User talk:Danbloch/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Nothing from Nothing

Since you reverted my edits at the Nothing from Nothing pages without acting on my advice that to assert a primary topic, move the primary topic article to the base name, that is what I have now done. I also fixed incoming double redirects and G14'd the disambiguation redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Afantasia

Thanks for the response. So, am I correctly inferring from the sentence you quote that "normal people" can conjure up touch, sound, taste, smell, and balance? If so, is there a term for not being able to do this for senses in general or for each individual sense? (I'm asking You here since this question doesn't really belong on the Afantasia talk page.) Kdammers (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That was my reading, yes. I don't think there are terms for the condition with other senses or senses in general. This could change, but the article suggests that there isn't much research on the condition. Dan Bloch (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Macaron page edit

Hi, thanks for going deep enough to fix that garble at the macaron page. Very excellent that you do that sort of thing. 2601:196:180:DC0:EDE4:335F:A084:51B4 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Polar bear

Thanks for the copyedit. Could you mark it "done" at the request page? LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem doing this but just to be clear, I'm a polar bear fan who has the page on my watchlist; I don't have a connection with the Guild of Copy Editors. My copyediting wasn't done to any particular formula. Let me know. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Dan Bloch (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Let you know what? LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Whether you want me to sign off on the request page even though I don't represent the Guild of Copy Editors. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Millennials Talk Page

Hi, further to our recent communication, I have posted to the Talk page and await response. Kind regards. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

MacGuffin

Apologies, I should have checked the citation for the quote before removing brackets, and I didn't understand why the brackets were there. Thanks for fixing my error. CAVincent (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Roadworks Gifts and Souvenirs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Roadworks Gifts and Souvenirs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 27 § Roadworks Gifts and Souvenirs until a consensus is reached. 65.92.244.99 (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please review WP:MINOR. The minor flag should be used only for things like fixing obvious typos. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

​I'm familiar with WP:MINOR. Thank you. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read it again. Diff1 is minor but diff2 is very much not. Consider diff3 which removed 87 bytes from Code (disambiguation)—by definition, such an edit might be great but it cannot be minor. It's not just me—see diff5 by HaeB which is what I noticed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

diff2 is specifically called out as minor in WP:MINOR#What to mark as minor changes ("formatting that does not change the meaning of the page"). Reasonable men might disagree on diff3 and diff5. As I read WP:MINOR, the key point, from the page in a nutshell, is "any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit". Neither of those diffs did, so they're minor in spirit. Having said that, I really don't care whether a change is called minor or not. I can veer toward other people's interpretation. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Move review for List of spaghetti Westerns

I have asked for a Move review of List of spaghetti Westerns. Because you were involved in the discussion, you might want to participate in the move review. --В²C ☎ 04:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Heinlein

Just read the Heinlein page. Have you considered adding a section about his treatment of the multiverse as a concept? DivaStuff (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm more interested in earlier Heinlein so I'm unlikely to do this myself, but you're welcome to. Or you could suggest it on the Heinlein talk page. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Danbloch. Thank you for your work on Polar BEAR. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Literally 1984 edit

Hi! I believe that there is some merit in the edit you just undid. The phrase does not originate from Donald Trunp J.R. (as the the edit stated.) However, it is an example of reception. I believe the it would be helpful to write something about the phrase on the 1984 wiki page. Thank you for reading- Nesser. NesserWiki (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I couldn't find any sources which would be considered reliable for Wikipedia. The one you had looks like content written by a student at that university, and other sources I found, like Urban Dictionary and Reddit, are WP:USERGENERATED. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

1960 US elections hatnote

Hi Danbloch,

I think you've certainly raised a reasonable point of MOS:RELATED regarding "related elections" hatnotes at the top of U.S. elections, but I would point out that almost every election since 1996 in the U.S. excepting the 2016 United States presidential election has one of these links (see 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2020 presidential election articles). Personally, I think these links are helpful enough to readers where it could be beneficial to ignore the guideline here. Cheers, estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I put them back. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The FC article

"A version of the chart and the phrase “flatten the curve” first appeared in a 2007 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about ways to control the spread of a pandemic. With interventions like social distancing and mask wearing, the CDC said, the peak of infections could be delayed and lowered, and the total number of infections could be reduced."

It did not originate as the opening sentences suggest - — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeingObjective (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I note you monitor this article - I am not sure it is in the least contentious and I m not playing semantics - I do not know your background and this does matter if you have such strong opinions.

I am a retired US Physician.

It is an 'expression' describing a set of policies - nothing mysterious about that - it also goes back to 2007 - I worked at the UWHospital when this term popped up - there is no contention from me - but I sense some folks are sensitive - it is an old EXPRESSION - but as another editor stated - it is not a precise thing - seeking to be polite and acting in good faith. BeingObjective (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to discuss this with you

I reverted your edits to Lodestar (Anderson). The book fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I can only imagine why you, with your tenure, thought it appropriate to add a large, uncited synopsis of the book. That's not the sort of content this encyclopedia needs. Per WP:SPINOUT, you can develop this content in the bibliography article, in a sandbox entry, or in a draft until you have it ready. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

​And I shouldn't need to be replying to you, but here we are. This story was published in the Locus Award-winning original anthology Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology, and almost certainly passes WP:GNG based on the four reviews of this book listed on isfdb[1]. But since they predate the internet by decades and I'm not prepared to hunt down fifty-year-old hardcopies, I'll let it lie.

Re one other observation of yours, as I'm sure you're aware, synopses don't require citations. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Red links

Hi Dan. Any features that are likely to ever have their own articles should be left as red links. See WP:REDLINK. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't likely. Editors aren't interested in Pluto any more. There's been one new article for a Pluto region in the last five years. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Red links are also bot-collected, with a list of priority articles for creation based on how many incoming links there are. This one has only 2, so pretty low, but if red links are deleted that number can't increase. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. The New Horizons flyby was in 2015. The data is back, the papers have been written, and people have already created all the Pluto articles they care about. Also for features without a lot of science or a lot of PR, the USGS Planetary Names website entries, e.g., WGPSN, which are linked from the List of geological features on Pluto tables, probably have more information than a Wikipedia article would have. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

True. But we created articles for named features, and these were named only recently. Are they less deserving of articles?

But you're right: interest has diminished, and we're less likely to get new articles than we were. Or at least they'll be created at a slower pace. Maybe this is a question for the REDLINKS talk page. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

How about if we put in the redlink for six months, and remove it some time after that? Dan Bloch (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hardly worth it, I think. Unlikely to happen that quickly. There are also all the other unlinked features; this one's only different in that it would have a second incoming link. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I had an epiphany and realized that this has come up before and there's already a standard solution in place for many of these features. The What links here? page shows features which are redirects to the appropriate section of the features list article. Unless you have an objection I'll add a redirect for the Safronov Regio (which will turn the redlink in the Viktor Safronov article blue). Dan Bloch (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That should work. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Images cohort articles

Sorry I did not see the image because in mobile view the infobox isnt shown. Thanks for pointing it out. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Ultimate Disc League Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Ultimate Disc League Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I want your opinion...

Hey man. I always thought you were a clear-minded logical person. So I ask; With the March trial delayed, Trump is practically guaranteed to be the president again, right? Joe Biden is widely considered too old and A great majority (3/4) of America loves Trump Say he will fix the economy, solve Israel/Ukraine.

So does Democracy still have a chance? Or will Trump return? Or do you see that as a good thing? Orastor (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion? There are still too many unknowns. Trump has three other criminal cases which could come to trial, and he seems to be getting more incoherent which could affect people's opinion of him. And I don't think three quarters of America loves Trump. I think about 40% love him and the rest think of him as a compromise. A reputable nationwide poll a couple of days ago has Biden up 50-44, though you can't draw too many conclusions from that either, both since what really matters is per-state polls and because no one knows how third-party candidates will affect this.

So IMHO, things are still way too close to call. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Orastor (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikitext article additions overnight

Some very dubious-looking edits from user:Wikideas1 have appeared on help:wikitext: a statement that the language is called WML, the addition of a "WML logo" in the form of a jigsaw piece, etc. Also an addition to the WML disambiguation page. Am I right in assuming they're just vandalism and need reverting? Musiconeologist (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm still assuming good faith. Technically, even arbitrarily bad edits aren't vandalism if the editor believes them to be true. I'll revert these edits for now. Feel free to join in if it keeps happening. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't always have the energy, but if I have I may well do. In that section at least—the sentence about lowercase is my addition from several years ago, after a talk page discussion about not capitalising the terms (and after checking the whole page for instances of them). Musiconeologist (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Most legitimate markup languages have a logo. Wikipedia's logo Has morphed a lot over the years and is probobly one of the best logos out there. Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation should host a competition for a letter logo and symbol logo for their markup language. It has to start somewhere. --Wikideas1 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I don't necessarily disagree with this, and I'd be interested to see where it goes, but it would be hard to get consensus on it. I'm not even sure where you'd start. Help:Wikitext's talk page might be a place, but only if you frame it in terms of a change to the page. The editors there are unlikely to be interested in creating a logo. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please check out Brainwashing and Cordwainer Smith.

Please to check out. Thanks. BookeWorme (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) I am suggesting that Cordwainer Smith of fans might be an interesting. He is mentioning in the topic Brainwashing "Popular culture".

Thanks for asking. I would argue that brainwashing plays a very minor role in Cordwainer Smith's fiction, and an additional problem with mentioning it here is that people could read it as referring to Smith's background in psychological warfare. (which was not related to brainwashing) Dan Bloch (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not putting it if. But didn't have both mention? BookeWorme (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:REDLINKS

WP:REDLINKS identify articles that do not yet exist. The specific ones you removed were added because the links already existed on other pages, as the stories in question are covered in those articles because they are discussed by sources. TompaDompa (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. WP:REDLINKS specifically indicate a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable. There's no expectation that pages will be created for these stories soon, and their relative notability isn't clear. In particular, redlinking some but not all stories in a list implies that these stories are more notable than the other, unlinked, stories in the list, which isn't the case. I can see your point, but I think that consistency within a list is more important than consistency in linking all occurrences of a possible article, which isn't a Wikipedia requirement. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That those particular stories are covered (and linked) in other articles as a result of being discussed by sources indicates that they are indeed notable, which is the reason I brought it up. It may very well be the case that the other stories are also notable, in which case they can be linked as well. I might also note that WP:REDLINK specifically says Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. (emphasis in original). TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still disagree. These redlinks make Wikipedia worse. In addition to my arguments above, there's a case to be made that the sources don't show significant coverage as described in WP:GNG. I guess we could take this to an RfC, but that's a lot of work. Or you could put back the redlinks, and I would create the articles as redirects to Eight Worlds, which isn't ideal but it's preferable as far as I'm concerned. Or we could forget the whole thing. Any thoughts? Dan Bloch (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why?

Google it, it’s quite popular. Lead material. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I Googled it, and I while I do see some hits they're almost all product names or website names, or they use it as a catchphrase, but I don't see any which identify the name with a demographic cohort. Of your two citations, the UNICEF one doesn't specify a generation either. And Medium isn't considered a reliable source (see WP:MEDIUM), so this is on pretty shaky ground. You could bring it up on the discussion page if you want, but in my experience most of the editors there are more conservative than I am. The way it is now it can be upgraded if it becomes more widespread as a generation name. I think that's the best outcome you're going to see. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Very well, but I can tell it'll stick. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok

I understand stand your position for Pigasus. I am that's it's do here goes on Wikipedia. JimDodson (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)