User talk:Levivich

The purpose of NFCC

Time for an update?

This comment is perceptive. A note (completely off-topic for that discussion, hence here): it may be surprising in hindsight how much early policy was driven by the notion that people were going to burn Wikipedia on CDs and sell them for profit to schools and libraries, the way Encarta was distributed back then. (Or, like, print Wikipedia in books and send them to places without Internet access.) And so early policy was intended to protect the CD sellers from being sued by copyright holders. Jimbo's personal/ideological beliefs played a role too, I'm sure. I agree these policies are worth reexamining but they may be too entrenched at this point.

Apologies if this is old news to you. Wikiacc (¶) 01:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiacc, thanks! I wasn't an editor then, but wasn't WP:VITAL originally about making a Wikipedia CD to compete with Encarta? I certainly think we'd benefit by re-examining the entire "free for any purpose" philosophy. "Free for any non-commercial purpose" should be the philosophy instead. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. WP:1.0 and its delightfully anachronistic logo are a related project (I think VITAL may have been an outgrowth of that, though I'm not sure). Wikiacc (¶) 02:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup that's what I was thinking of. The logo really is delightful. Kids today don't know what that is. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they don't. I'll bet kids today don't know what a non-WP encyclopedia is, either. An addendum: I was perhaps speaking a bit loosely when referring to Jimbo. It's not just him; distaste for noncommercial licenses has a long history in the free software/content movement. See this 2012 Stallman essay for example. (Stallman raises a good point, though it's interesting that his proposed policy on CC licenses is laxer than WMF's current one.) Wikiacc (¶) 03:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiacc: Oh, I think you were on target. (h/t Iridescent) Thanks for the link to the Stallman piece, that was interesting. But it's sad that I don't think anything in CC 4.0 addressed the flaws he pointed out. And it's been eight years now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That's quite a find. I had Objectivism more on the mind, though the ad does have a strong "Randian hero" ethos. Wikiacc (¶) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are still True Believers in the Wikipedia 1.0 project about, who sincerely believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to generate material for an offline project. It's a legacy of Wikipedia's history; you need to bear in mind that we developed as a feeder site to Nupedia, and the original intent was always that Wikipedia was just an incubator site where articles would be parked until ready to be published. In practice the focus on CD-ROM is dying out—"that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so" is considerably more likely to have access to an internet connection than she is to a CD-ROM reader—but the die-hards still cling to the "burning off copies of Wikipedia" fantasy; the current wheeze uses a Raspberry Pi, a cheap router, and a flash drive to create mini-hotspots where people within range can read a curated selection of articles via wi-fi. It's why we still have the pointless "importance" ratings, and why we have the full stub-start-C-B-GA-A-FA assessment scale rather than just "inadequate"/"adequate"/"good"; there's a tiny but vocal faction who believe it's necessary so we can select which articles are worthy of inclusion in Published Wikipedia when the day comes. (Some projects like WikiProject Visual Arts have called their bluff and abolished the importance ratings, and the world has yet to come to an end.) ‑ Iridescent 09:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd heard that quote before, but I didn't realize it was specifically about offline distribution. Your comment gives me visions of Christ himself returning to earth, holding blank CDs, the faithful standing at the ready with a curated Wikipedia and their CD burners... Wikiacc (¶) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"He instructed them to take nothing for their journey except a staff and sandals CDs and internet-in-a-box." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I always thought (based on half-remembered discussions back in the Stone Age of Wikipedia) that the rating system was the result of many attempts to judge if articles were developing in a constructive manner, & which articles should be given priority for improvement. (Some systems were much more impractical than what we ended up with.) Only as time passed & everyone decided to scratch their itches -- whether or not these itches ought to be scratched publicly -- the rating system was mostly forgotten about, except for the highest classifications (viz., GA & FA) & a small, forgotten clique obsessed with arguing over which subjects are more important to human knowledge. (Sometimes I wonder if Wikipedia would benefit from an engaged leader or steering committee appointed to nudge this herd of cats in the general direction of an alleged promised land.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiacc, Iridescent, and Llywrch: Do you think things are different this time around with the WMF? To me, FRAM + taking the name + postponing elections = crossing the Rubicon, but I lack perspective. Is this an escalation or is it always like this? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Good question. Very good question. -- llywrch (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say no. The WMF are stumbling and overreaching, but I wouldn't say there's anywhere near the total collapse of the Lila Tretikov years, where not only the communities and the foundation, but different factions within the foundation, were in open warfare with each other to the extent that there was a genuine possibility that Wikipedia and the entire WMF ecosystem would come to an end. (If you've never read Molly White's timeline of the Tretifov era I urge you to do so.) Someone will probably write a thesis one day on the total lack of a measurable relationship between what the WMF does and the success or otherwise of the WMF projects (during the Golden Age of Wikipedia circa 2007, the WMF was run by Carolyn Doran). Back around 2010 I predicted the imminent collapse of Wikipedia as the WMF struggled to manage it, but I'd now predict a gradual slow decline as the WMF's mismanagement drives away a few more people each time who aren't replaced. (That's where the rebranding farce is so damaging. Most of the other failings can at least be seen as well-intentioned; this particular one if they stick to it will have people thinking "if I'm going to volunteer my time writing for a company that treats its volunteers as cannon-fodder in a moneymaking enterprise, I may as well do similar editorial work for Facebook or Google who are always looking to recruit people with online editing skills, and who actually pay". ‑ Iridescent 2 20:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: was that second link intentional?

Levivich, to speak in a sympathetic way at how the Foundation operates, I'm amazed at how many organizations that manage volunteer-staffed online communities consistently screw it up. I've found instances of volunteer mistrust, if not outright anger, at Deviant Arts & StackExchange for bonehead decisions. (Six months ago there was a FRAMGATE-like event at StackExchange where one of the veteran admin-level volunteers was sanctioned over being careless with their use of gender pronouns in a hypothetical case involving transsexual people. The difference between WMF & StackExchange, however, was that after several steward-level volunteers started resigning, the CEO at StackExchange made an attempt to publicly apologize for the screw-up. For some reason WMF staff are unable to admit they make mistakes & apologize.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you referencing a specific incident, or just asking us because we're old-timers? I don't have much perspective here unfortunately; I was last active in wikidrama sometime around Iridescent's Golden Age. Iridescent and Llywrch's comments were insightful for me as well. Wikiacc (¶) 22:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiacc, I'd never call you "old" ;-) But yeah, just asking because you're all so, um, experienced. I found Iri and Llywrch's responses insightful also. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an old man, but I play one on the Internet. Wikiacc (¶) 00:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

GMO subjects

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 genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, 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. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Template:Z33 Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng reminds you to avoid ...

Casting of ass

persians

Technically you are "aware" from your AE involvement, but please be mindful that additional restrictions related to casting aspersions that came from the GMO case apply when you discuss such subjects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not worried about restrictions on casting aspersions, since the AN comment I made that precipitated this notice quoted you directly. As you know, I don't edit in the GMO area, and posting a DS template because I commented in an AN thread about your falsely asserting that another editor was topic banned from GMOs, is a misuse of the DS template, and yet another escalation on your part. I would advise de-escalation. This may well be headed to Arbcom. I would really advise de-escalation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the AN thread, please refrain from escalating and hounding editors through aspersions. Please don't project about escalation like that. Of course you're going to be called out when you make up things about what I said despite repeated clarification. At the time in question, I never said the editor was topic banned from GMOs, but that they had a ban due to behavior in a GMO DS subject. You're changing minute details and repeatedly making accusations with them. The actual quote was Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide DS from Jill Stein for six months, which they were in addition to AP DS if you read the actual AE. That I left out that AP DS also applied because it was superfluous to the current AE is normal because it was extraneous to documenting a sanction in a GMO subject. You should be well aware of that by now, and continuing to hound editors like that well after the fact is escalating, so simply don't do it.

As for the template, I suggest reading the case since it seems you missed the point based on what you wrote. We specifically crafted this principle for exactly what you are doing here. That covers two main issues. One is the "Monsanto shill gambit" that doesn't apply to what you're doing. What does apply though is the general casting aspersions of accusing of misbehavior without evidence (i.e., blatantly misrepresenting someone), repeatedly making those accusations (especially after clarification), and using that as a bludgeon. You've been doing all three, and that has been applied to admin boards on GMO behavior before. If you don't like being reminded that aspersions are not ok, that dosn't make it an abuse of the template. That's exactly what it was intended for. I'm of the mindset that sanctions usually shouldn't be needed to keep people from hounding or misrepresent editors, so that's why I'm here right now instead of AE.

This is also as much as I'm going to say on this talk page, but please reflect on your warning at ANI about battleground behavior. A normal non-battleground editor would not approach the AE case in question as you did. If they went on a tangent about the final sanction not being double-logged under both GMO and AP DS, they would simply read the linked case saying GMO DS did apply, or that people shouldn't use both DS applying as a red herring to pursue those bringing up the case. They'd also read the context of the second case and think, "That person listed the previous sanction because part of it was related to GMOs." What they wouldn't do is hound the editor repeatedly or claim they were falsifying the sanction because they didn't include every detail not relevant to the case at hand. Even if I had missed an important detail, that would have simply been corrected, and no one would really bring it up afterwords.

Even in a worst case scenario of basically not crossing a t, that would not have mattered for that case because the Jill Stein disruption still occurred in a GMO topic. What DS that first sanction was formally logged under had no bearing on the outcome of the second AE. No editor wouldn't reasonably continue to pursue someone for that. That's why I've been mentioning your behavior problems with red herring arguments on admin boards, and you are putting yourself on this ice by continuing to do that. Some people react poorly to guidance asking them to turn around from the brink taking it as a "threat", etc., but I hope in your case you think about some of this guidance and work on some of the issues you've been having in addition to the guidance you got at ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, as you know, a requirement to posting these notices is checking to see if the editor is already aware. Since you knew Lev was already aware, why did you leave this message anyways? Some consider that a form of harassment, and it’s why recently it was added to specifically check if the editor is already aware. Why not just accept you made false statements about Sashi, own up to it, and let it go? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Last post here, but that was a courtesy template since they were still casting aspersions. You're joining in too, and I can't lie and say I lied about Sashirolls as that would still violate WP:NPA policy. It's better to WP:AGF that even though Levivich joined in at an AE back in November, they may not have been aware of the aspersions principle even though they technically should have. Now they are, and it could have easily been considered pointy if I neglected to do this. If I had posted this template twice within a year per WP:AWARE, that is where the community views it as an issue. Trying to give a them a chance to turn things around and deescalate rather than bring them straight to AE shouldn't be considered a silly idea though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, you do realize that posting a DS notice when one is not required is a violation of ARBCOM rules and can get you sanctioned? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please reread my above comment. From AWARE Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. The rule is that an editor does not receive a DS alert more than once a year, which I saw none of. Generally when someone is technically "aware" through a more tangential route like participating at AE, that doesn't preclude these alerts, and it's not uncommon for the relevant DS and case to not be fully read before that either. Given the discussions, I also had to assume they weren't aware of the restrictions from the case outside the little bit they saw at AE, so it's much better to post the formal neutral notification since it had never been posted here.

Sure, I could have run straight to AE to try to get them banned with just the AE awareness if I was sanction happy, but why do that when you can try to deescalate someone and just remind them there are rules about these things first? Trying to prevent disruption is why those alerts are there and is also kind of the opposite of issuing them disruptively. Either way, no need to ping Levivich further with this page since I made it clear I wanted to give them some space. If you have questions on how alerts vs. awareness works, probably better to discuss it at my talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern but just to be clear, you and everyone else are welcome to post here as much as you'd like. I can turn off the pings if they bother me. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm aware of this discussion, and since some of the people here have been so nice to me lately, I feel the need to clarify for those who aren't familiar with some of the more idiosyncratic ways that Wikipedia works, that "aware" in the dictionary sense of the word, meaning having already talked about it in the AN discussion, is not the same thing as WP:AWARE, wherein ArbCom sets some more specific requirements that go beyond just having talked about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neat. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• And here I thought those displayed images were just "hip cats" (those familiar with the Rat Pack era will get it.) — Ched (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts - No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or

They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or

In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or

In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive258#SashiRolls

In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

They have placed a Ds/aware template for the area(s) of conflict on their own talk page.

Then there's Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts which states: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Just for the record. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• So in summary, editors must be aware but need not be alert? EEng 23:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• We told him he should become an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  I thought this was my RFA? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  That link has the best mouseover preview image ever. Thank you, Atsme! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• A remarkable thread, indeed, worthy of contemplation. Jusdafax (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have refered to this Talk page section, in a case where I am subject to similar misrepresentation by the OP, here at WP:ARCA. Jusdafax (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your production and insight. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Puddleglum2.0 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I'd like to nominate Levivich to be Editor of the Week for a variety of reasons. Not only have they been a consistent voice of reason to many policy boards, they have also brought levity and much-needed humour to heavy discussions, including, but not limited to, ANI, AN, and many other hefty RFC discussions. Levivich has also contributed to two high-quality GA's and five other DYK's, which shows their dedication not only to the policies and backstage of Wikipedia but also the frontend material and the Wikipedia reader. Overall, Levivich has shown their self to be a highly productive and insightful editor, and despite the controversies surrounding their actions, I do believe that they are well deserving of this award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Works Well With Others

Levivich

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 20, 2020

A consistent voice of reason to many policy boards since NOV2018. Brought levity and humour into heavy discussions at ANI and AN and other RFC discussions. Contributed 2 high-quality GA's and 5 DYK's. Editing balance within the namespace count totals. A highly productive and insightful editor.

Recognized for

production and insight

Notable work(s)

Killing of George Floyd and Yellow vests movement

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yay!!! Congratulations, Levivich!! You deserved this recognition, indeed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Wow!! Thanks, Puddleglum, Buster and Atsme! That really puts a huge smile on my face. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. From what I am told you put smiles on faces when it's necessary to "bring down the heat". To me, that ability can be as valuable as a well-written article.―Buster7 ☎ 15:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, Congratulations! "Works well with others." Feel free to add that to your LinkedIn profile. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Upstart glory hog. Editor of the weak is more like it. EEng 03:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Their self"? How low we have fallen in 2020. Other than that, congratulations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 While some nominations are edited for grammar and expanded for depth, not all nominees are English speakers and I like to leave the "flavor" of the nominator. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well done Levivich and don't forget to issue your Recipient response. This will make a good warm-up for when you host the Oscars next year ;-) History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 01:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Hearty congrats, well done! Jusdafax (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Hey, congratulations from me too. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions where nobody has asked those questions

Surprised to see mass edits adding an FAQ to pages where those questions have never come up (including pages that have had no discussion at all and no contentious editing). Was there a discussion somewhere with consensus to do this? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, sort of at Talk:George Floyd#length of time. I mean, I don't take "frequently asked questions" that literally... more like, "frequently encountered issues". But the idea is to have all 100 or so George Floyd-related pages (and any new ones that are made) reference the consensus on frequently-encountered issues, like whether to say "killed by" or to specify "black" and "white", etc. This allows us to have one FAQ that displays on all the related pages. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue of the scale and selectivity of distribution, the FAQ is good. Thanks for taking the initiative! El_C 23:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

He stole the FAQ idea from me and now he's spamming it everywhere to pump up his edit count for an RfA. Shameful. EEng 23:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was valereee who wrote the FAQ? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I stole it from Hillary Clinton —valereee (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Credit for all, then, especially EEng! El_C 23:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, great, EEng gets all the credit. He did the least. —valereee (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Paradox. El_C 23:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich got the general idea from User:Isaacl/Consensus requires patience § Techniques to keep discussion going ;-) isaacl (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Success has many parents :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded in that thread. TL;DR, where this hasn't actually been an issue at all, this feels like WP:BEANS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping oops

While cleaning up some archives, I accidentally pinged a bunch of editors. My apologies to all of you! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I got one. How the fuck did you even manage to do that? EEng 22:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Turns out it was all El C's fault. I should have known: that Leninist has been trying to depose me as King of Wikipedia for some time now, fortunately thus far without success. In this latest guerrilla attack, he somehow managed to plant a bomb in a closing statement that got archived, and I haven't quite figured out how he pulled off this next part, but he somehow knew that three weeks later I would try to consolidate those archives, and the bomb would go off, causing me to ping two dozen editors, some of whom will surely remember this and !vote for my site ban when the coup finally comes.

I guess it was this edit that pinged like 20 people, and it's the strangest thing. Obviously I didn't sign the edit, so the ping should not have been activated. But if you look at the diff and search for "19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)", you'll see (or at least, I see) the four tildes next to El C's signature on his June 2 close, but for me the four tildes only show up in the rendered preview, but not in the wikitext. I have no idea how that could be, that it's on the page but not in the code. I surmise the "C" in "El C" stands for "Cloaking device bombs". I believe that somehow, these four tildes next to El C's signature (El C's "bomb") got processed as a signature when I made that edit and thus triggered the ping for all mentioned users.

Or I could be totally wrong and this whole explanation could be a bunch of nonsense. That's the fun thing about palace intrigue: you never know. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's because he forgot to subst the {{rm top}} template so it just put the tildes in without parsing, and then when you copied and pasted the contents it finally parsed them. But that explanation is not as much fun. This will make up for it: ~~~~ – bradv🍁 23:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Watch out! Brad's got a bomb, too!! Assassins everywhere!!! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Never ascribe to intrigue what can be explained by sheer incompetence — your Commandante commands it! For some reason, I've been unable to sign RM closures lately without a double signature. I really don't know why that is (subst:rm top does not want to be my friend). Oh well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ At least, as they say in the old country, צרת רבים חצי נחמה — or as EEng would put it: "Grandpa spanks the baby!" El_C 23:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so it was the old double-signature RM bomb, eh? Very clever, Commandante, but not clever enough. *smoke bomb escape* Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

Thanks for the corrections. This article is extremely contentious, so at this point, I think I will avoid editing it. Despite what you have written above, he was incarcerated for these crimes. One of the sources even lists a table of his offenses. He was sentenced to five years, but incarcerated for four years total because he had previously been locked up for pre-trial confinement, and that extra jail time tolls against his total sentence and counts as time served. I know this because I called the district court in Texas and asked the court clerk about his history last week. This guy has a rap sheet as long as your arm, he was a career criminal. So much for arguing about sources. Court documents are reliable sources. At any rate, this article is extremely contentious which is a good reason to avoid editing it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it would be a good reason to contribute quality contributions to it, or to the discussion about it, but you need to follow the project's policies and guidelines in doing so. Court documents are not reliable because they are fragments of a large and complex story. EEng 22:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Kiev/naming

Kiev/naming is in main space - should it be? I can move it for you and suppress the redirect if you want --DannyS712 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, where else would it be, as a subpage of an article? Talk:Kiev/naming is the talk page where the naming discussion happens/is archived. Maybe it should be a subpage of a subpage, i.e., Talk:Kiev/naming/sources ? I trust your judgment about where it belongs; thanks for fixing it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe Talk:Kiev/sources. It just seems like Talk:Kiev/naming and this source list page should go together somehow. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but this isn't an article, and the main namespace doesn't actually have subpages. I'll move it to Kiev/sources DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, thanks! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem - now at Talk:Kiev/sources DannyS712 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Burdens of being GoodDay

There's always a joker somewhere :) GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I do the best I can but I can't guarantee to be everywhere at once. EEng 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I created this alternate account. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't end with "mate"! El_C 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Stricter rules?

Pls delete after noticing the reply on my talk page.

I need more information :)

85.150.152.71 (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies supplied the requested information. Thank you, Drmies. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, User:Levivich. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Review

If you get a chance, please take a peek at this essay and if you're of the mind, be generous with your sprinkles of magic dust to fix/enhance as needed. I may be too close to it to be objective. Hopefully the wikilinks will soften some of the tech aspects of Boyle's law, but then the reader has to mouse over/click on them for it to work. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, sure happy to take a look. Great idea for an essay! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I made an edit. :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls case word limits

Hi, Levivich. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

At my count your statement is around 700 words. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lynching?

If you don't mind talking about it, why is MastCell so concerned about whether or not the word lynching is "racially charged"? What's the context of this debate between the two of you? Why does it make any difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned? 70.181.40.210 (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It's in reference to comments at WP:ARC. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it now, though I had to go to an earlier version of the WP:ARC where you made a fuller statement. I take it that somebody accused MastCell and/or his allies of a lynching and he took it as an accusation of racism since the word is "racially charged." Does that mean a white person should never complain of being lynched even if he is about to be? As a kid I learned about lynching from the context of the Old West not the Deep South, so I would definitely say NO, it does not necessarily denote racism on the part of the lynch mob, but it does denote other less than admirable behavior. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody accused MastCell of lynching; the editor that was the subject of the site ban discussion that MastCell closed described the site ban proposal as a "lynching" (in this edit summary); MastCell said "lynching" was a "racially inflammatory" accusation (here), and I disagreed (here). Sure, plenty of white people have been lynched, but probably more black people; certainly in the US. Still, my understanding of the word "lynching" comes from dictionaries; I checked several including the usual Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster; most of them did not have any mention of race, although one (dictionary.com) noted that it was commonly associated with the lynching of black people in the southern US. But the point is, in the particular use of the word at issue, there was no racial implication; the implication was that it was an unfair pile-on. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've finally got it. However, my take-away regarding the proclivities of a certain administrator haven't changed much. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Inserting your own text into other person's comments

Why are you adding your own text into the middle of another person's comment, as you did here? This makes it very difficult for anyone to respond to YOU specifically and it makes it look like the person who made the original comment did something other than what they really did. You wanna refactor that and put your own stuff under your own username? 15:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

If you were really concerned about upholding BLP policy, as you claim to be, you'd have been satisfied when I added eight sources backing up a controversial claim about a living person. But no, you're not satisfied with that, because you don't care about BLP, you only care about getting Atsme in trouble, because you don't like Atsme, because she disagrees with you in content disputes. That's why it's important for you that it be clear that it was me and not Atsme who added those sources. If you were a teenager or in your early twenties, I'd chalk it up to still-developing executive functions, but unfortunately there is no such excuse for your behavior. Find a more productive hobby than fucking with people on the internet. May I suggest building an encyclopedia. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)