Misplaced Pages

User talk:Levivich

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legacypac (talk | contribs) at 09:35, 28 December 2018 (→DYK for Lois Graham). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:35, 28 December 2018 by Legacypac (talk | contribs) (→DYK for Lois Graham)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Levivich talk page

Levivich, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Levivich! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Waco: Madman or Messiah and Proposed deletion of Warren Jeffs: Prophet of Evil

H Levivich, Greetings to you. You have page 2 PROP notifications of the on my talk page of Waco: Madman or Messiah and Warren Jeffs: Prophet of Evil articles. First of I am NOT the creator of the page, why are you sending me the notifications? and secondly, the articles do have independent, reliable sources to support the claimed and passed notability requirements, so why are you PROP the pages ? Please familiar yourself on the notability and independent source, and reliable source. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA 03:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biography (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 Senate elections

I'm hoping that a recount won't be required for the Mississippi special election, after tonight ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL. Counting my blessings that it’s down to just one race per chamber. Levivich (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lois Graham

Hello! Your submission of Lois Graham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusanLesch (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Earwig flags copyright violation for Graham's oral history. Maybe you could try shorter quotations.
  • The term STEM didn't exist in 1981 so we could add a note.
  • "Degrees awarded" belong under education.
  • Could the citations be simplified? (Piggybacking several doesn't help the reader to find the source for a given fact. I object to having to read a whole list of references.)
  • Your edit simplifying the section headings helped a lot.
  • I would like to see the lead cut way back. Suggestion is here.
  • Comment: The subject appears to be wearing a Graham tartan in this photo. Graham is my family name and is what caught my eye.

Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Earwig is still too high. I'm probably not the best person to judge that, because I sometimes push it to the limit. You're right "first woman in the United States" and "PhD in mechanical engineering" are not copyright violations.
  • The lead is better but I still prefer mine (sandbox). I would like to see her identified as a person with a job who did that job, not as a "first woman to" something.
  • Citations
1. Generally speaking, DYK's rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph. That said, DYK rules have evolved to require a cited hook: "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." I have on occasion cited every sentence. One citation per unit is enough.
2. I would split apart the bundled cite. There are rare cases where a few sources are required to cover all facts inside one sentence and so a bundle is helpful. This particular article does not seem to be controversial and so single sources are enough.
3. Yes, some sources could go. Rather than delete them, you can add a section titled "Further reading". See MOS:FURTHER.
4. RPI and IIT are both reliable sources. So are ASHRAE and SWE.
5. While they are primary sources, I think her oral history and obituary are both fine to use, see WP:PSTS.
6.North Country Now seems to be a legitimate newspaper, so yes it's very good source.
You're doing great. Misplaced Pages needed this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The citations look beautiful! Thank you for the new lead. You put a lot of work into this! (I dropped a few words to lower case; generally only POTUS is a capitalized title.) Great job. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 US House election

There's a few idiots at 2018 United States House of Representatives elections article, who are 'bleeping' it up. I can't stop them all. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexandros Schinas

Good job! Cinadon36 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Levivich (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Schinas

I have many objections to your edits in the article. But i think that you did a true honest work without any concerns for doing propaganda. If you want, you can consult the greek article. Thank you. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have some questions I will post on your talk page later today. Levivich (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
ok! please use simple english. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

On Schinas being an anarchist

Αντικαθεστωτικός reverted by edit at his talk page,(he was the one claiming that there is censorship in en.WP). So I 'll add my answer in your TalkPage if you do not mind.

Greek article is exremely POVish as it does not state that he was an anarchist. Plus, the way it is writen, it lets the reader to conclude that the conspiracy theories are the mainstream view. The article was mostly shaped by Αντικαθεστωτικός by far . Anyway, Misplaced Pages is not a RS, in general. So as for RS that claim Schinas being an anarhist, here is a not all inclusive list.

Cinadon36 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

in EL:RP the prologue is. Η επικρατέστερη εκδοχή είναι ότι είχε ψυχολογικά προβλήματα ενώ έχουν διατυπωθεί θεωρίες για την συμμετοχή του σε συνωμοσία εναντίον του αγγλόφιλου βασιλιά Γεωργίου καθώς και θεωρίες για αναρχικά πολιτικά κίνητρα. (loose translation-->)The most prominent version is that he had psychological problems while exist theories about his involvement in a conspiracy against the English-friendly King George and theories about anarchist political motivation. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Source? Plus it discusses the motives of the crime, not if he was or wasn't an anarchist. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't want any furher discussion with you. I am just talking to Levivich. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

1. user:Levivich You are the only one to read Kemp. Last page about Scinas. He conclude he just was sick.

2. In Tomai article there NOT such claim. Εις τους πλησιάζοντας αυτόν ανέπτυσσε περιέργους ιδέας περί σοσιαλισμού -->he had weird ideas for socialism. This is the opinion of young diplomat. It is primary source. Tomai says (her opinion) iδιόρρυθμο άτομο aka weird person.

3. It is a copy paste from NYT of 1913. The writers don't know -at all- the Greek sources. But i have provide this citation in Greek article.

4. Same with 3. I have also provide it in Greek article.

5. Same with 3. I have also provide it in Greek article.

If you bring me more, i will add them. Check also Greek article talk page. 5 users says their opinions. There are users with contribution in English Misplaced Pages. I am not here for propaganda, but i am here for hoax hunting. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: After asking Αντικαθεστωτικός about the source of the Greek text and his refusal to talk to me, he finally mentioned the source. Kind reminder: Wikipedias are not RS Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. (and the reason is lying in front of our eyes). Cinadon36 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

lol. i didnt suggest that it was a RS(!!) but i bring what the greek wikipedia wrote cause the user wrote article is exremely POVish as it does not state that he was an anarchist. Plus, the way it is writen, it lets the reader to conclude that the conspiracy theories are the mainstream view. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
See, you are misleading the public that a)the most prominent version is that he was insane and b)you are downplaying the fact that he was anarchist, while no author claims the otherwise. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am going to write my answer on the article talk page, so more editors can join the conversation. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


Hello friend. Clogg and Gallant are english speaking sources. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As it was pointed out in the talk page: A) Clogg is using only one word to comment on Schinas. He cannot be taken as a source for the articcle. B) Gallant uses only one sentence on Schinas. In that sentence, he does not claim that the Schinas was an actor of Spies, he claims that " most Greeks believed that the killer was a Bulgarian agent.Cinadon36 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello friends. I was thinking earlier, "Clogg" and "Gallant" don't sound like Greek names... :-) So yes I was confused about them. I found them. I will post my thoughts on them on the article talk page. Best regards, Levivich (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
hello again friend. i will explain when i will have time the citations. par example Gallant suggests that during the death of the king it was the first suspision that the assasin was a bulgarian spy and the forces give order to publish that he was a greek to prevent reprisals. This was the first impression. I will go more deeper in a future post. in about 3-4 days i hopeΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


it is a good job what you did. I disagree with your view. But i think that is a beautiful article.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Levivich (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations tools

I found these two citations tools really helpful. (citation App for books or this one for journals and websites). Have a look if you wish. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check them out! Levivich (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I checked them out and those are very helpful! Thank you for showing them to me! Levivich (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sustainability in construction

It reads like WP:OR & WP:SYNTH to me. I'd have removed the addition rather than spinning it out into its own article. Cabayi (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I agree with you. But I am a very new editor and the submission was approved by a pending changes reviewer (I was surprised by that), so I didn't feel comfortable "overruling" that by removing the admission after it was reviewed and approved. I also didn't feel comfortable leaving it in as it was. I thought spinning it out, tagging and parking it was better than either leaving it or removing it. I think the topic (green building) is good and deserving of a stand-alone article (of sufficient quality), and actually many of the sources cited seemed pretty good. My intent was that it can be cut down/edited/improved, but I wouldn't object if the whole thing were reverted. The "green building" article (or section) can always get re-written using those sources from the history. As a newbie, I just didn't want to be the one to pull that trigger, but I felt strongly it couldn't be left in the article as it was. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't sell yourself short. I think you gave the matter more consideration than the two new Pending changes reviewers who accepted the material, not that they could have done much differently.
Just to outline my thinking...
The material doesn't look like the work of a novice editor with only 3 contributions to their name. But it's not the kind of material that would make anybody suspect sockpuppetry. It looks like a college student recycling an assignment into a wiki article. I wonder if any colleges have their students submit assignments using a wiki?
I'm tempted to PROD or AFD with a reason of WP:NOTESSAY & WP:SYNTH, but I don't know enough about the topic (or have enough patience) to be sure.
As a safe step I've tagged it for all the projects listed on its parent articles Talk:Sustainability & Talk:Construction (I don't think I've ever tagged an article for so many projects) in the hope that someone in one of those 10 pools of expert knowledge may know what to make of it.
Thanks for the response. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Thanks for the encouraging words! I also thought it read like a college assignment (advocacy or argumentative essay). After cite checking a little further, I've found the text-source integrity is not what it appears to be. The sources look reliable, but it's going to take more work that I initially thought since they will need to be fully mined and the copy rewritten accordingly. Frankly, there are other things I'd rather do first, including working on the main Construction article, which should take priority over child articles. My thoughts on some options:
  1. Do nothing, see what the project experts do when they assess the article (thanks for tagging–your finger must be tired!)
  2. Draftify: ping the creator (and reviewers?) to the article's talk page, and see if the page can be moved back to the creator's draft space so the creator can rewrite for tone before resubmitting
  3. PROD: if it's deleted, remove the summary from Construction; if it's not, AfD it (or talk to whomever removes the PROD)
  4. CSD as a db-self (G7), and remove the summary from Construction (am I allowed to do that under these circumstances?)
I think we should do whatever will require the least work from other editors–most efficient path from Point A to Point Acceptable–I'm just not sure what that is. Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes,... thoughts. Plenty of them, and most of them inconclusive. I'm honestly unsure.
G7 seems to me to be stretching the rules beyond breaking point. You're only the author in the most tenuous sense of the word.
Draftify isn't really viable either. It has sources, and passes any threshold that would prevent it being published. The problems with the article are more to do with its premise than anything that could be repaired by more editing.
PROD is a possible route forward. Though I'd recommend waiting a few more days to see if the article attracts any more editors willing & able to improve it.
Leaving it be, and trusting to the community, is always a safe option. You don't have to fix everything yourself. However, of the 3 editors who've turned up so far, 2 seem very inexperienced - and I'm intrigued why this article is attracting them.
Sorry to be so inconclusive. Cabayi (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Yup, yup, and yup; everything you said makes a lot of sense to me. If we're both unsure, trusting in the community seems like wise advice. (Thank you for your guidance!) I wonder if the new editors are being brought to the page because it was recently tagged with multiple tags. Maybe I put too many? Levivich (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fake Democrats

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Fake Democrats requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Azkord (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Azkord: Thank you. I added additional CSD criteria to the page. I also warned the editor who created the page and un-did the vandalism-move. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Lois Graham

On 21 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lois Graham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1959, Lois Graham became the first woman in the United States to earn a PhD in mechanical engineering? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lois Graham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lois Graham), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope

and they removed my evidence and told me I can't post to the case anymore. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)