Open main menu

User talk:Levivich

Active discussions


Just hanging out, cool as a cucumber until you rap me up in a salad.
19:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I really admire your PAYTALK verse (rap?).[1] Man, I wish I'd written that. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish! I've been referring to it as the epic Levivich–bradv rap battle. I think it makes me seem cooler. :-D Levivich 17:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
You are an ice cube. Oh, wait...that name's taken so we'll call you "Cucumber" 🥒. Atsme Talk 📧 19:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


I didn't even get the T-shirt!-- Deepfriedokra 03:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I think I know someone who might have one they don't need anymore. (Too soon?) Levivich 04:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
{{smh}} –MJLTalk 06:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


I've noticed a couple times recently you've made the argument to the effect of, "People are arguing about whether something is unambiguous so ipso facto it's not unambiguous." I've been thinking about this. There's definitely some truth to that and I don't think I disagree with your ultimate conclusion in either case. However, no matter the standard, even unambiguous, there are going to be edge cases. And in those edge cases "is this unambiguous or merely clear?" there will be disagreement. So I'm not ultimately persuaded by the inherent "people disagree so obviously it must not be that" line of thinking - but the argument has gotten me to think :). You seem like the kind that might be interested in this kind of thinking so I thought I would share and only post here in a philosophical sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I'm a metatheory geek :-) Unambiguous means "not ambiguous", and "ambiguous" means "open to multiple interpretations", so unambigious = not open to multiple interpretations = only one interpretation. And of course that implies only one reasonable interpretation. Assuming a scenario where there are only two possible interpretations, X and !X, one might look at the ambiguity spectrum like this:
Spectrum 1:
unambiguously X | <--- ambiguous --> | unambiguously !X
Under the Spectrum 1 view, if the only reasonable interpretation is that it's X, then it's unambiguously X. If the only reasonable interpretation is !X, then it's unambiguously !X. If both X and !X are reasonable interpretations, then it's not unambiguously either, and so it's ambiguous. Assuming everyone is (1) competent and (2) acting in good faith, and "X" is subjectively and not objectively measured, then if there is disagreement, that means there are multiple reasonable interpretations, and therefore it's ambiguous. Disagreement = ambiguity.
However, one might see a more nuanced spectrum:
Spectrum 2:
unambiguously X | clearly X | probably X | <--- ambiguous --> | probably !X | clearly !X | unambiguously !X
Under Spectrum 2, people might disagree if it's unambiguously X or just probably X, but if all that disagreement is on the X side of the spectrum, then the disagreement doesn't mean that anyone thinks it's ambiguous, or anyone thinks it's !X. In that case, disagreement ≠ ambiguity.
When we're talking about reviewing CSD deletions at DRV, the standard is "unambiguously X" (X = "attack page" or "too-close paraphrasing" or whatever), so I think there is only one possible spectrum that applies:
Spectrum 3:
unambiguously X | <--- all other possibilities -->
So if ten admin who are DRV regulars (competent and acting in good faith) !vote in a DRV of a CSD, and five of them say "unambiguously X" and the other five say anything else, then my conclusion is it's not unambiguously X, because there is more than one reasonable interpretation: (1) unambiguously X, and (2) whatever the other five are saying.
One thing I think of when evaluating unambiguity is: if I think it's X, then if someone says it's !X, would I conclude that this person is either incompetent or not acting in good faith? Do I believe that any interpretation other than X is unreasonable?
Some say that if it's X, even if it's not unambiguously X, then per WP:NOTBURO, we shouldn't undelete it, because that would be a waste of time, if the page is very likely to be deleted anyway. I don't favor that view, though, because that just turns the DRV of a CSD into an AfD, where instead of the usual AfD participants you'd get from delsorting, the AfD participants are the small group of DRV regulars. And it's kind of a principle of DRV that DRV is not AfD.
I would be interested in having a CSD-undelete system that worked like this: if a page is CSDed, an editor can post to a CSD undelete noticeboard asking for it to be undeleted (notifying the tagging editor and deleting admin), and if any patrolling admin thinks it's !X, they can just undelete the page, at which point the page has to be taken to XfD to be deleted. I figure a CSD is basically one person saying "unambiguously X", and so if there is any other person who says !X, then it's ipso facto something other than unambiguous, because you have established that there are two reasonable interpretations–that of the deleting admin and that of the undeleting admin. (And admin are vetted, so we can reasonably assume they're competent and acting in good faith.) Levivich 06:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. Will definitely cogitate on it further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
If you ever have the inclination, I'd be curious to read how you analyze these issues, and generally what your algorithm is for evaluating deletion reviews. Levivich 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

What should I do?Edit

In Home Army you said this: [2]. Now they are saying I am five different users or a "meatpuppet" in: [3]. This is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talkcontribs) 07:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, Joe, I did say to Piotrus If you think it's a banned editor, you know where SPI is., but Piotrus recently filed two SPIs against Icewhiz that came back negative, so I can understand his reluctance to file a third. Luckily, the day after I said that, MyMoloboaccount, after not editing for three weeks, came back and filed an SPI accusing you of being Icewhiz based on you two using the same language, such as "wild claims", "low-quality sources", "right-wing media", and "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" (for talk page watchers, that's an infamous quote by Jan T. Gross, often quoted in discussions about Gross). That SPI page has now become an WP:EEML reunion to discuss who is who's meatpuppet, which is richly ironic; it seems the shoe is quite firmly on the other foot these days.
One might wonder why checkusers would even entertain this, and I think it's because the topic area has, in fact, been plagued by sockpuppetry. Case in point: even though Piotrus's SPI reports didn't connect any accounts to Icewhiz, it did find sockpuppetry by Yaniv (who, judging by his latest account names, has gained quite a strong grasp of Spanish profanity), so Piotrus's suspicions were well-founded. As another example, I still wonder about Seedsdough, an account that appears to have been created for the purpose of reverting you, Joe.
As for what you should do, my advice is to review WP:PROXY and then talk to Bbb23 and TonyBallioni (possibly by email) about your use of a proxy. If you are using multiple accounts, just pick one and save everyone a bunch of time. If you aren't, then sorry for the trouble, explain it to the checkusers, and they'll get it sorted. Levivich 09:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Restorer scriptEdit

Wow, how did that happen? I got a notification you had reverted me, but that turned out to be the least of it. I see you've self-reverted, and I'm not here to complain, but to ask about the User:BrandonXLF/Restorer script — it looks intriguing and potentially very useful, even though clearly kind of dangerous.😛 How exactly is it supposed to work? Bishonen | talk 16:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, when you’re looking at an article history, it puts a little “restore” link next to the “undo” link for every version, and when you click on it, it restores that version... instantly with no confirmation and no possibility to put in an edit summary. “One-click restore”. It’s the equivalent of looking at a diff and then clicking “restore this version” and then submitting a blank edit summary...but much faster.
This is useful for situations when rollback and undo would be cumbersome: (1) when reverting vandalism by multiple IPs/accounts, back to an lgv, or (2) in the rare instance you want to roll back more than one but less than all of an editor’s serial edits.
It’s dangerous for the same reason as rollback, especially on mobile, especially when you want to click the “prev” link to read a comment by Boing! said Zebedee, whose username is the exact right length to put the “restore” button right under the “prev” button on mobile, and especially when you have fat thumbs like me.
So clearly we’re going to have to rename Boing’s account to fix this issue. Either that or I have to research how to turn it off on mobile view.
The more dangerous aspect though is that it’s very similar to rollback but doesn’t require the rollback perm. Actually I had installed the script and used it for a while when patrolling vandalism before it occurred to me that I should apply for rollback perm because I’m basically using a script to get rollback functionality and I figured it was only a matter of time until the script was updated to require the rollback perm. Levivich 17:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Bishzilla's computer
Ha, I knew my username had to be good for something! 😛 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I see the kind of edit summary you do get, from your edit. Hmmm. I'd be safer than you, I think, inasmuch as I edit from a steam-driven difference engine — I don't mess about with some phone — and so would be less vulnerable to accidentally reverting to the pesky young Boing!. But I do wish there was a way of adding something explanatory in the edit summary, because it's rare that I don't want to. I'll mull it over. Thanks for the full explanation. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
I think you can turn off the Restorer script on mobile view by simply moving it from your common.js to your vector.js page. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
OMG you're brilliant RexxS, thank you! You've saved me hours of reading to figure that out. Levivich 00:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer MeeEdit

Levivich, why should my !vote be tossed? I wrote the article last night, and defended it with guidelines and policies. I am puzzled. But thanks for seeing the merit in keeping the article. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a long-ish reply in mind and won't have a chance to write it until later, will ping when posted. Levivich 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I normally appreciate your very clear-headed remarks and your detail oriented !votes at AfD and ANI. However in this case, I am the article's starter. And the article was a few hours old when the editor place the AfD. I feel like I made some appropriate policy related arguments for keeping. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is rather odd for you to discount my !vote at AfD, and direct me to your talk page for discussion, and then you are unresponsive all day. I will ask you to please strike your comments at AfD. It is a disparaging comment and it is without merit. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think your vote should be tossed because it makes assertions without evidence and addresses irrelevant issues:
    1. WP:GNG is easily met with multiple WP:RSs. – Assertion without evidence
    2. The nominator ignores our guidelines for WP:N and WP:V and makes a vague wave at a WP:BLP1E claim which clearly does not apply...I am sure the nominator knows that WP:BLP2E does not exist. – Nominator's conduct, and the state of the nominator's knowledge–like the state of the article–is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the topic is notable
    3. The rationale seems to be someone didn't like it before, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT now. – The nominator's rationale is also entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the topic is notable. Whether the nomination statement is the best one ever written, or totally piss poor, has nothing to do with whether or not the topic is actually notable. The nominator's statement might help !voters (if it's a good statement), but the !voters make up their minds about notability independently of the nominator. It's a !vote on the topic, not on the article, not on the nomination, and not on the nominator.
    4. FYI: The subject was world famous for her medical condition, and then again world famous for her crime. – Fame ≠ notability, but replace the word "famous" with "notable" and it's still an assertion without evidence
    5. We keep articles which meet the heavier burden of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.WP:OSE; the only relevant question is whether this article meets WP:N
    6. See: Juli Briskman AfD which I argued against keeping - I was wrong. – OSE
    7. Jennifer Mee has been in the news more than 10 years with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. – Assertion without evidence
    8. She has received international coverage in reliable sources. – Assertion without evidence
    9. This is an easy keep. – Assertion without evidence Levivich 03:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Insanely tedious response that I waited all day for. I am putting this in the ridiculous box and burying it in the backyard. Nomination rationales matter per WP:DELAFD. And international coverage is in the WP:BEFORE BBC etc. Mee in the news ten years per the research - simple math in 2007 she had the hiccups and in 2017 Pierce Morgan interviewed her. I am really surprised by your response here and I will still ask you to strike your comments discounting four votes other votes because you do not like them. We all have a style and we all do our best. your style is to break it down into minutia. Have a great holiday. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Levivich".