User talk:PaleAqua

My main talk page is at en:User talk:PaleAqua. PaleAqua (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

enwiki:ani

Hi Not going to comment there as that thread is WAY too long already, but I have many years ago requested switching accounts. But none of the restrictions are by any stretch of the imagination helping Wikipedia and ALL are demonstrably hurting. Blocking this account anywhere, but especially enwiki will prohibit any logged in editing of any solar related articles. Saying that is evading a block is laughable. I am not nor is anyone prohibited from editing logged out (other than for massive sock masters). I typically would update about 100 each month, but now will only be making less than 5 or over 100 edits on enwiki each month, after I finally clear out the backlog of edits that no one else noticed. Nothing in between, and most months it will be less than 5. I only want to be able to do the same thing as any brand new editor, but will not be doing everything. And will clearly not do anything that violates any guideline or policy. Peace and out. Apteva (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Figured that might be the case , which is why I put the condition that because I'm wasn't sure that you would like an option resulted in blocked en~Apteva to unblocked your alternate account. Going to strike by support there, per your comment. PaleAqua (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

What I want has nothing to do with it. I have no clue what you are saying. I was saying "switching accounts is obviously fine". Apteva (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Apteva - " I am not nor is anyone prohibited from editing logged out " is untrue. Blocked editors are prohibited from editing at all (outside their user pages), logged in or out. As a long-blocked user, I would hope you were aware of this.

You are (very probably - I support it, but of course there would need to be some consensus) now welcome to "the same thing as any brand new editor", which is to choose a single username and to have that account active at en, Commons and elsewhere. Please comment on the ANI proposal and say which name you'd like. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I am very familiar with blocking policy, that the block applies to the person not the account, other than special exceptions (when someone creates an inappropriate name that name is blocked and unless it looks like they are only here to be a vandal we just explain the naming policy and ask them to pick a name that is allowable), and obviously blocks always apply whether you are logged in or not. So yes I was saying that if you are not restricted from editing an article and it is not otherwise protected you can edit to your hearts content logged in or not. We do though sometimes need to require they edit logged in so we can monitor their edits, but if you are not under any scrutiny it is your choice to edit logged out or logged in. We used to call IP users anonymous users but you are less anonymous editing as an IP user than you are logged in. There are about 12 ways that alternative usernames are both necessary and allowed and I have used the first two and expect to have to use the 11th at some point in the future. This is a collaborative project and it is necessary for us all to be careful to follow all of the guidelines and policies so that we can work together instead of against each other. I did RCP for quite a while and got to see and act on all sorts of shenanigans, but have myself been 99.99% productive and 0.01% struggling to get Wikipedia to do things right with those who had a different perception of what right was to them. I worked to get the MOS to say what it does now, which happened all by itself after I found something better to do - make charts. Please recognize that I am only here to help. If AGF applies to anyone it applies to me. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)