User talk:Levivich

Feel free to push my button: Help!

AN close review

You know, an attempt to undo the damage through a compromise edit is not generally regarded as a smoking gun of something or other on this site. But aside from the weakness of your attack on me personally, you should know that a close appeal is about --- the close and not about any of the cast of characters involved. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This AN is a new low for me. Seeing comments saying that editors with certain religious beliefs are not suitable to edit in certain topic areas gain traction instead of being immediately repudiated is disheartening. I would also like to see some justification by FormalDude for violating BRD to reinstate SPECIFICO’s bad edit - it appears to be a DS trap that I walked face first into. The close at ANEW also misrepresents the timing of this sordid ordeal but that mess needs to just pass into the archives. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was also thinking it was a new low, and it feels to me like the latest in a string of new lows. What's really mind boggling is that the article isn't even about religion. I'm pretty sure everyone involved in the laptop controversy is a Christian, so I just don't see how religious views could even hypothetically result in any relevant bias. It would kind of make sense if it was an RFC about school prayer or something like that, but this is just nuts. Levivich (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a funny point. The Biden family is notably Catholic, so perhaps Protestant editors should not edit there. Let's leave that topic to the Pastafarians. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, Pastafarians advocate for teaching their religion in schools--clearly, right-wing. Levivich (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: Almost no one disputes the authenticity of the laptop at this point. The RFC: sources are clear about the ownership of the laptop. The closer: those referring to RS have the stronger argument. AN: Wow look at this partisan, Christian, inexperienced closer. The closer: Let’s let the close review play out. The starter of the close review: You attacked me. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Jokes aside, I wrote up a more detailed review of the yes votes, which I ultimately decided not to post at AN. But I will post it here because there are basically only 3 yes votes that carry any weight.

1. Yes 1: Only uses a RS to say the initial claim was by a blind Trump supporter, and implies that since this is the only connection to Biden, it must not be real. Refers to no policy or RS regarding the wording.
   
2. Yes 2: (The OP here) says the initial reporting used was an undocumented allegation (which doesn't make sense since the initial allegation was the documentation), then attacks the RFC as premature and suggests the opener of the RFC made a mistake in starting it. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
3. Yes 3: Seems to say that the RS calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop" is simply journalistic laziness. Refers to a RS that calls describes it "Hunter Biden and his laptop" and later "allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden," but refers to no policy. This !vote refers to sources and is solid.
   
4. Yes 4: Says it's an allegation and it is still somewhat dicey. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
5. Yes 5: Simply refers to "comments above." Refers to no policy or RS.
   
6. Yes 6: Conflates the contents of the laptop with the ownership of the laptop. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
7. Yes 7: Refers to veracity of the laptop passing from a shopkeeper to Giuliani to the Trump admin. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
8. Yes 8: Refers to the sources listed, and that the majority are still not convinced it was Biden's. This !vote is solid on policy grounds, but miscounts the sources.
   
9. Yes 9: Similar to #4, says it remains an allegation. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
10. Yes 10: Says there is still much ambiguity, and to wait. Refers to no policy or RS.
    
11. Yes 11: Similar to #8, refers to the source list and says that since sources still use alleged so should we. This !vote is solid.
    

So of the 11 "yes" !votes, only 3 refer to sources, and none refer to any policy. Consequently, of the "no" !votes, 10 explicitly refer to the sources provided, and 2 more imply sources. 12 vs 3 is typically a no brainer. On this basis, the close is firmly on solid ground. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I dare say it doesn't look like there will be consensus to overturn (and I guess that's why the closer doesn't seem too worried). Levivich (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: we've reached a new new low, and it's only been two weeks since the last one. At this rate I'm bound to dramaquit before the end of the year. Levivich (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Finding data on users?

How did you find out how long a user has been here and how many edits they've made, if the user doesn't report it themselves on their userpage? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi PhotogenicScientist, I use a user script User:Enterprisey/userinfo that displays certain basic info about users at the top of their user page. There are other similar scripts listed at WP:USL. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Holy moly... almost got lost in a scripting rabbit hole there... that is a LOT of background that I'm going to decidedly ignore for the moment, to preserve my sanity

But I got that script working! Thanks for pointing that out. And to the users who wrote such great documentation for it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides that, you should be able to just hover over a username and it should tell you basic stuff. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

SJ, is that a default function or a script? I have so many scripts installed I don't remember anymore what's built in. Levivich (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have exactly one script installed now, and I can't see that, so I can confirm it's not a default function PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Idk if you've checked out Preferences/Gadgets, but there's a bunch of useful stuff there, too. I believe the "Navigation Popups" gadget (which I have turned on) is what gives you the nifty mouse-over previews. Between the gadgets and scripts (and also, Preferences/Beta features), it gets hard to keep track of what does what, but they do make the user interface easier to use. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Photo, if you want some script recommendations, take a look at my .js file: User:Levivich/common.js, those are the ones I use, they certainly make my wiki-life much easier. Levivich (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I don't have time right now to dig in, but I've saved that for future reference PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Just passing through after glancing at the transgender-related editing conflagration at ANI. I like and was drawn to your user name so was curious to see what you were like on your talk page. I had to read everything once I was here, and followed the advice you gave to Photo. Thanks so much! I like your Javascript scripts and have incorporated them for a more comfortable editing experience.--FeralOink (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad I could help! (Though they're not really my scripts; other editors wrote them, I just use them.) Levivich (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I just tried this and read "Levivich. A PM." Well, I guess you can't be any worse than this one or this one.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I always thought that was a typo for "Levivich. A PIA." Levivich (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Zadora's first film role was Girmar, a young Martian girl, in 1964's Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, widely regarded as one of the worst films ever made.

Joe jobs

@Joe Roe and JoePhin: not sure whose talk page to post this on so I'm posting it on my own. You're both using the signature of just "Joe" and it's confusing the hell out of me (I thought I was reading Joe Roe at Talk:Trans woman, when it was JoePhin). I don't mean to be mean, but neither of you is the only "Joe" or the primary Joe on Wikipedia. Please both change your signatures so that you're not just signing "Joe". Preferably, include your entire username in your signature. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries User Levivich, you can easily tell us apart by the fact that User Joe Roe signs his name with a dash (–), whereas I'm Druid Green! You can also hover your mouse over a name to check who's page it links to, like so: Joe. If you're reading this Joe Roe: hello from Joe to Joe! Joe (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC) (and yes, that is a Jojo reference!)

Yeah like I'm gonna remember which Joe uses a dash. The mouse over thing doesn't work on mobile. Please comply with our WP:SIG policy. Levivich (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I see the green in standard mobile view but not the app. But the app doesn't just rely on signatures to tell you someone's username, it says it at the top of every comment regardless of what someone signs with (if you pay attention to that). Even if there was the visual difference, some people have red-green colour blindness so relying on colour and a dash to distinguish between the two usernames could be confusing. Clovermoss (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@CM: how does the not having pennies thing work in practice? Like what happens if you buy something and the bill is $1.52, how do you pay if no one has pennies? Levivich (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It depends on your method of payment, oddly enough! So if your total is $1.52 and you're paying with cash it's rounded down to $1.50. If it was $1.53, it'd be rounded up to $1.55. If you were paying with debit or credit, you're charged $1.52. I mention all the time in real life how bizzare this is and people typically agree with me. Clovermoss (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Heh, I had guessed, "surely they can't just be rounding up or down?" I'm surprised that works. So if a merchant sells something for $1 and there's a 2% tax, and it comes to $1.02, and the customer pays $1.00, presumably the merchant still has to pay the 2 cent tax, so the merchant is only getting $0.98 for the $1 item? This 2% loss would drive a business out of business! Walmart would never allow their congressmen to vote for this! But then if the merchant, to avoid the loss, increases the price to $1.01, which with a 2% tax would come to 1.03, rounded up to 1.05, and now the merchant can pay the 2-cent tax, and just keep the extra 3 cents? And the whole country goes along with it? We'd have riots in the streets over this. Levivich (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Talking to Americans about Canada is always fun. I mean that genuinely, I haven't turned cynical from my interactions with Americans yet. People have this look in their eyes that I love when they learn something new. So... at least in Ontario, tax is not like that. It's 13 cents on every dollar iirc? There's some nuances like how you're not taxed on unprepared food etc but I'm not an accountant so I don't know all the nuances. There's also a new thing where merchants can now charge you a fee for paying by credit card.

As for pennies, they technically exist if you pay by card. When I'm in a good mood at work I'll say to people "your total is x if you're paying by cash and y if you're paying by card because whether pennies exist depends on your method of payment". I've had the joy of teaching American tourists about Canadian currency several times (I'm handed a bunch of Canadian currency and they're like what's this, is it enough?) My favourite thing to introduce to people is the concept of the toonie. So you see the coin with the polar bear on it? That's worth $2. Clovermoss (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, rounding is performed on the final total after taxes have been calculated, and the calculation of the amount of sales tax to be remitted is the same as before. The general assumption is that it will work out in the end, particularly since .03 and .08 amounts are rounded upwards. Also, a lot of transactions are done by credit or debit card and so no rounding is done. (I was thinking a place like a smoothie shop, where single items are often purchased with cash, might set prices to take advantage of the rounding up rules, but I don't know if it's happened in practice.) isaacl (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• So I've long advocated the use of real names in online spaces; not as a mandatory thing, but as a way for those of us who feel comfortable doing so to emphasise that we're all "real people". As an extension of that, I sign my posts the same way people sign written communication across the English-speaking world: with my first name. My signature doesn't violate WP:SIG, doesn't seem to have been a problem up until now (despite the existence of other prominent Joes, e.g. User:SmokeyJoe), and I think it's a bit unreasonable to ask me to awkwardly repeat my full name every time I say something here, just because I happen to have a common first name and most others here use pseudonyms. I've always thought that the fact that my signature links to User:Joe Roe is sufficient clarification of which Joe I am, but if that's somehow a problem on the mobile view, I'm open to other ideas. P.S.: On Android at least, "long pressing" a link will show you where it goes in much the same way hovering over it does in desktop browsers. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe Obviously I'm not Levivich, but I'll throw in my perspective in case it's useful. While I think there's the potential for confusion, I agree that your signatures are fine policy wise. It's fairly common for people to abbreviate their names in their signature. In my opinion it's a choice that people have to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of. I could sign as Clover but I choose not to because I value being pinged correctly and don't personally think the tradeoff is worth it.

  I'm not sure there's really a solution other than using your full username. If you changed your signature to something like JoeR, that'd have the potential to be confusing in itself simply because people wouldn't nessecarily go "oh JoeR is Joe/Joe Roe", y'know? People tend to keep their signatures somewhat consistent. Clovermoss (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SIGPROB:

  A purpose of your signature is to identify you as a contributor. If your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. Our guidelines for talk page usage also permit editors to change signatures that contravene this guideline back to the standard form. An editor with a confusing signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing signature contributes to the disruption.

  Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname or Nickname) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g., in the form User:Example/Nickname.

  Levivich (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  So my understanding is that in practice, when people typically mention the signature policy it's because the signature is substantially different from someone's actual username, not a shortened form of it? The nickname part may make that more complicated. I've never really seen the signature policy applied this way. Obviously you can request that people change their signature to be less confusing. The way I read this, the next paragraph explains why someone might want to change their signature if someone mentions that they find it confusing (like you).

  I can see why perspectives can differ on the unnessecarily confusing part, though. The few times I've seen people talk about the signature policy is if it's substantially different from the actual username, which seems to be the part where people agree that it's definitely unnessecarily confusing. Like if my signature said "IvyGirl" (random plant-related username off the top of my head, no idea if it's used by anyone) instead of "Clovermoss". That's why it suggests someone changing their username if they would prefer to be known by something else. Clovermoss (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC), edited 19:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  My take on signatures, and the central message of the signature policy, is that the purpose of signatures is to help other editors identify you. If the signature doesn't do that for any reason (because it doesn't have your username, or it uses a common nickname, or a hard to read font, or low contrast color scheme), you're doing it wrong. Levivich (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  As you may recall from the June 2021 RfC, for better or worse, using nicknames in signatures remains part of standard practice. I agree with your comments at the end of Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 13 § Thinking about potential options that the solution would be better handled at a software level. As I said in Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 14 § Focus on: non-Latin script, maybe if the reply tool becomes sufficiently popular, it can have additional functionality added so metadata for each comment can be displayed more easily, including full user names. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  From your lips to the devs' ears! Levivich (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

RfARB

Thank you for this - very well-said. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, MastCell. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Activity Reqs

Lourdes is pretty active - check the logs. She woukd have passed any reasonable activity requirement. Initially (and probably like you), I went through her contribs and speculated about a compromise! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea there were admins who would spend a whole year blocking people and deleting pages without making any (viewable) edits. How bizarre. Levivich (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Fup on our exchange re Athaenara ban

Hi Levivich, thanks for taking and running with my analogy re Thanksgiving dinner -phobic comments in the spirit I intended. I'm taking the liberty to followup on our thread here, since I think my PoV was causing pain to some there, and no longer adding meaningful information to that discussion. Please feel free to delete this thread here if you'd prefer to not spread the discussion, or engage at all.

It's not *my* personal experience, but as it happens a close friend's family had a similar bigotry-at-dinner issue many years back, with (as in what you mentioned) the issue being anti-gay rather than anti-trans bigotry by an older-generation family member, not quite "you can't slice the turkey" (not Thanksgiving at all!) but slighly more mildly in that direction. The behaviour was called out but there were no ultimatums or ejections, and it is my understanding that precisely because of this there has now developed an open, respectful relationship between the parties involved, and the elder has genuinely become significantly less homophobic over time. That positive outcome would have been much less likely if there were ultimatums, demanded apologies, and schisms. Of course situations vary, but that's where I'm coming from.

You also make the point that as a cis white male, you have privilege and you never get "attacked" for your identity. I have the same privilege, but substitute "excluded" for "attacked" and I routinely face discrimination for that part of my identity. I am considered for certain professional advisory, leadership, or governance roles, but passed over since there is a desire for more "diversity" candidates. I just last month was given feedback by an executive recruiter that my interview went "very well", but "you know, in today's environment, as a white male, you have to be truly exceptional to be selected, and there were a number of other [presumably not white male] candidates who may not quite have your experience, but were fully qualified." Basically, "they didn't want more white men". I don't resent it too much -- there are plenty of times I have in my life benefited from unearned privilege, only some of which I am aware of. However, I also don't take it as a personal attack, since it's not about me as a person but merely about my group memberships. While there are important differences (e.g. Athaenara's comment was also inflammatory and remarkably poorly worded, in addition to the bigotry!), I scratch my head a bit at the rhetoric that this was an awful personal attack on Isabelle (who I don't know). It is so clearly not at all about Isabelle's actual personal experience, qualifications, and judgment, but merely about her group memberships, that while it's important to respond to as an unwarranted attack on a community, it is also I hope easy to shrug off and ignore by the individual, like any other inappropriate oppose. Martinp (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The key difference in my mind is that the request for administrative privileges process has no systemic bias towards membership in certain groups (beyond that of English Wikipedia itself). It is of course possible that certain commenters in the discussion do consider group membership when expressing their support or opposition, but it's not evident that the effect is sufficient to change the outcome. Thus a comment about being part of a group seems irrelevant, and feels like an excuse to oppose the requestor. I feel that's a step up from a general critique of a system that favours certain groups, though perhaps not as targeted as lambasting an individual. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Martinp: Whenever I cook Thanksgiving dinner, I get a lot of dinner-phobic comments.

Analogies have their limits, and we may be bumping up against the limits of this one. I think what you say about education > judgment rings very true, and in all seriousness, I wouldn't literally toss "grandma" out of the house for making a single isolated something-phobic comment. The first time -- even possibly the first few times -- approaching intolerance with love and education is far better than approaching it with scorn, ultimatums, or demands for apologies. On the other hand, there is a point when ultimatums are the right move: e.g., if the whole love and education thing doesn't work, I don't think we should settle for tolerance in order to keep the peace. In reality, there is no one-size-fits-all rule about when to throw grandma out and when to pull her aside for a quiet chat; it's all very case-by-case, and that's the limit of this analogy.

I do think, though, generally speaking, that things like the murder of George Floyd happen, in no small part, because of decades of tolerating "grandma's" racist comments at dinner, at least in the US (where I live; I can't speak to Canadian race relations). I think my country has a long and shameful history of white people tolerating racism from other white people in order to "keep the peace" and have a nice Thanksgiving dinner. This overtolerance desensitizes us; it teaches us that bigotry is acceptable as long as it's sufficiently quiet. It stays there, it grows, and then it explodes in some horrible murder and the rest of us say, "OMG, how could that happen?" Well, I think it happens when we don't speak up enough, when we don't take a sufficiently strong stance, when we don't push back as much as we should... when we're not intolerant enough of intolerance.

I also see exclusion of the "dominant group" (e.g., people like me: straight/white/cismale, aka "the oppressor class") as being significantly different than exclusion of "non-dominant groups" (anyone else, aka the "oppressed classes"). This is largely because we've had 10,000 years of human history of enslavement of non-dominant groups by the dominant group, followed by about 100-150 years of exclusion of the non-dominant groups. Exclusion of the dominant group -- aka affirmative action -- is so new, it's like 50 years old at most. And it's weird to all of us in the dominant group because it's so rare.

In one of my very few personal experiences with being discriminated against, I was once detained while travelling abroad. The authorities were palpably anti-American, and they took a minor paperwork discrepancy and blew it up into this huge deal, detaining me and threatening me with jail time, etc., and it was very obvious from their comments that they absolutely hated me because I was American. I found it funny. It was farcical, the notion that these people, who had never met me and knew nothing about me other than that I was travelling with a US passport, would come to all of these ridiculous conclusions about me simply because of my nationality. But it was funny to me because it was so unusual; I'm almost never treated this way. It was easy for me to roll my eyes and laugh it off because it wasn't my every day experience, and because it didn't meaningfully impact my life: it didn't prevent me from getting a job, providing for my family, being happy in life. It was a minor inconvenience. I think I'd have felt quite differently if it happened to me every single day. Levivich (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll say that Canadians have a horrible past, too. I keep meaning to work on this draft I started because we don't actually have an article for that yet somehow. But if you want to hear about some of the horrifying parts of Canadian history, take a look at Indian hospital, the Indian Act, Disc number, Ukrainian Canadian internment, Internment of Japanese Canadians, Chinese head tax, etc. There's a lot I could go on here. If you want to hear about the amazing woman on our $10 bill though, I'd advise you to check out Viola Desmond. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we for the most part agree, including the problems caused by too long tolerating. I think we may differ on precisely how much response is needed in specific moments to ensure that we are sufficiently -- and visibly -- not tolerating. Template:Reply to:Clovermoss's list of some of the low points of Canadian history is a good one and shows our heritage is hardly better than the U.S. one. In particular, my parents emigrated to Canada in the late 1960s to escape persecution in their home country and happened to end up with some Northwest Coast First Nations people among their first set of Canadian friends. Arriving with a rosy view of egalitarian Canadians, they were pretty shocked to hear of Indian residential schools and the potlach ban in the very recent past. Those stories were an interesting counterpoint to the sanitized version of Canadian history I was still taught in school in the late 1980s. At the same time, it also pains me to see the ferociousness of conflict between waves/generations/subgroups of progressives, which has included (in Canada) who actually *is* and can speak for Indigenous people, as well as globally in the English-speaking world the trans activist-TERF "war" which for the most part has been settled, but the example prompting this whole cataclysm on en:wp now shows still has lots of embers left (perhaps reasonably so, since undoubtedly trans people continue to face lots of discrimination). Anyway, seems the present cataclysm is quieting down; we've exchanged some words I've found insightful (thanks); and Levivich best wishes for a drama-free American Thanksgiving in a few weeks! Martinp (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Political and commercial manipulations of Wikipedia

I think political and commercial manipulations of Wikipedia deserve articles of their own, separate from Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia. Thoughts? François Robere (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO, seems like a reasonable sub-article/spin-off of the COI article, which is too long. Another good spin-off would be "list of incidents" listicles, because these articles tend to be too long with too much focus on individual incidents, and not enough broad overview. Basically a symptom of crowdsourced article development: everyone adds a little bit until it gets unwieldy. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, look.[1][2][3][4][5] François Robere (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Can't blame him for edit warring that back to a redirect, he'd have his own section in that article. Levivich (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)