User talk:Danbloch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Danbloch. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Great Smog of London, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Great Smog of London

What's the problem? It seems quite clear to me. Please see wp:BRD Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138:

The paragraph begins, "In considering whether such an event could occur again," but never addresses that question. It then says that research has show relationships between various factors, but not what the relationships are. The final sentence leaves off one of these factors and rephrases the other two, using jargon not understandable without going back to the reference source ("English local authority areas"). When you finally make your way through all this the whole paragraph boils down to "deaths are caused by the pollution", which has already been stated and in no way justifies the effort of reading and rereading the paragraph. Finally, this paragraph doesn't relate to the topic of the section, environmental impact.

Do you believe it says something other than that?

Dan Bloch (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should at least be rewritten in layman's terms. I restored your edit. I'll leave a message on [[ ]]'s page who added the info here. Sorry about that. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138:

Many thanks. Sorry about omitting the description. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Danbloch. 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)

Thank you!

Thanks so much for updating the Dave Duncan page.

Stephani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.34 (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Danbloch. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feast of the Seven Fishes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smelt (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) 09:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to Lissajous orbit

Regarding your edit to Lissajous orbit, I think Queqiao is a halo orbit not Lissajous orbit as your source's title says.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

​ Thanks. The text of the article says that it started in a halo orbit and then went into a Lissajous orbit, but it's a bit odd. I'll see if I can find a better source. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Duverger's law

Sorry about that. I mistook your summary for having a whiff of "this hurts my brain so must die" but I see now the text has been queried without response on the talk page, the source is opaque, and the contributing user is dormant. And I certainly don't know what it's supposed to mean! Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

1948 United States Senate election in Texas

Hey- I saw you were doing some detail work on LBJ ([1]) and I would like to invite you to take a look at 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. I added it to the category for Election Fraud in the United States (see the talk page there). Please make some edits on that page if interested. I think we should do a day-by-day, step-by-step kind of analysis of this election- from the campaign stops by Stevenson and LBJ to the court proceedings after the runoff. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Your timing is really good. I'm reading Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson and I'll be caught up with the 1948 election tonight or tomorrow. I'll take a look then. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

給您的星章！

	原星章
	Thanks for your work cleaning up the 1948 United States Senate election in Texas page. You made the wording a lot clearer and did really good with adding relevant details. It's looking more like the page I would have hoped Wikipedia would have already had! Thanks!! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:wikilink and citation templates

Hi! Re: an edit removing wikification of book titles and the publisher

I would like to call attention to the following on Template:Cite book:

• "title: Title of source. Can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url may be used to add an external link, but not both. "
• "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant." - My experience is that it usually is relevant and should be wikilinked anyway.

The documentation does say they can be wikilinked (It specifies certain parameters that should not), and I would strongly prefer that these items are wikilinked here.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

Those are indeed the guidelines I had in mind. For title, it says, "can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url", and a redlink isn't an existing Wikipedia article. The publisher is open to discussion and I wouldn't have changed it if I hadn't been editing anyway, but since the significance would be the same if the publisher were the University of California Press, or Princeton Press, or Houghton Mifflin, I don't think it's relevant.

Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Aha! The link here should have been blue, as the article in quest did and does exist, but under a variation of the title. I will redirect that. If you wish to discuss the use of redlinks of the publisher, maybe a discussion can be opened in the guideline page? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy enough the way things are now. Cheers! Dan Bloch (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	because of your Childe Cycle contributions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz0BGyq8Utw Psubrat2000 (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doug Fears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Brown (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) 08:19, 18 November 2019 (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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Windup Girl

The breakage I'm referring to is the reflist. I've corrected this and left the removal of the reading list award, though I'm not aware of any guidelines suggesting that awards need to have their own article in order to be sufficiently notable for mention on a book's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftmostcat (talk • contribs) 22:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

​To be fair, the only place I've seen it as an explicit guideline is on the Young adult fiction awards list, but I liked it. In this case, since The Windup Girl had so many significant awards I didn't think this one added anything, especially not in the lead paragraph. Thanks for fixing the reflist. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

comma after e.g.

Hi Danbloch,

Yesterday I made some minor edits to WP:CITE. In the version prior to my edits, both `e.g.,` (with a comma) and `e.g.` (without) were used (oldid=942393293). Because I like consistency, I decided to settle upon one style (oldid=942917826). Afterwards you inserted commas after all e.g. occurrences (oldid=942897619). May I ask why?

As pointed out on List_of_Latin_phrases_(E)#cite_note-26, there is no clear rule for or against the use of commas after e.g. and i.e. Moreover, on WP:MOS, e.g. is used exactly 16 times with a comma and exactly 16 times without. I also looked in the talk pages archives there and noticed the subject was discussed more than once; the consensus is there is no rule for or against.

Consistency matters to me, but also clarity: if inserting a comma does not make the phrase easier to pronounce, read, and understand, then omit the comma.

The usage of commas is not terribly important and certainly not worth risking an edit war or something. Nonetheless, I'm curious as to why you think it was necessary to insert commas after e.g.

Kind regards,

Michael! (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Michael!-

Thanks for reaching out. In answer to your question, I don't care deeply about commas in general, but I was struck that you chose to remove commas in six locations instead of adding them in two and I decided that "change commas for consistency" was an excuse for "change commas to look the way I like". Possibly I was in a bad mood.

Commas after "i.e." and "e.g." are preferred in US English, though it's not a hard rule. See, e.g., https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ie-versus-eg?page=2, which samples six references. The point of List_of_Latin_phrases_(E)#cite_note-26 isn't clear to me and I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia at all, but in the one paragraph the author spends on US English he mentions only the New York Times and the AP Style Guide, which he says have no preference, and the Chicago Manual of Style, which says that commas are required but which the author tries to imply they're ambiguous about. I'll fix that.

Anyway, it's not a big deal. Flip a coin if you want.

Regards,

Dan Bloch (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Podcast Article External Links

Hi Danbloch, I hope you are staying safe. I have some questions regarding the Podcast article. Before marking my edits as spam, did you read the article that I had added? I think you need to provide the right reasons before declaring something as spam. I want you to reconsider.

Thanks, Ram Thakur — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamThakur001 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @RamThakur001: I looked again and I'm afraid I have to stand by my opinion. While it does have some information, this is an article about the benefits of podcast transcription on the web site of a company that does podcast transcription, so it's a promotional link.

Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Puppygate

I don't even remember where I got this from, but "Puppygate" ended up on a list of topics I was going to research when I got time. You changed the redirect but there was no clear reason why you chose that target. I have fixed this, I think. Whether I have or not depends on how others feel about what I did, because there is another "Puppygate" which may very well be WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, but if anyone wanted to do the research, I feel that it should be there. I can't say there is a clear primary topic, so I changed to disambiguation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thanks for the note. Sure, seems reasonable. I've tweaked the description on the disambiguation page a bit. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Good. I wasn't sure how to word either one of those.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordinals

Hello- Thanks for reverting the addition of ordinals on Silicon Valley and similar. I noticed this on mobile and was going to fix once I got to a computer, but you beat me to it. Anyway, thought I would give some recognition. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Not in refs

Template:Not in refs has been nominated for merging with Template:Failed verification. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

About all those reverts

Hi Dan, I noticed that you reverted my addition of links to a ==See also== section. First, it's not WP:Original research. That's because Wikipedia's definition of original is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", and there are sources such as Petruzzelli, Emily (2020-08-06). "Normalization of Deviance in the Time of COVID-19". American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Retrieved 2020-08-21. that very clearly connect the Normalization of deviance to a failure to follow safety procedures to prevent COVID-19.

Second, this is the WP:SEEALSO section. The only "claim" being made is that people who are interested in the one article might also be interested in the other. The purpose of a link in the ==See also== section is just "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". That's why we don't cite the links there, even though it leads to the risk of editors occasionally thinking that the connection is just being made up on wiki instead of coming straight out of reliable sources. I think you should self-revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @WhatamIdoing: The original research issue is about the implied claim ("one reason people stop using effective prevention measures"), that people aren't using face masks, social distancing, etc., because of normalization of deviance. The Emily Petruzzelli article is an editorial and so not a reliable source per WP:RSEDITORIAL, and I was unable to find any other sources. Personally I disagree with this claim, narrowly because normalization of deviance is defined in terms of organizations, not national populations, and more broadly because the argument is that not using face masks, social distancing, etc. become normal because they don't immediately cause a catastrophe, but they have caused a catastrophe--every time social distancing is relaxed the COVID-19 case rate shoots up.

But, as is often the case, I care less the next day. I've put back four out of the eight which seemed relatively on-topic (and there was one I never reverted). Dan Bloch (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

GDPR

Enola Holmes "you're mistaken, page does show up"[2]

Due to GDPR and geoblocking that website does not show up for anyone that the website thinks is in the UK (or Europe in general). I hate geoblocking and as far as I know Wikipedia doesn't yet say anything about how to use url-access or url-status when dumb websites block people from looking at them. So it is "mostly dead": "451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons".

Marking the original as dead means the archive copy will be presented first and all readers get shown the same version. It seemed better than not using the review at all (which is probably what I'll do next time).

Maybe there are other good reasons for your change, but I was hoping someone might have something more to say about it than "works for me". -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@109.78.211.204: Sigh. Okay, whatever. Archive pages are much slower loading than non-archive pages so I think they should be avoided when they aren't necessary, but I no longer care. I also don't think this is GDPR, since it doesn't involve personal data, but I could be wrong since I never heard of it before today. If you do want a wider discussion I'd suggest Template talk:Citation. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's only indirectly about GDPR. USA websites don't care about GDPR and rather than make any of changes to protect user privacy many of them don't even try and have instead decided to geoblock Euro readers. The ghettoization of the web continues. Maybe I'm just wrong on the internet -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Social distancing

Did you actually read the citations before you undid my edit at Social distancing? Of the 8 citations, 5 use metres and 3 use feet (assuming the NY times articles I couldn't read use feet). More important: all sources that are actual scientific articles use metres, the one that use feet are not. To quote WP:MEDPOP, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles.". And in any case, since this is not "a non-scientific article with strong ties to the United States or United Kingdom", "the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" (WP:UNITS). 213.66.175.14 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

​ Of the 8 citations, 4 used feet, 3 used meters, and 1 used both (it did give meters first). But two of the ones which used meters were general scientific articles which didn't talk about the 1-2 meter social distance at all. I've removed those citations. But I'm also tired of arguing about this and I've changed the sentence to something we can both be happy with. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Influenza pandemic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bird flu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Could I ask you about this edit? It's my understanding that short descriptions are not automatically imported from Wikidata so they need to be added into the article manually. If that's a mistake then that would be good for me to know. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

​My apologies. I was misled by the auto-generated summary "Adding local short description: 'American filmmaker', overriding Wikidata description 'American documentary filmmaker'" which suggests that the Wikidata description was being used. Now that I've confirmed that it isn't I've put back your edit. I also added back the word "documentary", which I still think is useful. Thanks for reaching out. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

What is your motive?

Why are you defending and enabling a multiply-blocked LTA? His edits should be reverted on sight, not reinstated. If you honestly think the changes should be made then do so under your own name, not by using revert/rollback. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

​My motive is that those changes make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, especially the second one, which replaces "Charlie Anders" with "Charlie Jane Anders", which is the author's preferred name and the one she used in the work being referenced. How is this a problem? Also FWIW, perhaps I'm reading this wrong but from what I can tell this editor hasn't been blocked. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

He has been blocked many times under numerous different IP addresses. The edits are highly distinctive. The Anders edit did not change how the name was displayed. Both changes were contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. Neither edit improved the encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

​Clicking on a link to Charlie Jane Anders and then seeing that you've been redirected there from Charlie Anders violates the Principle of least astonishment. But I suppose reasonable men could disagree on this. If you want to revert it again we can call it a day. I may or may not change it back under my own name--not sure if I care enough. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

LunarX Price

Please consider:

• Talk:Google_Lunar_X_Prize#Scope_of_the_prize_included_the_rocket

Regards --Edoe (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pom Poko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanuki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"Mental retardation"

As suspected, somebody changed the relevant article. When I checked at the time of adding information about this condition to Generation Z, which was last year, it was not considered 'offensive'. Nerd271 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Occam's razor

I noticed you removed the part about explanations reflecting the psyche as much as the intellect. I see how it can be read your way and I think it's fair to remove, so thanks. MarshallKe (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Clears throat

Hello, I noticed you removed the plot at Riot Baby for paraphrasing, do you mind fixing something else back? The plot section is empty. Reading Beans (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Reading Beans: Sorry, I haven't read it yet. I wouldn't feel comfortable writing a summary. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh! Alright. I’ll wait for someone else to do so then. I think I definitely suck at summarising. Thank you for your kind reply. Reading Beans (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Assistance on Disambiguation page

Hello sir, I need clarification and assistance on Disambiguation.

Please there's disambiguation page of MIM or Mim.

The issue is that, there's no lead Topic referring to the Mim. Because of that, when one searches for Mim via Google, it returns no immediate response.

My article about Mim is a name of a very important town in Ghana. Because of the Disambiguation, I was forced to add Ghana (Mim, Ghana). Inspite of this, when we do search of Mim, no Wikipedia article or disambiguation page pops up.

Other editors too have used MIM as an abreviation. My humble request is if you can move Mim, Ghana to Mim for me. Then after, I can Mim as lead topic to redirect to the disambiguation page.

Because what I have realized is that, all the other editors are using Mim as just an abbreviation of their Organization names.

Since I am the only editor using Mim as a proper noun to refer to a major town in Ghana, I will be extremely grateful if you can help me use it as the lead Topic. Boadu Emma (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pls the summary is this:

The disambiguation page Mim or MIM doesn't respond to Google search.

I understand there should be a lead Topic that will refer to the Disambiguation page.

So my question is, can you help me by using my Article about Mim as the leading topic? My reasons are: 1. I am using Mim as a name of a mojor town in Ghana. All the rest of articles are using MIM as just an abbreviation.

2. Majority of Ghanaians search for Mim whenever they want to read about my article. Sadly however, when they search for Mim on Google, no Wikipedia article pops up. In fact, they always forget to add the Ghana.

So please, assist me on the best way to go.

Boadu Emma (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Boadu Emma: I'm not an administrator so I wouldn't be able to move or delete any of these pages in any case, but it seems unlikely to me that Mim, Ghana would surpass the high bar to become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this. You can try asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but I suspect they'll tell you the same thing. Sorry I can't help you. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response sir. Will do as you have directed

Thanks for sorting out Status quo ante

I didn't understand why a common phrase and an obscure site were sharing a disambiguation page, but now realize that the phrase simply doesn't have its own WP page...I'm not sure why status quo ante bellum rates a page and status quo ante does not, but I'll leave this be. Clean Copy^talk 11:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Clean Copy: Thanks. Yeah, I'm not really happy with it the way it is, but I can't think of anything better. Status quo ante bellum has a page beyond a simple dictionary definition because editors put in examples from treaties. It's possible that status quo ante could be expanded with examples from legal cases, but that's beyond my knowledge. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on Talk:Silicon Valley

Hi Danbloch! I am reaching out because I have noticed you have been quite active on discussions concerning the Bay Area before. There is an important ongoing discussion at Talk:Silicon Valley#RfC: Inclusion criteria of Silicon Valley, Santa Clara Valley and Santa Clara County, California concerning whether Silicon Valley is a region or not and whether it should be regarded as such both in its article and in references to it across Wikipedia. I invite you to join the discussion and present your thoughts on the matter, as more opinions are sorely needed to build anytime of understanding or consensus. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Parker--your correction of a "correction"

I see you caught and fixed the latest instance of someone "correcting" the planned maximum speed of the Parker Solar Probe, in terms of the speed of light. As always, it was an IP user--so no way to send a message back to straighten him or her out. I've posted comments in a couple of discussions on the talk page about that problem.
I don't want to go as far as saying to you, please do this. But for myself, if I happen to be the one to catch that happening again, I plan to post a comment in the edit summary, advising someone to consider the percent sign, and to look at those discussions. The most recent IP user to make the "correction" did add a comment meant to explain it; I'm figuring/hoping that if s/he was interested enough to add the edit summary, and if the recorrection comes soon enough, maybe s/he will see it and perhaps even understand. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: It is possible to put a message on an IP user's talk page, so feel free to do this. I don't bother when they've only made one correction, since from what I can tell that means they aren't likely to use that address again. I also usually add a comment explaining why I reverted a change; in this case I didn't because I assume the editor saw and ignored the "Do NOT "correct" this figure" comment, so they either weren't interested or could probably figure it out from that. But I probably should have. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Danbloch: For whatever interest it might hold (if any), I added the "Do NOT "correct"" comment. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ex abrupto in English (your recent revert)

Hi, about your recent revert of my addition of ex abrupto to the list of Latin phrases, I think it's a matter of scope of the article. I added the phrase without much thinking, because it's definitely used (in fact, I was surprised that it was not there). But, after your revert, I tried searching for uses in English and didn't find any. So, is the article supposed to cover Latin phrases that are still in use (in any language) or just Latin phrases that are still used in English? Or maybe Latin phrases that have been used in English at any point in time? Here are some references for Italian usage:

• ex abrupto in Vocabolario Treccani
• ex abrupto in Corriere della Sera > Dizionari

And here's one for French:

• ex abrupto in Larousse's dictionary

—Gennaro Prota^•Talk 22:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

​Hi. I was assuming the list is for phrases used in English, but I don't know that for a fact. I'd suggest reposting this to the article's talk page to see if there's a consensus. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. I did that (here's my question there). —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 14:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nonogram

Hello! You reverted my small grammatical fix, and I've reinstated it. Please consider that something can be known BY a name, or it can be known AS a thing. For example: my horse is known AS Silver; he is known BY the name Silver. Do you see? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 09:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

​Okay. I like it better with the extra comma. Carry on. 14:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dallas Legion (ultimate team) logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dallas Legion (ultimate team) 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) 03:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Nineteen eighty-four edit

I corrected a horrendous misspelling change by an IP editor and you reverted the editor's entire edit. As near as I skimmed, the edit was factual and contained references, so what did I miss? Thanks!

Wzrd1 (talk)

​ As I said in my edit summary, "Geography is presented in much more detail in its own section, not needed in history section. Observation about South Africa isn't relevant." Also, though I didn't say it, the addition was riddled with errors, including grammar, formatting, and links to disambiguation pages. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dallas Legion (ultimate team) logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dallas Legion (ultimate team) logo.jpg. 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) 17:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Re:

Special:Diff/1099078069: I stand corrected. Apologies for the hassle. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Currently lives in"

Thanks for finding and adding a citation here. But per WP:DATED, please avoid "currently" in such statements, and use something like "as of" instead. We have tons of articles which contain false claims about living people caused by such "currently"s. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB: Will do. Thanks. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Cura Te Ipsum (Person of Interest)

Hi @Danbloch, I've undone your edit on this page from NPP and just wanted to let you know. Only the AV Club is an actual review. Digital Spy is just a beat-by-beat recap, and the other three are blogs (or were at the time). If you want to hunt around for more reviews though, you're welcome of course, but I've turned it back into a redirect for now. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, having gone through the sourcing on these articles (see Talk:List of Person of Interest episodes#Blogs as reviews), I'm going to do this to a bunch of the episodes if they don't have at least two other reviews. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ISFDB

Re: this edit. We need to come up with a concise way to indicate that it doesn't include speculative fiction movies, games, and so on. Only books (in any format), magazines, and other "printed" (whether physical, electronic, or audio) material. What do you suggest? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions are, well, short, and may not capture all the nuances of a topic, so I don't have a problem with it the way it is. But if you feel strongly about it, "written" is close to what you want and would work for me. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Generation Z

Hi, I edited the article which title is indicated in the topic of this discourse. I noticed omission of punctuations, especially the use of (,) in the article. I just observed that my edits were reverted. I could agree with the deletion of full stop in "Gen" after the abbreviation as this might be optional but I cannot understand my the commas after the transitional statements, most of which are prepositional phrases were reverted. I believe that there must be an explanation for reverting the punctuation after the transitional statements. Thank you Margob28 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

APPOLOGY

Sorry, a closer look at the reverted edits reflects clear justification. I regret acting in haste. Margob28 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Tony Mitton

Hello you've edited Children's lit page before so I wonder if you could comment on a draft that I am still working on while it is being considered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tony_Mitton

many thanks davidz Dz3 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)\

​ Sure, I can give a few comments.

• Since the previous review specifically called out sourcing of "Professional career", it would be good to have a source for the second paragraph there.
• The lead paragraph doesn't highlight the most relevant information. It should say that he was a teacher, and that he wrote children's books. The sentence about his family life, on the other hand, doesn't belong there. Easiest would be to rename the next section "Personal life and education" and move it there.
• There's a sentence fragment beginning with "and the silver award".
• The "L" in "Plum" is capitalized.
• There are some other issues, like too many one-sentence paragraphs, but they can be addressed gradually once the article is accepted.

Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much - very helpful. I'll try and address these issues david Dz3 (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, a student didnt show up so Ive been able to have a session addressing these issues. Any other comments most welcome david Dz3 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ive had discussion with another editor who thinks the CLPE award does not confer notablity. This is far from the only evidence for notablity but if you could take a look as someone who know children's literature that would be appreciated

many thanks davidz Dz3 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This editor is mistaken. The Guardian obituary would bestow notability all by itself, even without the CLPE. It is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

I took a look at the discussion, and actually I agree with what the editor said, which is that the CLPE award doesn't confer notability. But as I said and the other editor mentions as a possibility, Mitton can be notable on other merits. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok - fair comment. As I said to the other editor I don’t want to argue about the significance of the CLPE award but about Tony Mitton. If the guardian review is enough then could you or someone approve the draft? many thanks david Dz3 (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not on Wikipedia's list of article reviewers. You'll have to wait for your review request by the normal channels. Sorry. I can keep an eye on the article's status and talk to the reviewer if there's a notability problem, but I don't expect that there will be one. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Short description

WP:SDEXAMPLES includes the line: Publication: "[year] [type of publication] by [author or director]" (Examples: "1983 novel by John Irving", "2017 film by Jordan Peele")."

YEAR film by director.
Some editors copy from the first sentence of lead section and use a generic description instead of following the format recommended by the guidelines, but for the stated purposes of disambiguating similar titles highlighting the director is what the guidelines recommend and in most cases it works better.

It is also recommended that short descriptions be short, preferably less than 40 characters so you could probably add "crime film"[3] back in while still keeping it short, if you want. -- 109.76.194.74 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of wiggle room here, where WP:SDEXAMPLES says, Here are some examples, though they can all be varied if the context allows something better, but this is an issue where reasonable men can disagree. Carry on. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with a short description that is a short and that helps disambiguate. A description that highlights key personnel such as the director is usually a good way to do this, other possibilities exist, but I'm not convinced they are likely to be better than following what the guidelines recommend. (Anyway if the article name is all that ambiguous editors will frequently argue to change the whole page name, rather than the short description. e.g. editors argued that Cinderella (2021 film) should be moved to Cinderella (2021 American film) to disambiguate that musical from the horror film Cinderella (2021 Indian film).) Are we even disagreeing about this? -- 109.76.194.74 (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

We're good. It's not the way I would have done it, but I'm happy with it the way it is. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Need help in the 1997-2012 vs 1995 edit war for the Generation Z article.

Currently, there is a massive edit war over on the Generation Z article. Two editors that I suspect to be the same person (Argso and WikiBoo2) have the habit of putting outdated citations (and from sources that shouldn't even be allowed on the article in the first place) and have a monopoly over the article. Citations include a CBS article from 2015 or Pricewaterhousecoopers and Deloitte that are outdated and are financial institutions (which is not allowed as a source for determining an age range). They are very biased. I was reading through the Millennials section and I saw you verifying the 1981-1996 date range for Millennials. I wrote a talks page over on the Generation Z discussing this. I wanted to ask if you could check the article yourself and see if you can help. WaterIguana (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Requesting help to verify the credibility of citations and sources in the Generation Z date range section

Hello! I have created a talks page for the Generation Z article in the removal of outdated and uncredible citations for the date ranges, but people seemed to have ignored it. I have also contacted Wiki editor Some1 about this, but they haven't responded. Citations that need to be removed include the CBS News article that dates from 2015. I don't think that Bloomberg Law, United Press International, or PricewatwaterhouseCoopers are credible sources in the first place, and all of them have updated 2022 date ranges anyways that contradicts on what is posted on the Wiki page. The only three that appear to be credible for the 1995 section include the Jean Twenge, McCrindle, and Center for Generational Kinetics citations. All the other ones appear to violate the date range posting guidelines. Wiki editor GhostlyOperative had tried to fix this, but others have removed their edits despite them not reaching a consensus. It appears that they are stalling. I wanted to ask for your help in looking at the credibility of the citations since I know that you are a credible Wiki editor. I would be grateful for your help. Thank you WaterIguana (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be something done about editors editing without discussing it in the talks page.

WikiBoo2 is continuing to vandalize the Generation Z article by attempting to move the 1996-2015 Center for Generational Kinetics citation to the 1997 section. There has not been any consensus to do this. I am very certain that they have created multiple accounts and are the reason why there are so many outdated citations. I am inclined to have them reported. I have also notified Some1 about this situation. This is why there is an edit war. WaterIguana (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Hi there Dan Bloch, I would like to warn you about a new user WaterIguana. They appeared after a dispute on the Generation Z page and is using the same techniques of GhostlyOperative by giving excessive warnings, having the same strong opinions about outdated sources, misleading accusations by deliberately misinterpreting and putting together a strawman such as here on your talk page he's accusing me of something that was done by AusLondonder [4]. On top of that he's editing the page without consensus yet here he's accusing me of doing that but the only change I ever did after the status quo was to revert his edit. Wikiboo02 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

WikiBoo2 has attempted to move the 1996-2015 citation into the 1997-2012 section without making a consensus. They are lying, as I have said they have been making multiple accounts. This can bee seen in the edits history. I have reported this to Some1 as well. WaterIguana (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have created a talks page about the situation over on the Generation Z section. WaterIguana (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The Generation Z talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this, not my personal talk. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Pern stories

Regarding the above and your reversion, note the template is titled 'Pern stories', not 'Pern books'. It is entirely appropriate to list books that contain Pern stories. And of course the whole point of a template is to allow readers to find related subjects without trawling through multiple articles. Unless you have a better rationale , I will re-add again. The Yeti (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It's entirely appropriate to list collections which are about Pern. As you say, the point of this template is to allow readers to find related subjects. These two collections, though, are only distantly related to Pern. Again, one of them is one fourteenth, and the other is one sixteenth about Pern. A reader who clicks on one of them will be disappointed when they figure this out, and we will have wasted their time. If this rationale doesn't convince you, we can raise the issue on the template's talk page. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Or in simplest terms, Dragonflight is a book about Pern. Dragonriders of Pern (video game) is a video game about Pern. Get Off the Unicorn is not a short story collection about Pern. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You are using the wrong criteria. It isn't 'only one story is related, the others aren't therefore it should be excluded'. Rather it is the other way round. 'At least one story is abour Pern, and so should be included'. That the other stories are unrelated is irrelevant. There are hundreds of templates featuring characters or settings in books, films, etc, that apply this. It is very common for a writer's short story collections to feature stories from one of their longer novel series, even if most of the other stories do not, and these are mentioned in templates. As I point out, related articles are absolutely allowed in templates. Sorry, you are wrong, and I will re-add still. The Yeti (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

ISFDB

Teensy bit confused why blogs like Boing Boing and File 770 are considered reliable, but the Genre Grapevine newsletter by a former journalist and Wikipedia-notable SFF author is not. AdainPH (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Boing Boing and File 770 aren't necessarily reliable by Wikipedia's standards either. Boing Boing is addressed at WP:RSP, which says, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a group blog, some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts such as Cory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable for copyright law."

My sense about File 770 is that it mostly flies under the radar, that is, it covers an area where sources are sparse and it happens to be extremely reliable, but it probably wouldn't be acceptable for controversial claims. But one could also argue that it's a mainstream specialty magazine with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (language from WP:VERIFIABLE), which would make it a reliable source.

Patreon content is self-published, basically a blog, so it can only be used as a reliable source under a few specific conditions which your use didn't fulfill (see WP:SELFPUB).

Obviously, if you're not happy with this reasoning you're free to raise the issue on the ISFDB discussion page. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So you've got a page with (at least) three unreliable sources, all of which fill the same niche (self-published content of interest to a narrow audience generally underserved by other sources), all of which are written (at least in part) by individuals have been recognized for their contributions to that niche. The only one that you consider worthy of removal is the one that offers commentary critical of transphobic ISFDB policies. Thank you for making your position on this area crystal clear. AdainPH (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hackers reversion

Just curious why this edit was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hackers_(film)&oldid=prev&diff=1110672848

The article content does not indicate the important details from the citation that the surround/stereo mix is controversial. If you think the citation was misrepresented, might I suggest clearing up the wording instead of reverting it altogether? Idontusenumbers (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The change resulted in a long, run-on sentence and it wasn't clear what the point was. The source just says "a bit more controversial", which is a mild statement and doesn't imply a full-blown controversy. The relevant information in the source and not in the article already was that the packaging listed 5.1 as the option but didn't actually have it, and this wasn't in your change. And the information about the theatrical release isn't relevant to the Blu-ray release except possibly in a much more detailed discussion. I've added that that the packaging listed 5.1. This also makes it clearer that there was grounds for controversy. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hugo Awards

Why are you removing valid third-party references for the awards and leaving the sole-sourced refs? Generally, we prefer to have independent sources on Wikipedia, not sources that develop or market the product or concept. It seems contrary to our sourcing requirements. Mindmatrix 21:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. These additions make the articles look worse and have no real benefit. Use of the World Science Fiction Society as a source is in accordance with the policies at WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF.

Also, adding sources for seven of the roughly 5000 Hugo winners and nominees would lead people to waste time wondering why those entries are different, and then wonder even more when they see that the alternate source is a print-only magazine that went out of business sixteen years ago. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)