User talk:Levivich/Archive 2

Active discussions


I'm not inspired to vote (either way) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mats van Kins or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence Bijl - as they seem barely notable. I am however dismayed by the knee-jerk NFOOTY !votes - NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, it is not sufficient. Contrast those !votes with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Perri - Perri (being signed by a Premier League club, and it seems he might replace their current goalkeeper) - seems to have much more coverage than the former two - yet - knee-jerk deletes for failing NFOOTY. No other SNG is so cut and dry - e.g. I do Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military‎ quite a bit, and while passing WP:SOLDIER is usually (but not always - and usually there is a semblance of discussion and presenting sources) a shoe-in - failing it - still has one evaluate GNG.

To stop my rambling, what I propose might be prudent is focusing on former players in their late 20s-30s (e.g. 1984-1993) who only appeared in 3rd tier leagues. Players in this age range should have on-line sources if they pass GNG - and attacking these players on the explicit grounds of lacking SIGCOV (e.g. pass NFOOTY, but according to my source check there are no-in-depth reliable sources).Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Good suggestion. Do you have advice about how many AfD noms at one time is too many? Levivich 19:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no set limit per se - I think I had 30-40 in the air recently - but they were good noms and closed 95% delete. It is a question of understanding "when you are overstaying your welcome" so to speak... If you launch 20 and they all end up keepers - you might get some flak (e.g. IIRC an editor was at ANI a while back for a batch of 20 so terror articles that closed keep). I would take it slow with the footballers until zeroing on a class that does not pass GNG. What passes for a RS in this subject matter might also be broad and require study.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. So my two-per-week shouldn't be a problem them. :-) Levivich 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I did add the football delsort on my watchlist. Forming some sort of taskforce here - or maybe involving Women in Red (whose mainstay arguement at AfD seems to be that NFOOTY is silly, so, anything else is notable too) might be an interesting thought.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that an article-by-article or even a SNG-by-SNG approach will be effective. Seems like we need to have a broad, project-wide conversation about notability standards and what they mean. Editors don't seem to agree on basics, for example: does notability mean "we can write a neutral, well-sourced article about it" or does notability mean "we should have an article about it"? What is the basic purpose of having any SNG? What is the purpose of relying on independent, secondary sources for notability? Without answering the questions about what our guidelines are supposed to do (what is the purpose of an SNG), I can't imagine we'll ever agree on the specific language for an SNG. I don't know... idea lab? Levivich 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Well - I did tip in a toe in those AfDs. I was a bit scared off by the amount of gnewsHits - but in one of them it was almost all appearances in a roster list of the semi-pro team. A project-wide discussion will quickly die down. I would advocate baby steps - I for one am somewhat curious how the league list in NFOOTY grew to be so big. I sorta get players in top-notch leagues being presumed notable (heck - even without any appearances) - but some of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th leagues there appear dubious. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, what did you think of the Bijl close? I did not expect that. Levivich 06:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Why? Because it did not match the headcount? That happens. The closer has to be mildly brave (but many are), and ignore very weak (in this case) or non-policy compliant votes (e.g. Keep because I like it). I actually am not surprised - as "Keep by NFOOTY" is not a refuting argument for "While the player meets NFOOTY, an evaluation of extant coverage shows that he very clearly does not meet GNG. The closer should disregard "NFOOTY Keep" !votes, and only !votes presenting evidence of SIGCOV should be evaluated". I've seen this happen before (e.g. on longevity articles recently (people who were oldest in Y during some period)). Note that contentiousness of the subject is not congruent with argument strength - e.g. on Phelps there was a lower Keep headcount, and poorer arguments (at least policy wise for Phelps, though you convinced me of NFOOTY :-)). Closers don't always do this, e.g. - [1] (note I appreciate that closer's closings generally very much, and I've seem him disregard non-policy arguments (e.g. he was involved in those longevity articles IIRC)) - closed as "no consensus" despite the 3 Keeps not presenting any sources to back up their claims (instead - the AfD on the basis of unsourced OR.... Turned into a discussion full of unsourced OR - I should've managed that discussion better) - however closing complicated discussions on complicated subject matter - is - well complicated (makes disregarding !votes harder - e.g. it is much easier to disregard a short "Keep, because she was the oldest women in Japan" then walls of text and arguments). Despite not agreeing with the close, I probably won't take it to DRV myself, since it was a difficult close (For a "Keep" - perhaps. a "No Consensus" for a rambling discussion - umm). I might nominate it again in 2-3 months (if no sources show up in the article). Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, I was surprised because of how van Kins went. As far as I can tell, SIGCOV and NFOOTY analysis is the same between the two. I didn't argue as much tho, lol. Levivich 06:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In terms of the close, Mats van Kins had 8 Keep !votes vs. the single Delete by the nominator (yourself) - so the closing situation is different. You didn't manage to fully convince me (I generally spend at least 5-10 BEFOREing prior to !voting - probably more than some other !voters - and try to assess coverage independent of the nomination and other !votes)- I posted a Neutral. The Keep !votes were weakly reasoned (however him still being on the squad and expectation of future coverage is perhaps a relevant consideration - despite TOOSOON). My Neutral !vote did post some sources. I think the close was more than reasonable. Note that the coverage here was different, in my eyes, as are the NFOOTY merits - ADO Den Haag is a longstanding club playing in the top-tier Eredivisie. A player who is on the squad in this division should be able to play in the lower division - Eerste Divisie which still meets NFOOTY (may be questionable), and coverage (and expected coverage) of top-teams is different from lower league teams. I actually think the two AfDs are quite different. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, does your advice above still stand? Older players, lower leagues? Levivich 07:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Generally yes. An promising youth prospect still on the squad has "coverage upside" (which may merit sending it to draft). An AfD on a pro-football washout (doesn't have to be 35.... Can be a 22-23 year old that 2-3 seasons ago subbed in a NFOOTY team and has since moved to the semi-pros) that played in lower-tier leagues (or possibly top-tier league in a very small country, particularly one that is not "football crazy") whose inclusion in NFOOTY's list is questionable (e.g. I think the lower US "farm/development teams" which are professional but generally not competitive (the whole purpose of the leagues in the US minor system is to develop players for the majors - not to win in the minors) - and have fairly little coverage - are quite questionable) - would make an easier AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
e.g. in regards to Van Kins - I think similar young players in the Premier League may have SIGCOV even prior to their first match. Contrast that with young prospects in EFL League Two.... Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your help and advice! You're really giving me insight I wouldn't otherwise have. Levivich 07:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
What got me hooked into enwiki was AfDs. I really like the process, discussion, and sometimes saving quirky articles - been involved in quite a few - stats.Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, 1,635 is a big number. I got 30 :-D Levivich 06:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian Bittner closed delete. You should watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football if you want to take this up as a policy initiative (I got the ball rolling in [2] - but it's not going much anywhere yet (though, it's an unfriendly venue... I expect the village pump to be friendlier) - if we want to make a change, I think we need to get down in the weeds and understanding which footballers have coverage and which don't. Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Icewhiz, thanks, I'll add it to my watchlist. Should have more time for this now that my conspiracy theory rfc is posted. Levivich 19:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Icewhiz, am I allowed to run AfD nom ideas by you before I nom them? I feel like you could filter my choices and save everybody some time. Levivich 05:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    You could, however should I !vote in the AfD itself it may be construed as canvassing (and I will declare I pre-discussed this with you). Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    OK I won't, people go crazy about canvassing and tag teaming around here. Levivich 06:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    No, listen. Running an prospective AfD by another editor before nominating is a great idea, even if only one time in 10 it results in a nom not being made -- the savings are huge. If you ask Icewhiz first, he can still participate in the AfD if he simply starts his comment with Note: Levivivich asked my opinion about this nom before he made it. Simple as that. I guarantee no one will mind. EEng 06:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    (ec) Oh - if you're upfront with it (e.g. state it is a co-nomination clearly in the AfD nom + I state so when I !vote) - it doesn't go into crazy territory. Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Very well then, may I introduce to you Charles Rodriguez, Karo Okiomah, Jeremy Cheeseman and Tom Brandt. Levivich 06:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    The first 3 do not pass NFOOTY AFAICT. Rodriguez might have a chance due to his college award (NCOLLATH - maybe). Do not seee the coverage for all 3. Brnadt does pass NFOOTY, I am not sure of the coverage - he shares a name with a recent political candidate which makes BEFOREing more difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Looking at Brnadt - he's not the political candidate, and he has definitely gone no where since 2012 - local story on how he will help his former High School (which doesn't even mention his brief minor league stint, just college). I'd say that all 4 are possible noms. Rodriguez has the outside chance due to his college awards, and Brandt seems to pass NFOOTY (by the single season in the depths of the minors). Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    Icewhiz, thanks for taking the time to look into them. (I thought I responded to your post from yesterday but I guess not–sorry!) I will post all four. Levivich 14:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    Icewhiz, on Brandt: SW has 21 games with Harrisburg City Islanders (now Penn FC), in 2012–2013 when the team was USL Pro. So NFOOTY, right? As for GNG, check out: [3], [4], [5], [6]. The first one seems solid, the second one is significant but maybe not an RS (the blog of a former sports editor), third and fourth I'm not sure. What's your take? Levivich 05:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Brandt passes NFOOTY by that single season (ther other 3 do not - beneath the cutoff). However sourcing on him is very local (and possibly non reliable) with the exception of brief supplemental draft mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    OK thanks. I'm going to investigate those sources a bit more before making a call. Levivich 07:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

For some reason the third Google Books result for "Jeremy Cheeseman" is Model Fight, the screenplay about a fight club for fashion models. Judging by the first couple of pages, I can't believe this hasn't been produced yet. The author has also written Bitch Fight, Zombie Fight, Selfie Showdown: A Model Kombat Throwdown (that's a Mortal Kombat reference for all you old-timers), and many more. Levivich 04:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good haul - 3-1-0 (3 D, 1 NC, 0 Keep). Going after US minor leaguers might be a "thing" - and I think that claiming US soccer minor leaguers are more notable than Baseball minor leaguers (both being fully pro at certain levels) - is a rather huge reach (particularly given soccer is much less covered than baseball in the US) that may be attacked with a few more examples + pulling in Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey into the discussion. Once we challenge one chip here, the tower (predicated on the notability of "fully pro" - even when said pros receive "normal people" salaries) might begin to fall.... Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks as always for your help with this. The suggestion that US minor league soccer players are as notable or more notable than minor league baseball players is laughable, in my opinion as an American. Minor league baseball players are generally more notable than major league soccer players in the US (IMO). I'm encouraged by the result this time around and also from seeing other editors make similar nominations. I'll be digging around for a few more to nom and will post them here first. Levivich 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
BTW I created User:Levivich/Footy AfDs, thinking it would be a good place to keep track of these nominations and we can use the talk page to discuss them? Anyone/everyone watching this is welcome to watch/edit that page. Levivich 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Watchlisted. I suggest posting a short rationale next to each one (e.g. US minor leaguer, one season in X). Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yellow vests movement and carbon taxEdit

Hello. I find it very presumptuous that you edited my contribution and said it "did not appear constructive". Who are you to revert my change and say it is not "constructive"? They are facts. If you disagree with facts, you are being very nonconstructive. Are your "policies and guidelines" to promulgate untruths and a personal narrative? That's what it appears, and that's very disturbing. And no, I did not change "austerity measures" to "carbon tax". I left austerity measures and added carbon tax, because it is a carbon tax. Per "WP:RSP", the Washington Times "is not a reliable source for climate issues". Wait, this is about the yellow vests. So you're acknowledging it is a carbon tax and about climate issues after all? I reinstated the change because it was correct and you are simply wrong. Is truth now decided with a "consensus" of people of your perfected politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonisfun (talkcontribs) 23:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Bostonisfun, you're right, I misread that first diff, you didn't remove "austerity measures", you only added "carbon tax". I updated the notice on your talk page accordingly–sorry about that. The process is bold, revert, discuss. Your addition of "carbon tax" (the "bold" part) was reverted by another editor (the "revert" part), and the next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page, Talk:Yellow vests movement. Please do not re-instate the edit without confirming on the talk page that there is consensus for it. Thanks. Levivich 23:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger of List of black quarterbacks and Racial issues faced by black quarterbacksEdit

Hi there,

I created the page Racial issues faced by black quarterbacks from the original article on the quarterback position in order to separate the sociological/racial discussion from the main page and focus on it in further detail as an independent page. Once again, thanks for working on improving the sources on that page, and I'm impressed with all the work you're putting into the new article List of black quarterbacks. However, I couldn't help but notice that the new page now contains sections detailing the history of black quarterbacks, and noticing a trend, I think it would be wise to merge this page with the racial issues page as they seem to talk about the same topic. What do you say?

--WuTang94 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WuTang94, hi! I agree about merging the prose–at least making sure there's no forking–but I think the list of names should stay in a separate list article rather than be part of the main article, so the main article doesn't get cluttered with a list that will grow each year. My thought was to make List of black quarterbacks a list of names, plus little mini-bios about the notable players, with just enough of the overall background/context so that someone reading the list would understand why the list matters. The list would be focused on the individual players, whereas the main article Racial issues faced by black quarterbacks would have all the rest of it–the "big picture" history, the causes, context, the recent studies, plus some notable examples–basically as it is now. You said "trend" but actually I don't think much more prose should be in the list article; it shouldn't go into other areas that are already covered by the main article. The only section(s) missing from the list, IMO, are about the Canadian Football League and the smaller leagues that competed with the NFL, like PCPFL, the AFLs, and AAFC. I would actually condense the prose in the list right now, but DYK requires 1,500 words for a DYK list (same as an article), so I included more detail than I really think it needs. What do you think of that approach? Also, what do you think about renaming the article from Racial issues faced by black quarterbacks to just "Black quarterbacks", because people might be more likely to search for that? Levivich 20:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing Levivich, and good argument for why the QB list should stay separate, so I'll probably leave the list alone. I just got confused when the list page contained more information on the history/bios of some of those quarterbacks. Haha I had no idea how the DYK thing worked in Wikipedia so that's good to know. I do agree that the "Racial Issues" page should contain the prose and simply be renamed "History of black quarterbacks" or something and contain more of the historical aspect, becoming something that people would search more often. I think a lot more research would be needed for the other minor football leagues, hence why it focused mostly on the NFL and 1960s AFL. Also, I'll consider doing research on QB's of other races besides African or Caucasian descent (Hispanic, Polynesian, Asian, Native American, etc.) and create a list for those guys when I have time. --WuTang94 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
WuTang94, yeah there's so much in this topic area that's worth documenting in the encyclopedia. I "found" this topic here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Category:African-American_football_quarterbacks, and I was surprised people didn't know that "black quarterback" was a "thing". So my point in starting the list was to save what was formerly in the categories, and I figure with a DYK it'll get on the main page and then more people will learn about the history. I think the topic has long term potential to be a featured topic: there's the main article, plus some of the player articles could be FAs on their own, plus the lists. Levivich 20:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Levivich! Just had some updates and feedback. I've started a draft list for QBs of races other than white or black that can be edited here. I didn't want to publish it until it had some more substance. I also see you've linked some notable black quarterbacks to the Racial Issues page as well as the black qb list. They look good, but I'm not sure if Akili Smith should be linked to the racial issues page, as he struggled noticeably in the NFL regardless of his race, whereas his fellow black quarterbacks from his draft class, Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper, were much more successful. Nonetheless, I might see where you're coming from as I just learned that the 1999 draft class featured 8 black quarterbacks out of 13 total quarterbacks selected, including McNabb, Smith, and Culpepper. I will agree that Andre Ware should be linked as he was the first black QB to win the Heisman, especially as I rework the racial issues to focus on general history. Just some more thoughts --WuTang94 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi WuTang94. The QoC (quarterbacks of color?) list looks good! FYI I put together User:Levivich/Outline of race and sports to help figure out the See also links for the List article. I added your new list to the outline. Feel free to edit it if you know of any other pages. At some point I think the entire group of pages could probably use some organization, in terms of article titles and cross-linking to each other. For the List, my initial thought was to add the Racial Issues and the List to See Also for everyone on the List. But now you've got me thinking: does every black quarterback face the racial issues facing black quarterbacks? I honestly don't know. Do you think every article on the List should link back to the List in the See also section? Should they all link to the Racial Issues page? Levivich 04:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Levivich: My thoughts for the racial issues page is that only qbs who have been known to face racial disparagement should be linked, in addition to groundbreaking black QBs such as Marlin Briscoe, James Harris, Andre Ware (first black QB Heisman winner), Doug Williams (first black Superbowl-winning QB), etc. As for the general list, I probably wouldn't sweat it too much. People could probably find it anyways as it's probably one of the first pages that pop up when they search "Black QB's". Doing a really great job though! Hats off to you --WuTang94 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
WuTang94, thanks! OK, that sounds good; I won't add the links to every player, just the Racial Issues link to the groundbreaking ones (I'm thinking the pre-Super Bowl-era ones, and the first-on-their-team ones?). Levivich 15:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:English language for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Levivich,

I was just noticing that for a newbie editor, you spend a lot of your time posting on ANI. You have over 500 edits to ANI in just 4 months time which is more than many editors have after a decade of editing on Wikipedia. I know you have other editing interests, which is great, I think it would just behoove you to spend less time on noticeboards and other drama boards.

I was very involved with ANI discussions as a new editor and it can result in a pushback from the community if your comments there are seen as inflaming and stirring up disputes and not settling them down and helping to lower the tension that's on the boards. Life is definitely better when you don't immediately know all of the trouble spots on the Project. Just FYI. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Liz, thanks for taking the time to comment. Do you think I'm inflaming and stirring up disputes instead of settling them down and lowering the tension? My intent–with things like haiku closes–is very much to do the latter; it concerns me a great deal if I'm doing the former. Levivich 04:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Just seconding what Liz is saying here. I gave you this same advice a couple of months ago, and I was disappointed to see you not take it. As with Liz and the focus here on the haikus, you also deflected my advice by focusing on the merging of the Iranian complaint threads instead of on the substance of my advice. You edit ANI and other noticeboards frequently; however, you are still quite new and have done comparatively little editing of mainspace (less than a third of your edits). I echo Liz that it would behoove you to focus more on improving the encyclopedia and less on engaging in policy conversations and disputes until you have surer footing of your own (and better knowledge of the history of some of those disputes). Again, as before, this is gentle advice, and I'm not attempting to imply that you are someone "not allowed" to comment at ANI or any other noticeboard. Grandpallama (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Levivich. Perhaps you are in complete disagreement with my views, but the shortcut you wrote at AN/I, WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE, inspired me to write a small user essay. --Pudeo (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, thank you, I was hoping someone would turn that red link blue. I think it reads great! Levivich 14:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I must chime in and say that whenever someone says something is not, then usually the obverse it true. Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Identifying it is the first step to changing it :-) Levivich 14:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


Yes there are many non-notable footballer biographies out there; but we should spend more time dealing with ones which fail both GNG and NFOOTBALL rather than going after those that meet NFOOTBALL but might fail GNG. Football has an active WikiProject that actually enforces standards across its articles; other areas don't (actors & musicians are some that I've come across recently) and it might be an idea to focus your valiant work on those rather than just soccerball. GiantSnowman 07:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit

  Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.

There were two demonstrably false statements in your apology.
--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, ok, I'll bite: what are the two false statements? Levivich 04:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Two false statement: you did not use the Visual Editor and your edit was not in response a removal of a blue link by Wikieditor19920. Wikieditor19920 added an incorrect link to a T-Pain song. Instead of removing the link or linking to bartender, as any good faith editor would, you used the source editor to change the link to Bartender Song (Sittin' at a Bar). There is no reasonable excuse for making this "mistake" while editing the source code.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Kindly reread what I wrote. I didn't say either of those two things. I didn't say I used VE for that edit, I said I use VE and recognized the issue Wikied was talking about. Nor did I say that my edit was in response to removing a blue link (or "in response to" anything); I said delinking is what I had disagreed with Wikied about. They added a link that I thought should be removed ("delinked"). They said it was a VE mistake and I said I use VE too and have had such things happen before, and now the link is removed anyway. As far as I'm concerned, and I think as far as Wikied is concerned, that was the end of it. I'm not sure why you decided to involve yourself in this but I hope this addresses your concerns. Levivich 05:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You added an apparent joke to a BLP article. And your explanation does not explain your action and demonstrates bad faith, in my opinion. I left a warning here as is proper practice. You can do with it what you like.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You can do with it what you like. OK, I framed it. Levivich 06:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that explanation makes no sense. Since you weren't editing with VE then how did you manage to accidentally manually change a bluelink to one song to a bluelink to a totally different one if you were intending to just remove the bluelink? Are you WP:EUI? (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Under the influence? Often. Accidental? Rarely. That would have been an unlikely string of characters to type accidentally. If you have an account, by the way, feel free to post here logged-in; I won't hold it against you (or anyone) who wants to comment on my editing. Levivich 14:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of black quarterbacksEdit

  Hello! Your submission of List of black quarterbacks at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


  It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is about WP:ANI# POV/edit-warring. Levivich 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
For further clarification to anyone reading this - this is about Levivich engaging in WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to influence an ANI decision. Its bad malpractice. (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
What's an example of good malpractice? Levivich 16:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
See (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"Bad" is not a pronoun. Levivich 16:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that enlightening insight. (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe 217.* has been blocked. Also, "bad malpractice" might mean good practice, though I suspect 217.* meant something like "severe malpractice" or "egregious malpractice". Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ohhhh! Yes, it does makes sense that way. Levivich 17:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've heard of Bad Malpractice. I think they're doing a gig in the Slug and Lettuce next Friday, blues rock covers stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!Edit

  I appreciate you helping with the Candace Owens dispute. And for being nonpartisan, which you didn't have to do. Thanks! 84percent (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@84percent: Thanks! Happy to help. Happy editing! Levivich 00:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at WP:Candace OwensEdit you have any advice for how to deal with an editor who I believe is arguing in bad faith against including the green text in the excerpt below:

According to The Atlantic, the gunman's rhetoric may have been designed to troll: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."

I feel like the green text is essential context which explains why the shooter may have named her as an inspiration, but the editor is acting like "it's similar to how most people would sum Owen up", and "This part of the quote is merely a short description of Owens, and is therefore unimportant." I feel like it's too early to notify an administrator, but maybe try dispute resolution?

Talk page discussion here: [7] Thank you! --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my preferred version:[8] of the paragraph which appears in the article here:[9] --Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, oh what fun that mine field seems to be :-) First thing–keep WP:1RR in mind because that dispute is clearly receiving plenty of attention and there's already recent edit warring between other editors. If that continues, the page might get protected or someone might get blocked or hauled to WP:AE. (I'm going to comment on your talk page later about that questionable EW template.)
I agree admin won't be able to resolve this content dispute. One admin placed the standard DS template and another one commented at WP:BLPN#Candice Owen, so it already has admin attention (hence why I think DS sanctions may be around the corner). Talk page discussion and third opinion has already been tried without success, so I'm not sure there's any other pages left to "escalate" to.
I think what I would do is to start a new sub-thread within the existing WP:BLPN#Candice Owen thread specifically on this Atlantic quote issue. I'd suggest a short, clear, neutrally-worded "yes/no"-type statement about it: e.g., paste the quote as you did here and ask should the quote as used in the article omit the words "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" with ellipses [...] or include the full quote? Maybe paste both versions (with and without the language). See what the response is from editors who haven't been involved. (BTW I won't be !voting on this particular content dispute because I agree with you and I don't want any allegations of canvassing to further cloud the situation.) Clear consensus may arise at BLPN which would resolve this particular issue. This is how you'll know if it's a WP:1AM situation or not. If more editors chime in and opinion is divided, then it's probably time for an WP:RfC. (If 3O and a BLPN discussion doesn't result in consensus, then I'm not sure WP:DRN will be helpful as opposed to an RfC.) I wouldn't worry about the conduct of any particular editor because as the discussion goes on, any problematic conduct will be made clear, and admin are already watching, so I'm sure someone will take appropriate action if it becomes necessary. Hope this helps–let me know if you have any other questions about this.
On a separate, happier subject: good job bringing Greatest Generation home! Levivich 15:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Uh oh, I'm being recommended for blocking:[10]. It all happenend so fast! A mine field indeed. I might continue working on that Atlantic quote and then run away.
Thanks about Greatest Generation! That is a relief. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I ran away from most political articles when I started realizing how many talk page bytes it took for every article byte that actually stuck. The ratio is like 1,000:1. The clause (not even a full sentence) "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" is 80 characters, and between the article talk page, noticeboards, user talk pages, etc., there might be 80k of discussion written about it before it's settled. Levivich 04:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hah. This is true. 84percent (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
What poor research I had done! The Atlantic references Robert Evans, whose quote has appeared in many articles: “It is possible, even likely, that the author was a fan of Owens’s videos; she certainly espouses anti-immigrant rhetoric. But, in context, [it] seems likely that his references to Owens were calculated to spark division, and perhaps even violence, between the left and the right.” [11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
For perspective, Robert Evans also says:
  • "He brought up Candace Owens, who is a far-right YouTube personality and credited her for his radicalization, which is - cannot be true"
  • "The stuff that he mentions only once, like Candace Owens - that is chaff. The stuff that he mentions repeatedly that is a deeper throughline, that's something you can assume he really, truly believes."
84percent (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
We agree that the shooter was unlikely to have been influenced by the Candace Owens, as do most sources we have already discussed. Those quotes do not offer any perspective on the actual subject of my discussions. Here I have discussed "why the shooter may have named her" in his manifesto, not why he may have actually been influenced by her. I think he chose to name her because she shares his views on immigration and she's a controversial figure who will draw media attention. At WP:BLPN#Candice Owen I have stated that the full Atlantic quote "relates Owens to the context of the shooting of Muslim immigrants." I have repeatedly stated that I believe that the Atlantic is suggesting "that the shooter could be a fan of hers for her views on immigration and guns." You had stated that you do not agree. Do you now support using the quote I included from Robert Evans? Do you still believe the disputed Atlantic quote clause is "merely a short description of Owens, and is therefore unimportant."? It may be more appropriate to continue this discussion on your talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you guys hit 80,000 bytes of discussion yet? :-) One idea is to let it all chill and see if others chime in at BLPN or the article talk page over the next few days. Another is to see if there's a way to deliver the same content in the article without using that particular quote, or any quote at all. Sometimes talking about a single source or quote is fruitless (because the source isn't here to tell you exactly what they meant), and it's more productive to workshop some language in wikivoice that uses the article as a source without quoting from it. (I don't know if you've tried this already or not.) If all else fails you could try an RfC but it's unlikely (in my opinion) to produce more interest than what you're getting at BLPN. Some disputes just remain unresolved, and eventually it's best to just walk away from them for a while, even if you come back to it later (when fresh eyes and some distance can often help bring new perspective and different results). This comment is not intended at either one of you individually FYI, just a general observation. Levivich 03:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure we're well over the mark. I'm going to let the discussion mellow at the noticeboard; hopefully other involved editors will chime in over the next couple of days. In the meantime, I'm going to have a coffee, take a break, and get back to real work. Thanks again for your help, to myself and Kolya, and the rest of the Owens page editor family. And thank you Kolya for raising good points on your side too. See ya 84percent (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to give my opinion here that User:84percent's civility serves to disguise bad faith. I am continuing the discussion of the proposed quote in a new section on the Candace Owens talk page. Discussions of User:84percent's conduct should continue on his talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for List of black quarterbacksEdit

 On 17 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of black quarterbacks, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fritz Pollard (pictured) became the NFL's first black quarterback in 1923, but it was not until 2017 that all 32 NFL teams had started at least one black quarterback? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of black quarterbacks. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of black quarterbacks), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't stop at DYKEdit

Congrats on the DYK, Levivich. Nice work.
When I closed[12] the CFD and created[13] the category dump on the talk page, I assumed that this would be just another of the many many dozens of such listings I have created over years of CFD closures.
I would be surprised if even one in twenty has ever been used for anything in article space. I used to make such dumps in article space, as List of Category Title, but gave up after I found that nearly every case had the same outcome: a few months down the road I'd get an AFD notice for it as an unsourced list, and the editors who had asked for listification had no further interest. I'd explain at AFD that I had created it on request and had no view on whether it should stay or go, and with no input from those who clamoured for a list, it would rightly be deleted. To avoid that, I started making the lists on the talk page of the CFD day log, where they could remain unused without wasting the community's time in further discussion. And in at least 19 out of 20 cases, there they languish. If I hadn't honed it down to a 30-second task with AWB, I'd feel fed up, but it's now a quick and trivial routine.
So it's great to see that you have not only used to category listing, but actually made a sourced list .. and esp that you have gone so much further than the bare minimum.
Ball games aren't my thing at all, and much as I loved Bang the Drum Slowly, I simply can't see why it matters to anyone that somebody who they will never meet hit a ball better than someone else did. (I regard the whole thing as a displacement activity for those who can't cope with the adrenalin rushes triggered by the thrill-seeking excitement of watching paint dry <grin>).
But that is just my view, and plenty of people clearly do take a great interest in such things. Amidst the flood of pathetic single-source stub articles on sporting nonentities, its wonderful to see a well-written and thoroughly-research piece on the cultural and societal context of a sport.
Which leads me to ask you not to stop there. This is not far off WP:Featured list standard, and I urge you to take your work through that process. It's close enough that it won't need mountains of work.
I have been here myself. Early last year, I created List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland, and ran it through DYK. Then other editors urged me to take it to FL. The review process was very painstaking, and at times I was exasperated with what felt at the time to be pedantry, but we got there eventually. I think it was all worth it, and I remain very pleased with the final result. So please ... do it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, BrownHairedGirl! List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland is great! I hadn't thought about doing a timeline like you did, I think I might try to incorporate that. I very much appreciate your encouragement to pursue List of black quarterbacks to a featured list; I intend to do exactly that. (I've already listed it at peer review.)
Sports in general aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I find the athletic feats fascinating to watch, especially, for example, in individual Olympic sports like ski jumping, pole vaulting, high diving, gymnastics... the things those people can do are amazing. Same reason I am addicted to the People are Awesome YouTube channel (check out this 2014 best-of and "fast workers edition"). The "feats" in ball games can be amazing, too (like the spectacular catches of baseball), but I like them more because they're unscripted–not so much who can hit the ball farther, but you don't know who is going to win or lose. Even if you don't care about who wins or loses, a good game can be suspenseful. For this reason, I actually like watching youth sports more than professional sports. In an MLB baseball game, you know that routine ground ball will get picked up by the shortstop, who will throw it to first base. 999 times out of 1,000, no error is made and the batter will be out. That can get boring. But in a Little League game, it could go through the kid's legs, they might make a bad throw, the first baseman might drop the ball–who knows what'll happen! A team can be down by a dozen points and still come back and win. It's a lot of fun. Football I like for the strategy. There's so much that goes in to deciding whether to run the ball or throw it, what formation to use, which players to line up against which other players, what last-minute changes to make. At the NFL level, it's like a chess game. Of course, one would have to know about formations and individual players' strengths and weaknesses, etc., so it's a steep learning curve. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys running for a bit and then falling down over and over again. The concussion problem, though, is making me less and less of a fan. I'm starting to warm up to the idea of learning to appreciate touch football and flag football.
OK well that's enough rambling from me about sports. Thanks again for the encouragement and links! Levivich 18:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome.
Peer review is a good start, and I am delighted that you already have FL plans. (If you had shown signs of reluctance, I was going to set Mrs Doyle on you). if you need a shoulder to cry on during the endless mountain of micro-details at FL assessment, gimme a shout.
Timelines are hard work: the markup is very finnicky and time-consuming, and FL criteria for how it is done are v strict. But esp with sortable tables, I think that the effort involved in making this sort of presentation pays off handsomely by bringing the data to life.
Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Writer's Barnstar
Congrats for the fine piece of work at List of black quarterbacks. It has strong potential to become a Featured List article. Happy editing! MX () 15:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you, MX!! Levivich 18:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@MX, snap!
It is indeed good work, and the barnstar is v well-deserved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Congrats Levivich!--WuTang94 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

25 minutes to goEdit

Friendly stalker here. I opened this new thread so not to derail the thread above, but seeing the thread above and considering the results of a prior humor column in the Signpost I am reminded of 25 Minutes to Go, Johnny Cash of course being the definitive version in my mind. Take you pick of poison: Cash in a live show or same soundtrack with an animation. Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But! You might make a joke outta this - so it might be constructive. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
STOP THE PRESSES!!! Shel Silverstein wrote A Boy Named Sue?!?!?!? How have I gone my whole life and I didn't know that! (I know how–I never read the Wikipedia article!) You just blew my mind Icewhiz, I had no idea one of my favorite poets was writing songs for one of my favorite musicians. I clicked on 25 Minutes to Go and Silverstein's name jumped right out at me and then I fell into a wikihole. 25 Minutes to Go is a great song, too... although I hope it's not too applicable... gee, what happens if I don't have enough jokes by Friday?   Levivich 15:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If ain't got enough jokes up or they fall flat - you'll get a bunch of WikiTomatoes thrown your way. However, if you write up a bunch of good jokes but they are too offensive.... Then the gallows humor applies - I was referring to ANI, ARBCOM, and jeez even MfD tacked on. Now - are you brave, foolish, or both for sticking your head on the chopping block? The astute reader shall have to judge.Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, and this may be amusing - did you know that an engineer inadvertently took off in an English Electric Lightning fighter jet after engaging the afterburner by mistake? Talk about a kick in the pants, he called it a fright in lieu of flight in subsequent writing. No bragging - but I think I getting this writeup in WP:DYKSTATS. OK brags. (Had fun writing it).Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Smallbones asked for a Signpost joke and the only thing I can come up with, which probably isn't appropriate for print, is something along the lines of: What's the difference between the media and Wikimedia? When most newspapers make a mistake with pronouns, they print a correction; when The Signpost makes a mistake with pronouns, not only does the current Editor-in-Chief have to resign, but they bring back the previous Editor-in-Chief and make him resign, too.
Great job with Holden's Lightning flight! That was a hilarious read–and you're going to make the all-time DYK list with that one! Bravo!! Did any RSes mention the post-flight condition of Holden's pants? :-) Levivich 16:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You can try and make a self-referencing Gallows joke (I heard that one of the last editors who came around here got..... And joke about the last column (sorry Rosguill) - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/Humour - being too afraid to even joke about it). As for Holden - I was pitching for you to joke it at your column - doesn't the DYK hook sound like a joke? (just happens to be true). Holden, while sounding all composed and British in this BBC interview (even with a baby in the background - minute 04:14 or so), wrote in A Memorable Fright that "Some years after the incident, my hidden fears of high speed flight came to the surface and I had to spend two periods in hospital. I had not come to terms with the emotional side of the event. To return to my wife and family, after five close encounters with death, was indeed a miraculous experience, but I had not been honest with myself, to accept it as such, so I needed psychiatric help. I could recall the technicalities of the flight without any hang-ups, but was unwilling to talk about that emotional side of the ordeal until I was placed under medical drugs and to bring these emotions to the surface. That was a rewarding experience and it gave me a much better understanding of people who might need that kind of help, after similar unfortunate occurrences." - so the poor old chap actually got committed (I left it out of the article - it's all fine and dandy that he says so about himself, but editorial discretion is the better part of valor?). Icewhiz (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm... I'll have to consult my muse and see if any jokes come to mind. I liked the last humor column, especially the punch line about earwig going down. (And definitely agree with your editorial discretion there, though interesting how some things that can seem funny actually aren't.) Levivich 22:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


"Do I need to turn the hose on you two?"

whoever wrote that needs to write better. To be gentle, that's a false contrast, unless I am wrong and OakRidge accepts only African American women. It was already reverted before someone thought that BRD did not apply to him and re-inserted it. WBGconverse 13:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, "learn to write better" is never an acceptable edit summary on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a collegial, collaborative project. Levivich 14:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that. Also, we don't exist to right great wrongs and making dubious claims to pursue social justice ain't one of our goals. Ta, WBGconverse 14:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
No, but we do exist to write an encyclopedia. Levivich 14:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Do I need to turn the hose on you two? EEng 16:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, WBG and I are perfectly capable of having a very civilized and orderly knife fight to the death. The winner will even dispose of the body and mop up afterwards. (Neither of us want to make work for others, after all.) Levivich 18:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got 8 more daysEdit

to think up about 15 more Wiki joke and submit them to The Signpost. Maybe even include a Signpost joke! BTW, the Wikilawyer joke is excellent Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, thanks, I'm glad you liked them! There's no way I have 15 more. There's one more brewing, about wikibureaucracy, still lacking a punchline. I'll try to think of a Signpost one. I'm definitely going to need some help here... let's ask my funny bone doctor: hey, EEng, do you have time/interest in copyediting these jokes [14] [15] [16] (or writing some more)? Levivich 01:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I gave it a once-over. Some of it's not bad. I prefer to work behind the scenes and not be credited, just in case you were wondering. EEng 02:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand, you have a reputation to protect. (Thanks! Sorry for the cross-post to your talk page.) Levivich 03:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand, you have a reputation to protect. – You'll understand that given its current state, I can't afford for it to get any more dents and dings. EEng 03:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I just checked out User talk:EEng#s. The limerick is pretty good - send more. May I add that into the mix and post all those from the Signpost comments to see if there is enough for an article? A few of EENG's pix might fit in as well. BTW how do you describe your style of humor? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure – you're welcome to use the limerick or anything else and post them wherever it's useful. I can't say I've ever thought of how to describe my style of humor, but I think "some of these aren't half bad" captures it well :-) Levivich 04:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome to lift anything you like from my userpage or talkpage, just please when linking link to User:EEng#s and/or User talk:EEng#s, with the #s included, please. I'll probably regret this because some Trump idiots will come after me, but whatever; if there are still people unashamed of having made that particular bargain with Satan I suppose it's best we entice them out into the open. If I may suggest, you might want to use the "Capitalism" drawing (the color image just above User:EEng#Wikipedia_is_not_about_whining) -- it's eyecatching, though it really should be blown up very large; also the "motto" anagram gifs in red. Essays that might interest you include WP:WHINE, WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES, WP:SNODGRASS. EEng 04:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour. It doesn't look like enough, yet. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm almost ready to give up simply because I need just a bit more material. I'll ping @Atsme: just to make sure that I can use his material. I've even come up with a title for the article "Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ..." (with nothing to back it up. But this is a Wiki after all, maybe somebody will fill in the blanks) And one joke (mostly) my own
  • What do you call a paid editor that won't accept cash? - A check user.
Perhaps even a photo joke (right)
Please advise before Friday. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It won't solve your immediate problem, but if you ran one image from User:EEng per month, you'd have material for 40 years. EEng 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
How can I help, Smallbones? Oh, EEng - your witty Trump bashing is probably appreciated by anyone with a sense of humor. I doubt you'd see much, if any, backlash - uhm, those types are called "conservative" for a reason. You'd be in far more danger if you were a Trump supporter. Atsme Talk 📧 15:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess you weren't around for [17]. EEng 17:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Ewwww...I neither recall the event nor my location at the time. And yet again, the Great HoudEEngi escaped unscathed...but will his escapes ever equal, or even surpass, his many captures? That is the question. Atsme Talk 📧 18:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I like the checkuser joke and Atsme's additions (especially the limerick!). Smallbones, have the Signpost folks considered breaking up the humor column and instead adding a humorous "blurb" to other articles (like how the New Yorker does it, for example). So the material can be spread out and you're not straining to fill a full-length humor column each month? Just a thought. Levivich 17:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Readers of The Economist are familiar with the way it inserts odd images with arch captions as sidebars to articles. EEng 18:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the island and raft joke is my favorite. Great job coming up with those. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The deadline is fast approaching, and I think these are half-baked and not ready for publication, so I'm inviting everyone to help me edit/rewrite these to make them funny. (And if they're hopeless, ahh well.)

Raft joke part 2: A wikilawyer and a vandal are stranded on a desert island. On the first day, realizing his fate, the vandal builds a raft.

A wikijob: An editor applies to the Wikipedia Factory for a job. "We have two positions open," the administrator tells him. "The first opening involves building the machines, operating the machines, maintaining the machines, cleaning the machines, repairing them when they break, and also answering the phones and handling all administrative tasks necessary to run the factory. This position is unpaid; workers are strictly prohibited from receiving any renumeration for their work."

"What's the other opening?" the editor asks.

"The other opening involves making suggestions to the workers about what the factory should make. You'd be strictly prohibited from building the machines, running the machines, or otherwise touching the machines or doing any other work, but you'd receive a salary. Which would you like to apply for?"

Typo – I'm going to preface this with a warning that what you are about to read is not funny, but it's the idea for something that might be able to be funny with a lot of help. It's another version of the lightbulb joke.
A Wikipedian receives her driver's license and notices it has a typo: "Jne" instead of "Jane". Being an industrious editor, she tries to fix the typo herself, but finds the license is fully protected. She goes to the department of motor vehicles to make an edit request.
An administrator denies her edit request because no source was provided establishing that the editor's name is "Jane" and not "Jne", and suggests checking with a checkuser.
The checkuser confirms that the editor and "Jne" are   Unrelated, but because they are involved as a checkuser, they decline to take administrative action on the edit request, and suggests asking a bureaucrat for the proper rights to edit the license.
The bureaucrat declines because they can find no policy stating that the editor's name is "Jane", and suggests an appeal to the arbitration committee.
The arbitration committee declines to get involved because this is a content dispute, and suggests, since no one in the local department of motor vehicles can help, that the editor see a steward.
The steward declines to act because there are administrators in the department, and suggests the ombudsman.
After six hours, the ombudsman tells the editor the typo has been fixed, but unfortunately, the editor's car has been stolen. They had no one to watch the parking lot, the ombudsman explains, because of a huge edit request backlog.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to come up with anything about the Signpost or Holden's Lightning flight. Thanks all for your help with the above, I hope they'll at least be a start. Levivich 19:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The factory is quite good. The other two have definite potential. Look, if things aren't in really good order for this month, then just don't have a humor item this month. Run it when it's really good. And remember, less is more. EEng 20:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme and EEng: and Levivitch - See final version Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour feel free to veto this (for this month). I'll let the other editors at Signpost veto it as well. But I think it would work as written this month. Let me know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Love it! I like the lead and the ending – good job! Levivich 15:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, I won't complain about the new edits, but we need to have a final draft approved by me (as "author"), before another Signposter copyedits it (not allowed to be me), before I (as editor-in-chief) can approve it and it can be published (anytime tomorrow). In short, no more eddits from you guys! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
As difficult as it is for wikipedians to not edit, I will restrain myself :-) Thanks for publishing! Levivich 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration CaseEdit

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a partyEdit

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Whew!   Levivich 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
...apparently I'm a party too; somehow Levivich has made me his sock. His work is done 🆘 😝 ——SerialNumber54129 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
We're taking Levivich to the WikiSlammer™ -MJL
Actually, this was a warning. Clean up your act or this is where you're heading. –MJLTalk 21:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Just... thank youEdit

Thank you for looking into this situation. This has been a very time-consuming and frustrating process, and I feel like I didn't do the best job at summarizing my concerns to the community, but you've been a tremendous help at reviewing specific interactions. Much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Rather than start a separate section, I'm just going to add heartfelt thanks here for all your work documenting the same methods I object to on pages I'd never seen. (That had to be time-consuming to write up.) It is (somewhat) comforting to know that I am not being singled out in being accused of "incoherent rambling" for pointing out the problems. I'd logged out in disgust last night thinking to myself that I might well not log back in after the drive-by rhetoric that got directed my way. All this, because I dug into the text being complained about in an RfC on a page I've been watching for years. In more light-hearted news, I peeked at the next signpost earlier in the day, and your contribs there made me chuckle. I look forward to reading the final version... we need more of that sort of thing! Thanks, again, Levivich. SashiRolls t · c 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm so over this. I shouldn't have even responded. Going back into my little corner of Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That's my fault. I should have let sleeping dogs lie. Levivich 20:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What has this discussion turned into? And, for the record, I feel like I'm still having to deal with this editor. This comment at AfD doesn't even address secondary coverage. I don't really feel comfortable posting in the ANI section anymore, unless other editors want me to address specific questions or concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, looks to me like it's turned into a pretty typical ANI thread, wouldn't you agree? :-) Graywalls hasn't yet seemed to catch on that every time they post in the thread, more editors show up to !support an iban. All the usual shovel and rope analogies seem to apply here. Sorry you're dealing with it, but I don't think there's much more that you (or I) could say in that thread that hasn't already been said. Levivich 20:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hah, actually, I don't watchlist any of the ANI pages regularly, so I don't know how discussions usually go. Seems... like I want to focus more on content, lol. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer: I just read the whole thread. With user's like Levivich in your corner, I would be optimistic about this process. You've clearly contributed a lot to this project, and I think the support !votes reflect that. (talk page stalker) Also, how do you write GA-class articles for local topics? I'm trying to do so at Middletown Area Transit right now.MJLTalk 21:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
MJL, Thanks for your kind words! Your question, however, can be answered much better by folks more familiar with transit articles. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion came to a close, and I feel a bit better. Thanks again for you contributions to the discussion. I am curious, am I allowed to go through and archive some of the talk page discussions I believe were caught up in this mess? I feel like many of them would be a waste of time for passersby to read as legitimate article concerns/discussions, but at the same time, I don't want to come across as trying to sweep stuff under the rug. Also willing to share some talk page links if you or another editor would prefer to make the call. Or, if you don't care, that's fine too. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Perhaps this is a better question for you? Really, I'm just wanting to clean up some talk pages, but I understand if waiting is appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You mean, article talk page discussions? I personally feel that, if there is some benefit to other editors to see those discussions (like, if it discusses a perennial subject), then they should be left up for a reasonable time before auto-archiving (like the usual 30 days). On the other hand, if the thread is just a disagreement between two editors that really has no value for others, then it should be archived, because leaving it out there can make a page seem less inviting than it otherwise would be. As to the question of whether it's appropriate for you to do it now in this situation, I have no idea, and would defer to Swarm. Levivich 22:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, Ok, thanks, but yes I am referring to the disagreements I believe are generally not constructive for editors to review about content of the articles themselves. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Within the reasonable context that you and Levivich are referring to, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to archive frivolous disputes with little value, if not advisable. The community held that you are the victim of harassment, thus implying that any "disputes" initiated by GW are generally illegitimate. So while ongoing disputes in which third parties are actively involved should not be forcibly shut down, two-way bickering short of that should probably be closed and/or archived. Firstly, we don't to leave them open to take on a life of their own, thus potentially extending your own victimization (even if unintentionally), and secondly, we do not want to continue disputes where one party has been banned from participating. I would say go for it. If you would rather I close them as an uninvolved admin, no problem, just let me know. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer:. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: Thank you very much. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Cody ReinbergEdit

Icewhiz was the instigator, but you supported the discussion. My point stands. See also this. GiantSnowman 07:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

Natureium (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


This is an adequate source for the "chairman" title for that photo. It is WP:BLPSELFPUB as its a letter signed by Magnuson herself.

Will you in good faith self-revert, and add this source to the caption? -- Netoholic @ 17:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, I think the whole photo should be removed from the article–it adds nothing to the article except as a WP:POINTy example of a woman being called "chairman". But if you want to put "chairman" back in the caption, cited to that source, I won't revert it. Levivich 17:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a small thingEdit

Hey Levivich, in reading your reply something bothered me. It's probably me but I figured I should tell you anyway. In your reply asked if we should remove votes you said, "Just the ones you disagree with, or...?". I understand you were just setting up a logical question but it came across to me as dismissive of the basic improper notification concerns. Anyway, I hope my reply makes it clear that I don't want to throw out replies but that improper notification always makes closing harder. Take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talkcontribs) 04:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: Thanks for the note, and sorry I was a bit hyperbolic there. I know you're acting in good faith and didn't intend to throw out anyone's vote. But I do very much agree with SV's comments that we want to avoid the suggestion that notifying GGTF or WPFem or WiR is problematic, whereas notifying other projects is not problematic. My concern is only that we don't inadvertently discount the opinions of those groups' members. Levivich 15:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: AEEdit

You should clearly specify what conduct was violated. In this particular case - WP:ASPERSIONS ("usual suspects"), WP:NOTSOAPBOX / WP:NOTFORUM (+ "chilling effect" vs. editors who may (or whose friends and family) may be in the targeted group, and discussing ideology instead of article contents). Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that really wouldn't be necessary given that it wasn't necessary in previous AE requests. Oh well, I updated my filing. Thanks for the heads up. Levivich 16:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Generally required in all AE filings - you need to dot every i (e.g. proving notification of DS, showing that the content is in scope of the DS area (e.g. ARBPIA), and specifying what policy (or ARBCOM provision - e.g. ARBPIA's 1RR or General Prohibition) that falls under AE's remit was violated). Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration CaseEdit

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of InvisiblePeople.tvEdit

  Hello! Your submission of at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!Edit

  7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 11:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], delicious! Thank you!! Levivich 21:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome. Pings don't work for me. But [[User:7&6=thirteen]] does. Bon appetit! 7&6=thirteen () 22:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) 7&6=thirteen, are you sure about that? –MJLTalk 03:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected. What you did worked. 7&6=thirteen () 12:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
*golfclap* Levivich 14:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
In all fairness, Abecedare deserves the credit for taking the time to tell me about it. –MJLTalk 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!Edit

Good job with those AfDs. Don't let someone mentioning an AfD topic ban scare you, you are doing good job. And if ever there is a discussion about such a ban, I specifically request that you notify me of it so I can comment there. TIA.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus, that means a lot! Don't worry, though, that comment just made me chuckle. Levivich 00:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A goat for your goat!Edit

May you never lack for cheese, Levivich! 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Sashi! I'll need it to go with all my wine-ing :-) Levivich 00:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALL archivingEdit

Thanks for helping out with this - I've been doing it pretty much singlehanded for some time now! Just so you know, when an AFD has been bundled, I usually list each separate article in the archive, as it makes it easier to see whether or not one gets re-created etc... GiantSnowman 14:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem GS and thanks for letting me know; I'll keep that in mind next time. Levivich 00:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for InvisiblePeople.tvEdit

 On 5 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, which has produced interviews with hundreds of homeless people in over 100 cities, was founded by formerly-homeless television executive Mark Horvath? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how,, and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit


I wanted to thank you for you support during my Arbcom. I have been shocked and hurt by the framing of the debate, the indolence of most of the Arbitrators in the face of the reprehensible behaviour of some of my accusers, while they scrutinised me with fierceness and hostility. In this environment, your remarks helped me to resist gaslighting and retain perspectives.

We have a shameful gender and race gap on Wikipedia, I do not know what should be done to close it but this was not it.

Than you again and good continuation! Rama (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Rama, you're welcome and I'm sorry it all unfolded the way it did. I hope it doesn't stop you from volunteering here altogether. 15-year editors are a finite and dwindling but valuable resource, especially for noobs like me. I'm also not sure what should be done, but I think the answer is massive recruitment–convincing thousands of people to donate several hours every week. I think a "bigger tent" is the only thing that will lead to a more complete and better balanced encyclopedia. And I think the only way to achieve that level of recruitment is to make Wikipedia a safe and inviting place where editing makes people happy rather than angry. You know better than I how far we are from that goal and how much time and effort it's going to take to make it a reality, so we'll need all the help we can get. Levivich 02:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitrationEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the grunt work of opening the case, Brad. Levivich 05:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Written humorEdit

First, I’m no one. Second, I have a strange hobby of reading talk pages of controversial topics as well as wiki pages regarding some of the internals of wiki. I don’t usually comment, but something u said prompted me to write. If u wish to respond my email is noted below.

You said,

“There's a difference, though, between appropriate and inappropriate humor–between laughing at someone and laughing with them–and the "good" kind of humor can be very effective in diffusing a tense situation.”

I agree with u. However, none of the things you mentioned above are at all clear outside of face-to-face, or at least a verbal phone call. Our written language lacks the emotional content/nuance to consistently and reliably convey it. Which I believe was central to the whole thing u guys were talking about.


Shannon @ McCoven. Com (remove spaces) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Shannon. I agree with "consistently and reliably"–written humor, well done, is rare. (Re: this discussion at WT:AN) Levivich 05:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks Path slopu! Levivich 20:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Update about a script you useEdit

Hi Levivich. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I wanted to send you a warning about a change I am making to a script, User:DannyS712/DiscussionCloser, that you currently import. If you are an administrator, feel free to ignore this message. For non-administrators, you should be advised that I am removing the script's automatic addition of {{nac}} to your closes. If you have relied on this to mark such closes for you, please remember to add {{nac}} yourself. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 01:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

A brownie for you!Edit

  I truly appreciate you signing my foolhardy attempt to cut through the noise. :D

I probably am going to be staying out of the rest of the drama for now, though. However, your voice is surprisingly lacking there. –MJLTalk 01:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MJL. I have less free time for WP these days, and it's all taken up just trying to keep up with all the recent events. I'm not sure what to think but I'll be interested to see what happens at the board meeting Friday. Levivich 06:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] Ah, dang that's unfortunate. Well, idk if you have the ability to use discord, but you're certainly free to join us over at WP:Discord for chats and stuff. You as well Danny!MJLTalk 06:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Sorry, but I don't use discord --DannyS712 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Well it was worth a shot there. both of you are so mysterious.MJLTalk 06:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
LOL I love the floating text. I don't use discord either but I appreciate the invite. If anything, recent events have reinforced my belief in keeping all communications on-wiki. Levivich 06:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!Edit

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJLTalk 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for seeing this through! Levivich 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


see this thread. Regards, WBGconverse 05:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

When I first saw "respect Levivich's views (and often agree with him)" and "I am willing to hear Levivich's opinion", I thought: whoever compromised WBG's account is doing a terrible job of impersonation. That case request was declined, closed, and hatted before I could finish typing out my response, but this is as far as I got: WBG's harassment of me has mercifully ceased and I have somehow found the strength to soldier on. The nightmares come less frequently now and my therapist says I may be released from the isolation ward in due time. It's probably a good thing I didn't finish my post because some may not have appreciated the humor in a harassment joke. For the record, no, I didn't feel harassed by the comment, but I think Fram restoring it with that edit summary was a rather poor choice, and I stand by my super-clever and humble response. Levivich 20:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!Edit

  Thank you Levivich for the explanation of outing on my talk page. Your explanation greatly helped me understand my mistake. You identified quite accurately where the source of my misunderstanding was, and took steps to correct it. If others had also brought your attitude to the situation, perhaps it would not have escalated to so much drama. starship.paint (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Levivich's temperament is half the reason why he is so loved on this platform tbh. (talk page stalker)MJLTalk 04:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: - from my limited interactions, I've seen more negative responses than positive, though. starship.paint (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: undeniably true, but I have never been able to fashion a guess as to why. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 05:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Thank you for the strawberries! I'm glad I could help. I fully support your efforts to clarify the PAGs so other editors aren't as confused by this issue as you and I were. Looking forward to your return from wikibreak! Levivich 01:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: ... temperament is half the reason why he is so loved ... yeah, and the other half is my rugged good looks   Levivich 01:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] Yeah, This is true.
Levivich's rugged good looksMJLTalk
MJLTalk 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


Let's say a certain user recently applied to work for WMF, but they were unsure as to whether they would get lost within a sea of candidates. Would it be possible for the community to write a letter of recommendation? It's like 4:36 AM here, so let there be no bad ideas!MJLTalk 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I think it would depend on what the job was. If the job was "community liaison", a community endorsement might help a candidate stand out. But if it's "procurement specialist", then, meh, who cares what "a bunch of random people on the internet" think? :-) I think the best references/recommendations come from people who know both the job/role/department/company and the candidate well, and can say with some authority, "this is a good match". For example, no one at the WMF would care about my recommendation, but they might care about the recommendation of a veteran editor who has worked with the WMF before. Hope that helps, and GL if you're applying! Levivich 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no visual editor on mobile?! I suppose I could always ask Blueraspberry or someone to review my contributions, but that'd seem like such a time sink for them. You've given me plenty to ponder.. hmmmm... –MJLTalk 21:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you askedEdit

Because some people think that there are things that matter here, namely our articles, and things that dont, such as this completely unfounded belief that the toxicity of the editors here is what is keeping droves of talented writers and researchers away. Because 1 person who is willing to a. research and b. create things that actually resemble encyclopedia articles (sometimes going well beyond that), is worth more than 100 hall monitors crying out "he made somebody feel bad". Some of us care about the encyclopedia and not the social media site that some people seem intent on making this place. nableezy - 07:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I think you misunderstand Levivich. He isn't saying we need more so-called hall monitors, he's asking why is it that bad behavior considered okay even if it could drive people away from the project? You're assuming the people being driven away had nothing to contribute, but there is no knowing what could have been were we to have had better conduct policies enforced sooner. (talk page stalker)MJLTalk 18:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I did not. I am not assuming anything, you are. You are assuming that some mythical creature would just love to spend their time writing here but they dont only because of some bad person saying mean things to them. I assume nothing here, I have no idea who may have decided to not edit here or why. I have little respect for the idea that the toxicity here is the cause, as being a grown up I dont really pay much attention to toxicity on the freaking internet. Type User:Nableezy into the search bar at Special:Contributions. See what usernames pop up. See edits on my talk page spanning years of people calling me all sorts of things, terrorist or whatever. You know what I did? Laugh. nableezy - 18:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Well... okay then. I'm clearly not going to convince you of anything, so I'll take my leave peacefully. –MJLTalk 19:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: If I saw someone call you a terrorist, I would speak out against it loudly–I'm sorry you've had to put up with such crap. I don't really believe that you believe that just because you haven't quit over such treatment, that means there are no other talented researchers and writers in the world who would quit over such treatment. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of stuff, and I believe you agree with that. This isn't about making Wikipedia like social media. Actually, quite the opposite. Social media is a zoo. This is about making Wikipedia more like a university. Or the editorial board of an encyclopedia. Others have said it much better than I can:

  • Arbcom: The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.
  • The Fourth Pillar: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree ... don't engage in personal attacks ... Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly ...
  • Jimbo: We have a problem, widely perceived, that some types of longterm incivility aren't being resolved appropriately. We have a very strong view, widely held, that the WMF swooping in to smite people without possibility of appeal and so on, isn't the solution. So we have to roll up our sleeves and get to work: we believe in community, we know we have great people here, we know we have a nearly universal desire to improve the environment, and we have a nearly universal desire to solve it in the community. That's something I'm optimistic about, despite all the noise! (emphasis mine)

My sleeves are rolled up. We're going to lick this problem. We're going to make it so that Wikipedia is a place where people can't wait to log on and collaborate with others on building an encyclopedia, instead of getting stressed out about it. We're going to double the number of highly active editors from 3,500 to 7,000. We're going to make this the collegial environment we all want it to be, and we're going to do it together. The first step is to avoid being uncivil ourselves. The second step is to not tolerate incivility from others. I hope you join in the effort. Levivich 01:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And I would tell you to stop speaking, that I do not need anybody to take offense on my behalf, and that I am a big boy and that I can handle myself. That I understand that people get emotional and that they might feel the need to lash out, and that so long as they remain written screeds by faceless people on the internet that it quite literally does not matter. I wish you good fortune in the wars to come, and Ill try to not say I told you so when your mission to change the world into a decent and respectful place doesnt go as planned. Assuming of course I dont get banned for incivility before then. nableezy - 06:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
If I saw someone calling you a terrorist, I wouldn't take offense on your behalf, I would take offense on my behalf. Tolerable for those with thick skin is not the standard of civility that we should aspire to; welcoming is the standard that we should aspire to. A not-so-hypothetical example: two editors are arguing with each other, one of them suggests Palestinians don't love their children, and the other suggests certain Israelis are legitimate targets for violence. Even if neither of the two are bothered by each other, everyone else can read it, too, and it creates an off-putting, non-collegial, unwelcoming editing environment. I agree with you that Wikipedia isn't and shouldn't be a social media site, nor a chatroom; individual opinions about what is and isn't acceptable aren't as important as the goal of the project itself: an encyclopedia. The real world is full of suffering and misery and that won't change; in order to build an encyclopedia, which must be done collaboratively, we need to get people to escape the real world by volunteering their time here. To do that, we need to make it enjoyable to work with other editors; not just tolerable, but enjoyable. And that's what I'm asking you to help with: make Wikipedia a more enjoyable place to work. Don't tolerate rudeness; spread love and good cheer :-) Levivich 19:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You realize that saying something like Palestinians do not love their children or Israeli settlers are legitimate targets is not in anyway uncivil right? That people can express abhorrent, to you, to me, to whoever, opinions and be nominally civil, ie polite. Those things shouldnt be said because they have no place in a discussion about article content, which is what is the only discussion that should be had on an article talk page. WP:SOAP redirects to something other than WP:CIV, because that is an entirely different problem, and one I would agree with efforts to address. But I find such things as, as a not-so-hypothetical example, arguing that Israel's GDP compared to Syria's means the Israeli claim to the Golan should be given three times as much weight as the Syrian one to be much more insidious to the goal of collaboratively building an encyclopedia than, for example, a response of what the fuck are you babbling about to such an argument. Because one of those things, while nominally polite, is insulting to ones intelligence and is actively intended to skew our articles (again, those being the things that matter here). One is impolite, sure, but done so in the best interests of the encyclopedia. When people deal with bullshit over and over they will sometimes respond harshly. The solution has always been in dealing with the bullshit, not the response. nableezy - 05:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I think saying [group of people] don't love their children or are OK to kill is uncivil, uncivilized, impolite, and indefensible. Same for what the fuck are you babbling on about, fuck off, etc., for which there are perfectly adequate collegial replacements (like I don't understand what you're saying or don't talk to me again). I don't think it matters what "the other editor" said that prompted such statements, because while there may be justifications for saying some of those things in a live, real-time conversation (when we blurt things out without thinking), I cannot imagine a justification for writing those things on a public Wikipedia talk page. "I disagree with the other editor in a content dispute" is certainly no justification, nor are "the other editor insulted my intelligence", "the other editor is making the encyclopedia worse", or "the other editor is wrong". Levivich 19:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Soccer biosEdit

Although I will probably not involve myself directly, I wanted to express appreciation for your attempts to bring some sanity to the soccer biography situation. Hopefully, there will be some movement in the long-term toward a standard that more realistically reflects the possibility of writing a biography. (Maybe Seraphimblade's comment here suggests an eventual path forward.) All the best, JBL (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW it is amazing that an administrator(!!) thinks that this could be appropriate, let alone the large number of subsequent personal attacks. Yuck. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing, JBL, and for saying something, on both accounts. I think the view Seraphimblade outlined in that comment is spot on in terms of how things should be, but I have no idea how exactly we get from here to there. FWIW I've noticed a decrease in "keep per NFOOTY" !votes over the last few months, and that gives me hope. Levivich 05:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky KambuayaEdit

I have added some sources to the table and changed the SIGCOV part a bit. Please feel free to add a row for the first source SF mentioned. I am not going to look at it because my browser strongly advises against it. --MrClog (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MrClog–I updated the table and my comment there. Strangely, I didn't get the security warning the first time I went to that website, then on a later visit I did get the warning, and now just recently, no warning again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 20:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello. I'd say here is a more appropriate place to discuss things that aren't to do with any certain ongoing AfD. I'll keep it well mannered, I'm sure you will too.

I'd just like to say I wasn't saying your motives are negative per se, but rather they can be received as negative. It doesn't exactly look well intentioned when you look at your NFOOTY history.

  • You started on the same day that the, admittedly controversial, Clarice Phelps AfD began, which you were against.
  • You had no edits to do with NFOOTY prior to that day, and the majority since have been to delete articles.
  • You pick and choose which consensus you follow: A - Current footballers in FPL leagues = keep / B - Long gone/retired players with few FPL appearances = delete. You only follow one of those, which doesn't look good. As you mention, consensus can indeed change - but at an AfD?

If you notice, I've only taken issue with your NFOOTY-related edits recently. Why? Because I felt your intentions were actually positive, but as the months have gone on with your consensus picking and given how you started, it does come across very pointy; whether that's the case or not. I'd recommend helping NFOOTY in other ways, alongside AfDs. E.g. Improve articles, create articles, update transfers, update statistics - something that isn't simply deletion-related.

Lastly, 'hate' wasn't the correct choice of word - my bad. What I meant by that was you do get more aggro from editors (in general, since you started) than others who nominate NFOOTY articles for AfD. I can't find it, but I remember seeing you acknowledge somewhere that editors get frustrated in regards to how many articles you nominate for AfD at any one time. R96Skinner (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Skinner, thanks for your message! It's give me much to think about; I'll ping you when I post a reply later. Cheers, Levivich 20:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @R96Skinner: Well, you prompted me to do a little self-audit and write a book explaining my NFOOTY AfD participation. There was that one day in April when I nom'd 10 articles, which was not a good idea, but then I nom'd 7 in May, 1 in June, and 3 so far in July. I've made 37 NFOOTY noms in all [18], of which 3 resulted in keep consensus [19] [20] [21], 1 I withdrew [22], 2 were no consensus [23] [24], and the remaining 31 are now deleted (some after a re-nom). My overall AfD !voting stat is 86% [25] which I think is surprisingly high considering how often I !vote "delete, fails GNG" when many others !vote "keep, meets NFOOTY". WP:POINTY is entitled "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point", and successfully nominating articles for deletion and !voting in AfDs isn't WP:Disruptive editing.
      I learned about the issues with NFOOTY months before I learned about Clarice Phelps, from discussions like these: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. It's true that the Clarice Phelps AfD prompted me to make my first NFOOTY nom, of Cody Claver. This is what Cody Claver looked like when I nom'd it: [31]. It was a BLP sourced entirely to a primary source, about a footballer who played two pro games, in a second-tier league, and since then has been playing in a third-tier semi-professional league. There is no significant coverage of him and only a handful of mentions in game reports. There is no rational world in which Cody Claver is in the encyclopedia but Clarice Phelps isn't. It's an unjustifiable result, and a clear sign of inclusion guidelines (WP:N) that are incorrectly calibrated.
      Which brings me to picking and choosing consensus. The relevant consensus is documented at WP:GNG and WP:ATH (and at the FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ), and in the five pillars, and policies like WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NOT, all of which are summed up in one of my favorite essays: WP:42. Every article needs reliable secondary sourcing. Nobody is writing about Cody Claver–and for this reason, neither should we. So "!keep, passes NFOOTY" might be a common AfD !vote, but it's not consensus. It's local consensus, not global consensus. My interest doesn't lie in football so much as in having an accurate encyclopedia, and for that, we need a workable article-to-editor ratio, and for that, we need to make sure we're not filling up the encyclopedia with non-notable BLPs, which means deleting articles for which we don't have adequate sourcing–especially BLPs, where accuracy is paramount. If I spent 8 hours a day going through footy BLPs to ensure accuracy, I would die before I got through all 140,000. We just don't have enough people to maintain that many articles. The thing we can do that will have the most positive impact is to stop the problem from getting worse, i.e., "when in a hole, stop digging." So I'm trying to reform NFOOTY so we stop digging, for reasons I've written about here and here. Once that happens, I will move on to another SNG. Levivich 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for responding, I appreciate it! If you feel NFOOTY needs reforming then that is absolutely fine, but I just don't think individual AfDs are the correct place to try to change consensus; even if it is local, it's still consensus. So attempting to ignore/change a consensus at an AfD feels inappropriate and disruptive, there's more suitable places to go for changing it. That's not to say stop AfDing, of course. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Kambuaya shouldn't be a thing, based on how our consensus currently is, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Cálix and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keigo Moriyasu (2nd nomination) were, pretty much, fair nominations in the grand scheme of things; though some subsequent arguments were a tad iffy.
        As for Claver v. Phelps, it kinda just shows how the world is. Not necessarily for this example, but footballers generally get held higher than people from other fields - despite obvious reasons why some shouldn't. Discovering a new element is, I'd say, more important to this world than playing football, but the latter will always be more popular and that's what Wikipedia shows. Admittedly that's a simplistic way of looking at it, as Phelps should have an article, but still. R96Skinner (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • FWIW my idea of a deletion decision tree for any BLP is:
          1. No sources → WP:BLPPROD
          2. At least one source, but doesn't support WP:GNG or any WP:SNGWP:CSD#A7
          3. At least one source supporting WP:SNG, but less than two WP:GNG sources → WP:AfD
            1. If two WP:GNG sources are produced in the AfD → keep
              1. Both sources must be reliable (e.g., not self-published)
              2. Both sources must be in-depth (IMO 500+ words, but at least 200 words, about the article subject)
              3. Both sources must be independent of the subject (e.g., not purely an interview or press release), and of each other
              4. Both sources must be secondary (e.g., not a statistics website or game report)
            2. If only one WP:GNG source is produced and there's reason to believe more GNG sources may be found or written in the next six months (e.g., a football player actively playing in WP:NFOOTY-qualifying games) → draftify
            3. Otherwise, redirect if appropriate, or delete Levivich 19:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Floque's RfAEdit

Hi. I just found out you struck your support. But I couldn't find you in oppose or neutral group either. Just wanted to make sure if I missed it, or if you are sitting it out. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi kiran, no you didn't miss it, I struck my support but haven't !voted anywhere else yet. I was unsure yesterday, so I went diff diving, and after doing that, reading the other !votes and talk page discussion, and seeing a lack of further comment from Floq, I am now sadly drafting my oppose !vote. Levivich 21:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Levivich/Archive 2".