AC/DC electronics, but that was quickly changed to AC/DC equipment, which is a broader topic. Electrical includes appliances and electronics, appliances only appliances, although a radio could be considered an appliance. If there was an article called AC/DC electronics there would still need to be a broader article about AC/DC (electrical). I believe that originally a slash (/) was not allowed in article titles, but this was created in 2008, probably long after that restriction no longer existed. Is I B Wright really an appropriate username? I mean I know that sometimes I might be right, but all the time? I see it has been in use since 2006, but 747 is not a whole lot of edits, and if it becomes a problem, a new one can be chosen using the WP:CHU/Simple process. There is way too much incivility going on at the talk page. I would assume that the editor, who has been editing the article for some time, who did the revert of the IP edit revert was not even aware of this user talk page, but if they wander this way they can confirm or deny that. I am not going to summon them hither. The ISS generates its own power from solar panels. Where power comes from does not determine if it is a "mains" or not. Apteva (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The article title has never changed. The article scope has never changed. It was written from day one to cover AC/DC vacuum tube receivers and nothing else. One or two editors have tried to expand the coverage, but it has been quickly reverted. Why do you believe that I B Wright is not an appropriate account name? The international space station's power arrangements are a complete red herring. Any equipment on board is designed to run from a 48 volt DC supply only (if indeed that is the supply system). None of it is likely to have been designed to run from any AC system if there is not AC supply on board. In any case vehicle supplies (of whatever size) are never described as 'mains' electricity. However, since you now are officially a disruptive editor, there is no need to continue this pointless discussion further. I B Wright (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the article, which is instead at Talk:AC/DC (electricity). The paragraph above is not to initiate discussion here but there. And no I am not "officially a disruptive editor", nor have I ever been nor will I ever be disruptive. See the page on disruptive editing for the relevant definitions of disruption. Hint, most people on Wikipedia use the word "disruptive" to mean "I do not like you or what you did", with no regard for the actual meaning of the word, which is "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." I have never and will never disrupt progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Anyone who thinks otherwise has simply not checked my edit history. I develop solar articles, do WP:RCP, WP:RM, and work toward becoming an admin. I would be doing a great deal more, and will again, as soon as the sanctions I am currently, and absurdly, under, are removed. Note also, that the admin who blocked me, and the two who reviewed the block appeal, have disrupted the progress of building an encyclopedia by temporarily stopping me from editing. Apteva (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Bonjour tristesse (film)#Requested move this one was originally subst'd as a multimove but then changed and needs to be corrected so the reason displays (the easiest way to do this is to re-subst it as a single requested move)
Factual correction to Criticism of Wikipedia#Expansion of administrator authority – having admins or sysops is a feature of the software that has always existed,[7] so reword the first sentence to avoid implying that Wikipedia created the concept of sysops, which predated Wikipedia by at least 30 years, to say:
To reduce vandalism and to control user conduct, a class of volunteer administrators or "sysops" are invested with the means and authority to discipline users.
Also correct the gender specific "his peers" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of that section to say "their peers". -- Apteva (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Waltham is a small city (population about 60,000) that does not have much crime. There were two murders in 1989, 1997, 2001, 2003, and 2010, and one in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, and 2002. There were no murders in Waltham in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2000, and 2004 through 2009. The average murder rate is 1.25 per year per 100,000 population. This murder would not even have an article if it was not for the uber attention to the Boston Marathon bombing (created 23 April 2013), and would probably not survive an AfD. Apteva (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe you've been told before, but please don't expect to be able to participate in discussions through proxy editing while blocked. Blocks are on the person - you. Not the account. Thus, anyone making edits as/for you puts you in violation of your block. Please cease using the helpme template for this purpose as well, as it clogs up any requests that actually need answering when patrollers must come answer this as well. I make no comment on the block, just that you are blocked, thus cannot edit or participate by proxy. Charmlet (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
@Charmlet, you are correct, but aren't you supposed to be avoiding controversy as part of the community allowing you to continue editing? I suggest you avoid talk page commentary and Wikipedia space and edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was supposed to be that controversial, I was just reminding the user of something they had already been told, as I don't enjoy getting helpme template messages to all helpers for things like this. Like I said multiple times, I wasn't commenting on the block, only on the fact that the helpme template isn't for this kind of thing. I'm done here now, since you requested. Charmlet (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I see we have the blind leading the blind. Per WP:Block "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Normally editors are blocked because there is no chance that they would provide anything useful. I did not provide a link to the information, and "left that up to the student". Had someone simply cut and pasted that onto the talk page without reading it or agreeing with it, they could be guilty of proxy editing (they, not me). I am not trying to get anyone in trouble, but I am interested in doing what I can to assist the project while I can not edit directly. There are many avenues still open to me, and one of them is to use the helpme template, but per concern of there not being enough editors watching that cat, I will reserve that use for more important issues, like submitting any unblock requests. Apteva (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how one edit can be called "Long-term abuse". The suggested actions though were completely absurd, and would have, if followed, immediately resulted in a long term block. Thanks, but no thanks. Apteva (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Defining long term blocks
There are three categories of long term blocks. First are the constant vandals who never have any interest in assisting the encyclopedia, rarely create a user name, and as a result only receive short term blocks, but are initiated repeatedly, with the same affect as a long term block. Second are the long term vandals who build up sufficient history to be identifiable, and every time they are blocked simply create another sockpuppet. These are all indefinitely blocked, but often make some useful edits. Some have behavioral difficulties that make them unable to work well in a collaborative environment and will attempt to hijack articles with their point of view. These are topic banned, but since the topic they are banned from is really the only topic they are interested in editing, the topic ban is ineffectual. The third type is the long term editor such as User:Rich Farmbrough or User:Pmanderson, each with over 50,000 edits, each of whom was perceived as problematic at some point and received escalated blocks of a year (the first just now begun, the second just now ended).
These long term blocks hurt Wikipedia more than it helps. Since 2007, Wikipedia has been losing editors, first because of robo-warning new editors, and second, because of long term editors getting tired about "arguing with morons about trivia".
A short term block of 24 hours is usually at least five times longer than it needs to be. The normal attention span on the Internet is about 8 seconds, and beyond that the individual moves on to something else more interesting. Blocks are always preventative, never punitive, but none of the long term blocks can ever be described as preventative. The only thing they prevent is contributions. They do not magically stop all vandalism, or magically stop all POV editing.
A better definition of a long term block would be a week. While no one wants a vandal coming back in a week, the fact is that that even with an indefinite block they come back far sooner than a week, if they choose, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent that, short of locking down the entire encyclopedia from all edits. The ones who are affected by a week long block do not need to be blocked, because they are not creating sockpuppets and instead are waiting out the block. If they have the patience to wait out a block for a week, they have the patience to find a useful edit, and do not need to be blocked.
Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot, and needs to take corrective action. The first step is to eliminate blocks of longer than one week, and instead of escalated blocks lasting 31 hours/1 week/1 month/1 year, use ones that last 1 hour/3 hours/24 hours/1 week. Each additional week that a productive editor is blocked would unnecessarily result in the loss of hundreds of valuable edits.
The only thing that all of us has is our time, and it can never be saved up or given to anyone else, and when it is lost, it is lost forever. Apteva (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. The time that dozens of editors wasted on dealing with your nonsense will never be recovered. Hopefully we will at least prevent a reoccurrence of that waste. The fact that you use your time off in denial is not, however, a good omen of what to expect when your block expires. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Dicklyon's point is well made: just as a block prevents a user from contributing as he or she might wish, involving the community in lengthy and repetitious disputes also prevents otherwise productive editors from focusing on worthwhile contributions to the encyclopedia. If one's goal is to give editors more freedom to improve and contribute to Wikipedia (and that's certainly an excellent goal), then I think it's good to keep this in mind. ╠╣uw[talk]19:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
That was already pointed out when the RFC/U was opened, that it served no purpose and was solely done to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. In real life I create tons of things, just as many of us do (one of whom I believe may be working on their second book), but in Wikipedia, I do not create anything, I document them in Wikipedia, using verifiable, reliable sources. We are prohibited from creating our own content, and that is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses – we do not allow experts to create articles as is normally done when an encyclopedia is written (go find some experts on the subjects and ask them to write articles). We can of course, copy in early encyclopedias, but some (a few) things have changed in the intervening years. Apteva (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to see that you've been blocked. It's sad to see good editors like you and Rich F. get blocked. No one gets things to go their way on every issue. You should learn to accept consensus decisions when they go against your views. You can continue to make arguments in support of your positions, and hope that eventually the crowd will change their mind and get it right. But you might have better luck if you do this by more subtle means that are not widely viewed as disruptive. (I haven't been paying attention, so I don't know the reasons for your block) Best wishes, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Soliciting for other editors and use of {{helpme}} now raised at WP:AN
I appreciate that you're blocked from replying there, so as the editor who raised this, I have some responsibility for giving you a voice. Oddly as it would seem, given the background to this issue, I will endeavour to cross-post any reasonable messages that you might wish into that thread (although other editors are of course welcome to do so first). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There is likely nothing that I could add that any other intelligent editor could not add. Blocks are never punitive, and solely preventative. My block is inappropriate because it is solely punitive and is not one iota preventative. Contributions are welcome from everyone, regardless of their status, and however they are received. This includes from a sockmaster that has been blocked a thousand times as well as from someone who never registers an account. We learn about some edits that need to be made from reading about them in the Daily Post, and some from someone making the edit. All that matters is that this is a world class encyclopedia, and we accomplish that through the five pillars, which is why the welcome notice with a link to them is displayed always on my talk page. There is much that I would be able to contribute but that I can not both because of being blocked but also because of being under silly sanctions which will be appealed soon. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I have posted this across to AN. Just a thought but carrying on as if you are an innocent victim is bound to end in tears. I don't think I ever saw so much lack of self-awareness and intransigence in the 7 years I have been on wiki. If you continue your crusade when your block expires you should be aware that further blocking is inevitable. SpartazHumbug!20:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I would echo what Spartaz has said here, and Dicklyon's "in denial" comment above. There is an issue here, and you're obviously unaware of it. Until you realise that, then I see little hope of progress. Your self-comparison to Jimbo is ludicrous.
As to your point here, then you are blocked. I make no comment on this. However you've now managed to take your behaviour since blocked and to turn that into a whole new problem too. You can at least address that, but if you instead focus on why everyone else is wrong in blocking you, we're likely to block you even more "wrongly" and for longer and longer. Dicklyon's comment, "The time that dozens of editors wasted on dealing with your nonsense will never be recovered." is apposite here: Wikipedia regrets that wasted time and will act to reduce its likelihood in the future – probably by blocking you until you vanish. Better editors than you have already been removed in such a manner, whether deservedly or not. This will happen again in your case, and Wikipedia won't bat an eyelid. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not, well there is a whole list of things it is not. We have brought it about half way to becoming a world class encyclopedia, no not even that (by measure of what would be left is only FA articles are included), and our sole goal here is to make it better, not worse. Along the way we have occasionally made one step forward and two steps backwards. We can never lose sight of our purpose here and degenerate into name calling or anything else that will detract from our purpose. All of the time spent complaining about me was wasted (500,000 bytes, about 134 pages), as it could have been accomplished with two words by any admin (and no those two words are not "I have blocked you"). Nothing I have ever done has been done other than to improve the encyclopedia. No one can be ranked as better or worse than anyone else. Wikipedia depends on the contributions of everyone, and if better editors than me have left, that is Wikipedia's problem, and needs to be addressed. Apteva (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
{{quote|Remind me to notify Arb that some of our admins are unaware of our purpose here. What "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" means, plain and simple, is if a blocked editor sees that Wikipedia misspells the word "book" somewhere, say, as "bork", a quick consultation of a dictionary reveals that the word is misspelled. That is what independent reason means, not that you have to independently ''discover'' the error. No further action is needed, and the thread can be closed.}}Apteva (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Did not realize anyone was going to be so eager to post everything here there and I ask that not be continued. As to User:Beeblebrox this link will notify them that they were referenced. Two unblock requests are enough, though a third would be acceptable. This block has already been appealed to Arb, and any member of Arb can at any time respond and remove the block, with the concurrence of other members of the committee. Normally we tolerate about four and then stop talk page access, though policy specifically states that there is no limit to the number of unblock requests that can be submitted. Banned community members and others prohibited from editing directly can still create content that can end up in Wikipedia, which is the same as editing directly, just not quite as directly as clicking the edit link. My sole goal is to help improve the encyclopedia. The AN thread was diverted off of its actual topic as soon as my username was mentioned, which is predictable. I am blocked now because I do not appreciate incivility, and sought appropriate venues to stop it from occurring. The "club" did not like being accused of incivility, and blocked me so that I would not post yet another ANI or AE action about incivility, something which is clearly an appropriate venue. I have already said I will wait to see what the recommendation of the civility enforcement RfC suggests, and if the object of incivility will in the meantime disengage rather than go open another ANI/AE complaint. Blocking me is solely Wikipedia's loss and not my loss. I do not get "points" for editing, and do everything PD where that is permitted. This edit is not a PD edit. Apteva (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Note to BYK. I am tenacious (a good quality), not tendentious (a bad quality). There is a huge difference. But I am not "he", "she", a "guy" or a "gal", but an editor. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Improvements are always welcome regardless of who, what, how, why, or when they are received. Blocked means we do not have to undo anything, but obviously blocked and banned editors are encouraged to offer suggestions, by whatever means they may have available. Talk page, tweeter, etc. Apteva (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
