User talk:Apteva/Archive 8

email
I stopped reading your condescending manifesto about halfway through and just went ahead and revoked your access to the WP email system. You are not in a position to be delivering prolonged lectures to others about how Wikipedia works when you have such a poor grasp of it yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That actually should have been WP:UTRS or WP:BASC. Apteva (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You really need to get over yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Windows 7
I undid your removal of the move-protection icon - it was the semi-protection that expired in November 2012, not the move protection, which is of an indefinite length. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 16:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Got my padlock colors confused. Apteva (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Given that someone had vandalized the padlock 4 minutes before you removed it (the vandalism had been undone almost instantly) it's not surprising that you got caught out. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just cleaning up after that vandalism. Apteva (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Templates
Hey Apteva

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Same pay scale as usual, or is there a 50% bonus for these edits? Apteva (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Article naming

 * Apteva, yes, there are a lot of things you fail to see about wikipedia article naming. Your work in this area earned you a month block.  Why do you come back for more, given that your views are so out of step with the how titling work here, and your continued pushing just gets you more trouble?  How can want to move a title that is just precise enough to say what the article topic is to one that is ridiculously ambiguous?  How can you interpret the popularity of this article as an indication that it is named wrong?  Your logic makes no sense.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was for complaining about your ad hominem attacks, such as the one above. Apteva (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Apteva. Welcome back to editing. What did you do with the RM backlog? How? I have been in the habit if only paying attention to backlog RMs, and may have to find a new habit? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When I first saw it was gone I figured it had to have been another bot failure, but no, it was gone. All I did was encourage, nag, and pester as many admins as possible to help. Amazingly a combination of four admins cleared out the entire remaining backlog of 58 requests in one day. Actually all but three were done by only one admin, but they did relist a whopping 22 requests (of the rest, 25 were moved, 8 were not moved, by this closer). Fortunately new requests have been a bit slow for the last two days, so the backlog is not going to be totally unreasonable a week from now. Bear in mind that anything that has been listed a full seven days can be closed, and these always appear in the last day of the listing, before the backlog. Just check the time stamp. Apteva (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Artpop
Hi Apteva! I was just wondering if you would make the final step of moving Artpop (2013 Lady gaga album) to [[Artpop! Thanks! ARTPOPist (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can not do that, because it requires an admin. But I did request that an admin delete so that it can be moved. That has been contested because of the history there, but I have also requested a history merge of Artpop and Artpop (2013 Lady Gaga album). It looks like the article will be sorted out soon. Apteva (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Li (surname)" saga.
Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Really?
I just had a glance at User_talk:Tony1 ... are you seriously suggesting that an editor can not include 1 or 2 words of "praise" or even gentle correction on an article talkpage? Seriously? What better place is there to say "I like your idea, Bob - especially because xyx", or "I don't think that edit helps the article, Michelle since it doesn't meet abc" than right there in the middle of the discussion? Please don't ever try to dissuade that kind of proper interaction! (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 15:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to be helpful, it goes on their talk page. Putting it inline in a discussion is exclusionary, and completely out of place in any collaborative decision making process. In consensus decision making we speak to the group, never to an individual. In parliamentary decision making we speak to the moderator, and never to either the group or the individual. You can say "I don't think that edit helps the article", but you have to leave it at that and not personalize it, but you can certainly say because of abc. You can say "I like this idea (with a diff if needed), and can certainly say because xyz, but you do have to leave the person out of the conversation and keep it on the topic. This is not new, and has been around for 400 years now. When parliamentary procedure was developed 200 years ago the same principle was adopted, keep the discussion to the topic and never on the individual you might be agreeing or disagreeing with at the moment. In this case you are flat out wrong in saying that sort of commentary is acceptable. Some editors, though react far differently than others, and to avoid any negative impact it is best to avoid all such personalizations. This is WP policy, and for good reason. Apteva (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to show me this policy you claim? This is a community, not parliament - we don't follow parliamentary procedure, and we most CERTAINLY take the time to give praise in public where needed.  You're very very wrong on this (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You could start with WP:Avoid personal remarks, but the policy is at WP:FOC: "Focus on article content, not on editor conduct." Feel free to clarify that to add "This applies to praise as well as complaints." I am well aware that WP makes up its own "rules", including one that is rarely enforced, to "WP:Ignore all rules", but this is something that has been developed over 400 years, and is not unique to WP. All adopters of any form of collaborative decision making conform to the same rule. Apteva (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does that suggest that a couple of words of praise cannot be included on the article talkpage when you see something that is appropriate? You're making shit up, and you know it - especially when you're quoting dispute resolution, when saying something nice is not part of a dispute.  Stop telling people not to do the right thing - community comes first, and saying something nice is community-building (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 16:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not making anything up. Focus on content, not on conduct, both bad and good. It is exclusionary and diverts from developing consensus. The place to say nice things is on their talk page, not on an unrelated discussion. Apteva (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My examples provide ARE commenting on content/edits. You're wrong, and it's been proven.  Please stop telling others differently.  I'm unwatching this page now because I have now done right by the community by saying this, and proving it.  Baseless comments and links to guidelines that don't even support what you're saying is tiring (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are mostly commenting on the edit, and they are mostly correct. The things that need to be changed are simply leave out the personalization, which is inappropriate. What you are simply proving is that the community often violates policy. On that talk page an editor even argues that it is "only a recommendation of a technique to use to avoid conflict, not a rule or conduct guideline", whereas it is not a guideline, but a policy, something that we are all expected to follow all of the time. Apteva (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apteva, drop this. I know you think this, think you have good reasons for it, and have the best of intentions.  But nobody agrees with you.  Stop harassing people on talk pages, dragging them to AE, etc, over this.  Stop it *now*. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not dragging anyone anywhere over this. But with 6 billion people on the planet and most of them not having a clue what this discussion is about I would defer to those who do. Our policy is clear, and if anyone wants to make it more clear, they are welcome to do that. Praising someone is exclusionary and simply is not done, if you want to encourage participation. If the goal is to lose editors, well, WP is doing that quite well. Apteva (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about proposed unblock forum
This is an FYI. We can hope that more level-headed admins would be added to unblock the extreme, long blocks of users, but there is a wp:VPIL proposal to create a community forum to recommend faster unblocks:
 * WP:Village_pump_(idea_lab)

I am not sure if such a forum would be allowed to discuss unblocks longer than at wp:AN, or simply be wp:SNOW-closed by admins not wanting an unblock to gain momentum. I think most proposals to steer admin actions are likely to fail. Feel free to comment there, or abstain, or delete this message. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only time I delete talk page messages (other than talkback/e-mail notices) is to move them to keep the discussion in one place. Everything else gets archived. Apteva (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Extremist editors leaving
Hey, Wikid77 here again. Just learned how SMcCandlish "retired" from WP on 2 July 2013 after 7.5 years (explained at Jimbo-talk archive) in conflicts with Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan (who is also fading after desysop). As I recall, SMcCandlish had tried severely to topic-ban 3 or 7 people who liked hyphens when they rejected balderdash. I have seen other meltdowns, out of the blue, when extremists target each other, rather than hounding the innocent bystanders who are easy victims for 1-month blocks when they calmly refute charges without showing any baited anger. I think the rule is: "When the opponent is right and polite, block on sight". Sarek is also fading, for a while, but both are taking wikibreaks, and any (re-)adminship there is doubtful. I keep reminding people to "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous (mis)fortune" until more neutral people arrive to turn the tide here. Thank you for being a paragon of patience. -Wikid77 17:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC
I noticed you participated in the Deadmau5/Deadmaus RM and I was wondering if you were willing to leave your two cents here at Talk:Tech Nine to overturn another horrible move based on a name no reliable sources refer to the subject as. I am just trying to get consensus to move it back to Tech N9ne in the same manner Deadmau5 was moved back.  STATic  message me!  15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines Flight 214: Could you please quote the textual portion of the NTSB briefing to support your edit
Could you please quote the textual portion of the NTSB briefing that supports your edit that the deceased passengers (2) were aboard when evacuation took place, and it has been ruled out that they died on impact/were thrown from the aircraft? diff How do you explain what I quoted for you on the talk page, that their two bodies were found on the tarmac a mile apart? In any case, your edit's content is NOT supported by either source used as an inline source for that passage. --Mareklug talk 04:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking for it. But I think it is in the 3rd or 4th briefing, but I will post on the talk page when I find it. They did make it very clear that no passenger seats were ejected. There are many news reports that say that the two Chinese students were ejected but this is obviously contradictory to what the NTSB said, and I would tend to believe the NTSB instead of say KTVU. Apteva (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no passenger seats were ejected. But, there is reason to believe that the bodies themselves of the deceased were ejected.  The business of finding one a mile apart from the other, as well as the violent cartwheeling by the tailless aircraft are at least suggestive, as the two were seated in the very back. Until we hear from the coroner, we must admit the possibility that they died on impact.  --Mareklug talk 05:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They had to have walked if they were a mile away. It is impossible to get thrown that far from a vehicle only going 106 knots. And that would put them on the intersecting runway. I think whoever said a mile was wrong. The NTSB specifically said that only flight attendants were ejected from the aircraft, no passengers. Apteva (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going in the opposite direction, if you think interaction of the runways. One was found near the seawall, the other near the final resting location of the fuselage. Again, you have not produced the textual transcript fragment where NTSB says that only flight attendants were ejected.  And the business of having the bodies be separated by a mile is repeated in several sources.  As things stand, you have to face the possibility that you inadvertently synthesized your description (and belief). --Mareklug talk 12:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly we need to wait for the NTSB final or even preliminary report to know more, but an eye witness said the student who died at the scene who was not run over was sleeping during descent. Flight attendants are supposed to check to verify that all seat belts are secured, but could have missed this and that could have resulted in the student being thrown out of their seat, although it is very surprising that the NTSB has not said this. They specifically said they were going to check to see if all of the belts were fastened, but it is beyond me how they intended to do that by an inspection of an empty aircraft. We do not, though, need to speculate, and it is better to stick with factual information. In a couple of weeks, though, we will have the coroners report, and that will help, particularly with respect to the victim who was run over. Apteva (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Military slang
Hello, Apteva. The article List of military slang terms was recently merged to Military slang as you recommended at Talk:List of military slang terms. As a result, the Military slang now consists mainly of commentary on the merged lexical items. The lead section of the article does reflect the article's actual content, nor does it discuss the concept of military slang in a manner proportionate to the lexical content. Assistance you can provide in repairing and expanding Military slang, especially its lead section, will be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good morning!
Apteva, I see you have posted on my page in connection with Heat Your contribution carries the explanation:-
 * warning, we will seek to have you blocked if you keep re-inserting your anti-consensus views in the Heat article

I gather from this that you consider my contributions are somehow anti-consensus. This is is a serious charge and should be supported. I do not recall any contribution from you on Heat so I am curious as to why you make such a potentially serious charge.

If I am mistaken about your contribution on Heat (or any related article) the, please inform me (with some dif.s) as soon as possible so that I may discover where our contributions may be in conflict. --Damorbel (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Section headings begin with capital letters. I was simply changing "warning" to "Warning". What I was responding to was

13:25, 18 July 2013‎ Damorbel (talk | contribs)‎. . (55,789 bytes) (-201)‎. . (This edit introduces the distinction between heat

13:59, 18 July 2013‎ DavRosen (talk | contribs)‎. . (55,311 bytes) (+201)‎. . (Undid revision 564787175 by Damorbel

14:27, 18 July 2013‎ Damorbel (talk | contribs)‎. . (55,110 bytes) (-201)‎. . (Undid revision 564791172 by DavRosen


 * There is nothing wrong with the 13:25 edit, but when it gets reverted at 13:59, the correct response is to discuss the change instead of simply reverting the revert (in BRD, R is followed by D, not another R). I have not to my knowledge contributed to the articles on heat and temperature, but it would be worthwhile bringing both up to WP:GA status, if not WP:FA. The criteria for each can be found at those links. In both articles, the lead is too long, many statements are not referenced, and both use references not easily verified. Normally the only time that references are needed in the lead is if they are particularly surprising statements. The statement "a lightening bolt can heat a small portion of the atmosphere hotter than the surface of the sun" is only surprising because the surface of the sun is surprisingly cold, not because lightening causes heating that is surprisingly hot, so the statement is misleading, not surprising. Convection can hardly be called "more complicated" than conduction and radiation, as all it is is the conduction of heat to a surrounding medium and the flow of heat through that medium. The article heat transfer does not say that two forms are "simple" and one "more complicated". Apteva (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Just making sure you know, since my first reply to you seems to have gone unnoticed. Frungi (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I just do not see that it is necessary, because 90 to 99% of our articles are already named that way, and the normal way to name a new one when there are a hundred others that are similar is not to look for a sentence in the guidelines but just follow the same pattern that all the others used. There is no reason to try to put everything into our guidelines. Doing so makes them almost impossible to use. Right now or at last count, we had 71 pages of naming conventions. I suspect the number has already gone up, though. How is anyone going to read through 71 pages of guidelines? Apteva (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not blocking anyone from adding a sentence that says "Articles about an area of a state should be titled X, State metropolitan area unless the metropolitan area is confined to the geographical limits of X, in which case it is X, State, metropolitan area."
 * Ah, I hadn’t realized that you replied here. I didn’t think that people reacted to talkbacks that way, so I’d neglected to watch your page. Anyway, I think I addressed this on that Talk page, but I’ll expand on the semantics with examples: The name of the city is used in describing its surrounding area or its area of influence, and the name of the state is simply a parenthetical clarification of the city’s name. I live in Florida near the city of West Palm Beach, which puts me in the West Palm Beach, Florida, area; and omitting the name of the state would make it the West Palm Beach area. I do not live in West Palm Beach itself, but it would be erroneous to say that I live in the West Palm Beach, Florida area, or in the West Palm Beach, area. The city area (or the [X] area) is not an area of the city, but the area that contains the city. In other words, you have it backwards.
 * To put it a couple of other ways:
 * “West Palm Beach, Florida” means “the city of West Palm Beach in the state of Florida.” This is syntactically equivalent to “West Palm Beach (Florida).”
 * “The West Palm Beach area” means “the area surrounding the city of West Palm Beach”.
 * “The West Palm Beach, Florida, area” means “the area surrounding West Palm Beach in the state of Florida.” This is syntactically equivalent to “the West Palm Beach (Florida) area.”
 * Similarly, the “Florida area” would mean the states, or regions of the states, near Florida. So “West Palm Beach, Florida area,” if read literally, would mean “the city of West Palm Beach in the area surrounding the state of Florida.” This is a good deal less precise and more confusing, which is why it’s bad practice to omit the closing comma. More relevantly:
 * “Miami, Florida” means “the city of Miami in the state of Florida.”
 * “The Miami metropolitan area” (which contains West Palm Beach) means “the metropolitan area surrounding Miami.”
 * “The Miami, Florida, metropolitan area” means “the metropolitan area surrounding Miami in the state of Florida.”
 * Hope that helps. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if there’s any confusion over the grammar involved in these examples, and I’ll do my best to help clear it up. Cheers. —Frungi (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I was going to eventually place a talkback tag on your talk page. The West Palm Beach, Florida area is a larger area than the West Palm Beach, Florida, area. As explained, Florida is a parenthetical to the word area, even though it is not connected with a hyphen. Basically we defer to reliable sources in choosing grammar, and in this case that is the census bureau, and every other source anyone cares to quote, none of which use a comma after the word Florida, in Orlando, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, which, right now, we do not have even a redirect for (with or without FL being abbreviated), although one can easily be created, to Orlando, Florida. Apteva (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not larger. How did you get that idea into your head? Again, there is no “West Palm Beach, Florida area.” That is a typo of “West Palm Beach, Florida, area,” so there is no difference in meaning between the two—they both mean “West Palm Beach area.” Please review the examples above, and you should see that the name of the state is parenthetical to the name of the city. Incidentally, “FL” is not a word, and the rules are different for postal abbreviations—this is likely the source of confusion. If you’re still not convinced, then please break down how you think the grammar works here, as I did above. —Frungi (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone much farther away from West Palm Beach could be considered to be in the West Palm Beach, Florida area, but not someone who was in the West Palm Beach, Florida, area, as the area has been defined as the West Palm Beach area in the second case. That is how it is a larger area. The comma makes a difference. Someone could be anywhere in Florida, for example, but you think they are closer to West Palm Beach, you could say they are in Florida, possibly near West Palm Beach, or they are in the West Palm Beach, Florida area. This is actually saying, "West Palm Beach, Florida-area". From the advice on commas, "As you can see, there are many reasons for using commas, and we haven't listed them all. Yet the biggest problem that most students have with commas is their overuse." And I would add, but do not use contractions, such as haven't, for have not. Apteva (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, so my understanding of your position is that “Florida area” is in fact the appositional phrase (e.g., “a Miami, Florida area, event” for an event taking place in the general vicinity of Miami). Fair to say? But that’s not how the word is generally used in this context, and I’d still like to know where you picked it up. Rather, “Area” in this context of “[City] metropolitan area” means the area including the city, or the area under the city’s influence, not an area inside the city. Likewise, “Miami, Florida-area” or “a Miami, Florida area, event) implies that Miami itself is in the Florida area—it’s not, it’s in Florida. And you still haven’t mentioned how you originally came to your conclusions, or how they were given to you, as the case may be.
 * Now, in case I misunderstood and you actually think that “Miami, Florida area” refers to a “Florida area” named after the city: Firstly, the lack of a comma between two nouns generally means that the first noun modifies the second, as in “jelly doughnut” (“jelly” indicates the particular type of doughnut) or “Obama administration” (the particular administration is identified by its leader). So if you were modifying “[State] area” or “[State] metropolitan area” with the name of a city, you wouldn’t use any commas at all: “a Miami Florida-area event” (I hyphenated the term to avoid ambiguity). But this, too, is not how the language works—we don’t talk about “Florida areas” named after cities, but simply “areas” named after the cities (which are located in states).
 * I think that’s everything. And I sincerely hope that you’re not simply so convinced that you refuse to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. —Frungi (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I always expect that I could be wrong. That is why we discuss things and use reliable sources. Like the census bureau. Apteva (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style are more reliable for questions of grammar. What it seems like you’ve done is interpret the grammar used by a source, which is original research in this context. The meaning of “[State] area” that you argue has no precedent, and no style guide supports a comma between a modifier and a noun (if that’s how you interpreted the grammar). —Frungi (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Style guides are only a guide (and some even contain errors). Anyone who wants to contact the census bureau and tell them they are using commas wrong is welcome to do so, and if they change their use of commas I will be the first to recommend that we follow suit. On the other hand, if they say "say what?", and do not change their usage, I will continue to suggest that their use of commas is correct per correct rules of grammar and per correct use of commas. It is important to understand that I could not care less how many commas our article uses as long as that is supported by reliable sources. If there are multiple choices, we choose the dominant usage. Apteva (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, please cite the rules of grammar that support this use, because I have never seen one style guide, rulebook, or For Dummies book that advocates it. And we do not universally choose the dominant form when choosing a title; per our MOS, we choose a form that follows standard English rules. And the use of commas in these names is governed by WP:COMMA, which describes the appositional/parenthetical comma rules that I have explained here. —Frungi (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If a few sources say "To be, or not, to be" and one says "To be or not, to be", and all the rest say "To be, or not to be", that is what we go with, regardless of all the grammar books and all the style guides. It is RS's that are important, not style guides. Apteva (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Direct quotations are not comparable to descriptive names. Besides, a comma before an “or” is generally fine. —Frungi (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing descriptive names, we are discussing proper nouns, names that are defined and provided by the OMB, and used by the census bureau. Dayton metropolitan area is a descriptive name, Dayton, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area is a proper noun that was made up by the OMB. Apteva (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe those names, whether proper or descriptive, all use postal abbreviations for the state (e.g., “Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area”), so I would ask you to stop altering them yourself; and as I said earlier, postal abbreviations have different rules associated with them which is probably the source of your confusion. “Dayton, OH” functions as a modifier for “Metropolitan Statistical Area”—it is not referring to a Dayton in the “OH Metropolitan Statistical Area”, nor to an “OH Metropolitan Statistical Area” named “Dayton”. —Frungi (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the OMB used rule 6 to omit the comma and expected everyone to include it if they spelled out the state, the message has not gotten through. Most sources, though, are local to the region, and do not include the state at all. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don’t think it’s the OMB’s job to educate people on basic grammar. And I notice you’ve stopped responding to my grammar-related questions; did you recognize your error of pairing the state name in the wrong direction? —Frungi (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by the wrong direction. I think we can both agree from rule 6 that with the state abbreviated, there is no controversy about there not being a comma after the state. Apteva (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean your interpretation of it as (Dayton) (Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area), rather than (Dayton (Ohio)) (Metropolitan Statistical Area). Because the former is confusing and meaningless. —Frungi (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your revision :
here

You will have noticed that editor Robert McClenon inserted his contribution here 'inside' mine so mine was (partially left without a signature and also destroyed its meaning.

By the way, I have just added contributions here and here that explain heat and thermal energy WRT the gas laws and other physics pages.--Damorbel (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did notice that they put their comment into the middle of your comment, which is why I duplicated your signature, to mark where yours stopped, and theirs started, so that anyone reading the page can tell who wrote which sentences. I also explained what I had done on their talk page, and that anytime they find a need to comment inside someone else's comments, that is what they should do, to mark where their comments start and the other editor's comments were interrupted. This is a standard procedure on Wikipedia talk pages. I did notice that you added an explanation of heat and thermal energy. I was not impressed that it was applicable to that article, which defines heat differently. I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get someone to write a clear and succinct topic sentence for the article which begins with the two words, "Heat is". Apteva (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You wrote -
Here ''That I should have put my contribution in the article Heat (engineering), not the article that we have.  Of course there is no article Heat (engineering)''.

Care to explain? --Damorbel (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The definition of heat is what an engineer would use, and not the definition used in our article. Both are completely valid, but one article can not easily be about two different subjects. Apteva (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Histmerge requests Climate engineering and Geoengineering

 * See Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please format references and supply appropriate information such as date, date accessed, author, publisher, work
Hi there. You are just making extra work for someone later by adding references without basic information, and without using appropriate cite templates. You just added another such reference regarding the girl killed by the fire truck and, as your reference alleges, pulled from the aircraft by a firefighter. cf. Asiana Airlines Flight 214. You should be aware that there are tools (gadgets) that provide for rather painless inclusion of this information, including nameing a ref, in the Advanced submenu of the Edit source window. Thank you. --Mareklug talk`
 * Thanks. I am a content contributor more than a copy editor. Anyone can format a reference, but not everyone can find references and add material to an article. I am grateful to our copy editors who do come after me and change my references into full citations, but it is not a valuable use of my time to enter them as full citations (I have tried to add some additional pieces though, to that specific article, such as date and author). This is not an FA article, and them being full citations is not important. What I do, though, is a lot of copy editing of changing bare URLs that get added to articles to citations that at least include the title of the citation, and combining references where the same URL is duplicated. Apteva (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record
One editor brought up the issue of WP:IDHT, which says, "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement."

I can not discuss the subject of the topic ban in specific, which is what "work on finding points of agreement" means, while the topic ban is in effect, which is another reason that it would be good to lift it, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has two responsibilities, and only two. One, to our readers, to provide a world class encyclopedia that is a reliable source (sort of the fundamental definition of the word "encyclopedia"), and two, to our editors, to welcome and nurture a healthy editor community. Wikipedia is not failing on the first even though no school allows using Wikipedia as a reference, because Wikipedia does serve as a collection of links to reliable sources that students can use for references, but Wikipedia does fail miserably on the second account, with an arcane set of Lord of the Fly rules on who should be banned and blocked. I mean seriously, does anyone even care that a few hundred out of a hundred million contributors has annoyed someone here by their conduct? Is that really surprising? The response from the community is to spend oodles of time wondering which new editor who pops up is really a new entity of someone who had a spat with someone four years ago and was blocked or banned (they are two different ways of saying "go away"), and trying to add them to the list, instead of just welcoming or reverting their contribution just like any other contribution. Seriously, everyone here needs to get a life. We want everyone, and that really does mean everyone, to click edit for a reason, we want everyone to help make this a reliable source, and when it is not, the best way to correct that is by having our readers become our editors. We currently have leveled off at about 3200 regular contributors, down from the peak we had of 4800 in early 2007. Every month we gain new ones, every month we lose old ones. Some come back later, some do not return. Right now Wikipedia is the fifth most used website on the Internet, with about 500 million unique visitors each month, and that is a good thing, because that means that people use the Internet to find and share information, and what better place is there for that than an encyclopedia? Apteva (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Everyone needs to get a life" -ironically I have heard that usually said to people like you that appear to have OCD about the minor details such as the difference between - and &mdash instead of focusing on the overall content of the article! If you had not worried about the little things that remain mostly invisible anyway you would not be in this situation now! PantherLeapord (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

pressure altitude
Pressure altitude (uncorrected) is what the FDR records. The pilots said 1500', but the FDR said 1600'. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Article titles and other chaff
Hello.

The community happily forgot your achievements of 2007–08. Now, your continuous clashes with Dicklyon and other opponents on every petty pretext alienate many editors from you, similarly to your experience 4 years ago. You can eventually be cornered by opponents, deprived of all channels of appeal, and ended with all your points, including valid ones, being summarily dismissed by the community. Now you absolutely need disengagement from all petty disputes for next 2–4 months while persisting with positive, undisputed contributions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I do not have "opponents". That is a WP:Battleground mentality, which I do not have. Apteva (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard where there is a claim regarding unwarranted opposition to certain article moves, and where someone has proposed an indefinite ban. I think the situation could be defused if you were to make a clear statement that you voluntarily will not interact with User:Dicklyon for six months, and that you will not become involved in discussions on article moves for the same period. My suggestion is on the basis that there have been extensive discussions involving yourself, and questions of who is right, or what is fair, are no longer relevant—what is needed is peace and quiet, even if some articles are moved or not moved in a manner that you judge to be incorrect. The community cannot resolve every disagreement, and sometimes things just have to end, so please do what you can to aid that outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban
User:Apteva is voluntarily topic banned for six months from discussing the use of punctuation, and capital letters. This does not mean that the user can not use or modify punctuation and capital letters, but can not discuss their use, and will defer to any modification done by anyone else (some inadvertent modification can be expected and does not need to be noted). This is in addition to the actual topic ban of discussing or modifying short horizontal lines. Short horizontal lines can be used but not modified. Any changing of hyphens, ndashes, or mdashes, one to another, is a topic ban violation, and does need to be noted. Apteva (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 01:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, see resolution above. Apteva (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that they are ganging up on you. If an indef is placed, would you like to join my army to destroy Wikipedia? Zombie Admin 166.147.120.155 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, and I do not think that likely. There is nothing wrong with Wikidpedia, other than too many people with nothing better to do than complain. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice
I am informing you that, per the result of this AN discussion, you are hereby topic banned from proposing the removal of any of your existing restrictions, at any Wikipedia venue, for a period of six months from this date (i.e. until 31st January 2014), and are limited to one appeal every six months after that. Violations of this ban will be met with sharply escalating blocks. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh. This was already in place, but thanks for the unnecessary reminder. Trust me, even though evidently no one else knows what the sanctions are, I do. Honestly, what is the point of having sanctions if no one even knows they exist? Apteva (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're still not getting it. Your previous editing restrictions remain in place, but you are further banned from asking for them to be lifted until January 31, 2014, and if they are not lifted at that time, you can ask again once ever six months.  Those restrictions were not part of the original topic ban, and that is what has changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That restriction was added long ago, but like I said, no one seems to care, except for me. If anyone really thinks the date in January when they can be appealed needs to be discussed for two weeks, I have no hope for them. Apteva (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the previous restriction was to allow a reasonable period of time between appeals. Since you took that to mean under a day it has been appended with a definition as to how long you are to wait between appeals to prevent you from making an appeal mere hours after the previous one was denied and continuing to waste the communities time and patience by interpreting a reasonable length of time to be a few hours (How long is a piece of string?). This new amendment to your sanctions makes them more enforceable and makes it clear what the community expects of you as you refused to hear other explanations of what was expected of you. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 21:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was long ago clarified to be six months, which was reached at 11:43 UTC on July 6, 2013. I did not appeal until over nine days later. But like I said, no one really cares. During the last six months thousands of useful edits have been prohibited by the sanctions and during the next six months an equal number will be prohibited. But then again, no one cares. WP is not a reliable source anyway. But we really need to be working on making it as reliable a source as we can. Apteva (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's explore that shall we... Do you see any six month waits in that appeal history? PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 21:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Appeal to Arbcom 12 January 2013, result: unanimously declined
 * Appeal 29 January 2013, result: declined by JamesBWatson
 * Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined
 * Appeal at AE 15 May 2013, result: declined
 * Appeal 23 May 2013, result: declined by SirFozzie
 * Appeal 24 May 2013, result: declined by Bwilkins
 * Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined with email block added to the existing block
 * Appeal 16 July 2013, result: declined twice (closed by Kingofhearts but reverted by Apteva, then closed again by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
 * Appeal 17 July 2013, result: Apteva reverted the close him/herself
 * Appeal 18 July 2013, result: declined.
 * Not applicable. Every close can be appealed, in multiple places, including the one to make a six month ban into a six month ban, but since it did absolutely nothing, what would be the point? Apteva (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Apteva. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Asiana_Flight_214_Final_Approach_to_SFO-3.png
The File:Asiana_Flight_214_Final_Approach_to_SFO-3.png appears to me to have its x-scale reversed with the flights coming towards the ground at a point 3 miles from the runway. Hopefully you or someone who has watchlisted this page can fix this, perhaps with a new version uploaded to commons? EdChem (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)