User talk:Apteva/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Solar energy. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation Case

The Mediation Case involving Solar energy has been opened, I will be mediating the case for Medcom, please review Mediation Policy to understand the intent of this process and then post an initial statement at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Solar_energy#Discussion. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hagardom.jpeg

Oops, I must be blind. Of course it's on commons... enochlau (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured they must have "intended" to have put it onto commons - and found it quickly on my first guess. Apteva (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Atlanta, Georgia

Unfortunately, Atlanta, Georgia is not the "largest Southern city" as you noted in your recent edit. While the population within city boundaries is in fact the densest in the southeast (and I recently added verbiage explaining that fact to the lead paragraph), the almost bizarrely small city limits of Atlanta proper make it only the sixth largest city in the region. If all the various nearby suburbs were included, Atlanta would easily dwarf the others, since it is, as the article notes, a poster child of urban sprawl. Todd Vierling (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is if you include the metropolitan area. Apteva (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you added the "largest Southern city" link to the city limits population number of 486411, not the metropolitan area population number (which already has a link noting Atlanta's 9th-in-the-country status). That given, Atlanta isn't the largest Southern metropolitan area, either. That status would go to either DFW or Miami depending on your definition of "South" (and I won't address the colloquially hot topic of whether Florida is "Southern" here). I've been to both areas personally, and they're pretty bad when it comes to metro-urban sprawl too. Todd Vierling (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Texas and Florida are definitely not Southern states. Try driving through the south if you doubt me. Apteva (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From an encyclopedia standpoint, as far as census statistics go, they are. As I noted above, the definition of "South" is not up for debate here (I grew up in Florida and live in Atlanta today; I do understand what you're saying). Population numbers come from census stats, and those same census stats define regions, and by those stats, all of Dallas, Houston, and Miami are larger than Atlanta in the "South". Even if you think that's somewhat cold and impersonal, that's what appropriately goes in an encyclopedia. Todd Vierling (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Positive response appreciated

I just wanted to say I appreciated your most recent and positive response at Solar energy. I have been (and could be) very critical of some of your past contributions when you were a relatively new user, but we try not to do that here. Your enthusiasm for solar energy is a valuable contribution to the project, but it is important that this is channeled through Wikipedia's policies. In this spirit cooperation is far more effective than confrontation and I am working towards this end. Please contact me if I can help in any way. Thanks again for embracing the cooperative spirit. Geometry guy 21:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that I am a lot more pragmatic than you make me out to be. As you will often hear people say, I'd run my tractor on pig manure if that was what was most practical. Except they use shorter words. So it isn't really that I'm enthusiastic as that it's the only game in town - coal and nuclear are very limited and have horrendous side effects, oil is quickly running out, natural gas is even more limited... There actually is more solar available than I realized, now that I look at the article, and its references. It's a pretty interesting subject. You know it's funny, when I was doing a book search I found an encyclopedia from 1882 that said that when the world ran out of coal it had an endless supply of solar energy it could use... Apteva (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatism is good. You may be right that solar is the only game in town, but not everyone agrees, and Wikipedia has to be scrupulously neutral about that. Some say nuclear has a role to play, and not necessarily fission: there's fusion too, maybe even in an essentially clean form using tritium. Others argue that the market will favour the most economic sources at any time, and non-renewables still have quite a bit of life in them. I lean towards your view and agree that it is an interesting subject. However, the bottom line here is policy: fair representation of all points of view, no original research, and all that jazz. Getting Solar energy featured on the main page would be a good thing, in my view, but that means making it into a compelling, carefully balanced, and beautifully sourced article. Geometry guy 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The word crime has multiple meanings, one being "any serious wrongdoing". Yet crime is rampant in many societies. To willfully disrupt the life of billions of people and thousands of species - even causing their extinction, could probably be considered a crime, whether there is any law against it or not. Yet that is what our "most economic" choice would provide. In the Nocera paper he states that the nuclear option would require building a 1,000 MW reactor every 1.6 days for the next 45 years, but we would run out of fuel for them in 30 years... Climatologists say we have 7 years to fix global warming (although in my opinion "fix" means restore to 1850 levels of CO2, not "stabilize at twice today's levels"), so don't even think of looking to something that would take 50 years to develop (fusion). The Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association says (and pardon their English, but their meaning is clear) "The 21st century must be a century of widespread use of solar energy, which is to be the foregone conclusion on social development and cannot be transferred by any people's volition." Unfortunately society doesn't have the means to protect themselves from themselves in many situations. I remember someone saying that Wikipedia doesn't predict the future, it documents the past. However, if you have documentation that you are on a dead end path, there is no reason to not report that. As to "but not everyone agrees", I'm not really concerned about that. There are people who think the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, too. This article is no where near as controversial as some, like the global warming article. I wholeheartedly agree that it would be great to have the article on the main page, but I think its biggest shortfalls right now are that it is poorly written, lacks citations (which can be solved just by deleting the affected paragraphs), and is way, way too long. It has, for example, sub-paragraphs of sub-articles. What's up with that? Just delete them and put them into the sub-articles. Anyway, my biggest strength is fact checking, so I'll keep an eye out to see that the article is factual. Apteva (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with many of your views. However crime prevention is not Wikipedia's goal. A better statement than "Wikipedia documents the past" is "Wikipedia documents the current state of knowledge according to reliable sources". If reliable sources state that society is on a dead end path, then Wikipedia can report it; otherwise, that's outside our mission.

My own view is that mixed solutions are inevitable, just as different types of solar energy use have individual applications. Nuclear is not the ultimate global solution, but it has worked quite well for France, just as secondary solar sources (wind and hydro) have worked quite well for Scandinavia. I think you are a bit down on economics: carbon taxes and other incentives can be used to motivate more solar use; peak oil is going to kill off most non-renewables within only very few years now. Solar is clearly the long term solution in my view and yours. But it isn't the job of Wikipedia to advocate our views, whether we agree or disagree.

I admire your conviction, and your help with fact checking will be invaluable. Lets work on fixing sourcing and structural issues. As I state on the talk page, the article is not "way, way too long". However, that does not mean it has the right content: some material should be spun out, some should be added. In the process, however, material which is not supported by reliable sources has to be reworked or removed. Geometry guy 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was only suggesting that WP should document what we know, from RSs. After all, there are people who actually use WP as a primary source. I would estimate that this is still less than 10% of the population, though. Apteva (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumptions

There is an ongoing presumption that you and User:Oakwillow are the same editor, and that you have carried on where IP addresses 199.125.209.x left off. You have not denied these presumptions, as far as I am aware. Is this correct? If so, why do you use more than one account to edit? Multiple accounts are allowed, as long as they don't violate policy: in particular, it would be helpful if you provided user page links between all the accounts you use.

Another presumption: you seem to believe (if I have understood several subtexts) that User:Mrshaba's edits are motivated by employment, or favour towards the nuclear industry. I don't see any evidence of that, and it seems to be colouring your approach to editing Solar energy. Do you have any evidence you wish to share. You can email me if you prefer. Geometry guy 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba has accused me of being a sock of multiple other editors. Anonymity dictates that I will never confirm nor deny any of these accusations. As ti byckear oiwer oops, need to move hands over, as to nuclear power, I do think it odd that as soon as I made the accusation, Mrshaba quickly deleted his userpage (don't worry, I saved a copy). I do always give people the benefit of the doubt, but his ownership of the solar energy page is blatant. Apteva (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You have the option to confirm or deny whether you are User:Oakwillow. If this comes to a checkuser, it will look much better if you have confirmed any accounts you control. Don't worry about saving pages: I've checked out the background already (yours too), and read Mrshaba's deleted user page some time ago. I find no evidence for your implicit accusation that his edits are motivated by employment, or indeed by any favour towards the nuclear industry. I suggest you retract or remove any such comments you have made now and reflect hard upon whether your editing pattern is compatible with the spirit of the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 23:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whatever happened to not biting the newbie? As to a retraction, I already gave the response that I now believe that to not be the case, what more are you looking for? Apteva (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're an experienced editor and I wasn't biting. Anyway, that last sentence is a step in the right direction. If you do use other accounts or IP addresses, another useful step would be to read the policy on alternative accounts and make sure that your contributions are compatible with it. Geometry guy 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is always a little give and take between the cabal and the anti-cabal - however, I believe that if you wanted to create other accounts you would be free to do so, as long as you did not use any of those accounts inappropriately. Several examples of legitimate reasons for creating additional accounts are provided at wp:sock. Apteva (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability template

Hi and thanks for the note about the above. I've left some thoughts about it on the TfD page. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock Case

I started a sock puppet case against you. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Apteva. Mrshaba (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Solar energy. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

There were no warnings, not even a notification that a complaint had been made at WP:ANI, certainly by Mrshaba or his meatpuppet Skyemoor who is simply gaming the system to use his version of a file even though it has serious problems.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that contain attacks or accusations against others are not acted upon; see WP:GAB. —  Sandstein  07:24, 10 October 2008 (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.

Don't edit reviewed unblock requests or this page will be protected.  Sandstein  07:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the instructions said that I could revise my reason at any time. However, if you prefer I will add a revised request.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There were no warnings, not even a notification that a complaint had been made at WP:ANI. 3RR is not mechanically applied, and I certainly would never have committed it if I felt that my actions were inappropriate. I would request that a page that is under dispute be discussed, though, and I did feel that it was appropriate to revert to a consensus version while the page was under discussion. Please see Talk:Solar energy#Lead section for my attempt to resolve the problems with the page. If it helps any I will agree to edit other pages for 24 hours, although I would hope that restriction not necessary. My reason for editing Wikipedia is to fix things that are hopelessly wrong, which is why I do a lot of WP:RCP

Decline reason:

This was definitely a 3RR violation, and this certainly seems to be edit warring to me. You posted a comment on the talk page, but then insistently reverted to your preferred version. Your claim that this was the "consensus version" can't really be justified when you were the only one backing it at the time. Whether or not you got a specific warning doesn't matter, because they are only encouraged, not actually required. Mangojuice^talk 19:49, 10 October 2008 (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.

Warnings are encouraged for a good reason - if you see someone making 2 or 3 reverts and warn them you will 90% of the time see them cease and desist and go on to continue to productively participate in the WP project. I view all users of WP as potential aids in developing a good encyclopedia, even the incorrigible. A vandal only account can be blocked without warning, but if you have someone who is contributing productively, a warning is better than a block, which is highly disruptive, and very antagonistic. What actually happened is not as you portray it but it is all water under the dam by now as the block has expired anyway. In my case probably 90% of my time is spent researching edits, so I haven't lost a lot of edit time over the 24 hours as I have been spending my time looking for vandalism and making a list of edits to make. I don't antagonize easily - I'm one of those who are able to keep a cool head no matter what happens. I did note however that in the instructions on 3RR it states that "Where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides fairly." Since there were three editors involved all three should have been warned, or blocked, much to the chagrin of the participant in the edit war who filed the 3RR notice. Apteva (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that you reverted 4 times while the other two editors reverted 2 times each. So, only you violated the rule. Mangojuice^talk 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppets are counted as one editor. Skyemoor since then has proceeded to revert 2 more times when I attempted to edit the article, after setting up the sandbox, which ironically Skyemoor suggested, and Itsmejudith and myself agreed to. Apteva (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop slinging the meatpuppet allegation. These editors are separate people with long histories of Wikipedia editing. Just because they agree doesn't make them meatpuppets. Mangojuice^talk 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidently the term is "tag team", not meatpuppet, but the effect is the same. I'm working on the article and they are just hitting undo. Apteva (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy

Note to User:Skyemoor and others. Please proceed to create a sandbox for the lead section. In the meantime, until a new lead section is agreed to, by a minimum by myself, Skyemoor, Itsmejudith, and Mrshaba, please also restore the lead to the last consensus version,[1] which is not "my version", it is simply the last version before Mrshaba changed the lead. If you look, there were less than a dozen problems with the version proposed by Mrshaba, and if Mrshaba had followed policy and discussed those problems instead of insisting that no one knew how to use the history tab and insisting that his version stay visible in the article "Let other editors have a say." in an edit summary, totally ignoring the fact that the article has a talk page. Had Mrshaba followed procedure and addressed the problems on the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war with myself and Skyemoor the problems could have easily been resolved long ago.

Note to Itsmejudith - the solar energy article is about how we get solar power from the sun, not the effects of the sun on the earth, which are covered by other articles. So the fact that we feel heat from the sun is not relevant to solar energy, other than in an anecdotal manner (wow those solar hot water panels must be working well today, I can feel the heat of the sun on my face).

Note to Mrshaba and Itsmejudith, please work on the lead in a sandbox, not in the article. Trying to get me blocked and then making an unpopular edit is a favorite trick of Mrshaba's. Don't do it. It isn't "your" article.

And please, "many 1000s of orders of magnitude"? It takes less than 100 orders of magnitude to describe the ratio of anything from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest known universe with any parameter. A fact quickly learned by anyone using a calculator that "only" goes to 100 orders of magnitude (to ten to the plus or minus 99), and wonders will that really be enough for my work? Apteva (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Jaysweet: Solar energy was rejected from being a GA only because the lead section was too short. Apteva (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva, please don't escalate problems by making accusations. You've been accused yourself, of having a sockpuppet. That's serious - is it true? No way do I want to own this article. I am really pleased to have other knowledgeable people around - the pleasure of collaborative editing is why I stick around on this encyclopedia. The point above about feeling the heat of the sun was part of an argument why I thought "heat and light" was not inappropriate. As I've said "light and radiant heat" is fine by me. Using a sandbox for the lead could be a good idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The only one who has ever been legitimately complained as thinking they WP:OWN the article is the WP:SPA Mrshaba. You should know that. And using a sandbox for the lead is an excellent idea. I do think that {{discuss}} should be added at the end of the lead as an unobtrusive request for input to the lead. Apteva (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva, could you point me to a diff or permalink where the GA reviewers said the lede for Solar energy was too short? I frankly would be shocked if they were just like, "Two paragraphs? FAIL!" In fact, if that's the case, I'ma get after 'em ;) I am guessing it is more likely that they thought it didn't contain enough information, in which case seeing their comments could be a useful guide for those working on the article to help improve the lede. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a sec, I'm working on something else. My recollection is that at the time it had one paragraph and we were advised that for an article > 30,000 characters it should have 3 or 4. Apteva (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. Just click on the list of GA rejections. The first one is the one I was referring to.[2] Apparently at the time there was only one paragraph and they waited a week for someone to add at least a 2nd or 3rd before rejecting the nom. I do believe that the topic has so many subjects that 3 paragraphs is clearly justified. Apteva (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Skyemoor: So everyone else can edit the lead and you auto revert any changes that I make? What a hypocrite. The most serious problems with the lead are 1) it does not mention solar power, which is actually what the article is about, 2) that it is only 2 paragraphs, and 3) that it uses the inappropriate 99% (99.7%), when it needs to say "most" instead, as discussed many times before. Apteva (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit help

{{helpme}}

What's a template that says something like "this section is under discussion - see talk page" with a link to the proper talk section? I found {{discuss}} but that seems to be more for a questionable statement, not an entire section. Thanks in advance. Apteva (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You might find the template you're looking for at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, or possibly elsewhere at Wikipedia:Template messages; all the messages seem to indicate why the section's under discussion, though, rather than just that it is. Hope that helps! --ais523 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You have been a fantastic help. I suppose that if I can't find what I am looking for I can just add yet another. After all, if I'm looking for it surely others will want it as well. In general I view WP as a fairly mature project with well developed tools, but there are always exceptions. Apteva (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lady Gaga The fame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lady Gaga The fame.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Psychology sidebar

Why did you make these edits? On the surface of it, it looks like vandalism (removing the RfC statement and the link to the template that is important for users who see it on the main RfC-science list). You called it "fix link", but in reality it removed an important link. But before calling it vandalism, I'll wait for your explanation. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You can try to re-fix it, I was simply making the link from the rfc link to the correct section on the talk page. No it wasn't vandalism. You will note that it is useless to include a link to the template from the talk page for the template. Apteva (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note, however, that when an RfC is set up, the link also goes on the RfC-sci list, which you botched up when you made your edit. A link in an RfC heading is more than a link on that particular talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I came from the RFC list. I clicked on the link and it went to the wrong place because it had been set up incorrectly. All I did was fix it. I see no reason for a link to the template and the talk page for the template. As I said you are welcome to make any fix you deem necessary, but there is a bot that makes the list on RFCsci, so it can be difficult to get the fix to work properly. What they had done wrong was make a subject heading that included RFC: and told the bot that the subject heading did not include RFC: Apteva (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry but you're wrong. Your edit removed the link to the template talk page from the RfC list. When you click the link on the RfC list, it goes to the top of the talk page, and then you must scroll down. I think I'll have to re-list it to get it back on the RfC list. No problem. Everyone makes mistakes. Just pointing it out so you don't make the same mistake twice. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked again and it's back on the list. All is well. Ward3001 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be very frustrating dealing with the bot. You make an RFC and it never shows up, you manually add it and the bot removes it, etc. You do realize, I hope that when you "restored important information", you simply broke it again? I will fix it again, this time by only fixing the section heading so that the bot and the section heading agree. Apteva (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No!!!! The link is on the list. Don't change anything. It is exactly the way it was when I set up the RfC, which is the way I wanted it. Ward3001 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see now that you are the very same editor who broke it to begin with by telling the bot one subject title and using another. The easiest way to fix it, and I will let you do it, is to change the beginning of the section heading from "==RfC: Should " to "==Should ". When you click on a link in an RFC you are supposed to go to the proper section in the talk page, not to the top, which only happens if the {{RFCsci}} template is not correctly filled out with the proper section title. If you wish to retain RfC: in the section heading, good luck fighting with the bot to get it changed in the RFC list. Apteva (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, please, take my word for it. It is set up exactly the way I set it up to begin with. Please leave it as it is. I don't have to fight with the bot. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making it very hard for someone to help you by responding to the RFC - they can't find the RFC as easily. You are also wasting an awful lot of typing to type in a very long section that is not going to be used at all because you didn't type all of it in - you would have gotten the same results by leaving it blank or leaving it as section=section. So in both cases I fail to see any method to your endeavor. Apteva (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be hard to get along with, but the RfC is set up as I originally set it up. I put the link to the sidebar in the RfC title so someone who arrives at the RfC on the talk page can click to see what the sidebar looks like. If you'll read the debate, a major issue is how large the sidebar should be, so I set it up that way to give editors a way to get a quick look at the sidebar before commenting. That may not fit into your view of how things should be, but it's the way I chose to set it up. I hope you and I can end this peacefully without having to set up another RfC to discuss how the original RfC should be set up. I appreciate your concern for getting things "by the book", but I have chosen a slightly different approach. If you disagree, that's fine, but I personally think that is splitting hairs. So I hope you'll leave things as they are, although obviously I don't own either the RfC or the talk page, so I can't stop you from making changes. Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it that I am not talking about the link to the template, do you? That was not what led me to make the edit. I went to RFCsci and clicked on the link and it took me - no where - no RFC, just a talk page. So I fixed the link so that anyone who did the same would actually find the RFC. It has nothing to do with doing things by the book. As I said, in my edit summary, I was fixing a link. The link in the RfC, right now, is to Template talk:Psychology sidebar#Should_Occupational_health_psychology_be_included_in_Template:Psychology_sidebar, which goes nowhere, because there is no section with that name. What it should go to is Template talk:Psychology sidebar#RfC:_Should_Occupational_health_psychology_be_included_in_Template:Psychology_sidebar. Or you can change the section name. Either one. Try clicking on the two links and I hope you will see what I mean. Apteva (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes I get it. I have gotten it for the last several messages. I understand exactly how you think it should be. That is not my point. Please re-read my previous message about how I changed things from the way they normally would be. I fully understand that is not perfectly "by the book". I get it. I had reasons for what I did, reasons that are becoming painfully obvious to me that you don't agree with. And I accept that you don't agree, but that doesn't change my mind about how I would like for the RfC to be set up.

What I don't get, however, is why you are carrying on this seemingly endless debate over whether clicking the link goes to the specific RfC section or to the top of the talk page. But I will accept that the specific point in the page to which the link takes someone is extremely important to you even though it is trivial to me. Like I said, I'm not trying to be hard to get along with, I just don't understand why you demand that the RfC be set up precisely the way you want it (which I acknowledge is the way an RfC is usually set up).

So I do get exactly what you are referring to, but I don't get your motivation. Can we just leave it at that, or do you plan to edit the talk page to get it exactly the way you want it despite the fact that it differs from the way I want it? If that's your decision, things will just have to go the way they go. Nothing personal, but there are many, many more important things on Wikipedia than this (not to mention life in general), so this is my last message on your talk page about this matter. Thank you for your concerns. Ward3001 (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is if you wanted people to go to the top of the talk page you could have saved yourself an awful lot of typing... Apteva (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about how much typing by me was required. Ward3001 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I was just fixing the link. Apteva (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello Apteva. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I responded because you had just nailed someone who had vandalized an article (I know that doesn't sound very special, but it was relevant to something I was working on at the moment, and instead of my attempt to nail jello to the wall you succeeded), and I wanted to show my appreciation. I have seen an escalation of the rfa's - you have to have at least 500 edits, no 5,000, no, 50,000, no 500,0000, and you have to get at least 5 votes, no 50, no 500, no 5,000 to pass... You get my point. WP does not have enough admins. I'll apply in due course, maybe. Apteva (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Album Cover-The Fame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Album Cover-The Fame.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Actually, Solar Energy's most recent 50 revisions comprises of mostly IP vandalism in the past 24 hours. High levels of vandalism activity do, in fact, usually necessitate semi-protection. As such, I'm going to keep it protected for now. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I only count 10 in the last 24 hours. Doubling that to include repairs would still be less than half of the last 50 edits. But whose counting, right? I may ask for unprotection in a week or two, after Solar Power International 2008 is over. Apteva (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Usage of multiple accounts

I see that you are still using 2 accounts in the same area (Apteva on Talk:Solar energy and Delphi234 on Talk:Renewable energy, both on 26 October). Please stop, this is disruptive and only stirs up drama. Please chose one account and stick to it. We didn't block Delphi234 at that time due to the fact that it hadn't been used for more than 2 weeks but this is no longer the case. If I see both accounts editing again, I'll block one indef, and the other for a week (which is the standard duration for deceptive sockpuppettry). -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PV

Good to see you have an account now and are contributing a few articles relating to PV. Could use your help here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar power in Alameda County. Johnfos (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for the heads up. Apteva (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that... Wonder if I could ask a favour... I seem to recall that you are pretty good with templates, and I was thinking we could use one about "Wind power in the United States". The two main sections could list the state ("Wind power in xxxx") articles, and some of the largest wind farms. What do you think? Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Have done this now. Johnfos (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vote

You have stated that you will not change what you are doing. I will change my vote to oppose because of this. (I thought I voted neutral) I now have one more reason to oppose. Leujohn ^(talk) 10:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I said I see no reason to change. There is a big difference. I make many changes, if there is a reason to make them. Apteva (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

IT MAY SEEM EASY TO YOU BUT i DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How do you do it? add the stuff my pics are missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphy23 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review Solar power

I have suspended this GA review as I have discovered copyright violations in the article. Please address these problems immediately. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done What you discovered was a copy of the article, not the other way around. Apteva (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. The article has been plagiarised so frequently on other sites that it was not easy to spot at first. Please accept my apology. I have left comments. Some referencing and comments about the lead and overview sections. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will be able to address them later on today or tomorrow, if someone else doesn't fix them before then. In general the lead should have no references, other than for any surprising statements, like that you can get all the world's energy from one location, which in my opinion requires a reference, and maybe a more specific heading should be chosen other than overview. Apteva (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I was torn though in deciding a neutral. I liked your response to the question for the most part. I myself enjoy seeing nice pictures posted from time to time, one photo i had was kermit the frog. What ive noticed though is that even if the image is well intended too much generally results in the user being blocked. Generally under the principle that they are disruption only accounts. So most people believe a block is to mitigate damage rather than punish the perpratrator. Have you considered applying for rollback though? It might be a way to along with the use of twinkle (i dont know if you use that) and huggle, to get your hands dirty with these types of edits and observe the rush on trying to deal with vandalism? At any rate I wish you luck, happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(btw it wasnt hello kitty, the question comes from kermit the frog with a ford car, and observing a 'barnstar spree')Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ive actually never thought of it in that way that someone might be commiting vandalism and not be realising it ekk, is that what you meant?Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the barnstars. Good faith edits are what we call committing vandalism and not realizing it. Apteva (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA closure

Dear Apteva, I've closed your RfA early per the Wikipedia page WP:NOTNOW, as it seemed to not have a chance at being successful in passing at the present time. Please do not let this failure dissuade you; as the comments of people on both sides attest, you've been doing good work so far. I'd encourage you to maintain your standard of editing, review the comments of those who participated, and consider trying again in several months time if you so choose. — Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What I was looking for was those comments. It would have helped to have had more, but a dozen is plenty. I do want to become an admin someday (soon). Apteva (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hey there, Apteva, sorry about your RfA: I think some of the opposition was a bit rough, and I hope you won't be discouraged by what happened. Anyway, I just had a look at your reverts, and you seem to know what vandalism is, and know the difference between vandalism and good-faith edits. As such, I have granted your account rollback rights, which is a tool that administrators naturally have. However, misuse of the tool, by reverting good-faith edits/edits you disagree with, or by using it to revert-war with other users, can lead to it being removed. In addition, if you don't want rollback, let me know, and I'll remove it. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 02:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Cool. As you can see I do RCP, so it will come in handy. A word to the wise for those who were a bit rough - don't judge a book by its cover. Apteva (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, although you will make a great admin one day, wikipedians do need to see substantial evidence of dedication and experience on the project. As some advice typically at rfa you need to have made around 4000 edits, balanced between constructive article work and admins area such as, antivandalism, articles for deletion, DYK, and the many others. If you reach this stage id be more than happy to review you contributions and possibly nominate you for adminship. I hope you continue to work well on the project :-) Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

I have to admit that I am not as upbeat as some other people here about your Admin prospects, and the reason is that you still insist on using multiple accounts and IP addresses when editing. I last raised the issue with you here: [3] and the problems have been going on for a long time, see User talk:Delphi234#Usage of multiple accounts. -- Johnfos (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lost track of who it was but I seem to recall an admin/bcrat/stwrd calmly pointing out the fact that they have over 700 accounts. As long as anyone does not use any accounts abusively, for example to falsely indicate additional support, or for example as a good edit/bad edit account, anyone is free to use as many accounts as they wish. However, it is to their benefit to use only one account, as it helps build an edit trail which helps other editors gain confidence in their edits, but there is not, nor will there ever be any requirement that editors log in - they just can't edit semi-protected articles, upload files, or several other things. I am completely confident that I have never used multiple accounts in an abusive manner, nor is this my primary account - I just use it for rcp, a few articles, and to become an admin. I realize that since less than 20% of my edits are done using this account, to build up an edit count of, say 4,000, I have to do 20,000 edits, but that is not a concern. You may or may not know, that an WP:SPA made a personal attack against me in the hopes that I would disappear, and it was solely that attack that led to the "usage of multiple accounts" link that you are referring to above. I am only willing to contribute under the condition of anonymity, which you can look up, if you are unfamiliar with the term (full disclosure, I wrote that section of the article), and I do not believe that I would be able to maintain that anonymity for a nanosecond if I did not segment my edits. My e-mail is enabled and if you have any more specific questions, you are welcome to e-mail them. Apteva (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your abuse

Where you are editing a single article with different account names and IP addresses, as occurred on the Solar power Talk page in May and June 2009, that is an abusive use of multiple accounts.

Where you are editing a subject area with different account names and IP addresses, that is an abusive use of multiple accounts. You have been editing energy articles using the account names Apteva, and Delphi234, and many IP addresses (such as [4], [5] and others) in the 199.125.109.xxx series. This is disruptive and misleading.

Some would even say that the very act of creating multiple accounts is an abuse of the Wikipedia system. Please stop your abuse. Johnfos (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? There are a couple of issues, but the most important one is: Don't feed the trolls. There is nothing wrong with my editing style. Apteva (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have no problem with people thinking that they can not create multiple accounts, just as long as someone does not tell them that it is true, as for new users it makes it that much easier on all of us if we can see their first few hundred edits instead of them being split over multiple accounts. For the vandals, even one account being blocked blocks all of their accounts no matter how they are used. Everyone should know that. And for the veterans with multiple thousands of edits, there are many misconceptions that are floated, but some are fact, and others are fiction. And consensus can change, so the guidelines and policies need to be read and re-read, but proper use of multiple accounts is not likely to ever change - it wouldn't make any sense, and would be impossible to detect, or enforce. Apteva (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If evidence can be provided that the accounts and ips are being used on the same article, then this would be an abuse and should stop. Otherwise, there is no problem, and I support Apteva's reasons for using multiple accounts, described above.    M   19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just one example... I would invite people to take a close look at what has happened with Solar power. Both the Solar power article (and its Talk page) have been edited by Apteva and various IP addresses of the form 199.125.109.xxx We can see Apteva editing the article page many times here: [6]. Then 199.125.109.129 edits the page here: [7]. Then 199.125.109.37 edits the page here: [8]. 199.125.109.81 edits the page here: [9]. And so it goes... These edits are all by the one user, so it is abusive, misleading and deceptive to be editing like this, as it gives the false impression that many users are involved. Other examples can be provided if required. Johnfos (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Things become even more confusing on the Talk page, where you think you are talking to different users, but it turns out to be the same person, see [10]. And then if you want to put a note on this persons User Talk page, well, there are many to choose from. How can anyone possibly see this style of editing as appropriate? What would happen if we all edited like this? Johnfos (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately push the envelope of what can be done by an IPuser, on purpose. All IPusers can be expected to reply on the same talk page with multiple IP addresses. As long as they are not voting, it is just chit chat and it does not matter if it is from the same or different people. You can ask until the cows come home for a policy of making people register and it is never going to happen. This is an encyclopedia, and the benefits of allowing people to not log in far outway the advantages obtained by making people log in. And also, my very first edit was as a registered user, but I forgot the login name and the password before I wanted to make my second edit, and since it was not required I happily went on as an IPuser. But that was a long time ago and thousands of edits ago. The issue of sockpuppetry is a dead issue, and it is pointless to bring it up. Apteva (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnfos asked me to comment here. I have to say that, if his description of your editing on the solar power article is accurate (that is to say, if you have been using multiple accounts and IPs, even if not for the purpose of vote stacking) that's clearly inappropriate. It is, at the very least, confusing to other editors and possibly a violation of the sockpuppetry policy - having multiple sock puppets participate, whether arguing with each other or else supporting a common cause, can still cause considerable confusion, and is therefore prohibited. This includes voting multiple times in any election, using more than one account in discussions such as deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages, or engaging with two or more accounts in an edit war. - Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Raul654 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that no one has ever been confused. They just tell me to log in now and then. No, I do not vote multiple times in any election, no, I do not use more than one account in discussions such as deletion debates, RFA, on talk pages, nor engage with two or more accounts in an edit war. I know the rules well, and I follow them explicitly. As I have often made clear I am only willing to participate under the condition of anonymity, and would be happy to discuss anything on this privately by e-mail. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you're still around.

I saw your name on Recent Changes and remembered you from a few years ago. Im glad to see you're still here. ☮Soap☮ 02:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Apteva (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Perovo Solar Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perovo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

I agree with what you did with Solar parks and solar farms and notice that you have been doing some good work on photovoltaic power stations. Much appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Apteva (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also for your guidance and comments on Solar parks and solar farms. I'll look at making it more comprehensive over the next few weeks.--MrRenewables (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your timely and important contributions recently relating to various PV power plants. Much appreciated and happy editing! Johnfos (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Solar power in Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MW

Solar power in Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MW

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)