Levivich
Welcome!
changeHello, Levivich, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes.
You may want to begin by reading these pages:
- Help
- Rules
- Links to useful pages
- How to write Simple English pages
- How to copy from another Wikipedia
For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested pages or the list of wanted pages.
You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by clicking 
or using four tildes (~~~~); this will show your username and the date.
If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.
Good luck and happy changing! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: Thanks! I'm honored to have you be the one to create my talk page here! I never spent much time on this wiki, but I think it's a great idea. Levivich (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: The honor is all mine!
This place is pretty chill, and I generally edit here when I want to escape enwiki drama. For example, I wrote the article Spooky Scary Skeletons, and I have never feared its deletion (surprising it was recently nominated, but even without me commenting, it was kept). I think I will make Cod Island next using the translate tool (which is something they have here). :O
I'd appreciate your help with Clarice Phelps if you don't mind, though. I want to see that article completely up to our standards before the enwiki arbcom case is even over. ;) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)- Always good to have a place to escape drama. Nice job with Spooky Scary Skeletons! I'll see what I can do to simplify Clarice Phelps. Do they have a script that checks an article's content against the 850 and 1500 word lists and highlights the words that aren't on them? Levivich (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I took a shot at adapting the article–first article I've edited here. That was tough! But interesting. I hope I didn't screw it up too bad. Levivich (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Always good to have a place to escape drama. Nice job with Spooky Scary Skeletons! I'll see what I can do to simplify Clarice Phelps. Do they have a script that checks an article's content against the 850 and 1500 word lists and highlights the words that aren't on them? Levivich (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Levivich: The honor is all mine!
Reverted edits
changeHey man. I wanted to tell you that I reverted your edits on Clarice Phelps because you removed info when trying to make it more simple. I understand that it can be difficult making an article in simple language, however we still do not want to remove information that makes it specific. Best, --Examknow (lets chat! 
) 16:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it and letting me know! Levivich (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you please make that change here as well, please? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Done Could use another editor's review for wording. I'm not sure if the quote is appropriate for this wiki and/or if it should be broken up into two sentences. Levivich (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The irony
changeThis ("I believe US, UK and probably all the other anglophone navies have officially moved to gender neutral language now") really tickled me! Where are you getting your new-fangled ideas? Are you forgetting that the Royal Navy's equivalent of "private" is "able seaman" and that all Commonwealth realms' warships have gendered pronouns in their names? There is also the hilarious pitfall of "fisherpeople" into which some have unwisely stepped, forgoing the perfectly acceptable "fishers" (so established it's a surname ... but a masculine-gender word from Old English) or (the apparently sometimes gender-neutral) "fishermen" (Guardian, Sun: "Just because I am of the opposite sex doesn’t mean I’m not a fisherman.", Telegraph, ABC: "Our recommendation? Use "fishermen", or otherwise write around the term." (Further (serious) reading: "Should we call them fishers or fishermen?", "Fisherwomen—The Uncounted Dimension in Fisheries Management: Shedding light on the invisible gender".)
I fear your expectations of linguistic practice on the high seas may be a little too modern for the present-day world! It still holds true what John Smith wrote in his work of 1627 (The Sea-mans Grammar and Dictionary Explaining all the Difficult Terms in Navigation, Or: the Practical Navigator and Gunner, in two parts, by Captain John Smith, sometimes governour of Virginia, and admiral of New England), where, among his definitions is: "Man the Boat is to put a Gang of men, which is a company into her, …". A 15th-century MS has the following from 1449: "... the iiij day of May the yere of the reigne of our soveraigne lorde the kyng xxvij [pirates] manned diversez vesselx of the same towne of Kensale and apon the saide see fell apon the saide Maister fysshers and mariners and slewe iij men of theyme and other diverse moo of theyme hurted and grevousely bet and from theyme took the saide ship of Spayne with all her freight". So much, then, for a binary distinction between old/bad and new/good and for a unequivocal consensus among the copper-bottomed top-brass for one purism over another! (Not that one should expect such revolutions from that quarter: "Plans by Ukraine's defence ministry to have female soldiers march in high heels instead of army boots in a parade next month …") GPinkerton (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)