Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 21 May 2020 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Levivich/Archive 6) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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:

1. Zero objected to an IP voting in an AFD because of ARBPIA's 30/500.
2. That went to ANI and the close said DS doesn't apply (yes it was later reversed, but only after this conversation)
3. 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.
4. Zero adds content and DS templates based on that content.
5. I remove the content and start a talk page discussion.
6. Zero posts the (IMO overly aggressive) message in the Huh? thread above.
7. 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.
8. I ask Zeno to self revert on his talk page.
9. Zeno says no.
10. I ask again. He still doesn't do it.
11. I remove the content again. At this point in the talk page discussion, consensus is against inclusion.
12. Zeno posts a 1RR "only warning" to my talk page and asks me to self revert.
13. I refuse.
14. 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. EEng 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. EEng 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)