User talk:Levivich

Feel free to push my button: Help!

Very strange

See: [1] Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mztourist: I guess that can just be added to the ever-growing list of issues... Levivich 17:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A question regarding your ArbCom comment

Hey Levivich, this is regarding your recent comment at the ArbCom talk page: [2]. I very much respect your opinion, and would like nothing more than to simply WP:DENY the race & intelligence POV pushers. The reason I haven’t felt it was responsible to do so is because it seemed that simply ignoring discussions would allow those who support e.g. stating in Wikivoice that blacks are on average less intelligent than whites [3] to say that they’ve established a consensus for inclusion. In the case of that particular discussion, the concrete proposal was to remove the word "purported" from "purported connections between race and intelligence" and this was based on the reasoning that IQ = intelligence [4]. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the power of the process, as you describe it, but isn’t it significantly harder to undo an established consensus once it’s taken effect? I would sincerely like to be corrected here, since the effort it takes to fend off highly motivated POV pushers in this topic area is quite a drain. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I was going to say, don't mind being called "He-Levivich", then I looked at our article on He-Man and noticed the largest paragraph of the lead and about 40% of the body is dedicated to the discussion of homoeroticism Oh, Wikipedia, it's such a mirror of ourselves.

Yup, those comments and the ensuing discussions were exactly what prompted me to write that post on the ArbCom talk page. But the comments, "blacks are on average less intelligent than whites" and the general IQ = intelligence argument (or the argument that we can infer that IQ = intelligence from the sources, lol) don't require responding to at all, IMO. We aren't going to come to consensus on Wikipedia about whether or not IQ = intelligence--that's just not something that consensus can decide. That's for scientists to figure out. What we can come to consensus about is whether we're going to write in wikivoice that IQ = intelligence or black intelligence < white intelligence -- whether those are NPOV summaries of the RS. (The answer is no.) So force it into a Change X to Y based on source(s) Z proposal...

The "remove 'purported'" proposal is an example of such a proposal, except I don't see a clear "Remove 'purported' based on source(s) Z". Either way, I'd say let editors make the proposal and then just !vote on the proposal one way or the other and leave it at that. If the sources Z are not RS, or if removing 'purported' isn't an accurate summary of the RS, everyone will vote accordingly. There's no real need to engage or argue about the underlying truth or falsity of whether the thing is or is not 'purported' or whether IQ = intelligence, etc. I would have phrased it a bit softer but basically I'm saying the same thing that FormalDude said here. Levivich 20:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, He-Levivich-Man. Glad to hear you're confident that the white supremacist content won't be added to the encyclopedia. I'll step back for now and see how things play out. In the meantime I'll be contemplating how the theme of homoeroticism in He-Man illustrates the principle that our artistic creations take on lives of their own once they've been put out into the world, perhaps revealing an intrinsic truth unperceived even to their creators, or perhaps creating their own meanings through an endlessly recursive process of simulacrumization, or ya know, something like that. Generalrelative (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes (reverting by 'Keep' vote to their favourite lead version)

How disruptive is making ​such a revert, of a pretty stable lead for well-over two months, by a 'Keep' voter in the middle of an AfD (they could have easily check edit history and see your revert of such attempt)? Is it a conduct issue worth of ANI? The other user reverted by you also voted 'Keep.' I do not think tag is enough, article should simply not be edited when the AfD is ongoing, and we should keep the last version before the AfD, which was nominated to be address (e.g. the two-months stable most recent lead).

Davide King (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Not as disruptive as Talk:Warsaw concentration camp I think if this is taken to ANI the only thing that will happen is some admin will full protect the page (in the wrong version of course). Just my opinion but I think if the AfD doesn't resolve this, maybe an RfC will, if not, then maybe an arbcom case for the topic area. Levivich 03:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

H-O-L-Y S-H-I-T, it was that bad. Now they are making stuff about me and sugarcoating personal attacks, and my good faith as incompetence, as well-meaning criticism. Davide King (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:Don't take the bait. Levivich 05:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Reliability of Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

November 2021

Your recent editing history at Reliability of Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

At times like this, remember:

Keep
calm
and put
the kettle
ON
Burma-shave

François Robere (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Or do this, whatever. François Robere (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Haha thanks FR. I was gonna write a Burma-Shave for that COIN report but I couldn't think of anything that rhymes with "Holocaust". Levivich 01:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Permafrost, Pentecost, Love's Labour's Lost. EEng 01:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Red-embossed, sunken discount unit cost. Star-crossed. Lightly sauced. EEng 01:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Or switch to shoah: Noah, boa, protozoa, variola, Samoa. EEng 01:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! Now I can finally finish that book of genocide poetry. Levivich 02:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Herpes zost. EEng 15:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And to you as well. Levivich 02:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Right back atcha' (on the remote chance you've never heard this one). EEng 06:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Starting to itch
and not
from your shave?
Go to the doc
and next time
BEHAVE!
Burma-shave