Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) at 11:43, 6 January 2013 (Notice of community sanction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

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

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

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

American Academy of Nurse Practitioners

Hello Apteva
I was trying to fix the RM for this page and a) didn't notice 'til now that you'd already fixed it, and b) managed to cock it up even worse. My apologies! Have you any idea how to fix it? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

See this diff. There are hidden characters in the year that are messing up the bot but I have no idea what they are or how to avoid them. Apteva (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban sought

I have called for a ban at WP:AN#Proposal for topic ban for Apteva. I expect you'll want to respond. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding all the commotion

Well, we've all watched as the hubbub at the RfC concluded, with the process now moving into other forums. At any rate, I'd like to express a view that I would guess many other editors share at the moment. While sympathetic to your views regarding the appropriateness of dash and hyphen forms, I think that a consensus has been reached regarding the matter. Despite the diversity of opinions regarding the matter, one particular interpretation has been determined here. It is possible that you are indeed correct; however, things have deescalated on both sides to a point where the debate over dash use has become a distraction and something of a problem. I sincerely hope that you would be willing to give in on this one. Even if you continue advocating for your opinions on the matter, and even if the edits you've done aren't necessarily disruptions or inappropriate actions, things have really gotten out of hand. If you would be willing to abide by some of the requests made at the RfC, I think many editors would be able to focus their energies elsewhere, and, perhaps, there might be a more receptive forum to your ideas at some point in the future. dci | TALK 23:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the drama is a direct result of the lack of civility at the MOS. Hopefully that will change. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps things haven't been ideal all around; I think, however, that quieting things down regarding this dispute would be in everyone's best interests right now. dci | TALK 00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Could not agree more. I was joking that if I wanted to make sure that someone failed their RfA, all I had to do was support it, and there would be at least 28 editors who I can think of who would automatically oppose, just because of not wanting to agree with me on anything. Apteva (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being an annoyance here, but I guess I have one last thing to say. Would you possibly consider the option of voluntarily abstaining from these discussions for a time; during that period, you could devote yourself to your content development work. That way, things can relax, and you would be able to withdraw from this issue without the baggage of a topic ban, which might be inevitable given how discussion has been going. At any rate, I wish you the best during this problem, and hope that you consider moving away from the issue of dashes for a while. dci | TALK 01:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. Apteva (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, my talk page is always open, and I always take criticism seriously. Nothing is ever deleted, other than conversations started on another user's talk page or any talkback messages. I may be missing something else, but that has always been my policy. Apteva (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your openness and for considering this; again, best of luck in the future. dci | TALK 01:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Apteva (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary step aside, for a time

Would you be willing to do that temporary "recusal" from the dash-or-hyphen dispute? If you are, I'd suggest putting your response at the admins' noticeboard; that way, the problem can be resolved sans sanctions and sans more drama. Cheers, and a Happy New Year, dci | TALK 04:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It already is there, but I will take a look. Apteva (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I would really advise avoiding further conversation within the topic ban discussion over at the Administrator's noticeboard. There are some editors who will support a topic ban just because they see you are defending yourself in the debate. And I do think the "Alternate Proposal" section is shooting yourself in the foot. You brought up the incivility on MOS debates in a discussion about topic banning you. Some editors will view that as attempting to deflect the conversation, so you may wish to consider striking the proposal.

As for defending you, right now there are enough editors opposed to the topic ban that you don't need to worry about it. The best thing you can do right now is to go back to improving articles. You have waded into a small portion of a much larger Manual of Style debate. My second suggestion would be to stop trying to get the policy changed regarding em dashes and dashes. Yes, it is silly having titles using em dash when every reader on the planet is going to type in a dash, but is it really worth getting blocks or bans over a few extra pixels? The policy is never going to change due to the widespread use, you need to accept that and move on. Now I don't mean to be blunt, but if you continue this it isn't going to end well. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alas, things haven't gone well at the noticeboard, and it appears a topic ban may be the only possible resolution for the issue. I would still advise that you make an explicit statement - new one - that says that you will voluntarily abstain. dci | TALK 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for avoiding future MOS: Wow, I see others appreciate your widespread work on Misplaced Pages, so I too am happy to see you take the high ground and step away from the fight. I had thought that there were more mainstream editors aware of the issues, but another hounded editor recently noted the low pageviews of wp:MOS (stats ~MOS), as only 120 per day, but "~Manual_of_Style" gets 1,300 daily pageviews (stats). Evidentally, long-term editors (typing "wp:MOS") do not much care, but 1,300 newcomers initially wonder and click on "~Manual_of_Style" until they check it out (and eyes glaze over). I honestly did not realize that long-term editors forgetaboutit. So, I am glad that you have been moving on to the important stuff now. Whatever happens at wp:AN, you are thankfully out of that prior mess. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Manual of Style averages just over 1,000 pageviews per day, showing that it's pretty irrelevant in the WP scheme of things. LittleBen (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but not interested. In general it is pointless to canvass notify me on issues such as this. Apteva (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in defense of Greyshark; this doesn't appear to be canvassing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

True. But I regularly look over all of the proposed RMs so telling me about one is pointless. In this case it is more of a meta discussion of "Palestine" vs "Palestinian territories", of which I have really said all I need to say on the issue. But irregardless, I edit thousands of articles via WP:RCP and other than the hundreds that I return to regularly already, I have little to no interest in being called back to revisit any of the others. I see a lot of "I know you are interested" or "you might be interested" posts on other editors talk pages. For me, if I was interested I would likely already go there on my own. Apteva (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of community sanction

Based upon community consensus at the administrators' noticeboard, the following sanction is in place with immediate effect:

Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion. Apteva may appeal these restrictions by filing at the administrators' noticeboard after a reasonable amount of time has passed. Violation of this ban may be reported at the incident noticeboard and may result in a block from any uninvolved administrator.

If you have any questions regarding the specifics of this sanction, please feel free to ask. Seraphimblade 11:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)