User talk:Levivich: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:28, 20 May 2020 editJoJo Anthrax (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,713 edits →Nimitz/Roosevelt/UFOs ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:09, 21 May 2020 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Levivich/Archive 6) (botNext edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	}}		}}
	{{Archives\|root=User talk:Levivich}}		{{Archives\|root=User talk:Levivich}}

	== Huh? ==

	is simply outrageous. Something discussed in three academic sources is not trivia. The land ownership history of the place is clearly not trivia. What are you doing? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
	:I explained it in my post on the article talk page, which is the place to discuss bold additions to the article that have been reverted. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 04:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

	Perhaps you didn't digest the resolutions of the ARBPIA4 arbitration case. Now it says {{tq\|"All edits made to related content (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) will be subject to ARBPIA General Sanctions"}} which means that 1RR applies to content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict even if the article as a whole doesn't fall under ARBPIA. However, three times within 13 hours you reverted content which is obviously ARBPIA-related . That was a clear violation and this is your only warning. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:The first two are a series and count as one. They removed content relating to the Ottoman Empire in 1872 and the British in 1921. None of that has anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because Israel wasn't created until 1948. So those diffs can't violate ARBPIA 1RR. That leaves just one revert, the third diff, and one revert doesn't violate 1RR. Considering you're the one who added the ARBPIA DS template in the first place yesterday, and then you immediately violated the 1RR and BRD sanctions by reinstating a bold edit you made that I reverted, and then when I complained on your talk page you claimed you don't have to follow BRD at all because it's not policy, you've got some real chutzpah accusing me of an ARBPIA 1RR violation today based on edits that have nothing to do with Israel. Your warning here strikes me as retaliatory, and your conduct surrounding this article has been alarming. I hope you snap out of whatever has gotten into you lately. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 03:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Levivich}}, Plus, Zero put the editnotice on to the page at 11:46 ET using his template powers to proclaim the entire page under ARBPIA. If you want, you can ask to CSD or PROD it, since I think it was an abuse of his powers. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 03:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	---------
	The 1921 event makes the edit count as an ARBPIA edit, even if the article is mostly not about ARBPIA. Which to say, only components if it are (which I already summarized in the closing of the ANI request). Sorry, Levivich, ARBPIA doesn't just start with 1948 — that has never been the practice in as far as I'm able to recollect back (random e.g. ]). And the PLO edit is obviously ARBPIA. So that would be a 1RR violation. ''Would'' be, if the article talk page ARBPIA notice wasn't currently absent. Now, instead of constantly trying to trip one another with violations, why not discuss the content on the article talk page to try to reach a compromise. You only have to will yourself to take an unexpected step forward. ] 04:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:{{u\|El C}}, How does the 1921 edit make it part of ARBPIA? The JNF bought it, they petitioned the court for perpetual ownership and the British court denied the request. It has nothing to do with the IP conflict. Further, can you please address if the entire article should be under ARBPIA and have a page notice placed on the page as it now does? Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::Well, the families living there were of Palestinian origin, were they not? Or am I misreading? In answer to your question: this is not a "primary article," as defined by the Committee in ]. Rather, some ARBPIA components makes it "related content." My understanding is that the full-array of ARBPIA templates are necessary for either of these, if enforcement is to come into effect. ] 04:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::Conflict between Palestinians and British empire (1921) ≠ conflict between Palestinians and Israel (1948–). That's like saying WWI is part of WWII, broadly construed. Two different conflicts, separated by time, with different parties involved. That one preceded the other, or that some of the parties are the same, doesn't mean the former is part of the latter, even broadly construed. Also I'm not trying to trip Zero up. He made a bold addition, I reverted and started a talk page discussion, he reinstated, I asked him to self revert, I didn't take him to a noticeboard or post an edit warring template or anything. If you think there's a better way I could have handled that chain of events, please let me know. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 04:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::Oh, I thought Jewish families bought the land while Palestinian families were inhabiting the place. Is that not the case? Sorry, I gave the thing only a cursory read. Also, I wasn't talking about you specifically, Levivich. I was talking about a general tendency that has been marring this dispute. Which, often enough, is par for the course for ARBPIA disputes. As an aside, I have now added the template and a notice about 1RR being enforced for "related content." Hopefully, that settles that matter. ] 04:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::The Arab-Israeli conflict is not confined to the creation of Israel. That be saying the 1929 Hebron massacre isn't covered, or the Balfour declaration isnt covered (they very much are). Broadly construed is broad for a reason. The history of the conflict is covered. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::I note (partially to self) that several of the outstanding issues addressed by ARBPIA4 have not been reflected in the templates. Like giving admins the option to also ] as an escalation later on, rather than right away. <s>Or having a separate template for "related content."</s> Hopefully, these will be put in place before ARBPIA5 so as to avoid (my) repetition. ] 05:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Never mind about "related content," I'm reading the documentation — it's there (relatedcontent=y). I'm just not sure it has ever been used. Anyway, now applied. ] 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

	{{u\|El_C}} (1) Your reading was correct. The Palestinian tenants were on the land when the JNF purchased it from the Sursocks. I think this is clear from my text "In 1921, when the ] purchased the land...". The tenants appealed to the British for protection from the Zionists. There are more details in the source and I can clarify it further when the petty dispute is finished. I think it is impossible to claim this to be outside ARBPIA. (2) The reason the talk page didn't have <nowiki>{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement\|relatedcontent=yes}}</nowiki> is that it has been repeatedly removed, first by and again by , despite ARBPIA4 being clear that only uninvolved admins can remove it. It was present on the talk page for the first two of Levivich's three reverts. (3) Regarding Levivich's claim "The first two are a series and count as one," please explain that reverts separated by edits from another editor do not count as one. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Yeah, and are very much not consecutive edits, given . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:Looks like I'm out of the loop! But, indeed, ARBPIA4 is clear on this: {{tq\|Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed '''only''' by an uninvolved administrator.}} ] 05:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::That's true I was looking at two different diffs, they're not in a series, and I shouldn't have removed the template. Still, the templates should be removed. It's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the Jewish-Palestinian conflict or the Zionist-Palestinian conflict. The Great Revolt had direct consequences upon the the first Israeli-Palestinian war in 1948 (as stated in that article, with sources), that's why it's part of PIA. This is Jews buying land from Britain, and Britain giving 9 families a lease with purchase option. That event had no bearing or influence on the Israeli Palestinian conflict (or anything else, which is why I've challenged it as undue). It's not a major historical event like The Great Revolt or the Balfour Declaration that (per sources) directly affected the creation of Israel. And the PLO stuff is that Arafat mentioned it in a speech once and I guess named a brigade after it. That still doesn't make it part of ARBPIA. By analogy, if Arafat had named his brigade the "George Washington Brigade", that would not make ] part of ARBPIA. The brigade might be, but not it's namesake. If Arafat mentions New York in a speech, that doesn't make New York part of ARBPIA. And we wouldn't write in ] that Arafat mentioned it in a speech (and quote the speech). Anyway, shouldn't the templates only be applied ''after'' there's consensus to include the ARBPIA content? As of now, I don't see consensus on the talk page to include the content, even if it's part of ARBPIA. IP editors can participate in talk page discussions already anyway and there's no ARBPIA content in the article, so why prevent IP editors from editing the article by having that edit notice? ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 05:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::No, Levivich, there is a dispute in the article that involves ARBPIA components. Your definition misses the mark. And I was wrong when I closed the ANI report as "not related" — this does have "related content" with respect to history related to the conflict. I made the error, though, so Levivich and JungerMan Chips Ahoy! should not have to suffer for my mistake. ] 05:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|El C}}, Also, you keep saying Jews and Palestinians, but in 1921 they both had British Palestinian citizenship. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I haven't said "Jews and Palestinians" even once, but it matters not. Jews buying land inhabited by Palestinians falls under ARBPIA, irrespective of citizenship. This is about the evolution of the conflict. There are no loopholes. ] 06:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::{{u\|El C}}, you just did. "Jews buying land inhabited by Palestinians" they were Palestinian citizens and were afforded the same rights in British courts in the mandate. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Again, it's about the evolution of the conflict. If you are unable to address that facet, it just comes across as unresponsive. ] 13:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u\|El C}}, No, it's not. It's a little bit rewriting history. That's all. They were both called Palestinians, but now you want to say that one is "indigenous" to the land, so they were Palestinian and the other was just Jews. Meanwhile, the family themselves moved from Lebanon to the area, so what makes them Palestinian and not Lebanese, but the Jews don't get to be called Palestinian even though they live there too? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::: {{u\|Sir Joseph}} The land was owned by a Lebanese Christian family, but they didn't move to Palestine. They owned land all over the Middle East as an investment. The fellahin who they rented the land to were locals, not Lebanese. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::Why do you misquote me? I've never said "indigenous." They were Arab, were they not? This about ARBPIA — about the history of the conflict. This matter of land purchases by Jews in the area is almost always hotly contested in no uncertain ARBPIA terms, on Misplaced Pages and beyond. ] 14:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{u\|El C}}, Right, you called them Palestinian, not Arab. The other side you called Jews, not Palestinian. They were both Palestinians. That's exactly my point. You didn't say it was Arab vs. Jew in your post, you said Palestinian vs Jew. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I accept your correction. ] 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

	:::Levivich, you're right, the ''editing restrictions for new editors'' bit should not be automatically part of that (relatedcontent=y) template. Not in the way it's currently written, at least. Note that I didn't ECP the page — that was intentional. But the wording of the template is still a problem. One which I identified during ARBPIA4. ] 06:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|El C}}, so delete the pagenotice, that shouldn't be there. Your talk page notice is more than enough. Zero's adding in of the page notice is an issue and one that I raised earlier. It should only be applied when the entire page is subject to ARBPIA sanctions, and he added it clearly while in a content dispute. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Both the mainspace and talkpage notices are necessary for enforcement to come into effect. That is my read of ARBPIA4. But it is "primary article"-leaning in its wording, which is a problem. And how is {{tq\|if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert}} still in the notice? I thought that provision was abolished. What is happening here? Maybe a query at ] about any and all of this would be worthwhile. ] 06:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::No, it is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and everything that relates to it. Yes, the JNF buying land in Palestine after the British took control is part of that. ''directly affected the creation of Israel'' is a wee bit more restrictive than what ARBPIA4 actually says, and what all of us have known for years, that anything ''related'' to the wider ''Arab-Israeli conflict'', including material from pre-state Israel, is covered. That includes most of post-WW I mandate Palestine, especially including Jewish immigration and land purchases. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:::"Jews buying land from Britain"?? They bought it from the absentee owners (the Sursocks). Zionist land purchase in Palestine, including the related displacement of tenant farmers, is how the conflict got started. I doubt there is a single source that disagrees unless they project it even further back in time. If you think it shouldn't be included in ARBPIA the place to ask is ], but it would be a waste of time. Incidentally, the editnotice is also out of date I believe; see ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::I have the notice accordingly. ] 06:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{u\|Zero0000}}, No note of this being an absentee sale. Sursock got lots of money from this. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 14:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Also, they paid displaced farmers, even though they didn't have to. "The buyers demanded the existing settlers be relocated and as a result, the Arab tenant farmers were evicted, with some receiving compensation the buyers were not required by law to pay." ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::: I didn't say "absentee sale" and don't know what that means. I said "absentee owners", which just means that the Surocks didn't live on the land they sold. They lived in Beirut. The issue of compensation is complicated and there were multiple cases in the courts all through the mandate period. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	C sorry but I'm still confused. ARBPIA4 #8 says {{tqq\|In the case of disputes regarding whether or not an article is a primary article, or whether a portion of content is related to ARBPIA, editors should use normal dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus.}} There was an active dispute about whether that page was covered or not. It began when Zeno said an IP's vote at an AFD shouldn't count because of 30/500. It went to ANI and you closed it as not covered, appeal at AE. Onceinawhile started a thread at Talk:AE about it. Then Zeno added the templates. How is this "normal dispute resolution" and not one editor just overruling others? ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 06:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Except, I don't think that was ever in dispute. I think everyone agrees it isn't a "primary article." Even "related content" requires all of the notices, as clumsy as these may be, for enforcement to come into effect. Yes, I was wrong about and have my ANI close. Again, ''mea culpa'' about that. ] 06:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::But there is no related content in the article, and no consensus to include it (so far). And whether the content is related or not is, itself, a matter for consensus. Meaning if there develops consensus to include it, editors could still reach consensus that the content isn't related to ARBPIA. Those are two separate discussions, and only if both come back a yes, should the templates be applied. At least this is my reading of ONUS and ARBPIA4 #8. Yeah, maybe an ARCA to handle this laundry list of questions. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 06:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::My read of ARBPIA4#8 is that it's about deciding whether an article is "primary" or "related" content (only). Not about whether it falls into ARBPIA itself. That (ARBPIA) determination may be invoked by any editor, was my understanding, which can then only be undone by an uninvolved admin. ] 07:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::Why exactly are you so against ARBPIA applying to that content? Why such fervent opposition? There is content directly related to the conflict being edit-warred over (by yourself, who still hasnt corrected the 1RR violation as best I can tell), and you think that should mean the sanctions '''shouldn't''' apply? Odd. I think as a general rule that when an editor is both edit-warring and is opposed to sanctions applying that is evidence that the sanctions should in fact apply. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::Funny, you didn't suggest Zero should self revert when he violated 1RR. You didn't characterize his actions as edit warring. You didn't ask him why he cares so fervently about including the disputed content, or the templates. But you did comment in the thread on his talk page, suggesting another editor was a sock. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Because he hasnt? is his only revert there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::::Oh that's right. He didn't violate 1RR, because the first bold addition isn't a revert. He violated BRD but that's not a policy so it's OK even though it was forbidden in the template he himself added, that template was actually wrong. Of course! And although there's no consensus to include any of this content in the first place, or even to have the article exist at all, it's ''still'' covered by 1RR, because the rules basically are that any content about Jews and Palestinians added to any article can only be reverted once per day per editor, since such content is covered by ARBPIA and 1RR. And I'm supposed to know or remember this. No thanks. I'm reminded why I stopped editing this area in the first place and I'm not sure what I was thinking editing an article about a place in Israel. I'm not spending any more of my free time on this Byzantine bullshit. Nabs, see you again next year after I forget again. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 07:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Yeah, his addition was not a revert, and yeah, his revert was not forbidden by the arbitration decision, and yeah, your second revert is. And yeah, despite you not wanting something to exist it is still covered by the arbitration decision. You can call it Byzanitine bullshit if you like, but its pretty simple from where Im standing. You dont have to remember it, but when your reminded of it you should probably actually follow those rules you claim to care so much about and self-revert. As far as you leaving for a year, well whatever makes you happy. Probably help those rfa prospects if you dont get mired in such byzantine bullshit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 08:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::::::How have "rfa prospects" even become part of this conversation? I don't like that. Anyway, in fairness to Levivich, that outdated provision was in the template for almost before it was noticed as such. ARBPIA remains, at best, clumsy as far as its templates are concerned. And, yes, it indeed, often proves so labyrinthine, not even us admins are able to easily navigate its ruleset. That leaves enforcement highly lacking. Very few admins even want to touch the topic area, largely because of that, myself included. One admin recently , in part, that only uninvolved admins familiar with ARBPIA would be allowed enforce the topic area — but who would those admins be? I submit to you all that they may not actually exist. I've been an uninvolved admin in this topic area for years and I still wouldn't consider myself ''familiar'' with all of its various rules. Better than most, sure, but again not enough to navigate it comfortably. ] 13:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

	----
	This all started because Zero made a bold addition and I reverted it. One revert, just one. The first thing that happened is he went to my talk page and said it was outrageous. Outrageous to revert him! How dare I! Even though I had already started an article talk page discussion, he just ignored it. He just reinstated it. Any other editor would be sanctioned for doing that on any other article. Just this week Kolya was partially blocked by Bradv for a week for doing exactly what Zero did. Hulk was warned by Awilley. But Zero does it? No problem, no sanctions, no warning, nothing. The Palestinian cabal ignore our policies and they get away with it, because they master the Byzantine DS rules and then use it to game the system. Maybe someday this handful of editors who have been owning the topic area for years will finally be asked to take a break from it. Mayhe then, the topic area will develop into something beyond a shitty amateur battleground. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 16:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:I am uncomfortable with assigning blame to one side over the other with respect to ARBPIA overall. I don't like that. But, indeed, there needs to be more article talk page discussion, less user talk page asides, and ] ought to generally be observed, especially the part that reads: {{tq\|the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Tha Palestinian cabal? lol. To the best of my knowledge there are 0 Palestinians who edit these articles. Tiamut stopped years ago, al Ameer Son never really got involved in conflict articles. But there is some Palestinian cabal. And any user, '''any user''', would self-revert a blatant 1RR violation when brought to their attention. Not go on an unhinged rant about cabals because they dont understand how to count to two. Maybe one day this group of uninformed users who demand that their views trump actual sources will be asked to take a break from this website. Maybe not, you seem to have ingratiated yourself to the right people, so who knows. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::The point is that neither side is blameless when it comes to ARBPIA. And generalizations about it being otherwise hardly ever ends up anywhere good. Case in point are ''both'' of your comments directly above. I realize there is bitterness, but I ask that you both take it down a notch. Figure out what does or doesn't represent ] (sources and all) about this or that on the article talk page, please. ] 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::El C, this user has violated the 1RR. That is as clear as, well, how many fingers I hold up when I count out his reverts. This user has refused to self-revert. This user should either self-revert or be restricted from the topic area. That toned down enough? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	::::Levivich, why have you failed to self-revert your 1RR violation? What is your response to that? Briefly, please. ] 16:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I'll answer that after you ask Zero why he didn't self revert. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::], I think this is where ] is referenced and a block notice for violating a bright line rule and refusing to self revert is placed. Zero didnt violate the 1RR, Levivich did. Exactly one user has violated a black and white do not do this rule, and exactly one user has refused to correct that. That should have some sort of consequence, a block or topic ban or whatever. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:::::::Levivich, that is not an acceptable response. If you have evidence that Zero also violated 1RR (or engaged in any other violation stipulated in the DS), you are free to submit that directly below and I will speedily attend to it. But your violation is not tied to his. As I already mentioned, the opportunity to self-revert is actually a boon. ] 18:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u\|El C}}, come on, you know that's not right. Plus, you might want to have given him a warning that you were going to block him, because now it looks like nableezy asked for it and that you delivered it. Which I assume is not how it happened, nor how it should. The first mention of blocks is by nableezy in this section. Finally, I think it proper if you block someone to give them a block notice so they can appeal, especially if it's an ARBCOM block. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::Sir Joseph, do you think I wanted to do this? My hands were tied. I am willing and able to also sanction Zero if there is evidence of a violation on his part, as well. But I don't see what other option I really had when Levivich outright refused (or placed conditions on) the boon of self-reverting. ] 19:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::OK ] <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

	:{{u\|Levivich}}, BTW, it's not just that, remember that policy also says that saying "the edit is idiotic" is not the same thing as saying "you're an idiot" is a valid critique. Zero has said that and he knows that, yet others on the other side were blocked for saying "your edit is XXXX" so yes, there is a discrepancy in admining as you point out. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

	==Partial block from ]==		==Partial block from ]==

Revision as of 06:09, 21 May 2020

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Partial block from Ain Jalut

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from the article Ain Jalut. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, since you refused to self-revert when you could have and since that option is no longer available to you, you have been partially blocked from the article for one week. I don't understand why you refused to avail yourself of this opportunity when you had a chance. I am puzzled, truly. I encourage you to continue to attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. Good luck. El_C 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, if it's an ARBCOM authorized block, you need to use an ARBCOM template. Sir Joseph 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. El_C 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, thank you. Sir Joseph 19:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what I wrote but ec'd with the partial block:

"Let's review. Zero made a bold edit. I reverted. He reinstated. I removed it again. Now I'm supposed to take the time to put back his edit because I did something wrong but he didn't? No. Flat no. Undo is not an option anymore technically and I'm not taking the time to figure out how to manually reinstate the content while preserving subsequent edits (especially since I'm on mobile for the time being). Even more so since that content doesn't have consensus and I already started the talk page discussion. The content should stay out until there is consensus for it. Period. Even if I did take the time to self revert, it would only be removed again (and probably reinstated again), so what's the point? Bottom line: the notion that an admin can make a bold edit and reinstate it after it was reverted, and have done nothing wrong, while the editor who challenges the content is limited to 1RR simply because the admin who added it also added a DS template (which they then violated by not following BRD), is such bullshit that I flatly refuse to comply, if indeed that's what the rules are, and I don't believe global consensus would support such craziness; I think global consensus supports ONUS, not first mover advantage, and not gaming DS to force content into an article without consensus.

Sorry C, after the long conversation on Bradv's talk page in which the exact same situation had exactly the opposite results, I'm dying on this hill. If I'm sanctioned, at least we'll have very clear recent examples of different editors doing the same thing and yet being treated very differently. Compare this situation to the examples raised on Brad's talk page the other day and tell me I'm crazy. For example, one editor's series was interrupted but still was counted as the same series because it was close in time. Why not mine? An editor reinstated a bold edit and was partially blocked. Why not Zero? Editors repeatedly remove re-additions that don't have consensus and aren't asked to self revert. Why am I? NOTTHEM is one thing; but inconsistent application of DS rules needs addressing. If you sanction me, I can appeal it and the community can make a decision and perhaps clarify some rules based on real world examples. Until then all I can do is point it out and complain about it."

Anyway, when I get off mobile and get my desktop back I plan to bring these specific examples up for community review. The "rules" are insane to begin with and inconsistently applied. Case in point: I'm partially blocked from an article for not self reverting, but the editor who re-instated the content and didn't self revert is not.

C, please do me a favor and post the specific diff(s) that violated 1RR. Levivich 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

revert 1, revert 2 and for good measure revert 3. 3 being greater than 1. Like it or not, Zero did not violate the 1RR and was not obliged to self-revert. You did and were. There is nothing inconsistent about that. nableezy - 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I don't want you to die on any hill, but you do as you see fit. I am sorry, I really am, but you were given the opportunity to self-revert on multiple occasions here, yet in the end, you outright refused. What else could I have done when faced with that? Give you a pass on the basis of... what exactly? Again, if you have evidence to submit about violations by Zero (or anyone else) I am still willing and able to speedily attend to that. Yes, ONUS should prevail (in the end), but in the meantime, the DS rules are binding. And all allowances were made for you to self-revert that one edit. If you couldn't do it due to technical limitations, you could have asked me to do it for you or request an extension. Anything. El_C 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The D in DS is for discretion. You could use it I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And I explain that discretionary inaction how exactly? I have to be accountable to all parties in a dispute. El_C 19:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Give a warning? Thats with in your discretion or do nothing which is also in your discretion. Maybe ask for community input. But you don't get to pull the sorry champ I hate to do this but my hands are tied routine. Does not work here obviously. PackMecEng (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, asking Levivich to self-revert was the warning. And it is not a routine. I am genuinely sorry it has come to this. El_C 20:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh thats for sanctions added by administrators at their discretion. The 1RR is a general sanction binding on all users. nableezy - 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh this is a DS action, as evidence by the big DS template at the top of this section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the template. It is enforcing an arbitration decision. Not a discretionary sanction, which is something that individual admins can impose at their discretion. The 1RR is not a discretionary sanction. nableezy - 20:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Well lets just take a look where this was logged. It was logged in the Arbitration enforcement log. What does the Arbitration enforcement log say at the top of the page? It says This is the central log for all sanctions issued pursuant to an Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions remedy. Yes this is a DS action. Here is a hint, if it says arbitration it has to do with DS. PackMecEng (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

lol k. nableezy - 21:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, C, I don't think you've done anything wrong... I just don't think I have, either. Just two things:

First, which one edit? Nabs points to three. Is it one edit or more than one edit? Exactly what edits were the 1RR violation that I should have self-reverted? I still think none of my edits were violations and I'm honestly unclear whether you agree with the three that Zero/Nabs pointed to or if you think it's some subset or something else.

Second, you keep saying if I have evidence about Zero. I feel like I've already gone over this multiple times. One more time, the sequence of events relating to Zero:

Zero objected to an IP voting in an AFD because of ARBPIA's 30/500.
That went to ANI and the close said DS doesn't apply (yes it was later reversed, but only after this conversation)
Onceinawhile started a thread to discuss whether DS applied. This was in line with ARBPIA4 #8 which says use ordinary dispute resolution process to determine if something is covered.
Zero adds content and DS templates based on that content.
I remove the content and start a talk page discussion.
Zero posts the (IMO overly aggressive) message in the Huh? thread above.
Zeno reinstates the content. This is a violation of the BRD restriction in the template he added, and ONUS. The template has since been updated to remove that, at Zeno's instigation.
I ask Zeno to self revert on his talk page.
Zeno says no.
I ask again. He still doesn't do it.
I remove the content again. At this point in the talk page discussion, consensus is against inclusion.
Zeno posts a 1RR "only warning" to my talk page and asks me to self revert.
I refuse.
I am partially blocked from the article. Zeno is not.

That's the evidence. I'm saying in that sequence, Zeno, the "bold re-adder" is being disruptive, and I, the "re-reverter" am not. I'm following ONUS and BRD, Zeno is not. That I get partially blocked for not self reverting, but Zeno does not, is what I'm saying is the unequal treatment. Levivich 20:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, Zero is not forced to observe BRD, even though it is recommended and would have reflected better on them — as for that outdated "original author" provision, it was amended before I've given you the chance to self-revert. An opportunity you should have accepted without hesitation. If consensus was, indeed, against inclusion, someone else ought to have reverted Zero, not you by violating 1RR. But that's not even the point, the point is that you refused to self-revert after given the chance to do so. There is no unequal treatment, not on my part, at least. There are rules, which I am bound to enforce as much as you are bound to adhere to. El_C 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes but Zero was also given a chance to self revert and refused to do so. Why is he not partially blocked as well? He didn't violate 1RR but he violated ONUS. Why doesn't that result in a partial block but my single 1RR violation does? Levivich 20:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the disputed content has just been reinstated again. No one will be surprised when they see who reinstated it. I predict it will be reverted again, and no one will be surprised when they read that name. Again and again, round and round we go C, and it's all because of uneven enforcement. You are putting DS 1RR above ONUS by p-blocking for a violation of one but not the other. And I don't think that approach enjoys consensus. I don't think that's what you're bound to do, I really don't. And I don't think it's good for the project either. Levivich 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, admins do get special treatment here. Look at ANI where an admin revdeled his NPA (which is usually an automatic desysop) and he continued insulting editors but of course that is allowed. BRD is usually considered policy, not a guideline so much so that most people don't even know that it's not a policy. At the very least Zero should be warned about it, especially because he's an admin. Sir Joseph 20:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh ffs, click on WP:BRD. There's a big box there. It says This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. nableezy - 20:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, Oh ffs, you've been here since 2007. You know very well how BRD is used. Sir Joseph 20:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as a general suggestion on how one might avoid getting involved in an edit-war. I myself try to follow it. Is it a policy? No. Is it a guideline? No. Absent any sanction requiring that it be followed, does it need to be followed? Shocker, but again, no. nableezy - 20:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You see anything anywhere in WP:ARBPIA4 about WP:ONUS requirements? Anything about enforced BRD? I read the bradv talk page, and just as I suspected you are taking two disparate situations and claiming they are the same. Go look at the notice at Talk:Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation. You see where it says 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. That is a discretionary sanction that applies to that article. That is not the case for the Ain Jalut article or for the wider ARBPIA topic area. That is in that instance there actually is a sanction that requires BRD to be followed. Here there is not. Here there is a 1 revert rule. You reverted three times. You violated the 1RR. There is nothing, not one word, in ARBPIA4 that requires users to follow BRD. Not. One. Word. There are however specific restrictions on reverts, restrictions you both broke and then refused to correct. nableezy - 20:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and it's Zero, not Zeno. nableezy - 20:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

See what I mean C? Nabs is literally saying that because it's ARBPIA, ONUS policy doesn't apply. Instead 1RR is king. So, Zero and Nishidani have done nothing wrong by adding the content 3x between them even though there's no consensus for it, but I'm partially blocked because I removed it twice. And they know this. And they use it to their advantage, working together, to include content without consensus. That's backwards and counterproductive. What's the point of continuing discussion on the talk page as you suggest if this sort of behavior is allowed, but reverting it is not? Levivich 20:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not once said that, please do not put words in my mouth. Consensus however requires reasons, and your reason at that talk page are, to be blunt, horseshit. You distort what WP:DUE says and then demand that others abide by it. Sorry, but that aint going to end with everybody acceding to your will. nableezy - 20:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You see anything anywhere in WP:ARBPIA4 about WP:ONUS requirements? Does ONUS apply or not Nabs? Did Zero and Nish violate ONUS? Levivich 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, it is not helpful to denigrate the reasoning of your opponents in a content dispute. Obviously, there is a disagreement, so both of you should advance your arguments on the article talk page and do so in a matter-of-fact manner. El_C 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it does. Is it to be enforced with blocks? Depends on how severe a problem it is I suppose. Is it mandated that violations of it result in blocks? No. Is it mandated that violations of the 1RR result in blocks? Yes. And I expect that in the not so distant future when banned editor's sockpuppet account comments are struck, that the ONUS having been met will be clear anyway. But thats another matter for another time. nableezy - 20:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not mandated that violations of 1RR result in blocks. ARBPIA4 says "may be blocked", not "must". Levivich 20:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Fine, is it mandated that all editors follow the 1RR or be subject to a block? Yes. Is it mandated that all editors abide by ONUS or be subject to a block? No. nableezy - 21:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Especially a wekk-long block at that. Why not start with 24 hours? I have seen 31, 48, 72, but to start with a week? Debresser (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I always block for one week for partial blocks for a first violation. That is not unique to this case (example). I equate a one week partial block to a 24 hour sitewide one. El_C 21:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right. One week for a first block is excessive. Blocking policy usually requires you start at 24 or 48. In this case especially when you know both parties were involved. To block for a week seems extremely punitive and not inline with what the purpose of blocking is, when you know very well how the IP area works. Sir Joseph 21:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are my standards, Sir Joseph. I don't see why the ARBPIA topic area changes anything on that front. El_C 21:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Which is what the chance of self-reverting is all about. Once that request is made and is declined, however, there's not much room for an admin to maneuver. El_C 20:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There are too many edit conflicts and I've lost precious text because of these. I'll try to reconstruct what I lost as best I can. ONUS is usually enforced, if it is enforced at all, after extensive edit warring. It is not immediately enforced after a few mere reverts, because that would make it enforced BRD, which is not part of the ARBPIA ruleset. Sure, it would have been to Zero's credit were they to observe it, but I don't have the authority to force him to do so. Not at that stage of the dispute, at least. El_C 20:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, also, just to nitpick since the page wasn't under ARBPIA at the time, shouldn't Levivich have received a DS alert prior to any sanctions? Isn't that how it usually works? I see on this page for American politics and BLP but I don't see any for the IP area but haven't checked, and I don't know if it requires one or not, but I thought it did. Sir Joseph 21:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich has participated in AE threads on this topic in the last 12 months and as such is aware. Eg here. Be difficult to claim being unaware when he comments on nearly every AE request I would think. nableezy - 21:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Still, ACDS is highly procedural. Sir Joseph is right, I thought I saw the alert above, but it is not actually there. Levivich unblocked with apologies. El_C 21:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Levivich 21:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:El C do what you want, but AC/DS requires awareness. Levivich is aware per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness. It does not require that the Ds-alert template have been issued, it only requires one of the awareness requirements to have been met. And Levivich is obviously aware, given that he has himself lobbied you for AE blocks in this topic area in the past, not to mention the repeated contributions to AE threads in this topic area, which AC/DS says satisfies the awareness requirement (eg here). Sir Joseph very much is not right, and Levivich should still be blocked. nableezy - 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, the point is that what I want or don't want is irreverent. I realize it comes across as an absurdity as Levivich is clearly aware, but no user may be sanctioned through Arbitration enforcement without the alert prerequisite being fulfilled. This is outlined quite clearly on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts. El_C 21:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, you are mistaken on this as a matter of fact. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness. What it says is

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:...
4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement

Here Levivich participated in an a process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement. He is thus aware and may be sanctioned. You are allowing an unrepentant edit-warrior get away with it on a technicality when that technicality isnt even valid. But whatever, do yo thing. Next time will just go to AE. nableezy - 21:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles § ARBPIA General Sanctions lists three sets of sanctions. As per the standard discretionary sanctions rules, sanctions can be placed under the discretionary sanctions authorization only after the proscribed form of notification or one of the other listed criteria is met. (Underlined text added after initial comment was made.) The other two sanctions (50/300 rule and One Revert Restriction), though, are separate, and so it seems to me a reasonable expectation of awareness is sufficient. (The 50/300 rule is of course now enforced by extended confirmed protection.) isaacl (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, I accept your correction, but nonetheless, I am not aware of any such participation in "area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement" on the part of Levivich. Yes, AE is always better. There you get a quorum of uninvolved admins, which reduces the possibility of errors. My thing is, in part, to do my best in navigating these complex rulesets. But I am far from prefect. And am not at all a fan of technicalities, actually. El_C 21:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your link. Obviously, it confirms awareness. However, reinstating the block is something I leave to another admin. I made enough missteps to last me for a while. El_C 21:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have amended the log to reflect Nableezy's correction. El_C 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A second block would just add insult to injury I think. ~Awilley (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that I am withdrawing in shame. El_C 21:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, that makes two of us. Levivich 22:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I thought you were leaving for a year and withdrawing in shame. Color me surprised. nableezy - 17:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and . nableezy - 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction alert

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

Template:Z33 El_C 21:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Good thinking. Better late than never, I guess. E Eng 21:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not even an EEngIMG — this sucks! El_C 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Here ya' go!

you signature

forgot to message this before, but I really like your signature and have copied it. imitation is the highest form of flattery and all that. TryKid 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@TryKid: Thanks! All credit goes to MJL for coding my sig, but I think the original is Rebestalic's. Levivich 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

TryKid Oh yeah ~ 😂 Rebestalic 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: Oh you know what, we should make a 'Dubious Discussers' gang haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebestalic (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I did stuff. I'm pretty cool 8) –MJL ‐Talk‐ 10:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Levivich and TryKid, I created the 'Dubious Discussers' gang! It's at Category:Wikipedians who have the Dubious – discuss template imitated in their signatures; to join, just paste the source code for the link somewhere in your user page and it'll show up in your Categories box at the bottom. Happy dubious discussing! ;) Rebestalic 10:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. MJL Please feel free to join as an honourary member, haha

UPDATE: I've found out that there's a WP convention that discourages imitation of things like cleanup templates so, no more dubious discussing Rebestalic 12:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RIP –MJL ‐Talk‐ 19:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Better to have laughed and lost than never to have laughed at all. Levivich 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

My chance to answer your points at the now closed discussion at ANI

The ANI discussion closed before I could answer you re this.
Ah, so you're virtue signalling to the gender gap issue. Thought as much. Just so you know, misandry is not a substitute for misogyny. All prejudice is wrong. And it's people like you who make "twattish" comments like that, who increase this divide.
Let's get one thing straight: Incivility is a by-product of incivility. To make the inaccurate comparison, which you do, that all men are evil scum who deserve everything they get coming to them, is no different to a man saying that all women should be seen and not heard and should get back to doing the washing up..."oh, and wear the shortest skirt possible, please darlin'". Both these views are abhorrently wrong, irrespective of which gender is spoken about. You foolishly think that by writing a deliberately misandristic comment, to counter balance the wrongs of historical misogynistic situations, is okay. It's not. Misandry is a crime here in the UK; you know that what you are writing is misandristic, but somehow, you feel justified in saying it because misogyny is somehow worse? That is the type of hypocritical behaviour seen in Left-wing, university-educated millennial types, the same people who want to rip down statues of Churchill and Nelson and eradicate all history books to appease themselves to other leftist fascists.
On a related subject, the well-known leftie actress Miriam Margolyes, the other day, wished Boris Johnson had died of Coronavirus, I guess, for nothing more than political reasoning. Wrong, I'm sure you'd agree. But can you imagine if Boris had have said that about Miriam Margolyes? All hell would've broken loose, especially from the Left, and people like you, who would've chalked it up as casual misogyny - but who would've thought of nothing doing it themselves. My point is that all prejudice is wrong, whether you are on the Left or Right, a Republican or Democrat, about males or females, blacks or whites, gays or straights. Either we do away with prejudice completely, or not at all. The half-in, half-out approach makes no sense at all and indirectly causes the very thing you seem to hate - incivility.
Feel free to delete, but I just wanted a chance to answer you which will now happily exist in the archive. Cassianto 06:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Swimming upstream

David Graeber writes about the violence of bureaucracy. I can see the problem; the question is how to redirect the current so the lower effort option is to empathize. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJiiYMNVkpw&feature=youtu.be Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Interesting video, thanks for the link! Yeah redirecting the current into something productive is definitely the challenge. Levivich 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nimitz/Roosevelt/UFOs

Per the on-going discussion that you initiated at Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents and the consensus that seems to be emerging, I have begun to assemble in my sandbox a draft page that merges the two articles in question. My primary goals are to remove the WP:FRINGE, the WP:SENSATIONAL, and the overt WP:PROMOTION of Woo-inclined people and organizations, significantly condense the text, yet retain the extant RS wherever possible. Because you are the original proposer, I thought you should know that work toward that end is progressing. Of course if you'd prefer to do this yourself I'm perfectly happy to abandon the effort, as it is proving to be a difficult slog. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you JoJo Anthrax for doing the hard work and for letting me know. I've been tied up with RL lately but will check in when I have more time for Misplaced Pages. Cheers! Levivich 14:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, and I'm also happy to report that my draft is now "complete." Being new to this, the next procedural step is unclear to me. Should I simply submit the draft for review, or recruit an administrator to first review it, with reference of course to the merge discussion you initiated? I suspect the latter might not be a bad idea. I also expect that a certain element of the enWiki editor corps will, to borrow a phrase, squeak and beep about this new treatment of the subject matter. I do believe, however, it reflects well the dominant positions and opinions expressed at the merge discussion. And FWIW, the process took FAR longer than I originally anticipated. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Give it a little time, there is no deadline, etc. But there is broad support for the combo article. It would be good if Levivitch and some others could give it a review before it goes live. I myself had a few ideas which could improve the article and help prevent some fringers freak outs, but I won't be able to get to it until next week. Thanks for your efforts, BTW. Regards, LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of LuckyLouie and ජපස, the draft merged article is in good shape, and seems to me likely close to, if not actually at, completion. If you have the opportunity please give it a review, make desired edits, etc. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that my RfA is done...

...and I can talk to people again: Seriously? No burma-shave? I'm disappointed. (Thank you Atsme for getting one in on the talk page). bradv (hopefully mostly jokingly) threatened to pull his nomination if burma-shaves started showing up in the !votes. creffett (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, you lil creffett, you!! Hell, it's Monday, and everyone is still asleep. I'll be back with some Burma Shave signs crafted just for you!! _Talk 📧 14:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I wanted to mention it in a support explicitly citing your excellent template creation skills, but tbh I was too chicken shit that I was going to mess up your RFA. Congrats btw! I very much look forward to reading your burma-shave unblock denials. Here, let me suggest one: I DON'T THINK
YOU REALLY TRIED
UNBLOCK REQUEST
THEREFORE DENIED
Burma-shave

Levivich 17:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We have to remember to add these scattered Burma Shaves to the template. E Eng 07:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I almost endorsed you with a Hulk Rant, but remembered how brevity is wit or something, settled for and sticking with "Aye, good stuff". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Of interest.

Even though we don't agree on much, we likely agree on this. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, here's to firsts :-) Thanks for the heads up, I reverted my ANI thread; no need for both to be open at the same time. Levivich 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Up to you. Sometimes both can be useful, since it brings more eyes and scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)