User talk:Apteva/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Apteva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Greetings

Good to see you back editing the renewable energy articles again. It really is what you do best. Johnfos (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He's also good at helping people with RM bot problems—he's helped me at least once—but sometimes his kind help is not appreciated (see above) :-(. People should at least say thanks. LittleBen (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That is he or she thank you. Those who disagree must learn to accept disagreement and not try to stifle it. Unfortunately I can only work on solar articles right now, but that is being appealed. Apteva (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Having "rules discussion" at MOS is an oxymoron. WP has no firm rules, and the MOS is a guideline. Most of it should properly be recast as essays. As to the five letter rule, the actual rule is that unimportant words in a title are not capitalized, such as short prepositions. This is not a Wikipedia rule, it is a rule of how titles are chosen. Also titles are not a MOS issue. We never capitalize any of our section headings, and use sentence case instead. When we title articles we follow WP:Article titles policy to choose those titles, which are also sentence case except for proper nouns such as book, movie, and song titles, in which case we use whatever the actual title is, and not something that we dream up using "guidelines". While it is helpful in wikilinking to use sentence case for article titles, we have no justification for using sentence case for section headings, other than to make us look consistent in our headings. If it ever came up I would certainly vote to eliminate sentence case for section headings, but not for article titles, and if and only if that went through would MOS need to be discussing four and five letter prepositions in titles, and then only in section headings that we make up. Apteva (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether or not I agree with what you would like things to be, it's certainly not what they are. Did you even read the discussion? Like, click on the very first link there: the decisions to move From Noon Till Three and From Dusk Till Dawn to From Noon till Three and From Dusk till Dawn, respectively, were based on the "shorter than five letters" rule. As long as the MoS is used prescriptively (again, no matter whether one thinks it should), we better make sure it's grounded in reality. That's why I plead for [prep] prop 2. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make things up. From Noon Till Three has a title, whatever it is, that is established by whoever created it, and as accepted by the public, which sometimes adopts a different title. As pointed out above the actual rule followed in choosing titles has nothing to do with how many letters a word has but if it is an important word in the title. If whoever created it thought that til was an important word in the title, they would have capitalized it for that reason, and if they capitalized it and the public normally capitalizes til, in that title, that is what Wikipedia should be using. For Wikipedia to be discussing how we should be titling such things at the MOS is pointless. We use the policies at WP:Article titles, not guidelines at WP:MOS for titles, and any discussion at WP:MOS is completely beyond the scope of the MOS. Apteva (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I happen to think there's a bit more grey to the issue (like, oftentimes, an official capitalization for a title is not available or known [anymore]; "the" public might be evenly divided in which of several options they "accept" etc.), but I take note of the fact that you consider the discussion I pointed you to invalid in and of itself. Also, I just saw that you seem to be entangled in some kind of MoS topics-oriented trouble, and I wouldn't want to cause an aggravation of the situation by drawing you into a possibly related discussion. Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All true, except that we use wp:article titles policy, not MOS to choose titles. Apteva (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS and TITLE again?

Your recent remarks about MOS at [1] and [2] seem to signal a return to battle over WP:MOS and WP:TITLE after your recent block. Some of your latest edits do give the appearance of trying to test your topic ban. You have been given some [3] good advice to engage in a different field of activity; I hope you take it. —Neotarf (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Photovoltaic power station

Thanks for your comment. I have responded thereunder. Grateful for your views on proposed changes to the List of photovoltaic power stations.

Belated thanks, also, for the GA nomination. Following you suggestion, a large number of references have been added, but it was still rejected. It seems to be down to the subjective view of a random reviewer. Anyway I think the article reads pretty well, and it's got lots of good data.--MrRenewables (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC formatting

Hi Apteva,

If you have the time, I'd appreciate advice or help on the Talk:Microsoft Windows/Multilingual support RfC. Somebody else posted this talk page discussion as an RfC, but—when I refactored it—it seems to have confused the RfC bot's indenting algorithm (the RfCs after this one are all indented). Not a great problem, but if you have time... LittleBen (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I took out the link in the section heading and added a timestamp. That should fix it. Apteva (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your trouble. LittleBen (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: your email to me

You'll have to forgive me for not respecting your request to only reply by email, I can't say I see any point to it. The reason is that the so-called explanation you gave makes no more sense than the (essentially the same) explanation you gave on-wiki. That you cannot seem to see that is frankly sad and alarming, but also irrelevant. You were limited to one account because you didn't seem to understand how to properly use an alternate account. The bizarre idea that what was actually meant was only one at a time only strengthens this perception. I won't bother arguing it with you further though because it is abundantly clear that you are completely unwilling to listen and have convinced yourself that you understand the policy and everyone else does not. This attitude seems to be the source of the many problems you have had here, you might want to think about putting your ego in check once in a while. Good luck with all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing that I know about people is that they do not make any sense. I have needs, our policy allows me to accommodate those needs. Due to a temporary restriction that opportunity does not exist, the easiest work around is to switch to my primary account. I was not limited to one account because of not knowing how to properly use alternate accounts and it is obvious from those who looked into the matter that I was correctly using alternate accounts, and that is not why it was removed. It was removed so that it would be easier to track my edits, i.e. so that I could be wikihounded easier. So fine, wikihound my primary account instead of this one. All I am asking is to switch accounts. As I have said, if you imagine a pie chart, I edit in two slices of the pie, and right now am excluded from one of those slices. The third section I would not edit anyway and is not affected. There are many contributions that I would like to be able to make and would greatly benefit wikipedia, but I can not make until this restriction is lifted, or unless I switch accounts. It is not an unreasonable request, and it is unfortunate to not allow. Apteva (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Requested moves errors

Appreciate your help with removing the double-signatures. If this problem persists, I'll try updating RMCD bot to look for them and remove them automatically. I need to become more fluent in regex (regular expression) pattern-matching coding to handle stuff like this better. Ughh, now I see we have issues with both double-signed and unsigned requests. In spite of my syntax change, we still are getting unsigned requests, I see after reading your recent edits on WP:RM/CI and WP:VPT#History. See this edit (on a topic that seems a magnet for controversy), which leaves me wondering. Their edit summary actually gives the link to WP:RM/CM, so it would seem that they are aware of and have read the instructions. Yet they seem to have disregarded the instructions and used {{requested move/dated}} directly. I don't see how it was possible to use {{requested move}} to produce that edit. I guess further defensive actions are necessary ;)

And then we have issues with conversion of technical requests, as at Talk:United States v. Windsor, with this edit—another direct use of /dated, which the bot somehow handles but doesn't show the reason or signature. I see you helped fix Template talk:Sudogwon Electric Railway as well. I need to come up with a better solution for technical request conversions.

And here a user managed to create an unsigned multi-move request. Seems like another direct use of /dated. Now, I don't mind if someone uses /dated directly, if they know what they're doing and do it correctly. I'm thinking I need to make it a bit harder to use directly, without generating bright red error messages. Once again, kudos for the help. - Wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some people are typing in {{Requested move/dated|Foobar}}, which is likely why we are getting some unsigned results. You may have noticed that I have always done TR conversions in a two step process: first using a template then cleaning up afterwards. I have also been subst'd the template in cases where someone else has not just to leave the audit trail of Foo → Bar that the template generates after the template. Apteva (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The close can be appealed at WP:MRV. Apteva (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Photovoltaic power station

Many thanks for all your contributions to this article. I have added more references and have some other additions partially prepared. I am away for a day or two now, but aim to get back on the case later this week.--MrRenewables (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Apteva. The article is now fully referenced - indeed arguably over-referenced - 170 seems a lot for one article and we have added 20,000 characters this week! Ready for re-nomination? --MrRenewables (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The article achieved GA - thanks again for all your help--MrRenewables (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Good job, well done. Apteva (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh atrocities

You recently comment on a RM on the article 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. The discussion was closed and the article moved to the previous title by another editor per WP:RM/TR. A new RM has been initiated and can be found here Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77's ideas

User:Wikid77#Wiki opinions continued. Illustrated version is here. LittleBen (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

List of monitored photovoltaic power stations

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_monitored_photovoltaic_power_stations

This article is up for AfD. I (and another contributor) was wonder what "monitored" means, and what is so significant about this list. Could you share that on the AfD please.Martin451 (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring move discussions

There's a thread regarding your consolidation of multiple move discussions here - the general consensus seems to be that moving all of the comments to Talk:Mobile metropolitan area was not an appropriate course of action. Your input into the conversation there would be appreciated. At this point, I think the move discussion has progressed to the point where reversing your edits would cause still more confusion, so I intend to close it without prejudice as no consensus. You are welcome to start a new consolidated discussion from scratch and notify the editors who participated in the previous discussions. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Photovoltaic power station

Hi, please ensure that all of the references are filled out with citation templates with publisher information. Particularly Refs 55-67 and 147-156. A link is not good enough for GA. Also "Retrieved Aug 2012" isn't either. The dates need writing properly e.g 24 August 2012 not Aug 2012 or Dec 2012. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to fix the references, but the requirements for GA simply require choosing a method, not a citation style. It is FA that requires consistent citations. It is frankly more useful to leave retrieved Aug 2012 than to change it to 22 November 2024, but I will change those as well. It never hurts to have articles better than they need to be, and who knows, some of those links may have gone dead. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mikemikev

Before your two recent edits, Timotheus Canens blocked ChequeredShirt as a sock of Mikemikev. He is a community banned user. There is an arbcom motion about restoring edits of banned users related to WP:ARBR&I, of which Mikemikev is one. You just restored such an edit. Here is the motion.[4] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

See your talk page. I noticed that and reverted myself. Apteva (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ani Question

You stated "I have added an anchor for the original heading in case anyone is coming here from a link." how do you do that? It would be helpful to know as the title was not important but the linking was. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

By using the template:anchor, like this {{anchor|Link here}}. I guessed as much, which is why I added the link target (another name for anchor). Apteva (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pflugerville Solar Farm

The article Pflugerville Solar Farm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This project has not started and may never.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nv8200p talk 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nv8200p: the fact that construction hasn't started isn't a reason to delete the article; please read WP:CRYSTAL. eg. California High-Speed Rail. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Please comment on my comment Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedia_2.0 here in this talkpage! --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Madonna (entertainer)

Is this page listed in your watchlist? You have a response. --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Archiving question

Just in case you don't get back to my question on my talk page:

All straightened out; LRC which only has one archive got dup copies of Lew Rockwell which has 3 archives.

So deleted the material and I'll do a speedy deletion once I figure out if it's an AfD or a MfD. I assume that an empty talk page archive will be used by the bot - or deleted. Do I assume wrong? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Empty archive pages should be deleted so that the links in the talk page header are meaningful. If there is nothing in the archive now, but you want the bot to archive something overnight, it is okay to leave a page with a header for that purpose. Make sure you change the counter back to 1 on the talk page. A speedy deletion can be done with a {{db-g7}} template, after blanking the page. Apteva (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nothing is going to be archived until August with the current settings (60 days). This can be changed if the talk page gets too long, too quickly. Apteva (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Have noted the template for future ref. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way you can include lady liberty in your sig as a link to your talk page like this: CarolMooreDC🗽 --Apteva (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I like talkie talkie cause sounds like walkie walkie - and you must know how crazy that phrase can get a dog :-) I'll probably get bored with it soon enough, though. Also, glad you can see the image since IE and other browser users can't. Went to image help and someone said not likely I can fix that. So people can just wonder what that funny little empty box is there for! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications

I believe that although your comment was addressed at the points Tony made, they actually below better in the discussion section. Would you mind moving it there? It may need slight refactoring once you moved it, though. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Emigrate/immigrate

The easy way to remember it is that one emigrates to a country and immigrates from a country. If you move from the United States to Australia, then you have emigrated to Austrailia and immigrated from the United States. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please check any dictionary. Mine says the opposite. Emigrate means leave, immigrate means arrive. The United States has a Department of Immigration (INS), and an immigration policy. Apteva (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing yourself, my friend. Yes, when one leaves a country, they are therefore moving TO another country, which is emigrating. And when one arrives in that new country, they have immigrated FROM the original country. As an example, if you are planning on moving from Poland to another country, one would ask you, "Apteva, where are you emigrating to?" You would say, "I'm emigrating to the United States" Conversely, when you arrive in the United States, one might ask, "Apteva, where did you immigrate from?" You would say, "I immigrated from Poland." Or simply, "I'm a Polish immigrant." Get it? Again, the very simple rule is: you emigrate TO a country and immigrate FROM a country. I teach college history. Have a great evening. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your confusion is simply with the words leave and arive. The words leave and to go together. The words arrrive and from go together. So, you LEAVE a country to go TO another country (emigrate). And you ARRIVE in a new country FROM another country (immigrate). So when you've settled in your new country, you have immigrated from your orignal country. That's the best I can do to help you on this. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 76.189.109.155 is confusing the matter. Apteva is right. It is a question of perspective. Someone moves from the US to Australia. From the US, they are consider emigrants, they left. From Australia, they are considered immigrants, they arrived. For the person in transit, it can be ambiguous. For this and other reasons, such as the ease of international relocation, many prefer to use "migrant" over either of "immigrant" and "emigrant" where the more precise word is not required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

IP has reversed now the meaning, and will hopefully eventually figure out how to use the two words (or one of them) in the Barbara Walters article. Migrant workers can just be itinerant and not just immigrants.

"Synonym Study

. Migrate, emigrate, immigrate are used of changing one's abode from one country or part of a country to another. To migrate is to make such a move either once or repeatedly: to migrate from Ireland to the United States. To emigrate is to leave a country, usually one's own (and take up residence in another): Each year many people emigrate from Europe. To immigrate is to enter and settle in a country not one's own: There are many inducements to immigrate to South America. Migrate is applied both to people or to animals that move from one region to another, especially periodically; the other terms are generally applied to movements of people." Apteva (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Smokey, you are saying precisely what I said. You said, "Someone moves from the US to Australia. From the US, they are consider emigrants, they left." Yes, that's exactly what I said. When you emigrate, you leave. Therefore, you are moving TO another country. Then you said, "From Australia, they are considered immigrants, they arrived." Again... yes, that's exactly what I said. When they arrived, they are immigrants from the United States. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, you are confusing yourself again. Yes, people emigrate from various places but it must be TO somwhere else. So, when you say "many people emigrate from Europe", it is incomplete. It would be correct when you say, "Many people emigrate from Europe TO the United States" (or some other country). It is the "to" part that qualifies it as emigration. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

An immigrant arriving in Australia from the United States is someone who has emigrated from the United States to Australia, just like "Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and immigrated to England", emigrating from Poland. The article is not even GA status, so the writing is not expected to be as brilliant as our FA articles. There is a famous New Yorker cartoon (I wish I could find it) that shows a hen pecked husband pointing to an entry in a giant dictionary on a stand and his domineering wife snottily says, "well, that's one man's opinion" (referring to the venerable Merriam Webster). Apteva (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Walters' grandfather emigrated from Poland TO England. The key is where he moved TO, thus completing the emigration cycle. Once in England, he was a Polish immigrant. I suggest you take take this 20-question quiz, which is similar to one I have used with my students. In each question click on the word you think is correct, then click on the "Score" button when you're done. Good luck. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for giggles Please compare the syntax of questions 11, 12, 14, and 19 with the quoted sentence from the article which is as it was before it was "corrected", and kindly revert unless all of them also use "emigrated". Does the article say emigrated from Poland to England? No, it says born in Poland and immigrated to England. Polish immigrants are people from Poland who immigrated to one specific country. Polish emigrants are people from Poland who left Poland, to many countries. Apteva (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't learn from the quiz. The Walter's article says her grandfather "was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated to England", which is absolutely correct. In other words, it's saying he emigrated from Poland TO England, or, conversely, he emigrated to England FROM Poland. Either way, the emigration cycle was established by the move TO England. Care to share your score on the quiz? Keep in mind that I'm very familiar with the average score ranges on a quiz like this the first time someone takes it. I've been giving a similar one for many years and it never changes. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(no, you had it right the first time, I did not take the test, I read it through to see if their answers were right) Here are questions 12 and 13:

12. My forefathers immigrated to the United States.

13. Did your ancesters emigrate from Holland?

Now lets do some substitutions.

12. Walters' grandfather was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and immigrated to England

13. Born in Łódź (at this time a part of Prussia), Walters' grandfather emigrated from Poland, to England

Both of those are fine, and the article can be corrected any time. If it was GA I would do it myself, and if was FA, it long ago would have been corrected. Apteva (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your admission of not even taking the quiz tells the entire story. You said, "I read it through to see if their answers were right". Actually, that's impossible without first answering the questions. If you were so confident in your understanding of this issue, you would've tested your knowledge and admitted your score. You should not be afraid of learning. Education is a gift. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There are question marks at the left of each question. It really does not matter if I got none or all of them correct. What does matter is the article needs to use correct grammar, and emigrated to England is incorrect, if one is to believe the answer to question 12. It also is not particularly a good idea to either overly praise or at all berate any editor for their education and knowledge. It takes all of us working together, with the skills that each of us has, to build this encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No one has berated you, but you are welcome to quote me on anything you feel supports that allegation. The sentence's grammar is fine. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I see now the trickiness. Language develops by its speakers in theri environmental context. Environmental context determines whether the relocation was emigration or immigration. Wikipedia seeks to write in a global perspective, unless the article is associated with somewhere. In an article on England, all the arrivals will be immigrants. From a global perspective, Europeans emigrated from Europe to immigrate to the New World. While on the Atlantic, they had emigrated, but had not yet immigrated.

"Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters" is correct because the sequential context of the sentence, the location is Poland when emigration is mentioned.

An alternative sentence that would use immigrated instead of emigrated could be: "Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was not born in England, but immigrated to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters".

In Australia, where emigrants from many nations immigrate, and few Australians have four native-born grandparents, it is normal to prefer the use of "migrate", of migrating migrants, but with usage restricted to when they are in, or chronologically close to, the act of migration. If they become nationalised, they are no longer immigrants, but Australians. If they do not become nationalised or start the process, they remain migrants with the default assumption that they will leave again.

In the US, the social designation of immigrant is longer lasting. Unless the immigrant emigrated from Canada. There are racial-economic subtexts. New Zealanders don't migrate to Australia either.

I scored 17/20, and attribute my three mistakes towards the end to the tediousness of the quiz. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, you stated it beautifully by alluding to the "sequential context of the sentence". That's precisely the point with this particular sentence. And great job on your score! My students do not typically do nearly that well the first time. And they are not allowed to use "tediousness" as an excuse for any incorrect answers... haha. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It would either have to not mention England, or say emigrated from Poland to be correct. Since it says to England, it needs to say immigrated, because otherwise to England is left out in the cold with nothing to attach to. Another way to fix it is to add another comma: "Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated, to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters", but that is even worse writing, although it is proper grammar. "Walters' paternal grandfather, Isaac Abrahams, was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and immigrated to England, changing his name to Abraham Walters" is the one that is correct. See questions 12 and 13 above, which compare immigrated to with emigrated from. The problem with analyzing anything too greatly is that it becomes a case of the more you know the less you know – the answers that seemed simple start looking complex, whether they are or not. Apteva (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"The more you know the less you know" is definitely not a convincing argument, particularly when you're speaking to an eductator. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions 15 and 16 demonstrate that "sequential context" is not a factor.

15. In the mid-1800's, some immigrants from eastern states settled in the west.

16. In the late 1800's some immigrants from Northern Europe settled directly in the mid-west.

A useful way of checking for the proper grammar is to use a sentence diagram. My guess is that few to none of the college freshmen today have ever learned this technique. Apteva (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! "Immigrants from". There you go. Read the very first sentence of this thread. ;) I think SmokeyJoe and I have said enough. Perhaps you'd be better off contributing to more substantial content in mulitple articles instead of obsessing about one word in one article. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is blatantly wrong and completely violates the dictionary definitions of immigrate and emigrate, which are the exact opposite of how that sentence uses them. Wikipedia has no reason to make up definitions of words. Here is what the dictionary says. "Immigrate: to come to a country of which one is not a native, usually for permanent residence." "Emigrate: to leave one country or region to settle in another." It is really mind boggling that anyone would argue for five hours about the words in and out, and which to use. Apteva (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think the most suitable option would be to look at professionally published sources to see if the following context is used: born in (country x) and emigrated to (country y). For example, if you look at this source from PBS, "He was Scottish-born and emigrated to New York", or Jewish Business News "born in Poland and emigrated to England", or "Like the Tsarnaev brothers, she was born in this part of the world and emigrated to Boston as a child" in the The Moscow Times. That said, it appears to be grammatically correct despite the logical anomaly. In further consideration, it appears to be much more common to say "immigrated to" by more sources. Such as Politicker "born in Greece and immigrated to the the U.S.", or Toronto Star "born in Russia but immigrated to Toronto", or "born in South Carolina to two Indian parents who immigrated to the U.S. from Punjab" MSNBC. Anyway just a thought. I only came here to check on Apteva since he mentioned a controversial move and I wanted to check if he meant 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. Cheers, Mkdw ^talk 07:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and do the editor who pre-closed it a favor by asking them if they want to be an admin. I thought years ago that they already were. But that is "he or she" thank you. Apteva (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As Mkdw stated, the current sentence is indeed grammatically correct. For further simplification, I'd refer Apteva to Merriman-Webster's definition of "emigrate", which says, "to leave one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere <emigrated from Canada to the United States>". It's about the process of moving TO another place. Obviously, if you're moving TO somewhere, you must come FROM somewhere. So as has been explained to you, emigration is the process of leaving one country and moving TO another. In Webster's example, the emigration is from Canada TO the United States. To apply this to Barbara Walters' grandfather, he emigrated from Poland TO England. Now, we move to the sentence in the Walters article. It says he "was born in Łódź, Poland (at this time a part of Prussia), and emigrated to England"; therefore, the inclusion of him being "born in" Poland as a preface is equivalent to saying that he was "from" Poland. Get it? Now that the sentence has established where he moved from, all we're missing is to establish his emigration destination. It is England. The result: he was born in (or, synonymously, was "from") Poland and emigrated to England. Therefore, the sentence is correct. It's perfectly aligned with the Webster's definition. So, where Webster's definition says "<emigrated from Canada to the United States>", if you simply remove "from Canada" then you are left with "emigrated to the United States", which is of course what cements the process. As another example, Arnold Schwarzengger emigrated from Austria to the United States. Therefore, he is an Austrian immigrant. He immigrated from Austria and emigrated to the United States. Once he arrived in the U.S., he was an immigrant of the United States; an immigrant from Austria. Further, he is among hundreds Austrian emigrants to the United States that have WP articles. There are also about 200 other "Emigrants to (country)" categories. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, there are many examples of common mistakes. In fact that is why we call them "common mistakes". But it is a fact that every emigrant is both an immigrant and an emigrant. They emigrate from somewhere and immigrate to somewhere else. The word emigrate is more commonly used than immigrate. Immigrate is rarely used, but immigrant is since 1900 far more common than emigrant. Apteva (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That thread about me at AN/I

I won't say it on that page, but it's getting very frustrating watching [editor] wanting to prove that all his troubles are my fault. As far as I can tell, nothing I did before he reported me was wrong. I did become firm in insisting that he was wrong about WP:BLP, which he was. I don't believe anything I said was a personal attack.

It seems that because I was the one reported, even though no finding was made against me and there was a finding against my accuser, I'm still seen as somehow guilty here.

In my mind [editor] is behaving in a vexatious and malicious way. I should not have to be defending myself against his crap. How much more is he allowed to complain about me? HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. You are correct that a lot of, and I have stricken the editors username, because another thing that is forbidden is talking about someone behind their back. But a lot of their edits (not saying who it might be) are less than ideal for a BLP. But I believe that issue has already been addressed in an appropriate forum. Apteva (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm learning a lot of rules here. That's good. But can't you see that that particular editor appears to have it in for me? He is wasting your time, my time, and probably yours. Is he allowed to keep bring my behaviour to AN/I, when it's his that is unacceptable? HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Life is nothing but a learning experience. WP has no rules, though, and one of the rules is to ignore all rules, if it benefits the encyclopedia. But yes the policies and guidelines are thought of as rules. Anyone can bring anything to ANI, and will most often be dismissed quickly, or even result in sanctioning the party who brought the complaint if it is without merit. All of us are here for one purpose only, to improve the encyclopedia. It is important to keep that foremost in mind. Apteva (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Would you mind pointing that out to the editor who just posted this [5]? I don't want any more confrontation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

AE request result

Per this discussion at WP:AE, your existing topic ban is modified to read as follows:

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, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles.

Given that the administrator who imposed the original sanction is not currently active, I have also set a value of six months for the "reasonable amount of time" required before appealing the original sanction. You are therefore permitted to appeal the original sanction (including the above modification) at WP:AN at any time after 11:40 9 July 2013 UTC and at intervals of six months or more thereafter.

You may appeal the above using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I say that the above addition is absurd, meaningless, and without merit? Apteva (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

your Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Awards

I notice that you have added yourself to a number of categories so that you appear to be a recipient of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Awards in many different spheres such as Biological Science, Engineering Science and four others. Could you explain how this is appropriate or remove yourself? NebY (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There can be no valid reason for a user to add themself to any of those categories. Perhaps Apteva incorrectly believes that it's an allowable joke, based on them being added as part of "Amusing edits". In any case, they should be removed immediately. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Apteva (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Non-issue

Why are you canvassing via email for support in your upcoming request to be allowed to edit using User:Delphi234? WP:CANVASS says quite clearly about "Stealth canvassing:

Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not. I can not discuss the topic on wiki. But I will refrain from the appearance of canvassing, as whether it is or not is not a factor, what is a factor is that it appeared to be canvassing. Thanks for the notice. Obviously the sanction is misplaced and damaging to Wikipedia, and needs to be removed ASAP. Apteva (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I received from you an email requesting my support of you in a request you expect to make to be allowed to resume editing with User:Delphi234. That, by any definition, is a non-neutral notification, which makes it canvassing, and because it was not posted on-wiki, it's, again by definition, "stealth" canvassing. And there's nothing the least "obvious" about the damage to Wikipedia of requiring you to edit with one username. I suggest that if you're going to make the request, you make it, and stop preparing the ground for it beforehand, on- or off-Wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I can't read the email in question, but from BMK's description, it sounds like blatant canvassing. Can you please explain why you can't discuss this on-wiki? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I can not discuss the content or subject of the e-mail but I can comment on the canvassing issue. I rarely use e-mail and have sent very few messages. One to ARB, appealing the restriction, and one to BMK, intended to be informative, and only out of being polite, added "I will be appealing this and look forward to your support so that I can get on with helping Wikipedia improve." I repeat that here, not as canvassing, but as a sincere hope that everyone will support my appeal. As I said above, it is not canvassing that matters, but the appearance that matters. I recognize that it was construed as canvassing and if I have to bring up anything else I will be more careful to avoid such closing remarks. Apteva (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You have now said twice that canvassing is not what matters; that appearance is all that matters. I don't know where you got that from, but I have little doubt that relying on that theory will not be productive. The issue is simple: whether you violated WP:CANVASS or not. You actually all but admitted to canvassing when you confirmed that you did in fact contact an edtior by email and told him that you "will be appealing this and look forward to your support". That's blatant canvassing. It violates both the campaigning and stealth provisions of WP:CANVASS. Also, refusing to answer Basalisk's important and relevant question about why you can't discuss this on-wiki makes matters worse, particularly in light of the fact that BMK has unequivocally stated that you canvassed him. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the e-mail was not the appeal. Believe it or not there are some things that require privacy. I did not send the e-mail for the purpose of the closing remarks, and they did not need to be included. If I could discuss the subject of the e-mail I would not have used e-mail and would have used BMK's talk page, probably with the exact same closing remarks. I can appreciate BMK's concern, but that was a single e-mail, addressing a single topic, and not repeated to anyone else. Apteva (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why, of all the editors on Wikipedia, you would pick me to send such an email to. To the best of my recollection, the last time an issue regarding you came up, I did not comment in your favor. Why, then, would I be the only editor you contacted? I'm not an admin, I'm not particularly well-liked or influential (quite the opposite, I'd say), so I don't see how my "support" would be beneficial to you, or why you would go out of your way to seek it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the reason is lost (without more research at least), but it obviously was in response to something specific, which is why it was sent to you, and only to you. WP logs e-mail, and you are welcome to ask for verification. Apteva (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Two days after sending me an e-mail, you cannot remember why you sent it to me, specifically? I'm trying very hard to AGF here, but that strikes me as a bit far-fetched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with your categorization aboive of the content of the e-mail. To my reading, everything in it leads up to the final two sentences in which you announce your intention to appeal. You made some statements regarding your situation and then said your were going to appeal and wanted my support. In point of fact, the appeal and request for support are the subject of the e-mail, and for you to say otherwise is deceptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BMK brings up some good points. In any case Apteva, it doesn't matter what the primary purpose of the email was. The issue is that you canvassed the editor within that email, not to mention the fact that the edtior obviously sees it as canvassing and is very unappy about it. If simply having a different primary topic was all it took to receive immunity from the canvassing provisions, then there would be many editors doing the same thing. All they'd have to say is something like, "Hey, that wasn't the main reason I was writing. I just added it on at the end." 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see BMK's most recent comments when I posted my last message due to an edit conflict. Wow, his description of the email changes everything. He's clearly contradicting Apteva's claim that the primary topic of the email was totally unrelated. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification. BMK had no idea why I was sending the e-mail to them, and I unfortunately did not provide enough context to make that clear in the e-mail, so neither do I at this point. BMK incorrectly assumed that it was (obviously) sent to multiple recipients solely for the purpose of the closing remarks, (and correctly brought that to my attention here) which it was not, and nor were the closing remarks an important aspect of the e-mail. Best to close this and move on. Apteva (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you think this is a non-issue and want to close it and move on. Would you prefer to discuss this at AN/I where it would bring in many other editors and potential sanctions? BMK knows exactly what he received from you and he claims it was all about the appeal and your request for his support. How many other editors you did or did not send it to is a totally separate issue. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "non-issue" as you choose to call it, for it appears not to be an isolated instance. Before more instances come out of the woodwork, I think it would be very much in your interests for you come clean on precisely how many editors you emailed regarding the restoration of said account, and precisely what context. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

I see you made a comment on the Talk:Cindy Sheehan#Confusing edits section, so maybe you could kindly give some input as to whether or not this revert citing Sheehan's political beliefs and this revert merging the two politics section together are okay. Gobbleygook (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Emailing

Apteva, what is going on? I've received complaints from two editors who say you emailed them apparently asking for support concerning a discussion about your other account. I've seen no direct evidence, but if you have emailed editors concerning political matters, please be very careful not to expose yourself to criticism concerning the canvassing rules, which can be surprisingly tight in their application.

On the matter of alternate accounts, while I'm here—let me say that I've pushed for them to be banned in all but exceptional circumstances (unsuccessfully). I remain strongly opposed to alt accounts, which generally have the potential to cause suspicion and undermine social cohesion.

Thank you and I hope you understand my thinking. Tony (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the culture of one user one account but there are reasons that prohibit that, such as privacy, and the choice is either let me edit with alternate accounts, or I will not edit in areas that would be affected. The choice is obvious, let me edit in all areas, and that obviously means allowing alternative accounts. It is not an option to change the policy that says that alternative accounts are not allowed, and my not being able to follow that policy seriously impacts my ability to contribute. Apteva (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If Tony1 received complaints from two editors, and one of them wasn't me (see the "Canvassing" thread above, that means that you must have contacted at least 3 editors, when above you stated that I was the only editor you contacted outside of ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You're banging the privacy drum again, Apteva, but the fact is that in all of thousands of words of debate you have never been able to articulate exactly why having two accounts is necessary for privacy (or, indeed, how having two accounts is even beneficial to privacy, since alternate accounts must be clearly and publicly linked). The only explanation you have ever provided is "I need to have a second account for privacy reasons". That's it. Until you can provide more of a rationale than that then your one account restriction is never going to change. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To whose satisfaction? We allow alternate accounts for obvious reasons, and this is one of them. I am no different than anyone else, and expect to be under no other restrictions than anyone else. The fact is that I have never abused alternate accounts and by adhering faithfully to the restrictions I am currently under there are many edits that I can not make, which if done, would improve Wikipedia, and so far no one else has done them. I keep waiting, but it would be so much easier, to just click edit. I can, of course, invoke WP:IAR, and do them anyway, but I am relatively certain that could be held against me, and it therefore is best that I just wait out the silly restriction. Apteva (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Apteva insisted previously, in the Canvassing discussion s/he chose to hide, that s/he contacted only one editor, yet now the evidence is that s/he emailed at least three. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

'To whose satisfaction?' So far, you have stonewalled and explained it to absolutely nobody's satisfaction. Habitually in sensitive cases, which yours doesn't appear to be, the editor concerned would declare only to arbcom, so only abrcom members and clerks would know the true ownership of the private account. The latter is not the sort of privacy you seek. If the claims to privacy are indeed that serious, allowing you to use the other blocked account once again does little to protect it, and you really ought to contemplate applying to Arbcom for special dispensation for a private account. I'm sure in that case that you will be reminded that any attempt to use the account to deceive the community will result in revocation of said account. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I could but that is not normally how alternative accounts are created. I just want the same policy that applies to everyone to apply to me. Apteva (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's exactly how it's meant to be if privacy is the core concern. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Per wp:notify, "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account" Apteva (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate undeclared alternative accounts are allowed, under poorly described conditions, at WP:SOCK. There are a great many little reasons to occassionaly use an undeclared alternative account, usually involving privacy. Asking for permission defeats the attempt at privacy. If you need to seek support, it is probably a bad idea. If you have ever had trust issues, it is probably a very bad idea. You need to behave scrupulously, knowing that sock-misbehaviour is given extremely little leeway and is likely to result in the public linking of all you intended to keep private. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Beans, I strongly discourage clarifying the conditions where alternative accounts are allowed. WP has a strong culture of one person one account, and there are some things that it is impossible to do with a single account. I do not recommend giving anyone ideas. Apteva (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The following sentence I think contains the gist well: "Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies."

Wikipedia:Sock#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts is a list of some specifics, all of which must be scrupulously avoided, and the list is not complete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. I have nothing to gain and everything to lose and would rather gain the trust of the community and get on with editing. If you look at my history I have scrupulously avoided "attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Those are serious issues, and I take avoiding them very seriously. I have lived within the sanctions, but the sanctions are hurting Wikipedia. I will, though, if it bothers me too much, contact Arb and notify my intent to invoke IAR and with which account before doing so. Hopefully the sanction will be removed long before that is necessary. Apteva (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I think SmokeyJoe summed it up nicely with these five words: "You need to behave scrupulously". I'm not sure how many editors feel that you have done that with regard to this matter. And I would pay particular attention to Basalisk's excellent comment. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if it was up to me, I would probably give you back the other account as I would prefer to see you productively back in article space, rather than make a humongous nuisance of yourself in AE AI or even the style spaces. Then there's also giving you rope, not that you need it. But it isn't up to me. You seem to be in self-destruct mode. I sincerely hope that you will conduct yourself properly. I'll make no predictions as to what will become of you, but I wish you good luck. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
One of two things happens when editors get harassed and sanctioned. They either go rogue and turn to sockpuppetry and cause endless problems or they count to ten and come back as productive editors (and the sanctions get lifted). I am the latter. I have strictly adhered to the sanctions. Too strictly for some, who asked that I be blocked for following them a little bit too closely. Apteva (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Who asked for you to be blocked? Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be the following request. "This time, an enforcement block is unquestionably needed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)" Apteva (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right, 4 months ago I did. So much happened since then... Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Who knew that the link to "Avoiding personal attacks" is actually called WP:AVOIDYOU. I did not even notice that until this week. I am happy to offer a suggested alternative wording if the word "you" ever seems to be appropriate. And obviously, using an editor's name is thousands of times worse than "you". Apteva (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I could AVOID YOU better if you would stop commenting on my talk page, especially on things that don't even involve you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cute. The meaning of that phrase is avoid the use of the word you. On Wikipedia, everything concerns everyone. Apteva (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)