User talk:Apteva

What's the data source for File:Asiana Flight 214 Approach to SFO.png? Thanks in advance. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

[1] I am looking for more detailed data so it can be updated with more precision. It is pretty low resolution right now, altitude within 100 feet, for example. Apteva (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you want a list of the data to use for an SVG? Apteva (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Percent of Active English Wikipedia Editors Who Make 100 Edits.png

Dear Apteva, ip how have you created this diagram? Which data is needed for recreating it for german wikipedia?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The data for all wikipedias is at [2] (or in German at [3]) Click on the table link to get the data for the German wikipedia, or for any other wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is more than interesting that a consistent 10% of active English editors make over 100 edits each month, while it is a consistent 15% for German ones. Apteva (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--Evrik (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Active Editors.png

May you update this chart?--Kopiersperre (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I wish to thank PhilKnight for unblocking me on Enwiki. Pretty comical that it was with the comment "(last chance)" - I have never knowingly done anything wrong ever. And that is not because I am clueless, it is just because when I was blocked for 3RR I was not aware of the rule - and a warning would have been much more effective. All of my edits have been constructive. I edit because I feel sorry for people reading misinformation, and there being information gaps which can be filled. Apteva (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply

You have a reply at my talk page. Thanks. Feel free to delete this. PaleAqua (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

And another

"So go ahead and add the charts without worrying about whether that leaves the hyphen style inconsistent (or whatever), regardless of what the MOS says. If someone else is obsessive enough to notice, they can fix it eventually. If they never notice and it stays inconsistent, that's fine too"

No kidding. To quote Jimmy Wales, "I would rather stick needles in my eye" than discuss how long hyphens or short horizontal punctuation marks should be. Most people agree. I never complain about anyone uploading a new version of a chart I have produced, and if I did I would mark it "don't fix" or something like that. I am AFK most of this week. Apteva (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And more

"The main thing I was trying to get across anyway, was encouragement for Apteva to do useful things instead of obsessing about the MOS." --unidentified IP User.

I have never been obsessing about it and have always adhered to whatever the MOS says, and why would I be now? It already says what I was obsessing to get it changed to say so it would be more consistent with the rest of our guidelines and policies. What I have done is make useful contributions to the MOS, some of which are still in the MOS, but as a collaborative project that is by no means a given, and simply means that in the years since everyone has agreed that they were useful. Some are probably so mundane that it is hard not to agree. Apteva (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Best Research-Cell Efficiencies

I see that the source for File:Best Research-Cell Efficiencies.png, [4], is now a dead link -- either NREL removed it or they reorganized (but I can't find it through a search and they still have at least one article pointing at that URL). So it's good that you saved it! But I hope they eventually make a new one available.

CRGreathouse (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)