User talk:Narsil/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Daniel Inouye‎

I wonder about your edit to the article about this prominent Nisei -- not that your sense of improvement in this parenthetical clarification was wrong. This would be something to do with what is better or best?

Will you mull this over for a couple of days? When you've had a chance to reflect on it, you may decide that the deleted language was better. If not, perhaps your perspective needs to be reflected across the cohort of Nikkei articles (Issei, Nisei, Sansei, Yonsei)? I'm just wondering?

This is an open-ended inquiry. There is no question of right or wrong. Your edit is unchallenged, of course. --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi--The reason I made the change is, another editor of the Daniel Inouye‎ article had just changed the definition of Nisei from "second-generation" to "first-generation". (Here's the change he made.) This struck me as wrong, and certainly as confusing--but when I checked the Wikipedia article Immigrant generations, I saw that it said that both uses of the term "first generation" are common (i.e. it's often used to mean "immigrants", and also often used to mean "native-born sons of immigrants").

Given that, it didn't seem proper for me to revert the anon editor's change--I'd just be changing one confusing usage for another. By contrast, defining "Nisei" as "American-born child of Japanese immigrants" is certainly correct, and unambiguous. So it seemed like the right compromise to make. -- Narsil (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kallistos Ware

I am reinstating the section from ROCOR Studies because it has been read and specifically approved by Metropolitan Kallistos himself; please see the comment by M. Kallistos in the section at the end of the reference - it cannot therefore raise any possible issues of BLP. Mitredestructor2 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

To quote one phrase out of context--that he has a "double loyalty"--is a violation of WP:BLP absent a more reliable source. It implies that he is disloyal to his canonical superior (which you've been insinuating or saying outright in your various revisions to the Kallistos Ware article). A self-published article is not considered a sufficient source.

It may be that Metropolitan Kallistos has approved the article (though, again, we only have the word of a self-published source to say so). But in the context of the article, "double loyalty" is IMO just hyperbole, meaning something more like "has personal connection to/affection for" ROCOR. To just flatly say without context that he has "double loyalty" is reading more into the article than the author is saying.

Please stop making this change to Kallistos Ware. If you feel the change is warranted, discuss it on the article talk page (Talk:Kallistos Ware). If you just keep making the same change, I'll have to refer you for administrator action. -- Narsil (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

FYI since you've also tried to engage this ed you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mitredestructor2, edit warring and repeated insertion of Non-RS BLOG links NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! If you'd like, I'll roll back his latest addition (so it won't just be you undoing his changes). But yeah, at this point I think admin intervention is needed. -- Narsil (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Elijah Muhammad page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate Sanctions Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Cheers. --Jorm (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

O_o I ain't got a dog in this fight. I think removing the change diff (and flagging it as a "serious violation of BLP") is excessive--especially given that anyone who sees that can imagine any kind of hypothetical BLP violation that I might have made--but I won't take the risk of defending my edit, since describing the change I made would itself constitute the same BLP violation. I'm just gonna walk away from this one. — Narsil (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Didn't mean to scare you here; everyone gets that fat-ass yellow template. --Jorm (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, no offense taken! But I think I'm gonna write "here be dragons" around that whole section of Wikipedia. If I see a misplaced apostrophe I'll let someone else fix it. ;-) — Narsil (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disney Princess

Pleased do no remove sourced information like you did at Disney Princess here. While new princess are speculative it not being done by the editors but by news media. Plus, under the concept of a Media franchise, a merchandising agreements is not "off-topic", it is expressly on topic. --Spshu (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I feel pretty comfortable with my judgment there. Though if a consensus of editors disagrees with me I'm fine with that too. — Narsil (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Narsil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The other guy from Wham! listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The other guy from Wham!. Since you had some involvement with the The other guy from Wham! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)