Jump to content

User talk:Levivich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 16 January 2020 (→‎A barnstar for you!: scans better). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Books

Since you participated in the discussion on Wikipedia Books I herewith inform you that a decision has been taken.

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_176#Suppress_rendering_of_Template:Wikipedia_books Dirk Hünniger (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Dirk Hünniger! Happy New Year! – Levivich 04:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Levivich!

Happy New Year!

Levivich,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal(T) 22:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, NahalAhmed! Happy New Year to you, too! – Levivich 04:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

You were the person I most respected on Wikipedia. Your participation on ANI was so refreshing, and your research was spot on. Probably the reason I did not quit was your involvement gave me hope. Lately you have become accusatory and snarly. Dismissing !votes you disagree with and casting aspersions. I hope you get back to the editor you were. You were my number one choice to be an administrator. Happy new year. I hope we collaborate in the new year. Lightburst (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, you guys are, in fact, block voting across AfDs; that's not an aspersion. It's a real problem; it's disruptive. You should be "getting the hint" from the recent VPR, the DRVs you opened that were endorsed, and now this ANI thread you started. Why aren't you taking any of this feedback on board? Why aren't you guys changing your approach to address the community's concerns? If you keep ignoring it, if you continue to state that any criticism is "casting aspersions", then what will happen is you will end up TBANed from deletion discussions, and that's not the outcome any of us wants. – Levivich 17:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are allowed collegial following. You are one of the best. Please realize I am not here for the friction. I am here to build an encyclopedia. I try to follow policy and for the record, no DRV or ANI I ever opened was decided in my favor. Lightburst (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the image you posted here to mock the acronyms used at AfD. Every one of them in the image is a policy, and all of WP:N (SNG and GNG) are only guidelines.
As I said in that RFC, there are sometimes 100 AfDs started each and every day. And at ARS we choose about 1 in maybe 200-300 articles to rescue. If you think that is a problem I disagree. AfDs have very low participation and it is likely because it participating is like wetting your pants in a dark suit: it is a warm feeling but nobody notices. AfDs can be placed over and over on the same article. And even when the result is keep, the article can be relisted or have another AfD placed. Articles get salted - but there is no salting the AfD process. AfDs can be unlimited. Next there is deletion review - which even when a majority of participants agree a problem exists, if there is not 90% agreement, the problem is dismissed and decision upheld. Your statement: you will end up TBANed from deletion discussions, and that's not the outcome any of us wants. Apparently it is the outcome you want based on your conclusions, and the image you placed here. Mocking those who work to build an encyclopedia and participate in AfDs in GF? I hope you reassess. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong on a number of counts:
  1. I didn't place the image, that was another editor. They not only placed the image, they created it. And I love it, it's 100% on point, you can literally see that exact !vote from one of the top-four ARS brigaders in the AfD that brought you here in the first place.
  2. WP:BEFORE is not a policy. WP:AFD is not a policy page. The deletion policy is at WP:DELPOL, of which ATD is a part. A BEFORE search is not required for a nomination. No prior efforts to make BEFORE a requirement have ever gained consensus. I would probably !vote in support of making it a requirement, but it isn't one now.
  3. WP:ATD is a policy, but for example, it specifically includes merging. Yet, the ARS brigaders wlll cite ATD as an argument against merging. Again, you see this exact thing in the AfD that brought you here in the first place
  4. WP:PRESERVE is part of the editing policy WP:EP. It has nothing to do with notability, or what should or shouldn't have a stand-alone page. It's about what content to keep on a page, it's not about which topics we should have a stand-alone page about. It has no applicability to deletion, yet you ARS guys are constantly citing PRESERVE as some kind of argument against deletion. Even the language of PRESERVE doesn't say "keep everything". For example, PRESERVE specifically talks about merging one article into another one with redirect. But again, at the AfD that brought you here, you see PRESERVE being used as an argument against merging. It's ridiculous. Also, PRESERVE has a subsection called WP:DON'T PRESERVE, which talks about not keeping things that violate the policy WP:NOT. That aspect is routinely ignored by ARS keep !voters "holding up the PRESERVE sign" like it's some kind of policy that says we should keep everything. (It isn't.)
  5. WP:NOTPAPER is part of the WP:NOT policy. NOTPAPER literally says However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. The NOTPAPER section is then followed by the WP:NOTEVERYTHING section, which lists all the NOTs. Even when someone is arguing that a particular page violates on of the NOTs, ARS keep !voters will argue NOTPAPER as if that means "keep everything". That's not what it means, and that's not what it says. Yet again, you see this argument in the AfD linked above.
  6. ARS keep !voters (as demonstrated in the same AfD) will routinely ignore policies they don't like, like NOT, as well as pretty much all notability guidelines. So you see someone arguing that a database entry or a one-sentence mention is a source that satisfies WP:GNG (it's not; GNG requires in-depth treatment). And, as you argued here above, they'll argue that all of notability is "just a guideline" and somehow that means it can be ignored or has no relevance in a deletion discussion. (Obviously incorrect; the notability guidelines document the broad consensus that guides deletion decisions.)
  7. The whole "we only get involved in 1% of AfDs" is a red herring argument. You would do more if you could. You don't only brigade at AfDs that are listed at ARS. For example, you brigaded at the AfD listed above, even before it was added to the rescue list. You guys brigade a ton-dozens and dozens of AfDs where you all !vote the same way over the past year. You virtually always vote the same way, like 99% of the time. And–this is the big thing–it doesn't even matter how many AfDs you participate in, or how often you !vote together. What matters is the quality of your !votes, and those are terrible. You raise the BEFORE PRESERVE NOTPAPER ATD signs, just as the picture illustrates, while completely ignoring the basis of nominations, or the arguments in favor of deletion.
  8. You believe that if an article is kept at AfD, then it can't be redirected or merged, even when the closer specifically directs participants to have a merge discussion on the talk page. We were in this situation very recently–I forget what the article was... A Stephen King character? Star Wars ship? Something like that. This is the basis of your ANI report, and look how that turned out.
  9. ARS !voters routinely take jabs at noms, accusing them of not performing a BEFORE search, or otherwise being disruptive, incompetent, or acting in bad faith. That's my #1 problem with you guys–you're not only brigading, but you treat other editors with whom you disagree poorly. You see this in the AfD linked above ("obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article" directed at someone thinks a brief mention doesn't meet GNG; or you, calling the nomination "frivolous", an accusation you have no basis for given how many people agree the article should be merged... are they all making "frivolous" !votes? And LB: you dare to be insulted by criticism or dismissal, while routinely doing that to people who disagree with your radical inclusionist philosophy).
  10. That every DRV or ANI you file has gone against you should be a clear red flag that you are not interpreting policies in line with consensus. There's how everybody else sees it, and then there's how you see it. If you want to have a maverick interpretation of policy, there's nothing wrong with that. Heck, most of my policy opinions are outside consensus, meaning I'm often in the minority. But you argue to change policy on policy talk page; you don't assert that the policy is already what you want it to be, while ignoring broad, documented consensus.
  11. Then, you express disbelief when your !votes are discounted. You once expressed amazement that I could nominate a page for deletion, be met with 9 keep !votes, and have it be closed as "no consensus". Why? Because my deletion rationale outweighed 9 people "holding up signs" saying PRESERVE, BEFORE, etc. It's like you completely ignore the concept of WP:NOTAVOTE. The DRVs you filed that ended up snow-endorsed should be a clue that you're not understanding how !voting works.
  12. Fundamentally, you think that if four people show up to an AfD and say "Keep NOTPAPER PRESERVE" etc. etc., then those !votes should be counted, and if they're the majority, the article must be kept, and then no one can redirect or merge it, and anyone who disagrees is disruptive, incompetent, wants to destroy the encyclopedia, or is ignoring clear policies. That whole entire viewpoint is just wrong, wrong, wrong. And no matter how many times or how many people try to explain it to you, you stubbornly stick to your guns, not changing not even a little bit. Zero compromise. No quarter. Just your way or the highway. This is not how you collaborate on an encyclopedia.
  13. You should avoid !voting in AfDs with DF, Andrew, or 7&6, and probably GreenC and a few others, too, because of how often you've block voted with them in the past. If you did that–if you avoided them–you would be able to cover a lot more AfDs between the group of you, and you wouldn't be trying to "tilt" AfDs through sheer numbers, which is disruptive (especially when it doesn't work and you then appeal it to DRV).
  14. Fundamentally, it's about strength of argument, not number of voters. If you ARS guys were actually good at rescuing articles, it wouldn't take more than one member to show up at an AfD, present sources, and thereby convince everyone else that it should be kept. If each of you did that for one AfD per day (a different AfD), you could actually rescue a lot of articles. But instead, you brigade, showing up like a gang, holding up keep signs, as the picture illustrates.
  15. I write all of this not to criticize you, or make you feel bad, or put you down, but to try and convince you to change your ways, to stop brigading, and to improve the quality of your !vote rationales. Try this for a week: just show up, post the WP:THREE, and say nothing else in an AfD. Can you swing an AfD and convince !voters to keep simply by the strength of your WP:THREE sources? I bet you can. I hope you will.
– Levivich 16:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back this time. EEng 08:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I lose at ANI and DRV because it is filled with editors who enjoy drama, and many who follow me there because like you, they think I am here for some nefarious purpose. The editors who are here to build do not hang out in either place. Obviously the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the AfD for the lake is now different: It was crushed by those who lurk on drama boards and are not here to build an encyclopedia. Many are ARS haters like yourself (by the way it is not a brigade, but your sarcasm is noted). You should read the top of every page for the ATD, Preserve etc. They all say policy, but you can see whatever you want to see. Regarding following, I will continue to follow anyone who I think is building an encyclopedia. For instance, I love following Rebeccagreen - I am going to follow her right now, a couple others I also follow. Terrific editors! I will not follow you, because you lurk in the sewer of the drama boards. I will steer clear of you and hope we can locate the real Levivich. I think someone took over the user name. Lightburst (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad you didn't hear any of that. – Levivich 17:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Years with letters

I was presuming since they were different titles they would not require being disambiguated. Sorry about any problems I created. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerodlycett, thanks for your message and no worries! I think it's because the {{sfn}} template uses last name and year, so if you have multiple works by the same author in the same year, the years get differentiated like 2020a, 2020b, etc. See Template:Sfn#More than one work in a year. My only real concern is whether this is something that should be raised at WT:WPCleaner to make sure others aren't inadvertently removing the letters after dates, but I've never used the tool so I don't really know anything about it, and I leave it your capable hands :-) Thanks for cleaning up the wiki! – Levivich 00:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is purely up to the user to understand. It just gives us the interface with potential problems highlighted. I'll have to learn about sfn it seems. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you run into ...

this. Just one sample:

"Ban Pre-Shredded Cheese
Make America Grate Again"

BTW, The Signpost is doing it's 15th anniversary edition (deadline Jan. 20) and we could use a humor column. Feel free to submit something. We might even make it an annual event!

OK, just one more:

"The Past, Present, & Future
Walk into a Bar
It was Tense."

Looking forward to your ultimate submission.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, those are awesome signs! No, I haven't seen that before, thanks for sharing. I'll see what I can do by Jan 20 but I can't make any promises. I'm really not as good at writing humor–especially in a full-length format–other than sometimes being able to come up with quick witticisms or limericks. I am a smart-ass, not a comedian :-) – Levivich 17:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Well, luckily you posted your message shortly before I had a long car ride, so I had some time to think about jokes. I can't seem to find a collection of Wikipedia Knock-knock jokes, so how about these (these first drafts are half-baked, so talk page watchers welcome to contribute or flame)...

A Wikipedian answers the door

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Consensus.

Consensus who?

Can sense us outside, can't you?

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Arbcom.

Arbcom who?

I can assure you we are actively discussing this question, and expect to post a public response sometime next week.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Statement by Arbcom clerk
Arbcom clerk.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Oversight.

Oversight who?

--

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Ombudsman.

Ombudsman who?

(six months later)

Ombudsman who?

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Checkuser.

Checkuser who?

 Confirmed I am checkuser. Blocking and tagging.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

It's me.

[citation needed]

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Jimbo Wales.

Jimbo Wales who?

Jimbo wails at these horrible knock-knock jokes.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Larry Sanger

Never heard of him.

– Levivich 20:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totes for flaming these...

TelosCricket (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, a cabal knock, knock joke might be fun...
Knock, knock

Who's there?

Cabal
TelosCricket (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal's WP:NOTHERE

(I've heard that one.) ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1! – Levivich 02:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Levivich"...

You're a good man. Thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

wiki love

It is good to have and share opinions about the project and I apprecite all youu do here, best wishes Govindaharihari (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Govindaharihari! We don't always have to agree on everything, but I think our discussions are nevertheless profitable. Happy editing! – Levivich 20:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
😀 Two of my favorite editors in agreement and expressing appreciation for each other!! What better way to spend the day than reading such cordials, except maybe drinking them. ❤️ Atsme Talk 📧 20:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I believe that your signature has broken. Only half of it has an actual link, and “ich” is plain text.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God! I shall have that looked at at once! – Levivich 02:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
E Super Maker, it's only plain text and not a link on this page (from what I can tell). On a user's own talk page, the "talk" link is not hyperlinked since you are already on that page. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The humor column lives!

Well maybe. It would certainly need an introduction. But what do you think about User_talk:Smallbones#Six_million starting at Q1: (after the intro). I'd also likely drop the goat story (The Signpost does not mock or otherwise discriminate against goats - Ed.) Let me know, I'm serious (which is why I need to consult with you.) Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Haha I like it, esp. the "more reliable sources" bit. Maybe link to Six Million Dollar Man. Other than the goat, not baaaad. – Levivich 06:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
said the admin / (a Wikipedia star) / "this thread's too long / TL;DR" / burma-shave creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

new ANI thread / a problem acute! / closed without action / "content dispute" / burma-shave. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dull admin thread / EEng's on the case / irrelevant picture / OP put in his place / burma-shave. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks creff! And those are awesome, please allow me to make them official. (I think it's better if they're not all centered, what do you think?) – Levivich 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, those are great! creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creffpublic, Those are amazing; I'm sitting at my desk actually cackling. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SAID THE ADMIN

(WIKIPEDIA STAR)

THIS THREAD'S TOO LONG

TL;

DR

Burma-Shave

– creffett
NEW ANI THREAD

A PROBLEM

ACUTE

CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION

"CONTENT DISPUTE"

Burma-Shave

– creffett
DULL ADMIN THREAD

EENG

ON THE CASE

IRREVERENT PICTURE

OP PUT IN HIS PLACE

Burma-Shave

– creffett
WHAT'S THAT SMELL

LIKE BURNING

PLASTIC

ANI

IT'S FANTASTIC

Burma-Shave

– – Levivich
EVERYONE

IS SO UNHAPPY

ANI

IS REALLY

CRAPPY

Burma-Shave

– – Levivich


Signature

Your signature is hysterical! I need to learn how to make a new one myself, eventually. Just waving and wishing thee good tidings, and complimenting the brokenness of awesome that you sign with. :D Best wishes! SageSolomon (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SageSolomon! Welcome to Wikipedia! – Levivich 00:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Levivich&oldid=936008184"