User talk:Levivich

Award

Ruptured disc from years of lifting. The guy kept saying, "It's not heavy, it's my brother

.

Rupture relieved by Rorick air cushion truss - efficient, comfortable, and curative

The Truss of Power

A Heavy Lifting Aid for you! Simon Adler (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Simon! Guaranteed for two and one-half years? I'm not sure if that's enough time to resolve this content dispute! :-D Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Allow me a LOL for that. Simon Adler (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe you should consult Cluthe's Advice to the Ruptured. (Page 20 is especially arresting.) EEng 00:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• You should get a medal for this, seriously. That table! —valereee (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Background reading

Thanks for taking on the Syrian Kurdistan case! For background, [1] if you can access this text, it's a pretty good summary of the recent academic authorities on Kurdistan-related topics; it condenses the available information very well. GPinkerton (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton Thanks for pointing me to that! I had seen it before. This passage:

Rojava Kurdistanê (where the sun sets) is western Kurdistan (northern Syria); Bakurê Kurdistanê is northern Kurdistan (southeast Turkey); Başûrê Kurdistanê (southern) Kurdistan is the Kurdistan Region of Iraq; and Rojhilatê Kurdistanê (where the sun rises) is eastern Kurdistan (the northwestern border region of Iran).

It seems to me many scholars say this now. But I cannot find an example of anyone saying this before the war? It seems to me we must tell the reader that "Syrian Kurdistan" = "Rojava Kurdistanê", but was that always the case, or just since the war? Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think I see what you mean - just the use in Kurdish itself? Is it crucial? GPinkerton (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the important part is explaining what "Rojava" is. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, at the moment it's a redirect, and not to Syrian Kurdistan. GPinkerton (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, discussions continue in similarly baffling circles ... GPinkerton (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra lede image

Hey Levivich, I hope this finds you well. I decided that it's about time to get back in the dirt and organize a second rfc after the... uh interesting results of the last one. Since you seemed particularly involved, do you think that this is a proper slate of candidates?

• 
  Current
• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3

Thanks! ~ HAL333 01:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: I just read that RFC again and yup, I think those three were the clear leaders. Thanks for taking this on! Also, I'm sorry about the dickish tone of my "post close comment". I was very irritated by that point on that page (we all were), but I shouldn't have taken it out on you. It was nice of you to let that slide :-) I think you did the right thing after all, for the reasons you explained at the time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I think "1" captures the essential Sinatra. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. We all get a little annoyed from time to time here. And yeah Deepfriedokra, I think Image 1 is the best option as well. So should I include all of these in the next rfc or just pitch image 1 against the current (Although Image 3 was pretty popular in the last rfc, I think that the fact that it is Sinatra in a film role should disqualify it. And although I really love Image 2 – Sinatra just looks really suave – the framing is off.)? ~ HAL333 15:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

IMO: current, goofy; 2, too hard to see; 3, disheveled; 1, The Boss at his best. Offer 'em all four. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll set it up. ~ HAL333 15:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents

Could I get some input at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#Question please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk)

 Done – Commented at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Question. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents on AN/I

By which I mean that I think those posts in the IH thread were the bomb. A laugh riot. They grabbed me by the funny bone -- in fact, you could say they took it as a hostage. jp×g 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, JPxG! I was getting worried about bombing there for a minute. I know ANI is like the world's toughest comedy club, but roman numeral jokes don't come around every day. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Just dropping by to say Kudos for this! Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography brought me to Talk:Frank_Sinatra#2nd_round_rfc_on_lede_image, the "second round"-part made me curious about the first round, and all the previous discussions ultimately led me to those prime examples of toxic silverback behaviour that so often drives off compentent but less bullyish users from our encyclopedia. Thank you for speaking up for the sake of a better environment! –Austronesier (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Austronesier. Round 2 is so calm compared to round 1... Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Page image close

Hello Dangit, did you mean to close Talk:Elliot_Page#Finding_a_New_Photo with the close of the main discussion? You wrote Thus, this close is without prejudice to further discussion/proposals/RFCs concerning the lead image, and another proposed lead image is being discussed in the next section, in the present tense so I wasn't sure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Nope, I didn't mean to close that section, and thanks for letting me know about it!  Fixed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Page image discussion close

I think this closure was not very appropriate. You acknowledge that these things are not a headcount, but then proceed to do exactly that, including phrases like "discount the votes on either side" (their were no votes, nor were there sides) and "with all votes being weighed." I think WP:VOTE gives some good reasons why this is not a helpful concept in discussions on wikipedia. The first point given I think has played out here pretty much beat-for-beat. It says "editors might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution." Indeed, the discussion had been moving towards exactly this - finding an image which takes account of editors' complaints. In fact one had already been found which addressed my complaints against the current image, and was proposed by an editor who had supported the current image. There was very clear possibility of the discussion reaching a compromise. This is the process of building consensus, and it's good, and I feel it's been trampled by a closure which simply disregards my complaints because I'm in a minority. RfCs are not votes, and this RfC generated the very real possibility of establishing consensus, but then was closed in a manner that meant it may as well have just been a vote all along. Awoma (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Awoma, see my comment above. The discussion Talk:Elliot Page#Finding a New Photo is actually still open. There is consensus that the 2015 image is preferable to the previous image, but no consensus yet on the newest proposal. We could ping the participants from the main discussion to see if there is still interest in another option. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the participants would be a good idea yes. While keeping part of the discussion open is good, we are in the weird situation where all the relevant arguments are found in the closed part of the discussion, and unable to be continued or engaged with as a result. I am disappointed because it really looked like a consensus agreement was possible, but the RfC was instead just treated as a vote. Awoma (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Awoma, thanks for reaching out. I'm a little confused by your messages, particularly the parts "very real possibility of establishing consensus" and "it really looked like a consensus agreement was possible". It wasn't a no-consensus close, but you seem to be talking about it as if it was a no-consensus close? Consensus was reached. Do you disagree there was consensus to replace the current image with the proposed one? (And if so, why?) (I'll note that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean unanimity.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think consensus was reached, in that the concerns of various editors such as myself weren't accounted for at all. Rather, we were judged a numeric minority, and our arguments dismissed on this basis. It is really disappointing because there was an obvious third option around which a consensus could indeed have been built, and I think probably would have been built. Awoma (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the third image was introduced later so the editors who !voted on the first two had not judged it against the third. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes definitely. It would be good to get more follow up input on the third image from editors who were opposed to the current one. Awoma (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Awoma: What concerns did you and other editors have that weren't accounted for at all? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The ones in the RfC. For instance, there was objection to the quality of the current image due to it having prominent red eye. This objection isn't there for the third image option. Awoma (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the quality objection, including the red eye, was accounted for by many editors. For example:

• "I had to look really hard to see the red-eye (to be honest, it still looks just like brown to me)"
• "I'd be *much*, much happier with a more recent (but lower-quality) photo than a decade-old (but higher-quality) picture."
• "I don't think the newer picture is that noticeably different in quality for most people's screen size and computer and mobile."
• "It's a little out of focus, and it looks like it comes from a random fan encounter in a bar or something, but it's not a total disaster."
• "...even more surprised to find arguments that the 2015 photo is lower quality. What? I genuinely cannot detect the focus and redeye problems that people mention."
• "Photo quality is important to the extent that the photo must clearly represent the subject. MOS:IMAGES defines "poor quality" as "dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on". This image is none of those things..."
• "The 2015 image quality is fine."
• "The photo quality is more than adequate for an infobox image."
• "It's good enough."
• "Use 2015 photo (or alt 2010 photo below), for reasons listed by others above."

Although it wasn't unanimous, there was broad agreement that the image quality of the proposed image was not too low.

WP:CLOSE says Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement ... The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus  ... Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. I didn't feel that there was any reason to discard the arguments of either those supporting the current (old) image, those supporting the proposed (new) image, or those supporting neither image. In the end, the editors participating agreed, by a wide margin, that the proposed image was better than the old one. There was no chance that further discussion would lead to consensus for the old image, and so no reason to keep a discussion about the old image open. That doesn't mean that editors can't keep discussing whether a better image than the proposed image can be found (and there's an ongoing discussion about a third image option), but as between the old and new images in that discussion, the discussion resulted in agreement that the new image was better. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with those comments. My issue is not with the contributions to the RfC, but with the closure, which treated it as a vote (literally counting up and allocating sides to each editor) when there was a very good chance that had discussion simply continued a consensus could have been reached. You say "there was no chance that further discussion would lead to consensus for the old image" but this is only part of the picture. Is there a chance that consensus would be reached for another image, such as Kolya's? Yes, absolutely. Awoma (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

...but the close doesn't end discussion about another image. It seems to me that you are under the impression that I closed a discussion about "what should the lead image be?" and as a result, there is to be no more discussion about what the lead image should be. That is not the case. I only closed a discussion about "should we have image A or image B?" in favor of image B. That doesn't foreclose any discussions about an image C, such as Kolya's. Which is what Kolya said above.

If you object to the "image A or image B" discussion being closed in favor of image B, then you must think that either (1) it should be closed in favor of image A (impossible, you agree?), or (2) it should remain open so editors can continue to discuss image A or image B (pointless, since no one likes image A, it would be more useful to discuss image B and image C, instead of image A and image B... you agree?) I don't get the sense that you feel like it should have been either #1 (image A) or #2 (re-open to discuss image A), and thus that you're not really objecting to the result, just to discussion being closed... but the discussion is very much not closed. In fact, my close wouldn't even prevent someone from WP:BOLDly changing the new image (B) to yet another image (C) (as long as it wasn't the previous image, A).

The consensus was that image B was better than image A, but still not ideal, and that we should continue looking for a better image C, and I think that's what my closing statement said: replace A with B for now and continue talking about C.

Does this address your concerns? Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really. I object to the RfC being closed with any result, and yes I do also think the result you chose is wrong. I think doing a headcount and closing the discussion has hampered the possibility of reaching a consensus. I think this consensus was absolutely achievable, and I don't think would have been the outcome you chose - I think consensus would have likely been reached in support of Kolya's image, or possibly a more recent image of equal quality (thus addressing concerns from some over the age of the image). I think when an RfC is begun as a discussion and comparison between two options, it is absolutely valid for editors to eventually compromise on a third, distinct option. Your closure of the RfC prevents this, and it is unclear to me what should happen subsequently. Do we open another RfC, inviting all the participants in the last one back, and directing any interested editors to read the old RfC to understand the arguments in play? This would be bizarre, but with the RfC closed that's the only way I can see of getting a suitably wide degree of continued engagement with the issue.

In addition to the above, you seem to be implying that the RfC was only a "this or that" choice. Even if this was the case, I still think the closure was wrong. But I think this interpretation of the RfC is one you have wrongly put on it. The post opening the RfC even specifically asks "Do we have any better options available" and many comments underneath discuss attempts to find such an image. Awoma (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't an RFC. What happens next is either bold editing or continued discussion on the talk page or a new formal proposal on the talk page or a full-blown RFC, whichever editors think is best. I still don't understand why you think my closure prevents compromise on a third, distinct option, particularly where my closing statement expressly states the opposite, and I've tried to explain this above. Nevertheless, if you think the close should be reversed, you can talk to any administrator, or post a close review at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"I still don't understand why you think my closure prevents compromise on a third, distinct option." You closed a discussion, which had in part the stated intention of finding such an option. Closing a discussion on a topic is obviously going to hamper discussion of that topic. I don't think I'm being at all unclear - can you really not see how closing a discussion stops people discussing the thing being discussed? I feel like I'm being gaslit. Awoma (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The thing being discussed in the discussion I closed was this edit changing the lead image. Thirty editors discussed that edit, considered the objections to the edit, and came to agreement in support of that edit, so the edit was reinstated. That does not foreclose or hamper further discussion of a new lead image; the closing statement explicitly permits it and points to the ongoing discussion about a third image. If it's the {{atop}} template that concerns you (which visually "closes" the first thread on the talk page), I don't mind if you remove the template, just as long as you don't restore the old lead image on the article. (If you do remove the atop template, please leave a note in the discussion explaining what you did and why.) However, if you want the old lead image put back in the article, you'll need to talk to an administrator or challenge the close at AN. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I would be happy with the atop template being removed. However, I'm unsure of how to do this without removing your comments which I think are important. I do not need the edit on the article reverted, but I want the discussion to continue, and editors to work towards an agreeable outcome. Thanks. Awoma (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Awoma:  Done Let me know if what I did just now on the article talk page works. Thanks, Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A message to no one about WP:PROMO

Wikipedia is lauded for being free of advertising, and many editors spend much time fighting against WP:PROMO. Yet today the main page will be showing millions of people a giant advertisement for Taylor Swift. Two months ago there was another main page advertisement for Taylor Swift. Another last year. She's been on the main page more than twenty times. In a few weeks, there'll be one for Meghan Trainor (only seven times on the main page). Nobody seems to mind this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how Featured articles which have been vetted by many experienced editors can be considered giant advertisements. Personally, I am far more concerned with articles about up-and-coming entertainers than those about genuine international stars. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Giant advertisement" because it's large and prominent (about 20% of the screen), displaying Taylor Swift's name and photograph, and the name of one of her products, and a paragraph describing the product and how popular it was. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That is an entirely appropriate size and prominence for a Featured article. If you believe that the specific article(s) in question do not deserve Featured article status, then I assume you know where to challenge that status. Otherwise, what is the point? I am not a big fan of either performer, but recognize and appreciate their success. I was and remain a big Beatles fan since age 12, going back 56 years. I remember how delighted I was to read George Harrison when it was TFA. I guess you would have resented that, since it may have incidentally brought a dollar or two to the Estate of George Harrison. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it`

You really can't understand my concern about Wikipedia repeatedly putting Taylor Swift songs on TFA? Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I found it hard to navigate the nomination pages, but I don't see that the number of times a subject has been featured is taken into consideration. WP:FACRITERIA is just about the quality of the article. Even if PROMO was not a concern, we wouldn't want to have articles of different species of garden snails every six months. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not? We had a DYK about a stream or creek in Pennsylvania every week for years [2]. Wildly popular. It was estimated that 15% of WMF donations during that period were directly attributable to the series. There's talk of a Pultizer. Wikipedia at its best. EEng 14:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder to what extent topic frequency is taken into account at TFA. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe instead of articles about companies like Taylor Swift we can have articles about workers like those in Alabama[3] who are petitioning to unionize with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, all you have to do is take the article to FA. No biggie. Or you can take it to GA first and go for DYK instead of TFA. —valereee (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee, I just mean that for every company we profile we could also discuss its workers or the community it effects, including its overseas suppliers, etc. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I was just making a lame joke; FA is not "no biggie". —valereee (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a difficult way to look at it. It’s likely *someone* benefits commercially from most listings on the main page, if the criteria for this is just the fact that something commercially related was listed. SpaceX’s long advertisement is also promo in that sense, and I’d guess (though I haven’t checked the numbers) it had longer periods of visibility than Taylor Swift. We would greatly be narrowing our pool of articles to eliminate all of these. I think the key is that these things are already so well known that a day on the main page, or more, doesn’t really change much. It would be quite different if we were featuring an “upcoming rapper” for 12 days on the MP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been concerned about this at DYK, too. We've discussed it multiple times, generally over currently-available commercial products. The hooks can be pretty iffy -- DYK that the whatevernewphone is the thinnest smartphone brandname has ever produced? I get that some editors are most interested in creating articles about their favorite singer or about new technology, and that banning those from the MP seems unfair to those editors. I suggested something along the lines of disallowing articles about currently-available products until they'd been out at least six months, but it didn't go anywhere. —valereee (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I've previously 1AM railed against a few DYK noms as being overly promotional. Ironically, I think you promoted one of them. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm pretty sure I've promoted multiple. I think I've only rejected one, and that was for a hook that wasn't interesting and for which there was really nothing interesting in the article to build a better hook from. I had one nominator arguing that the hook saying something about a company's newest device being the lowest priced of the company's current production models was interesting because "technology always gets more expensive over time." Um... —valereee (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Heh... sounds like someone who had heard of Moore's second law but perhaps not entirely understood it. "A little knowledge..." Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

At least FA and DYK ads are limited-time offers, relative to the deceptive marketing tactics brought to us by ITN. Apparently better to sell the more recognizable "Hyundai" down the pipe as the best manufacturer in the world, giving consumer-grade Hyundai Motor Company buyers a false sense that they may one day emulate and/or achieve what loftiness Hyundai Motorsport customers and Hyundai Motor Group partners routinely do. Wake up, Hyundai Starex owners, Taylor Swift is never going to "hop into" or "get behind" a stagnant rusty deathtrap like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Quoth Sponsor (commercial)#Theories:

A range of psychological and communications theories have been used to explain how commercial sponsorship works to impact consumer audiences. Most use the notion that a brand (sponsor) and event (sponsoree) become linked in memory through the sponsorship and as a result, thinking of the brand can trigger event-linked associations ... One of the most pervasive findings in sponsorship is that the best effects are achieved where there is a logical match between the sponsor and sponsoree, such as a sports brand sponsoring a sports event.

...or a car company sponsoring a race. We're just like the rest of the media when we announce on our front page that Car Company won Race, giving that Car Company free advertising and supporting its marketing plan. We could do just as well to simply have a link to 2020 World Rally Championship, we don't need to say who won on our front page, and that would eliminate the advertising (sort of; the World Rally is, itself, a business, but it would reduce the advertising). And by the way, it's not even breaking 10k views/day so basically nobody cares about this race, it's not one of our most-sought-after articles, not one that readers think is most important (cf WP:TOP25), so why are we advertising a car company on our front page for several days now? That very valuable screen real estate on a top-10 website could go to something that is of much more interest to our readers, and without the free advertising. Over at WT:ITN they're trying to push COVID back in its box... because we want to make sure there's room for Hyundai!^{[just kidding]} Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to the regular industrious people yearning to breathe under Hyundai's corporate babbletower, they did build some pretty fast and reliable cars for the Big Game. Not like when Flavoured Corn Product gives Fat-Bottomed Girl $145,875 to show The Rockin' World her hot new Instattoo. They paid their dues on time. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lev, it's clickbait - clicks = more views, higher rankings in Google, more donations - all tax free. And so it is with NPOs, the slaves volunteers are not paid - they barely get a pat on the head, some get blocked or t-banned...but it's for the greater good. 😊 Atsme 💬 📧 19:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I'll admit I hadn't considered that it goes both ways. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Everyone loves taytay. She's so pretty and her new single is, like, awesome! How dare you besmirch the good name of Flavoured Corn Product -- it's the GOAT and we have no choice but to stan. jp×g 13:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to retain your services

I hear you are acting as a wikilawyer and I need some assistance. Some terrible people on commons have decided that the costco bears need to be deleted. Look at them and how much joy and frivolity they bring to the wiki. Obviously this is a dire matter. Please assist. Natureium (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Natureium: Sorry, I can't bear practicing wikilaw before the Common courts, so it won't be me making the argument there that the stuffed animal in question is (a) very cute and cuddly, (b) a "circles bear" design that is based on overlapping concentric circles, a basic geometric arrangement that cannot meet the threshold of originality, and (c) a simplified copy of the original Teddy bear that was invented almost 120 years ago and is out of copyright. Cf. unique teddy bear designs like Smokey, Pooh, and Paddington. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't turn into a massive dispute. If any of your talk page stalkers are interested, commons encourages canvassing. Natureium (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Worst case scenario, re-upload them locally. FFD FTW! Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

How's your Seuss project coming?

Dr. Zeus

Dr. Zuse

Peg a Suess at the Muses, or you could just say Horst Zuse and be done with it.

Next month would be the perfect time to showcase your WP:PAGs a la Seuss.

Just to give you a push (and show a bit of impatience), I tried my own hand at it, re WP:NPA

Guff, guff, guff

Don't give me no guff!

Said McDuff in a huff.

Enough is enough!

What you wrote about Mama

Was really quite rough

And about Papa – not nice, very tough.

And the line about me in the buff,

Just like the beans, up your nose you should stuff.

Enough is enough!

Don't be so tough!

Don't play so rough!

Don't put old McDuff in a huff!

Enough is enough!

Do you think we could find an illustrator?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: LOL! Yeah, I think there are one or two good illustrators who watch this page... Next month works. What's the submission deadline? Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Publication noonish NYTime Sunday January 31. But please submit the previous Thursday (Jan 28th) so that I can thoroughly check it and take all the dirty bits out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure four days will be enough time? :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's too late to do very much for ol' Zeus, but could still paint a Z on a unibrowed moose! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Formatting ideas at WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-04-30/Humour and WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-08-05/Humour. EEng 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

hat to reduce current page length by ~25%

Yeah, but did you know you can save 15% by switching to GEICO? You're welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you sure that's wise? I bought a shirt that was 15% off. The left sleeve was missing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Meh. Remove the right sleeve and fashion it into a mask. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what the caveman did when I gave it to him. Little did I know that the very next day, he would use that very same mask while doing some fine dining on the patio of a 4-star restaurant. Of course, like a gentleman he took it off once the food arrived. Have you ever seen a caveman in a tuxedo and a mask made from the sleeve of a defective tshirt? Not bad. Not GQ, but not bad. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Puttin' On the Ritz --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Probably dumb, but what does this 30/500 mean? -- Valjean (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Valjean: Editor must have been on Wikipedia 30 days and have 500 edits. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah! That would make sense on every controversial article and all AP2 articles. -- Valjean (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: WP:30/500 aka ECP. It's already in effect throughout PIA thanks to WP:ARBPIA4 and seems to do some good there. I'm pretty surprised that there isn't more of an appetite for it; I agree it would be very helpful in AP2, or at least current-events AP2 articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Tut, tut. Don't you know? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that any crank with an agenda can edit.😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And they do! Atsme 💬 📧 19:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Feedback

Regarding your feedback, I'm not sure what to take away from "poorly handled all around", as that just alludes to an issue without actually describing it. I like to think I'm capable of a decent amount of self-reflection, but looking at that report I really don't see bothsidesism as warranted—it was a simple bad report, and the fact that the filer withdrew it as soon as the technical fix was implemented just reinforces that it was never about any behavioral issue. The filer seems to be taking away that they were still justified in making the report, and I would hope that others would be able to set them straight about the proper use of the noticeboard a little more strongly than you did in your comment. Frivolous ANI reports are detrimental to editor retention as they make Wikipedia a more stressful place to edit, and we ought to discourage them by making it clear to those who file them that they should not have done so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This prize is for Levivich, for perhaps the best edit summary ever (and surely the one I most completely agree with) "server kittens insert typos after you press "publish", it's a well known fact." Is that a typo in her paws I wonder? 

HouseOfChange (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

An observer states: "Damn, all I ever get is a lousy Trout!" GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I came here to bestow a kitten for that reson! (This may be the first time I've used the phrase "bestow a kitten".) Anyway, I knew there had to be a reason my posts gain typos when I've published them. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(tpw link) Thanks everyone! And watch out for those mischievous little kittnes. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Darwinbish has taught your Virtual Wikikitten to bite you shrewdly on the ass. Hopefully that has made your day better. Kittens are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittens by giving someone else a bitey kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

darwin bish 22:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC).

You Asked for It

The Wikipedia Pissoff Award

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although every Wikipedia user is permitted to do as they wish for up to 24 hours, it appears that you have gone more than 24 hours without pissing anyone off. This violates our policy requiring that everyone piss off everyone else at intervals of not more than 24 hours. Please use User talk:Jimbo Wales to test any ideas that you have for pissing off Jimbo Wales.

Each month, one editor is awarded the Wikipedia Pissoff Award (shown at right) for having pissed off the largest number of other editors. Please nominate qualified editors here.

• Putting this template to good use. Atsme 💬 📧 22:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)