Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

You have many fine qualities including patience and a capacity for civil disagreement. I would like to nominate you, if you feel so inclined. Guy (help!) 17:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guy, you're very kind to offer, but I think it would be a couple days of me getting ripped apart and then I'd cry uncle and withdraw. As entertaining as that might be :-) Levivich 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, not so sure, but you're right it can be brutal. Guy (help!) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedians would pay to see Levivich dismembered in gladiatorial combat... But in all seriousness, you could probably make it to admin with a bit more work. You already have wide name recognition, and are engaged in many areas of the project. You have two GAs. Plus a nom by Guy would go a long way. At this particular moment a few things work against you, but those could be fixed. If you got an FA, and fixed your mainspace/wikispace edit ratio, you'd be in good territory. You'd just need a strong nom (i.e. Guy and some other members of the regular squad) to help combat the anti-Fun factions the same faction that would pay to see EEng in that gladiatorial ring too... Seriously, consider it. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then get a co-nom by EEng to guarantee that you'll never pass. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone pinpoint when exactly I became WP’s version of the antichrist? EEng 15:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:21, February 20, 2008 Levivich 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it "even though I'm an admin, I'm just commenting here as an everyday average editor" with a pic of Galobtter, swiftly followed by "hands down the worst block I've ever seen and I've seen some whoppers" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to [1]. The image represented Drmies, actually. EEng 19:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the infamous "10,000lb gorilla in the room" joke that came across as calling another editor an ape. Learning about that incident has taught me to studiously avoid any and all jokes that involve comparing editors to animals. That way, I don't end up looking like a jackass like EEng. Levivich 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:UNEVOLVED. On a related note, I’m proud to say the if you google “diffusing conflict” our little essay is about the third or fourth result. EEng 19:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're changing the world, man, one page at a time. Levivich 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "per Bbb23" would be mentioned :D ——SN54129 13:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In about 20-25 oppose !votes I figure. Might be the first RfA where Bbb sock strikes the nom acceptance ;) Levivich 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, yes, it would be bound to come up. Memories here are long for weaknesses, and those that didn't see his original comment may have seen the ill-fated arb case request. But, if you have sound reasons as to why Bbb23—and concomittantly, all those who have reminded you of it since (*has the grace to blush*)—have been very much mistaken in their belief, then in the short term you would immediately win over possible waverers. In the long term, you do realise don't you, that should an RfA where the issue is raised, pass, then those who occasionally point it out would literally never be able to mention it again. An RfA is a tangible demonstration of the community's trust, and, FYI, accusing those proven to possess such trust would henceforth become a WP:PA. The slate would have been not so much swept clean as, Doc Brown might say, erased from history. Think on. ——SN54129 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

God damn, SN, I hadn't thought of the "clean slate" aspect and I'm finding that argument pretty attractive. Levivich 18:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Run, damn it!! Not away - to ward!!!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the others here. I think the admin corp needs someone like you within its ranks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the encouragement, it's really brightening my day. Based on RFAs and various admin's talk pages I've read, it seems the best part of the entire admin experience is having editors tell you that you should run for RFA, and then it's all steady downhill after that. – Levivich 05:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, the WMF-funded champagne receptions afterwards are pretty nice - didn't you get your invite to mine? We all wondered where you were... GirthSummit _(blether) 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, funnest thing, the large gentleman at the door said I wasn't on the guest list. Must have been a clerical error. I saw you inside and tried to get your attention but, pity, you didn't hear me, though I could have sworn we made eye contact two or three times, but it's no big deal, I'm fine. Levivich 19:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the peanut gallery to the ha ha only serious proposal to nom Levivich on 1 April (echoing this) with a "burma shave" statement..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, but do you have a dinosaur alt? Levivich 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser says ..... Eh-uhh Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we both have some preparations to attend to. May I suggest User:TyrannosaurusRitchie? Levivich 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to have a sock? Why can't I have a sandal? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie: Jesus says you can wear your sandals, but only one tunic. Levivich 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All comments on the RfA must be in one of the following formats:

• Burma-shave
• Haiku
• Iambic pentameter
• Limerick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffpublic (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All !votes not following this pattern will be struck and result in indefinite blocks. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can oppose but not in prose? Levivich 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

burma shave and poems / something 'bout cherry blossoms / prose votes not allowed ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pint for the best final line:

Levivich, one fine February day,

Thought he'd submit a quick RFA,

Both the noms, they wrote well,

so he thought "What the hell?"

GirthSummit _(blether) 23:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this be constituted in the style seen at User:EEng#Ode_to_ANI. EEng 00:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you ever do an FA, ping me, I'd weigh in on the review. Topic doesn't matter, I'll offer whatever perspective I have. (Note to others: that doesn't mean I'll go easy on the review) starship.paint (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And on further review did one weigh." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just want everyone here to know that I already called dibs on being a co-nom way before it was cool. I've been waiting a whole year for this! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been anticipating this Wikimania War Dance since May 2015, though in a twisted roundabout way that only started seven months ago with the stunning revelation that weasels don't have butt cheeks. So you win this round of Put a Finger on the Pulse of a Poll, but if this does build to a battle royal cage ladder match, will you know which strings to pull from the rafters? I nominate myself as the Karl Rovish figure in this sordid debaucle. But on further reflection and projection, I recuse myself from the 2020 Limerick Contest, to concentrate on distancing myself from the skeletons in my own closet. How easy would it be for Levi if I ran concurrently and juxtaposed against his (presumably) lesser "evil", I wonder... InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you would be an excellent Admin. We have not always seen eye-to-eye, but you are an upstanding person of sound reasoning and common sense and you would be a fine addition to the Admin ranks. GlassBones (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think about RFA self-noms? Desirable/undesirable? To be encouraged/discouraged? (Asking for a friend.) Levivich (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad look fer shure. EEng 18:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible idea since getting a candidate through RFA is on my wikibucket list. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, used to be fine, now, not so much. Guy (help!) 22:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trends come and go on RfA but you need to follow the system regularly for years to see them emerging and disappearing. There used to be people who would systematically oppose every self nom. Nowadays, a nom and a co-nom, usually both admins, seems to be the safest bet. The current trend is to oppose every candidate who does not have an FA up his sleeve, and also trending is the habit of dragging up really old spats and making out they are a pattern of aggressive behaviour. The latest is another, not so new, trend to ask irrelevant questions - and a lot of them, and to oppose if the candidate exercises their rights and gives an optional question a legitimate pass. RfA? Go for it. Just my opinions - nothing to get uptight about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just run, damn it. Enough fannying around!

Oh, and

But his !votes, they went thata way

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone, it's been humbling. I guess I've milked this about as much as I can, and should face the inevitable public butt kicking. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to myself, closure has come. It will never belong (to me). I still wanna fight, prove someone right, lay down and forfeit. Because Levitation is possible (if you're making it, and pushing it, and leading us along!) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You took too long to run, the coronavirus won, I'm bailing on this confusing plot (but without prejudice; Polish power!) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk, you can't blame me for putting it off, this shit almost killed the last guy! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blaming you. I'm wishing you good luck, same as I did on the last guy's page. Only he wasn't Polish, and I'm pretty sure a part of you still is, so it came across a bit differently here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry to report no part of me is Polish, not even the kielbasa. ☹️ Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for the invite. May I ask you a blunt but honest question? I very much agree with what you wrote at WT:NPP/R#We are just becoming a sports statistics website, and also with Kudpung's latest comment in that thread (The en.Wiki is becoming a sports statistics/sports biography website, a B2B yellow pages, a Bollywood database, and the South Asia Wikipedia in English. 'Nuff said.). Given that I feel this way (and strongly), what is the actual point of doing NPP? I mean, yeah, there is this 5,000-page backlog, but we all know most–if not almost all–of it is junk, and editors are creating new pages using semi-automated tools at a rate (dozens per day) that is far beyond anything that we could ever keep up with (and yes, I realize some of those editors are autopatrolled and thus not part of the backlog, but that makes it worse not better in my eyes). It's like being called to help put out a large fire while others are actively setting fires. We should deal with the fire-starers before worrying about putting out the fires they start, no? I guess what I'm asking is, "why do you bother?", because I'm asking myself why I should bother. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, It's the other stuff that I care about more. The COI and promotional stuff that needs removing. The sports stuff is a mild annoyance, which I can forgive because all those articles on questionably notable subjects propped up by a badly maintained NSPORTS will probably just be forgotten and rarely visited but they also aren't really doing any serious harm. That doesn't mean we don't still need to have a look at everything that comes through. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere, ACPERM made an important impact on the situation. It was a many years long battle with the WMF to get it done despite the huge community consensus for it all along. But it wasn't enough. It was the most I/we dared to ask for, but IMO ideally all contributions of any kind to Wikipedia should at least require a registration. Of all the millions of forums, blogs, and other commentable websites in the world, its the only one that that does not. The shibboleth 'The encyclopedia any one can edit' is true, and would still retain its integrity even if one simply appended '...all you need to do is register'. There has been absolutely no proof that doing so would stunt the growth of the corpus. The highly monitored ACTRIAL proved beyond doubt that at least the fears of the WMF and the few detractors were unfounded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your responses. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" is what I have a hard time reconciling with the concept of trying to quality-check new page creations. 7.5 billion people in the world, any one of whom can make an article, but a few dozen (or even a hundred) editors are going to check each one? No way; that'll never work. If we're going to let anyone create an article, then we have to accept that most of them will be junk. And, indeed, most of the 6,000,000 articles we have are junk. Most of the junk, as far as I can tell, isn't even being created by new editors, it's being created by autopatrolled editors. They say, "we have to keep out the spam and promo!" But what do you call it when editors make an article about every player on every sports team, and every season, and every stadium, and every tournament. There are editors doing this at rate of 10,000 articles per year, per editor. I call that spam. It's promo when we write plot summaries of every episode of every television show, or detail the specs of every model of every car, every year. We're supposed to keep product advertising out, yet we have articles about Windows Phone 7, Windows Phone 8, Windows Phone 8.1, Windows 10 Mobile, Windows Phone Store, List of Windows Phone 7 devices, List of Windows Phone 8 devices, List of Windows Phone 8.1 devices, List of Windows 10 Mobile devices, Xbox, Xbox 360, List of Xbox 360 accessories (e.g. Xbox 360 Wireless Racing Wheel, Xbox 360 Wireless Headset, Kinect), Xbox 360 launch, Xbox 360 sales, Xbox 360 system software, Xbox 360 technical specifications, Xbox 360 technical problems (tech support?!), Xbox Live, Xbox Live Arcade, Xbox Games Store, List of Xbox One games (with lots of bluelinks), List of Xbox games on Windows Phone, List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360, List of backward compatible games for Xbox One, Microsoft Movies & TV, and more. A LOT more–thousands more–21,797 articles in Category:Microsoft and its subcategories [2]. I've said it before: Wikipedia has a better Microsoft product catalog than Microsoft.com. And this isn't a mistake: this is "building the encyclopedia". These articles were made by dedicated editors who are net positives. Look at all those Microsoft products they've volunteered to build into this encyclopedia! (I don't believe it; I think Microsoft employees helped write a lot of that content as UPEs., although I've never bothered to check. If it really was all made by volunteers, that's just sad. People are starving to death and dying from wars and disease. We don't need to be marshalling volunteer resources to make sure we document every Xbox game or every Pokemon character or everyone on our favorite football team. Both creating the junk, and checking the junk, is a waste of human productivity.)

Damn I'm not sure where that rant came from, but there it is. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsolicited opinion: if I had my druthers, paid editing would be entirely banned, nobody below ECP could create BLP or company articles, broadly construed, and there would be a CSD category for "very likely created as part of paid editing" (and maybe one for "we don't want your frickin' cryptocurrency"...well, I can dream, can't I?). None of this WP:BOGOF nonsense. If you paid for an article, then we don't want your editors here, and we don't want to have a page about you. Maybe I'm a bit jaded from focusing on COI/promo/paid editing, but here we are. For what it's worth, I don't think that those "product catalog" entries are the work of UPEs, I think they're the work of people who really like whatever product/game/whatever is under discussion (c.f. the excruciating detail of pretty much any Fandom wiki). creffett (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is always solicited here, creff, as is everyone else's. I'm going to ask a difficult question about UPE. Take, Tony Hawk, a notable skateboarder, a brand name unto himself, who has a video game series, which is also notable, called Tony Hawk's (series). The article on the series is 120k with 259 references. It's quite a comprehensive work, with a table showing every skateboarder and which game in the series they were in, and displaying the review % for not just every game in the series, but every console version of every game of the series. And, of course, there are stand-alone pages for every game in the series: Tony Hawk's American Sk8land, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam, Tony Hawk's Motion, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (video game), Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 5, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD, Tony Hawk's Project 8, Tony Hawk's Proving Ground, Tony Hawk's Shred Session, Tony Hawk's Skate Jam, Tony Hawk's Underground, Tony Hawk's Underground 2, Tony Hawk's Underground 2: Remix, Tony Hawk: Ride, Tony Hawk: Shred.

Now look at that list of articles and tell me: what does it matter whether the people who made those articles were paid or not? The end result is a product catalog anyway. WP:Fancruft and WP:UPE are indistinguishable. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, indeed. And you get a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that notability consists of being listed in five sources that fans consider reliable even if nobody else would, and there you go. Guy (help!) 22:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this discussion again, I'm starting to feel like there's an essay here. creffett (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or a Burma-Shave. EEng 04:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or that. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening/morning. I was hoping you could answer a question for me. I was participating in another RfC at Talk:White privilege#RFC. This RfC has been open since 6 January 2020. There is no consensus, no new evidence is being presented from RS and the discussion is not making any progress. It's just a hellish Merry-go-round. I was going to suggest that an uninvolved editor close the discussion. Since I've been reading up on RfCs I went to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All just to see the entry for the RfC (not to close, just to look). It appears not to be on the page. Does an RfC need to be listed or could it be somewhere else? (I'll feel really silly if you tell me its there). Also, how does someone properly request an uninvolved editor close the discussion? I was going to place a section about requesting a close at the bottom of the RfC talk. Hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  06:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timothy, happy to help. After 30 days, a bot comes around and removes {rfc} tag from discussions, which de-lists the RFC from WP:RFC. To request the RFC be closed, just start a new section at WP:ANRFC (the same place you updated yesterday); follow the instructions at the top of the ANRFC about how to format the request. Let me know if you have any Q's! Cheers, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've just read your closure of the RfC at Talk:Labour Party (UK)#Request for comment on lede sentence. The supporting !votes in the discussion came from the proposer, a single-purpose account that was based on the user's opinion rather than any sources, and a user who referenced the Labour Party's rulebook and The Political Compass, which isn't an appropriate source. The proposer was using sources in a way that I and two other users felt was synthesis. It felt to me like there was a consensus against making the change. Would you be happy to clarify your reasoning a bit? (I don't mean to be accusatory at all! It's just quite tedious that a pretty minor subject keeps coming up and using up editor time. It'd be nice to have consensus). Ralbegen (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralbegen: Not accusatory at all! Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to expand/clarify my reasoning. (For example, yes, I discounted the SPA.) I see what you're saying about the perennial nature of the proposal and I could have addressed that more explicitly. I'll post an expanded rationale shortly. Cheers, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I really appreciate it! Ralbegen (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just sayin'...User talk:Atsme#BLP ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current

• Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]}

New

• Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]}

If I may suggest this change, this will make it behave more like {{dubious}} actually does (even on your talk page) while providing users a link to your contributions as well.

I've known you long enough to still remember your first sig, but I think I will always miss your last main sig though. It fit your personality well, but sadly those dang accessibility issues had to be a thing! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{cetacean needed}} creffett (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, LOL did you read my mind? I just changed my sig to this: Levivich ^{[needs a new sig – suggest one here – for the love of all that is holy help him out]} 19:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL:  Done Thank you very much for the suggestion! It's much improved. Although I feel like I'm ripping some other editor off with this signature, like I've seen it before somewhere, but I can't be sure. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your old sig will be missed, but I think this new one fits you very well too! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I mean, the only active user who has that kind of signature is Rebestalic (with major differences obv). IagoQnsi used to have this exact signature under their old account but not anymore.
There's also a user named Discuss-Dubious, but they last edited 2 months ago.
Looks like your in the clear here! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the prior sig best. It was YOU. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do, MJL haha, I'm keen with templates 😂 And as if I owned that template for use on a signature, Levivich, I unhesitatingly give you permission to use the Dubious-Discuss template on your signature. And here's mine, why not Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 20:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rebestalic: woo hoo! Thank you! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss] (Licensed with permission.)} 21:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! 😂 I really love that 'Licensed with permission'

and oh, what a better place to forget a signature than here Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 21:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your thoughtfulness, your civility, for being an exemplar of Wikipedian values and for having a funky user page. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks Gog!! Glad you liked my user page. Don't forget the kid gloves when you eventually see me at FAC ;-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No chance. I am already practising: "Call this a FAC? In the old days it wouldn't have been fit to stand for GAN! Take it away and source every second word. Rant, grumble, whinge."

What do you have in the pipeline? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Gog. "You call that a FAC? That's not fit for a stub template! It's a wonder the server even saved that page!" You know, Smallbones is always soliciting humor columns for the signpost: a parody FAC review by your alter-ego "Gog the Harsh" would be hilarious; you could review some well-known piece of literature like Shakespeare or the Bible or a WMF strategic plan or something.

In the pipeline is a collaboration at Talk:Alexandros Schinas#Road to FA (which turned out to be a much longer road than I thought it would be), and, hopefully once Girth recovers from his injuries from his last FAC, St Rufus Church. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks interesting. Ping me when it needs reviewing, or if you hit problems. The church looks dry as dust to me, but Girth is a fine chap - you will enjoy collaborating with him. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name was mentioned here, I'll just say that I'd invite Gog (mild or harsh) to write for The Signpost anytime again, like next month. A joke FAC would be fine, maybe for "War and Peace" with the comment that it isn't long enough (and leave out the French quotes). But I only ever beg for a humour column from Levivich, because he's the only person I've ever seen on-Wiki with a sense of humour (Note the column is named "Humour"). I was about to suggest a topic last weekend when I ran into this [3] [4] [5] which would only require cutting down the given material and making it more believable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

e.g.

Writing tone should be neutral. Users are not supposed to address anyone at any moment while writing a professional Wikipedia page. The tone needed to be neutral and the content should be impartial so that no one can easily relate with him or here. Wikipedia is an online page of any subject where information should be added very correctly. There is absolutely no scope of personal opinions even when you are writing for some brand or product as well. So, make sure that if you are writing a Wikipedia page for something, take the trustable and reliable sources only under consideration as a little mistake can turn up into a huge disaster for you as well. Conclusion. These are some of the basics and as well as pro benefit you can get from hiring a trustable and reputable Wikipedia page creator. Although, choosing a right wikipedia editor will make sure your page gets accepted in wikipedia without any hassle

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Levivich - just a note to say that I got your ping above, got sidetracked and forgot to come back here. I'd love to take St Rufus to FA if we can - I'm a bit concerned though that it's a bit thin on detail at the moment. One thing a number of reviewers at MMG said was that there wasn't a great deal of detail about her life - I think this might be similar, we might need to get more detail about the history of its construction, and maybe more detailed commentary on the architecture. The first thing to do might be to look for newspaper sources from the time - historic newspapers aren't really my thing though, SusunW did most of the work on that for MMG, do you have much experience in digging them out? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth, yeah, I remember seeing more usable content in the old Scottish chronicles but I'm not sure if it's enough. I have experience searching newspaper archives, but only US archives; I've never search Scottish archives and don't even know what archives exist to search. I'd like to finish up the other FA first and then I'll probably do some more research on St Rufus and see how much new content I can dig up; I'll share it with you when I have it and we can decide if it's worth pursuing? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - get through the other one first, I'll try to find out more about how to search newspaper archives, and we can get our heads together then to see what we can dig up. Looking forward to it :) GirthSummit _(blether) 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I open that RFC thing? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarcademan123456 I’d start a discussion (probably on a WikiProject talk page or some other central location) about what the RFC question(s) should be, and then once everyone agrees on that, see WP:RFC for the technical instructions. Good luck! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Levivich,

I see you have been active at ANI, archiving closed discussions. I just wanted to remind you that Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours and closed discussions usually stay on the current page for at least 1 or 2 days. Some threads that you archived had not passed the 24 hour threshold. It's important to leave closed discussions on the main page for awhile so that editors who have participated in them can easily see how they were closed.

I'm not going to undo your archiving but, from here on out, please wait at least 24 hours before archiving a closed discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Correct me if I am wrong here but all of them were closed for 24 hours minus this one that had no discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and that one thread had been closed for 22 hours instead of 24. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, I take it back. I think a block is needed! PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, there goes the RFA chances. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is too rigid. Straightforward matters e.g. X asks for a revdel, Y says they've done it, then X thanks them and that's it, are of no educational value and need not be kept around at all. That's an extreme example but there's a whole spectrum and judgment is needed. Like the header says, Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. (COI disclosure: I think I wrote that, years ago.) Finally, many or most discussion do not need, and do not receive, closes. EEng 23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I agree. I was dragged to AN because I archived threads at ANI before the three day period someone wanted, and one of them was a revdel, as you pointed out. If it serves no purpose, keeping it on the page just makes the page more unwieldy. We need more people with common sense, not less. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what these weird tweets with links to my edits are about? [6] [7] [8] [9]. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have something to do with the Socialdog tag on them. They appear to be automated tweets to that suspended @tos account. Lucky you! PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poster's Twitter links to a Wikipedia user page, which is in Japanese. If it were on English, I'd put their page up for U5 speedy deletion, as it's a promo page for a project they're doing. Seeing as the edits were now 5 months ago, I don't see much harm in them tho. My AGF version: they wanted to show how to make an edit in a sandbox to a friend and happened on your profile. My not AGF version: they are using Wikipedia for promotion and are not here. Or there's something fishier going on, and you should send an email to ArbCom. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or they're using u for machine learning :P "We gave a computer 10,000 edits by Levivich and then had it respond to a talk page conversation" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"... the computer self-destructed shortly after it began processing the edits." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting your bringing that up because recently my thoughts have strayed in the other direction. Part of the mission, in theory, is to counter systemic bias and prejudice against IP editors by demonstrating that IPs can provide consistent quality good-faith contributions. But once an IP or IP range gains a separate identity this doesn't work as well because then people just ascribe the good work to that particular identity instead of the mass of IP editors as a whole, and the goal of reducing knee-jerk editing directed against IPs in general is not fulfilled. So the best way to reinforce that all edits should stand or fall on their own merits is then to eschew any identity whatsoever. A separate but related problem is egoism. A fixed identity works counter to the goal of eschewing credit for building what is ultimately earth's encyclopedia. Not that you shouldn't be personally proud of your achievements, just that there shouldn't be any need for anyone else to know about them. In theory IP editing is the best way to avoid falling into that trap and creating an identity undermines that advantage. Indeed in theory working in a group from publicly accessible computers should mitigate it even more, however even shared group identities can be problematic especially if you have trouble expanding beyond a core handful.

There is admittedly the problem that IP editing seems to avoid scrutiny. It is a thorny issue, how can you simultaneously deflect credit and absorb blame? I'm not sure myself. I do know that I've apparently goofed big time, but maybe that will at least provide a chance to show that IP editors can be held accountable, even hold themselves accountable, I'll just have to take some time to figure out how.

Maybe this seems hypocritical given the source, I only learned about the new nickname after it was established. I didn't object, but perhaps I should have, as it's too late to do so now. I'm half-tempted to pull out the ethernet cable for a few minutes so the IP resets, but doing so on my own would be too unilateral. It may all be moot anyway per the current rumors this place is done for sooner rather than later. If that happens look for some pop-up anti-vandalism IPs and maybe one world-traveler IP that is very good at AFD (not me). Don't give them any special treatment just act as you would to any other anonymous users.

Anyway I have no problem with you responding to detail all the myriad ways I'm wrong, I'm always willing to hear out opposing viewpoints, thanks. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly wanted to edit without any identity, you wouldn't have customized your user pages. The truth is, you do want an identity, you just want your identity to be "the editor with no identity". But Man with No Name has already been done. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

touché, well I'm still reassessing. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help out all around

Thank you for quality articles such as Lois Graham, Lion Versus, St Rufus Church,Alexandros Schinas and mxmtoon, for dealing woth articles for deletion, for adjusting your signature, for humour ("for the love of all that is holy help him out") and compassion, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2362 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt!! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]