User talk:Apteva

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

Village pump discussion close

I've undone this extremely bold close, which you neglected to either sign or accompany with an edit summary. In future, if you're going to go around clerking heated threads, at least do others the courtesy of identifying both who is doing the closing and why. Not that it would have made this particular close, eleven whole minutes from the last comment, any more appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are more of a glutten for punishment that I am. That discussion was long over and had just degenerated into a shouting match that had nothing to do with the topic of the thread. But I have no objections to your revert. Apteva (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban violation continuation

I would have thought that after User:Seraphimblade's clarification of your ban on 10 Jan here, you would not continue your anti-MOS campaign at WT:TITLE as you did here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not the least bit anti-MOS and to suggest that I am borders on slander. I fully respect all of our guidelines and policies. Apteva (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have requested an enforcement action here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This relates to the recent AE request concerning you. You should take particular care not to edit these policy pages in a way that may be deemed not to reflect community consensus.  Sandstein  21:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion

Apteva, many of us have attempted to seek moderation in the dispute sequence you've been involved in. At this point, consensus regarding the issues with which you are concerned has been confirmed by the community. Further attempts, whether by you or by other editors involved in these issues, to engage in behaviors considered tendentious or unhelpful to an encyclopedic community will doubtlessly be met with harsher sanctions, such as those imposed today. Although there are more than a few in the community who don't disagree with your viewpoints, we respect consensus, which, although occasionally challenged by determined minorities of editors, enables us to maintain a somewhat stable environment here.

I strongly encourage you to cease the behaviors that have gotten you into trouble in recent days, and to desist from the patterns that have instigated this troubled process. Despite the negative attention you've gotten lately, you are a valued contributor in various content areas. I think you ought to focus your efforts on working in the article namespace on article development itself, and should disengage entirely from areas that have caused controversy. Thanks, dci | TALK 03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When your 2-week block expires, I suggest you don't go around the areas you're topic-banned from. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre block

I just now see you were quietly blocked, some 4 hours ago, without notice, for a first-time "non-punishment" of 2 weeks, but the edit-banner reports this:

• "00:25, 29 January 2013 Basalisk (talk | contribs) blocked Apteva (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Disruptive editing: Violation of topic ban)"

As you know, typically, admins would post a notice of a block, here, on this talk-page within minutes of the block, to offer "how to request an unblock" for other admins to note, and perhaps "48 hours" might be the length of a first-time block (not 2 weeks). However, the whole WP system has deteriorated into a sprawling mess, faster than you could alert people to fix all the run-away problems. I just noticed that article main-space had been violated by creating the December-2011 redirect "Manual of Style (punctuation)" to WP:MOS~~ as a main article title, as if the entire world thinks Wikipedia invented style manuals. When you tried to properly replace the bogus, browser-breaking redirect "wp:Manual of Style (article titles)" with the correct, direct link to "wp:Manual of Style" then someone claimed that improvement was a problem, despite guidelines which state to use direct page titles, not redirects, for such links. No wonder few people seem to be reading the MOS, when it is not even clearly linked by the correct title, but rather redirected with peculiar pseudo-titles. And then, I noticed the wp:MOS has a warning that policy "wp:Article_titles does not determine punctuation of titles" even though the policy page clearly states rules of title punctuation ("avoid quotation marks in titles" etc.). Then they site-banned 95,000-edit User:Youreallycan (aka ~Off2riorob) for one insulting comment(?). All just totally bizarre. The whole WP system is spiraling downward, as people create non-notable articles which disguise resumes or fringe medical care (for years!) as being part of those articles. So, please do not be upset with these unusual admins or people who do not understand that wp:Consensus requires the general consent of people working together, not telling several long-term editors that they "do not have consensus" to talk about fixing problems. I suspect there are just so many rampant problems, as Wikipedia is being flooded with crap articles, plus conflict-of-interest editing and adverts in lede sections, that the entire system is out of control at this point. No wonder people are reporting record-high levels of problem backlogs, as good editors are being overwhelmed by the rest. It is just a huge mess. I appreciate you trying to help, but how much can one talented person be asked to sacrifice under these conditions. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violation of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Obviously I only make productive contributions, and the edit I was blocked for is also productive and not a violation of the topic ban, but asking for a block was simply a vindictive way of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, alleging that they thought it was a violation of the topic ban even though it was not. I understand that and obviously it is not going to happen again. Obviously the block is not going to prevent damage or disruption, but instead is going to prevent productive contributions to wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Obviously I only make productive contributions, and the edit I was blocked for is also productive and not a violation of the topic ban, but asking for a block was simply a vindictive way of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, alleging that they thought it was a violation of the topic ban even though it was not. I understand that and obviously it is not going to happen again. Obviously the block is not going to prevent damage or disruption, but instead is going to prevent productive contributions to wikipedia. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva#top|talk]]) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Obviously I only make productive contributions, and the edit I was blocked for is also productive and not a violation of the topic ban, but asking for a block was simply a vindictive way of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, alleging that they thought it was a violation of the topic ban even though it was not. I understand that and obviously it is not going to happen again. Obviously the block is not going to prevent damage or disruption, but instead is going to prevent productive contributions to wikipedia. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva#top|talk]]) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Obviously I only make productive contributions, and the edit I was blocked for is also productive and not a violation of the topic ban, but asking for a block was simply a vindictive way of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, alleging that they thought it was a violation of the topic ban even though it was not. I understand that and obviously it is not going to happen again. Obviously the block is not going to prevent damage or disruption, but instead is going to prevent productive contributions to wikipedia. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva#top|talk]]) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Per guideline: Users may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption.

You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: that 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 insteadApteva (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)