Misplaced Pages

User talk:Apteva

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikid77 (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 27 December 2012 (→Beyond dashes: new thread, problems to fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:41, 27 December 2012 by Wikid77 (talk | contribs) (→Beyond dashes: new thread, problems to fix)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Only warning

Hi, so I see you're the subject of the RFC and you feel the RFC was wrongly brought. That's fine. As you well know an RFC doesn't result in a specific sanction. But, you're being disruptive. Among other things this shows a complete lack of understanding regarding how to edit collaboratively. If you are disruptive or fail to edit collaboratively in the future, I will indefinitely block your account. MBisanz 06:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Want to be a mentor? Apteva (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No. You're an experienced editor and people have explained their concerns, which you have not accepted, so you would be no more likely to accept the concerns of a mentor. Either you will decide to stop being disruptive and edit collaboratively or you will be prevented from engaging in more disruption. MBisanz 06:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly I have no interest in being blocked. I am here to help and for no other reason. I am surprised that that is not crystal clear. But like I said, all anyone needs to do is add a sentence here if they have any complaints or criticism. All suggestions are welcome. Apteva (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a bizarre question. Why would an admin take time to issue a warning to a clearly productive and helpful editor? Something is seriously wrong. Apteva (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets check the word disruptive and see how it is used on Misplaced Pages.

First there is Misplaced Pages:Disruptive user

  1. Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object - No
  2. Continuously listing articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces - No
  3. Calling users names or referring to articles that the user has worked on in a derogatory manner - No
  4. Posting rumors or lies about other Misplaced Pages users, such as false accusations of vandalism - No
  5. Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page - No

Okay, so far nothing there.

Then there is Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Here we get a little closer, but never cross the line.

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. - No (I am definitely tenacious, but not tendentious, despite the accusations to the contrary)
  • Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. - No
  • Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. - No
  • Does not engage in consensus building:
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; - No
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. - No
  • Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. - No

In addition, such editors may:

Oh well, nothing to do but keep on fixing things that need fixing. Apteva (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would endorse an indefblock at this point. To be blunt, either you know you're wrong and you're refusing to admit it, or you don't know that you're wrong. Classic WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 08:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That would be silly. Misplaced Pages would lose an excellent editor for no reason whatsoever. Feel free to change as many no's to yes's as you think apply, . Apteva (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
But the problem is that people have told you what the problem is, and you just reject it with some excuses or rationalizations. You'll probably tell me I'm wrong here too. --Rschen7754 08:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I take criticism very seriously. I also get a lot of criticism for things that I should not be criticized for, but commended for - as an admin I am certain that happens to you as well. The folks at MOS railroaded through some edits last year that are totally bizarre and did not have consensus when they were made. The result is not good for Misplaced Pages, and I am looking for a way to fix that problem. Suggestions are welcome. Apteva (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There was an ArbCom case/motion about dashes last year with a resulting RFC that resulted in the standards that we have today. It is disruptive to rehash those debates again, whether you agree with the results or not. Please don't make us revisit them again; ArbCom had to be brought in to stop the fighting for a reason. --Rschen7754 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I am sure I can find other things that need to be fixed, but the fact that arbcom had to be called in last year is a serious problem in itself. Everyone knows that there is a civility problem at MOS, I would suggest fixing that first. For example, making everyone go to the help desk for questions about implementing the MOS, and immediate warnings to everyone who violates WP:FOC, or uses the MOS talk page as a "round up the posse" page to go vote on an RM or fix a dash that someone used incorrectly. That is not what talk pages are for, and it creates the civility problem that exists there. Talk about not editing collaboratively, yeesh. Right now the entire page should be treated as a DR page, and only edited if there is a DR volunteer present. There are about half a dozen editors who do almost all of the damage. Apteva (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Other areas to apply your talent

Hi, Wikid77 here. I finally see what you have been facing in the dash/hyphen discussions (after reading wp:SSF). It took me a while to see the core problem is "Style über Alles" as the age-old problem of "form over substance" and that explains what seems like those self-righteous refusals to improve the wp:MOS. Hence, "style is never wrong, merely inappropriate". Encyclopedia Britannica has used hyphens for decades in "Michelson-Morley experiment" but recently changed to dash. It is a choice to spell "Congress" as "Congreff" because it looks like an old-time style, and using alternate letters is not wrong or "mispelled" but rather "restyled"(!). That avenue is obviously a deadend for rational thinking, period. You and others have documented so many issues, and now we can expand from there with future writings.

These are some other pages to ponder:

  • Article "form over substance" - did not even exist after 12 years of Misplaced Pages (Google: search 162,000 results)
  • Essay wp:Manual_of_Substance - shift the form-over-substance view toward practical rules about article contents, noting wp:ACCESS to keyboard keys
  • Essay wp:NOTMOS (What style is not) - to explain the limits where style interferes with productivity or usability of WP
  • Any essays on wp:IAR - because the simple phrase "ignore all rules" seems boundless, then more essays could clarify when IAR is a practical alternative, with examples
  • Essay wp:Cyberbullying - more needs to be explained, how one person's bully is another person's stylist who is never wrong

By broadening Misplaced Pages's coverage of major issues which compete against style-based or functional-based tunnel vision, then other editors could better understand how the style rules seem to be a wp:MOSque of self-righteous beliefs, even though that was not their original intent, and people laughing at the style guide would have logical explanations.
However, I must agree with you how others now will see "goofy rules" in the current system, but by broadening the pages about those issues, then more educated people will realize that Misplaced Pages is not so backward as they might have thought. By those means, we can elevate Misplaced Pages's reputation without megabytes of discussion with people who are never wrong. That could give hope to the "hidden" college professors who edit WP as anon IP addresses, for fear of dealing with the current rules. Does that seem reasonable next year? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting suggestions. The MOS today is poorly constructed, and poorly written (the MOS does not even follow itself). Instead of working collaboratively to construct it, there are daily edit wars, which is why it is under 1RR sanctions. The current mentality of those editing it appears to be, to try to make every article the same. That is simply not possible, and not a plausible goal for Misplaced Pages. The focus on MOS should be to specify how articles are laid out, not how to use punctuation, and not try to teach good writing. It is a completely false assumption that title policy chooses the letters to use for an article title and that MOS determines the punctuation to use between words. As pointed out, if that was the case we would end up with ridiculous spellings for comets and airports - like we now have for comet Hale-Bopp, and for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. I would rather fix the MOS than write essays about it being garbage, but I certainly could write something about cyberbullying. Misplaced Pages has a lot of brilliant writers, and it would be trivial to bring the MOS back to reality - and have it provide form and substance. As to "Misplaced Pages is not so backward as they might have thought" I do not see that - I would say it is worse than they thought - or just as bad as it seems. Until people have reason to stop saying "Read any article on a topic you are expert in, and roll your eyes (and forget about trying to correct it, by the way)", we are not "there" yet. But there is certainly hope. Misplaced Pages is constructed a lot like the five blind people describing an elephant - each of us has something to add, and by collaborating we can get a better view of what an elephant is. Apteva (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

RE : username

my username will remain the same so please do not send me another spam message about it Wickedangry (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No need to get angry about it though. It just is not what I would call an appropriate username. Apteva (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

well what's wrong with my username ? i'm just sick of seeing messages on my talk page saying "check out the tea house, change your settings, change your username ect. Wickedangry (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To me it indicates that the editor might be wicked and angry. But that is just me, others may find it to be a perfectly acceptable username. If you like it I would wait to see if anyone else complains and then think about changing it then. I see that you are a valuable contributor - but have already attracted a block history. I would recommend thinking about asking for a mentor - someone who can help you personally. See WP:Mentor and Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user if you are interested. You can request adoption by simply adding {{subst:dated adoptme}} to your user page, User:Wickedangry, or you can go to Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and pick anyone there. There is also a button at the bottom of that page that launches a widget that helps edit your user page and not only add the request but fill in information that would be helpful. No one wants anyone to be frustrated, and not be able to be as productive as they can. A mentor gives you a single point contact who can help you. Apteva (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond dashes

I am seeing more evidence that "opposing dashes" causes people to attack, so the plan is to proceed cautiously. Meanwhile, the pro-dash obsession has shoved dashes into articles where many problems still exist, such as lack of content, lack of measurement conversions, and even comma errors despite being another issue which wp:MOS fans should have fixed. Anyway, I agree with you to focus on "fixing 4 million" articles, such as during the January 2013 wp:GOCE drive. Otherwise, some leads to follow (which you might already know) include:

  • RfA/KTC shows can be admin with "21 Opposes" (even 35) when enough friends via UK show Support (no SNOW-close).
  • User:Pmanderson style expert was blocked 9 February 2012 for wp:SOCK after a hyphen/dash topic ban led to talking as another username.
  • User:Pmanderson was the first to put "no consensus" in wp:CON, which could lead to contentious rules removed as truly no-consensus footing to push rule.
  • Reversed names in astronomy refer to different objects, as User:Enric_Naval noted, where formal name "Nunam-Sila" would not be "Sila-Nunam" unlike "Juliet-Romeo story" being the same story.
  • Talk:Mexican-American_War/Archive_4 (redirect) has hounding of admin who "dared" discuss dashes after closing prior RM; also quip of "dash debate longer" than Mexican+American War.
  • Enric will contact IAU if they have plans to use dashes
  • Timing is everything, as the Zeitgeist to stop the pro-dash Anschluss might be mid-2013
  • Some survivors include: "McGraw-Hill" or "Julia Louis-Dreyfuss" but might be next re-victims

In general, the dashification has been massive, and now, thanks to your vigilance, I even cringe when I see Google Search show WP's peculiar endashed titles while 95% of the real world uses hyphens (99% have not endashed "hand-eye coordination" as 4x more common than all UK "eye~hand coordination"). I hope to find a better month to discuss dashes without getting blocked, but meanwhile, use quick ways to bypass dashes to fix numerous other problems "while Nero fiddli-dashed" to thwart progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)