User talk:Narky Blert/2021

Wikipedia is not therapy

Dear Narky Blert

Thank you for that link. I had not seen that essay before. As it says, Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not therapy. That being true, therapy in the form of providing at least a modicum of purpose and meaning is in the eye of the beholder. As is equally, I suppose, disruptive behaviour. That said, I was surprised to be accused of wiki-lawyering. It seems to me that WP policies and essays are OK to rely on when explaining why some actions should not be taken, but relying on such policies and essays to explain why an action was taken is seen as wiki-lawyering. I have also been surprised that essays which are not part of WP policy and have not been vetted by the community are referred to as if they have some kind of quasi-policy status. I know of only one exception, and that is WP:BRD, which I was recently surprised to see is only an essay rather than WP policy. Even so, BRD seems to have become custom and practice.

I wanted to say this as politely as I could rather than having it floating through my head, for the next six months.

thank you, René aka Sandbh (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do when the source itself is ambiguous?

At The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth, you added a dab-needed tag to an internal link to Diospolis. Now I'm not sure what to do. I did realise at the time I added the link that I was linking to a disambiguation page, which I did because the source used only refers to "Diospolis", without disambiguating which Diospolis is meant. From the context, it's clear that it's supposed to be a Diospolis in Egypt, but still there were two cities with that name in ancient Egypt (Diospolis Magna and Diospolis Parva).

Now someone with more knowledge than me about ancient Egypt might know which Diospolis was meant, so it would make sense to leave the dab-needed tag on the page. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether this is what the tag is normally used for, neither whether future wiki users would understand what is expected from them. Other options are to remove the wiki-link itself, or to link to the disambiguation page in the proper way (by using something like [[Diospolis (disambiguation)|Diospolis]]<!--DAB link is intentional, source is ambiguous over which Diospolis is meant--!>, as I've just learned).

What should I do in cases like this? I'm relatively new here, but given the nature of the materials which I work on, I suspect that I will be confronted with this kind of thing relatively often. Apaugasma (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Good question! I'd already bookmarked that one for possible attention by WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome in case someone there knows for sure. (They're really really good. I was astonished that anyone could confidently solve this problem - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#A link to a DAB page.)

What I do when I've decided that it will likely forever be impossible to determine exactly which place is meant, is to add an {{efn}} footnote something like. "The source says FizBuz, but that could mean either FizBuz (north) or FizBuz (south)". No WP:OR, and it shows that an editor has had a good hard look at the problem, and readers learn that it's unsolved and possibly insoluble.

I've used that technique in particular for English birthplaces when there are two villages less than a mile or so apart, locations of air combats in WWI and WWII where even the war diaries of the units would be unlikely to help, and birthplaces of the ancestors of Jewish emigrés from e.g. Poland or Belarus where many villages have the same name and it's highly unlikely that any records have survived. Narky Blert (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(PS - my money's on Thebes, but I can't say so or even suggest it in WP's voice.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I like this footnote idea, but would leave the ambiguous term unlinked altogether and just have the footnote say: "The source does not specify whether this is FizBuz (north) or FizBuz (south)". BD2412 T 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It depends. If someone was born in 1200 AD in FizBuz, I will confidently assert that it was none of the places in USA with that name. If an air ace won a victory in France in 1915, I will link to the DAB page noting the unlikelihood that it took place in Brittany while linking in particular to the places where IMO (WP:OR...) military logic says it could have taken place. Narky Blert (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Narky Blert and BD2412: Many thanks for the input! Thanks a lot also for alerting me to the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (I too would have been able to answer your query about Philo and Zeno, so I will definitely add this page to my watchlist).

What I've ended up doing is what I should perhaps have done in the first place: do some extra research. It turns out that even the editor of the English Nag Hammadi translations isn't sure whether the Hermetic treatise is referring to Diospolis Magna or Diospolis Parva (and, moreover, that he wrote this in a passage which I had actually read the first time, and even cited), so it seems that it is fundamentally unclear (as these things often are). I've added an explanatory footnote as suggested, but with the added bonus of a reference. Apaugasma (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Excellent!

If you ever need them, both DGRBM and DGRG are available online at archive.org - old, but solid scholarship, and well-referenced. Narky Blert (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Another for your collection, but well earned

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. Aside from your general prolificness, I wanted to call out the comments I see you adding after dn tags. The rest of us do some investigation, hit a dead-end, and just throw that effort away, leaving a glaring dn sitting there unadorned. It's nice to see you putting forth the effort to help those that follow (at the very least to not repeat the same research), and hopefully it can inspire the rest of us to do the same. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fyrael: Thank you! I'm know I'm not the only one - I've cleared {{dn}} tags where I'd just about made up my mind but wasn't really sure - until I opened the page to edit it and found that another editor had reached the same tentative conclusion. Two of us? this may be a time to be WP:BOLD! And, as you suggest, a hint may be all the next passing DABfixer needs to get the job done. (Even a {{dn}} tag can do that; I remember once tagging a dozen articles about college football; next day, all had been cleared.)

They can also be aides-memoires to self for the next time through - you've already looked at this, and failed (or, got this far, if you feel like having another go).

They can also have the hidden agenda - is there any real chance of notability here? feel free to unlink. Narky Blert (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Anniversary

	Vicennalia
	Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Erich Kunzel

The Amen! album was a Grammy nominee. Perhaps the more extensive credits should be shifted to its own page? Does being nominated for a Grammy automatically make it notable enough for its own page? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Scottandrewhutchins: A Grammy nomination puts it in with a fighting chance - see WP:NALBUM#4. That guideline says such albums may be notable, but doesn't guarantee it. I'd want to see a couple of reviews as well (which it almost surely had - nominations don't come out of thin air). Narky Blert (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, I'm Kamilalibhat. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of characters in Ramayana without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Kamilalibhat (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia:Wikiproject Bluelink patrol

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia:Wikiproject Bluelink patrol requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Please treat this as a {{db-author}} speedy. The capitalisation of "p" in "WikiProject" is incorrect. The correct version of the cat is Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol, which is populated. This page was most likely the result of a bad save while I was setting up a nest of categories yesterday. Narky Blert (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we move that to Category:WikiProject Bluelink patrol? Most similar categories don't contain "Wikipedia:". Certes (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bluelink patrol#Gone live. The moves won't be difficult, but I'm giving it a day or so until any accidental garbage such as this is cleaned up. Creating a group of new related cats is, fiddly. Narky Blert (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes protection

I've been thinking about your proposal on ANI for pending changes protection on mainpage articles, and I think this really has potential. Would you be interested in bringing it to the idea lab? Pinging @Hemiauchenia and @TheDragonFire300, who were also in favour. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. Narky Blert (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disabled filter 1010

(also @Certes:) Hey, Narky Blert. From the looks of the log, the "irrelevant linker" is inactive, so I've disabled filter 1010 (hist · log). If they show up again, let me know, and I'll switch it back on. The true positive from October was in the same range they used earlier, Special:Contribs/240f:ca:ea:1/64, a block might be more effective anyway. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists (Part 3) for the most recent cliff-hanging edge-of-the-seat update. There's no point in keeping a filter running if it's catching nothing. If this nuisance reappears, it should show up (as I now know) in Category:Pages with excessive dablinks (which I refresh daily, or try to). Its signature style is inscribed on a parchment which I keep under my pillow. Should I come across it again, I'll be (as they say) back. Narky Blert (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree that there's no point in running a filter which catches nothing, but let's keep it around (disabled) in case we need it or a modified version again later. The Indian film vandal is different from "irrelevant linker". I suspect that for some (probably good-faith) reason they replace the section by a list compiled by taking film names from a (probably reliable) source and mechanically adding square brackets, without understanding that not every article can have its ideal title. Certes (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case

In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: My sole contribution to this case is accurately reflected in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Proposed decision#National and territorial disputes, and I have nothing to add. For the rest, I can do no better than draw ARBCOM's attention to "Well as, one judge said to the other, 'Be just and if you can't be just be arbitrary'" in William S. Burroughs' notorious novel Naked Lunch. Narky Blert (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Schmidt-Lademann House disambiguation needed

Dear Narky, I am not quite sure how your comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schmidt-Lademann_House&diff=next&oldid=1007307983 can be resolved. The original source only mentions: "the whole floor is covered with blackbutt mosaic tiles". The exact Eucalyptus type is not specified. Blackbutt parquettry is a quite common notion usually without specifically mentioning the exact wood type. Therefor the original article probably also did not mention the exact wood type. Please give a hint, how you think this should be resolved. Thanks Frank-Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.182.177 (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, and so quickly. I suspected that that might be the case, and have solved the problem using an editorial footnote. No guesswork needed. Narky Blert (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed

XIIIfromTokyo

Hello, I am writing to you because you were the one speaking French in the Guy Macon's ANI topic, and because Drmies asked me not to write in the current ANI topic. I just had a look to the global contribution link XIII gives in the ANI and I ended up on a conversation name "the pedophilia conspiracy in Sciences Po" on the French Wikipedia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=180233351#Le_complot_p%C3%A9dophile_de_Sciences-Po . You can see by yourself the misrepresentation of the truth he is giving, most of the contributors do not really understand his point of view anyway. He is saying that a false pedophilia conspiracy theory is being put in the article with sources like Gala and that he wants to alert the English WP of this because it could look bad if journalists see it (one is telling him that Gala is nowhere to be found in the sources ; they tell him to write on the English help desk, but he says he tried with no outcome, not mentioning of course the current ANI, but anyway).

I noticed one point though: he is asking several times, and it is the aim of the topic, if somebody would know the personal contact information of WP English administrators ("est-ce qu'une personne fréquentant le bistro aurait un bon contact avec du coté des Administrators de la version anglaise ?" "Donc si quelqu'un a un contact d'Administrator à qui refiler le bébé, je prends." – administrator is in English "je demande... le contact...").

(Redacted) I thought you might want to know he is trying to privately discuss the matter with English Wikipedia admins. Best wishes.

--Delfield (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Delfield: IMO Drmies gave you good advice in WP:ANI#XIIIfromTokyo, and you are right to follow it. You've made your points for everyone to read. There's no value in repeating them. I plan to stay out of that discussion from now on unless someone proposes a vote.

If XIII wants to contact an English WP admin, Talk Pages and emails are available. The other editors who posted in that French WP thread seem well aware that enwiki and frwiki are entirely separate. No-one seems to have responded to the suggestion of involving le service juridique, and I suspect a trace of le second degré in Thibaut's post.

The comment les anglo-saxons relatant les choses de façon moins édulcorées que les francophones made me chuckle. French lawyers are accustomed to sign off letters containing blood-curdling threats of legal action with Soyez assuré de mes sentiments les plus distingués.

Should you suspect that my posts in that ANI thread were designed to provoke a reaction, with a good idea as to what it might be, you could well be right. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok :-). --Delfield (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think XIIIfromTokyo is using over and over that common trick of politicians: to answer about a scandal about you, appear shocked and make a scandal about the question about the scandal so that the other one has to explain himself and the subject becomes the other people's question or comment. But I am not answering or interacting with him at all now, and it seems admins are seeing it. Best wishes. --Delfield (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)