|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
1RR
You just violated WP:1RR editing restriction on the page [1]. Please self-revert. It does not mean I disagree with your edit. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes:, Done Levivich 20:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think your revert was reasonable in terms of content because her position was already clearly stated in this section. I personally strongly disagree with her position on this however.My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes: I'm glad you reverted it and thanks for the heads up/reminder. Personally, I don't think she has a position, just a collection of soundbites and tweets. Levivich 20:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. Looking from my perspective, the single biggest problem is the enormous military expenses by the USA instead of funding education, science and technology. The more I am looking at US politics, the more it reminds me old Soviet Union. But unfortunately, my English is not good enough. So, I can only use Russian (I wrote this more than a year ago - that's an irony of course):
- @My very best wishes: I'm glad you reverted it and thanks for the heads up/reminder. Personally, I don't think she has a position, just a collection of soundbites and tweets. Levivich 20:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think your revert was reasonable in terms of content because her position was already clearly stated in this section. I personally strongly disagree with her position on this however.My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Может вы обидитесь, ребята,
Только вам от Путина – привет:
Здесь была Америка - когда-то,
А теперь ее уже и нет!
Больше не работают законы,
Конгрессмены спятили с ума,
Президент с министрами – шпионы,
И по ним соскучилась тюрьма.
С юга ощетинились стеною,
В Твиттере оскалились враги.
Что же будет завтра со страною?
Господи, спаси и помоги!
2017
My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes: Молодец! But at least Putin isn't banging his shoe on a podium, or standing on tanks in front of the Kremlin, so I guess that's progress? (By the way, your English is very good, definitely better than my Russian–especially written Russian–I still use Google translate to get by.) Leviv ich 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- In politics, things aren't so bad until people start taking their shoes off. Leviv ich 19:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Looks funny, but there are grave errors of judgement in politics by elected officials. There was a story by Guy de Maupassant where his character was saying that democracy is much better than dictatorship, but the crowd of ordinary man will always make an incorrect choice when electing freely their leader. A solution? According to the character, this is "anarchy", meaning such a social order when very few things will depend on the elected officials. Unfortunately, we are not there, and someone elected has enormous powers to do the damage. Here is how Pushkin puts the same problem [2]:
- In politics, things aren't so bad until people start taking their shoes off. Leviv ich 19:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Паситесь, мирные народы!
Вас не разбудит чести клич.
К чему стадам дары свободы?
Их должно резать или стричь.
Yes, it is about Russia, but I thought about it during USA elections 2016... My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
AOC
I noticed you re added part of the material I removed as unsourced but sourced it to her website. Wouldn't that be against WP:ABOUTSELF point 1?[3] PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, in my view, no, it's not an unduly self-serving or exceptional claim, because the statement (in WP's voice) isn't "AOC grew up in a working-class family", the statement is "Ocasio-Cortez has described her background as working-class". In other words, what I think this sentence should say is that AOC said her background is working-class (e.g., on her official campaign website), not that it's true. I think it's absolutely vital for us to say that she said she's working-class, because it's a big part of her notability and campaign message, and likewise a big focus of the criticism against her. Know what I mean? Levivich 16:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand it is certainly something she has made a point of saying about herself. But again it is something she has repeated about herself for election purposes. I would not have issue with the article mentioning it I am just uncomfortable with her own campaign site being the place it came from. By definition it is a site designed to be self-serving and promote her. I would be good with pretty much any secondary source making the claim about her. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to revert in the meantime; I gotta run but I will look for secondary sources later. Although in my opinion, when you're writing "So-and-so said they are X" (as opposed to "so-and-so is X"), the best source for that is the about-self source, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. to me, what's notable isn't whether she was working class or not (I think not, because Westchester); what's notable is that she said she's working class, for which she's been criticized (and the reader can decide whether that's true or not). Levivich 16:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think this should be removed not because of the sourcing, but because her actual background is already described in two previous paragraphs in detail (so the reader can decide for himself). In any event, her website tells: "was born in the Bronx to two working-class parents", which is not exactly the same. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng and My very best wishes: I took it out, I think you guys are right; reading the section again, the sentence really just doesn't belong, and adds little or nothing. Levivich 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think this should be removed not because of the sourcing, but because her actual background is already described in two previous paragraphs in detail (so the reader can decide for himself). In any event, her website tells: "was born in the Bronx to two working-class parents", which is not exactly the same. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to revert in the meantime; I gotta run but I will look for secondary sources later. Although in my opinion, when you're writing "So-and-so said they are X" (as opposed to "so-and-so is X"), the best source for that is the about-self source, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. to me, what's notable isn't whether she was working class or not (I think not, because Westchester); what's notable is that she said she's working class, for which she's been criticized (and the reader can decide whether that's true or not). Levivich 16:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand it is certainly something she has made a point of saying about herself. But again it is something she has repeated about herself for election purposes. I would not have issue with the article mentioning it I am just uncomfortable with her own campaign site being the place it came from. By definition it is a site designed to be self-serving and promote her. I would be good with pretty much any secondary source making the claim about her. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
housekeeping
Hi, please recall at Talk page for Greta Thunberg you commented on the criticism sections saying
This same paragraph was also added to Extinction Rebellion; my edit removing it was reverted there as it was here, and it should be removed from there, for the same reasons it's been removed here.
Roger started an identical thread at Extinction Rebellion and has decided to consolidate the discussion there. However, he has gone about it in a clumsy way and I'm trying to sort it out. One example of the clumsiness is that Roger copied your text above from Greta's talk page to the XR talk page, including your formatted signature, apparently without talking to you. The result makes little sense, so I cut it from the XR page and pasted it here in this thread. Please consider adding it back and changing it for the current context and discussion venue, or however else you please. I hope you find this cleanup effort helpful, rather than making things worse, though of course your mileage may vary. CheersNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for your note and for taking the time to clean up that mess. I admire your patience. For what it's worth, I have CIR concerns and worry that this might become a time sink for you, but of course that's for you to decide. For what it's worth #2: you have a real knack for helping guide discussions to a productive conclusion, and we need more editors (and admin) that know how to do that (and are interested in doing it). There's a backlog of XfDs and RfCs and other things needing closure. If you're interested, I would encourage you to do more NACs as I think you're good at it (and also to nominate yourself for admin, which I would very happy to !support–we have a lot of technical RfAs and need more non-technical admins). Thanks again for everything you're doing for the encyclopedia! Leviv ich 16:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wonderful appreciation. I'm already spending 'way too much time doing these things in the pages I watch, though if my kid ever makes a Calvin & Hobbs Duplicator big enough for me, I'll have one of my doubles take you up on that worthy cause. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Your user page
After I finished laughing, I'm curious.... do you ever wish you could revert an earlier version? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: Glad you liked it. There are a lot of things I wish I could revert (or duplicate or transmogrify), but I'm not sure which specific earlier version you're referring to? Leviv ich 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was referring to this bit,
Levivich continues to function[citation needed] today, although both hardware and software components are degrading and becoming obsolete
not the text of the user page itself! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)- @NewsAndEventsGuy: LOL oh, revert myself to an earlier version? Some days, definitely!. Leviv ich 19:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I was referring to this bit,
NFOOTY
Hi, someone made a suggestion about my !vote at the Cody Claver AfD, which I got to along with that for Clarice Phelps when you posted a comment about them at Iri's talk page. This might go some way to explaining my position. Believe me, I'd jump at the chance to refine SNGs such as NFOOTY if I thought it would not just be a waste of keypresses. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Sitush: I nomianted Cody Claver (and I just did a couple additional borderline cases) to see how NFOOTY gets applied in practice. It seems to me to be WP:FOOTY's way of ensuring every professional footballer gets a biography entry. I don't think that's right; I don't think every nuclear chemist deserves an article, either. Nor do I think only the most famous footballers or chemists (the ones that are clear GNG passes) should get an article. It should be somewhere in between: we should have articles about people who are not famous but who are nevertheless notable, as in "worthy of remembering". You had an interesting point about no consensus defaulting to delete rather than keep; I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. I thought I was an inclusionist right up until I registered an account and started editing and reading AfDs, and now I more and more think I'm becoming a deletionist; a "core encyclopedia" editor. But what really opened my eyes and appalled me is realizing there are 150,000 footy bios that are being vandalized and patrolled and thinking about the sheer amount of resources that are being put into what is a totally pointless endeavor in my view (writing a complete football almanac). Anyway, the SNG conversations have started; I'm not sure if you've read or commented there yet: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal - NFOOTY#2 - raising the bar and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO. Leviv ich 19:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
ANI closes
I saw your closures. I really like the haikus. Keep up the good work. Fish+Karate 10:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
ANI
Your efforts to bring
poetry to ANI.
Appreciated.
Gricehead (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a wonderful place where if you send out a couple haikus, you get a couple haikus back. Thanks, Fish and karate and Gricehead! Leviv ich 20:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Love from #India
Keep going | |
Nice to know you...look forward to collaborate and add more to wiki Amitized (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
Welcome to WP:STiki!
Hello, Levivich, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Macedonia RFC
I see you have closed a section in the North Macedonia RFC.
According to the June 2018 amendment to WP:ARBMAC2, "[t]he discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors."
This section hadn't been open for 30 hours, and was closed by a single contributor. According to the Arbcom motion, we would therefore not be able to include this section in the new WP:MOSMAC.
Please would you therefore undo your close and allow the RFC to continue. Thanks, Kahastok talk 21:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Kahastok: Thanks for the message. Yes, of course I'd undo my close, and on my way to do so, I saw that Danski454 had already unclosed it. My apologies; I read the amendment as applying to the entire RfC, and didn't think a SNOW-close of a sub-part (that maybe shouldn't have been there to begin with) would be subject to the 30-day, 3-closer rule. But better to leave that to someone more experienced to figure out. Leviv ich 21:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- ...and I see that it's now been re-closed by another editor, and there is now a discussion at the RfC about it. Leviv ich 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for correcting my awkward Pu (simplicity) title back to Pu (Taoism). I haven't had much time recently to work on WP, and appreciate your edits. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
NFOOTY AfDs
I'm not inspired to vote (either way) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mats van Kins or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence Bijl - as they seem barely notable. I am however dismayed by the knee-jerk NFOOTY !votes - NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, it is not sufficient. Contrast those !votes with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Perri - Perri (being signed by a Premier League club, and it seems he might replace their current goalkeeper) - seems to have much more coverage than the former two - yet - knee-jerk deletes for failing NFOOTY. No other SNG is so cut and dry - e.g. I do Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military quite a bit, and while passing WP:SOLDIER is usually (but not always - and usually there is a semblance of discussion and presenting sources) a shoe-in - failing it - still has one evaluate GNG.
To stop my rambling, what I propose might be prudent is focusing on former players in their late 20s-30s (e.g. 1984-1993) who only appeared in 3rd tier leagues. Players in this age range should have on-line sources if they pass GNG - and attacking these players on the explicit grounds of lacking SIGCOV (e.g. pass NFOOTY, but according to my source check there are no-in-depth reliable sources).Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: Good suggestion. Do you have advice about how many AfD noms at one time is too many? Leviv ich 19:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no set limit per se - I think I had 30-40 in the air recently - but they were good noms and closed 95% delete. It is a question of understanding "when you are overstaying your welcome" so to speak... If you launch 20 and they all end up keepers - you might get some flak (e.g. IIRC an editor was at ANI a while back for a batch of 20 so terror articles that closed keep). I would take it slow with the footballers until zeroing on a class that does not pass GNG. What passes for a RS in this subject matter might also be broad and require study.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's helpful. So my two-per-week shouldn't be a problem them. :-) Leviv ich 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did add the football delsort on my watchlist. Forming some sort of taskforce here - or maybe involving Women in Red (whose mainstay arguement at AfD seems to be that NFOOTY is silly, so, anything else is notable too) might be an interesting thought.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that an article-by-article or even a SNG-by-SNG approach will be effective. Seems like we need to have a broad, project-wide conversation about notability standards and what they mean. Editors don't seem to agree on basics, for example: does notability mean "we can write a neutral, well-sourced article about it" or does notability mean "we should have an article about it"? What is the basic purpose of having any SNG? What is the purpose of relying on independent, secondary sources for notability? Without answering the questions about what our guidelines are supposed to do (what is the purpose of an SNG), I can't imagine we'll ever agree on the specific language for an SNG. I don't know... idea lab? Leviv ich 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well - I did tip in a toe in those AfDs. I was a bit scared off by the amount of gnewsHits - but in one of them it was almost all appearances in a roster list of the semi-pro team. A project-wide discussion will quickly die down. I would advocate baby steps - I for one am somewhat curious how the league list in NFOOTY grew to be so big. I sorta get players in top-notch leagues being presumed notable (heck - even without any appearances) - but some of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th leagues there appear dubious. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that an article-by-article or even a SNG-by-SNG approach will be effective. Seems like we need to have a broad, project-wide conversation about notability standards and what they mean. Editors don't seem to agree on basics, for example: does notability mean "we can write a neutral, well-sourced article about it" or does notability mean "we should have an article about it"? What is the basic purpose of having any SNG? What is the purpose of relying on independent, secondary sources for notability? Without answering the questions about what our guidelines are supposed to do (what is the purpose of an SNG), I can't imagine we'll ever agree on the specific language for an SNG. I don't know... idea lab? Leviv ich 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did add the football delsort on my watchlist. Forming some sort of taskforce here - or maybe involving Women in Red (whose mainstay arguement at AfD seems to be that NFOOTY is silly, so, anything else is notable too) might be an interesting thought.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's helpful. So my two-per-week shouldn't be a problem them. :-) Leviv ich 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no set limit per se - I think I had 30-40 in the air recently - but they were good noms and closed 95% delete. It is a question of understanding "when you are overstaying your welcome" so to speak... If you launch 20 and they all end up keepers - you might get some flak (e.g. IIRC an editor was at ANI a while back for a batch of 20 so terror articles that closed keep). I would take it slow with the footballers until zeroing on a class that does not pass GNG. What passes for a RS in this subject matter might also be broad and require study.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
To dark ANI You bring haikus and good cheer Don't stop! Keep it up! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC) |
- Eek! My first barnstar!
Thank you!! And, thank you, also
for writing haikus!
Leviv ich 05:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Math
is one of the few things in life we can always count on. It never lies, it never changes its mind, it's always there when we need it. It's constant. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A page you started (Sustainability in construction) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Sustainability in construction.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Thank you for starting the new article "Sustainability in construction". Note that other editors have questioned whether the article is made up of too many personal opinions and arguments, and I recommend revisiting the article and addressing this matter to the best of your ability.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doomsdayer520 Hi! Thanks for reviewing! But I'm not really the author of that article. That article began as a pending-change addition to Construction which was approved. It was way too long to be a section in Construction, so I spun it out [4] (which, in retrospect, I regret) and tagged it, including the essay tag that's still there. The original editor DIDONGX hasn't edited since creating this article/subsection. There was a discussion on my talk page about it, the result was to leave it alone and see what the community does. Since then, editors have improved it, but at least some of them might be SPAs and at least one is now blocked for promotion spam. Anyway, I've pinged the original author here in case they return to editing. Leviv ich 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. I am with the New Pages Patrol and there is an automatic process that sends a message to whoever is listed first in the article's history. A message to someone who is not truly the "creator" happens a lot, annoyingly. But thanks for pointing to the discussion that has already taken place about that article's issues. Hopefully the original creator can address those issues, or anyone who monitors pages with the "personal essay" tag can call for it to be deleted in the future. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
ANI
LOL, that's fine, no problem about modifying the closed discussion. Normally I'd have gone to the history myself, to figure out who wrote the unsigned post and then add the {{unsigned}} template, but I couldn't face the extra delay — I was already little stressed by commenting + archiving + getting all the dots and curls in the right place as quickly as possible. Potentially getting caught in an edit conflict in the middle of that lot is no fun. Best wishes. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Thanks–and thanks also for closing that thread, it was much needed. You know, if you haven't had your fill of stress and complication yet, there's a big-ass thread at the top of that page that's been there for weeks and that I think could use attention from a very experienced/authoritative admin to untangle and figure out if any action needs to be taken or if a dead horse needs a reprieve (or some combination). No pressure, just sayin' :-) Leviv ich 16:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- The Iranian thread? Nononono, sorry. I'm ignorant of the topic and also lazy. Won't happen, I'm afraid. Say, would you mind if one of my socks, young User:Darwinbish, copied your fine broken-off-and-falling-down sig for herself? Bishonen | talk 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC).
Bernie Sanders...
...sorry that it didn't work out without protecting in the end. Still, sometimes Wikipedia can surprise me at a pinch. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
How could I possible violate any policy by stating that Ocasio Cortes is a socialist? She is a member of the Democratic Socialists, by her own repeated admissions she is a socialist, and her positions are widely regarded as socialist. There was no reason to revert my edit. JohnTopShelf (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Seriously? None of AOC's policies are explicitly socialist? That is why you reverted my description of her policies? While I suppose an argument could be made that none of the policies are exclusively socialist, taken in whole they are, without question, overwhelmingly socialist. She is a socialist, as she has repeatedly stated, and she has stated that her policies are socialist. What on earth is wrong with calling her a socialist? JohnTopShelf (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC) |
- Preliminary response on your talk page, and I will write more shortly. Leviv ich 17:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
A beer for you!
I am not going to make any more changes to the Ocasio Cortes article at this time.
Clearly, it is against Wikipedia policy to label a person as socialist, even if that person refers to herself as a socialist. It is apparently also wrong to label that person's platform as socialist, even if she herself calls the platform socialist, as she has repeatedly. But I am not going to make more reverts or edits or whatever to the Wikipedia article at this time. JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC) |
- @JohnTopShelf: OK I understand. I don't agree about WP having a policy against labeling a person as a socialist–just a policy that we label people according to the labels used by reliable sources–but I understand how you feel and thank you for agreeing not to make any more reverts to the article. I'll note that while we were talking, another editor posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ), and you may want to say there what you said here. I will post a note there linking to this post so reviewing admin will see it. Best of luck! Leviv ich 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Another question for you:
The Donald Trump article includes the following statement: "His falsehoods have also become a distinctive part of his political identity.[282]" The citation is to an opinion column in the New Yorker. How can a blatant statement of opinion like this be allowed in Wikipedia, when it violates the "neutral point of view", and no doubt other policies, while at the same time calling a person a socialist, who calls herself a socialist, is not allowed? Just asking. JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC) |