User talk:Narsil/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gaslighting". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 April 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Gaslighting, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Narsil. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Narsil. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carol (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carolus (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) 08:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Disney Wish for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disney Wish is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Wish until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Olaf

It really was Achilles. DS (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It really wasn’t Achilles, as you can see if you click through on the source—Bloom compares the poem to the Aeneid, and compares Olaf to Aeneas, then he compares Olaf to other classical heroes, like Achilles. Achilles isn’t in the frickin’ Aeneid!

But I have zero interest in edit warring. Anyone who reads that page and has any familiarity with the Aeneid will say “WTF, well that’s Wikipedia for you.” I tried to fix it. But some things here just can’t be fixed. 🤷 — Narsil (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

On p. 46, Bloom (it probably was Bloom) compares the poem to the Aeneid.

On p. 53, Lane compares Olaf to Achilles, and mentions Peleus and Briseis. Is your argument a) Lane meant Aeneas, b) Lane was wrong to have mentioned Achilles in the first place, or c) we shouldn't cite Lane? DS (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My argument is, we shouldn't say in the same sentence "Scholars compared the opening to the opening of Aeneid, and contrasted Olaf with Achilles". It gives the impression that those two are somehow connected--that we think Achilles is in the Aeneid. I suppose I'd phrase it as something like, "Scholars have seen _I sing of Olaf_ as a response to classical epics; the opening line hearkens to the opening of Virgil's _Aeneid_, but see the protagonist as an 'anti-Aeneas' (Bloom p. 53) and contrast the gentleness of Olaf with the rage of Achilles."

But I'm done with that page. It's not my problem. — Narsil (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; that's an excellent point. I'm not entirely satisfied with your proposed wording, but if I can't think of a better version by Monday, I'll incorporate it. DS (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this better? DS (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)