Jump to content

User talk:Danbloch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned non-free image File:Portland Nitro (ultimate team) logo.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Portland Nitro (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) 18:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bears “Northern Bears” redirect

[edit]

I advise you against changing the redirect title on the page Polar Bears with the redirect that says “Northern Bears” to say for the rugby club instead of rugby league club, as there are 2 types of rugby, and the North Sydney Bears are a rugby league club, not a rugby union club. Any further attempts by anyone to call them simply a rugby club will be reverted once noticed Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reality distortion field

[edit]
Also a fringe theory and unrelated to RDF

A very curious edit summary. Tell me, what is the "fringe theory" at work here and how is it unrelated? It is exactly the same topic. And I have the book in front of me. The author cites mainstream sources for every claim in the book. I think you’re a bit confused by the context of the term fringe theory and how Wikipedia uses the term. In other words, yes, the people who practice these ideas (Trump, the alt right, the occult) believe in fringe theories, that cannot be denied, but a book about these people is not a fringe theory. By analogy, a closely related example is the number of academic sources documenting neopagan beliefs and practices and how they are used in the context of politics. These are generally regarded as fringe religious ideas, but books about this phenomenon are not. You seem to be mixing the two things together. That’s not how this works. Better yet, don’t believe me, get a copy of the book online and take a look at its sources. You might be surprised. I know I was. This also raises another point, which is that right wing politics in the US is, in fact, based on fringe theories, and is chock full of irrational, religious nonsense. One of the most popular topics in this regard right now is the philosophy of people like Jordan Peterson and Curtis Yarvin, two major influences on the right wing that are totally fringe and divorced from mainstream historical narratives. Yet, we can still point this out and discuss their influences on some of the most powerful people in the world and note how billionaires are funding their fringe ideas to weaken democracy. That doesn’t mean we can’t cite material about them. It’s real, and Trump and his closest advisors and influences are all waist deep into it. As the book shows, this is all supported by reliable, mainstream sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Trump's rise to power is fueled by the occult, which is mentioned in only one book, which is #330,000 on Amazon, still sounds like a fringe theory to me, but as you say I haven't read it. Feel free to ignore that part of my edit summary. It isn't central. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that an Amazon sales ranking is relevant to this discussion? That’s an appeal to popularity. Popularity is not correlated with accuracy, factuality, or truth values. One can actually make the opposite argument: the more popular something is, the higher the chance it has of having folksy, fringe-like elements that are inaccurate. Again, this isn’t how we use or define fringe theories. The idea that the far right has occult elements is well known and understood by academia. You can start with Julius Evola. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Savitri Devi. I've discovered that many in the alt right in the US share these occult beliefs. I've been trying to trace these ideas throughout the MAGA and related QAnon movements for several years. What was most distressing was to discover that these beliefs had found their way into conspirituality-related subcultures formerly thought to be so-called "leftist" holdovers from the countercultural movement of the 1960s, mostly having to do with the US yoga community and alternative health subcultures that lean towards anti-vaccine activism. This became particularly apparent to the wider public after the 2020 pandemic, when many of these communities were literally taken over by MAGA influencers. There's a lot written on this, so I can't really summarize it in a simple comment. Suffice it to say that the occult elements of MAGA are widely known and you can find much written about them in the mainstream literature. The line of inquiry that I'm currently pursuing centers around Southern California occult subcultures, where many of these ideas keep emerging, particularly in Orange County. As you may know, there is a historical hotbed of occult, neo-Nazi philosophy in this region, which over time, has migrated to the Pacific Northwest and Idaho as a kind of tripartite nexus between fascists, the Christian right, and the GOP. I'm not sure why Southern California plays such a role, but I have traced the migration of occult movements in the late 19th and early 20th century to California, which I can only assume plays into this connection. Several Phd students have pursued small elements of this idea, often focusing on small parts of this interconnected narrative. James A. Savage at the University of Kentucky examined the connection between the John Birch Society and the town of Santa Barbara in the mid to late 20th century.[1] The bibliography in his thesis shows a long tradition of academic scholarship studying the occult and the American right. Nathan Pett, a former neo-Nazi, told the SPLC in 2011 about their occult beliefs and explained that these groups are somewhat in tension with each other. However, today, we know that is no longer true, as the modern, Trumpian GOP post-2016 is now united as a coalition. One other thing. Someone named "Mark Judge" criticized Lachman's book as flawed because of its reliance on Steve Bannon. This is one of the most ridiculous criticisms I've ever seen[2] and is directly contradicted by many sources such as the NYT as recently as October,[3] where it is claimed that "Steve Bannon is the intellectual leader and general of the MAGA movement." Not sure what Mark Judge was thinking, but history will not be kind to him. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromancer

[edit]

Respectfully, when someone has reverted your edit, the thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page rather than simply reverting again. I hope you will do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grey area, e.g., you ignored your own advice and reverted my change instead of discussing it. If you still believe your change is an improvement I'd be happy to discuss it on the talk page. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my change, the paragraph was already in the article. You boldly removed it, I reverted you, and now it's your responsibility, per WP:BRD, to discuss it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I thought this was your change. Note that my edit was a revert, not a change to established content. The paragraph was added to the article three days ago. Just not by you. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that when someone has disputed your bold edit (whether your edit is an addition or a removal), it is your responsibility to take it to discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOTSUM

[edit]

Is there any chance that you could review the edits to WP:PLOTSUM from the beginning of this month, and restore whatever changes are improvements? They were reverted for reasons that had nothing to do with actual content. It's unfortunate that readers might be deprived of better guidance just because of who may have made the edits. 199.204.248.113 (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting request. Maybe? I'll take a look anyway. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers, Dan Bloch (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Citations section, the last two sentences need better context. Presumably, that is in the Citations section because a plot summary from somewhere else could potentially be cited as a source. But this at least needs a separate paragraph, and probably a bit more explanation. Alternatively, these two sentences could just be removed, as they are mostly telling the reader what not to do, which isn't always helpful. 24.76.16.12 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Done. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Both of these IPs are socks of Belteshazzar an LTA (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar). Please don't make any edits on their behalf. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming from an editor who restored a bunch of unencyclopedic commentary just because of who removed it. 1, 2, 3. If you take a look at the pages listed in that LTA case, very few of the edits themselves are problematic; it's all about who made them. Readers are being deprived of better instruction or content just because of who made the edits. Porter and Jick shows how things are often not carefully checked, which is the root of the problem here. 92.119.74.188 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

[edit]

Hi Danbloch. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTribune roll-back

[edit]

Regarding: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=WikiTribune&oldid=prev&diff=1272249651

Just to say that, on reflection, I agree with your interpretation.

(Also to say that I single-handedly authored two articles for WikiTribune titled "German students strike for coal exit and green future" and "Scholars seek open access in academic journal deal". And both now only exist on the Wayback Machine. I am certainly irked about this but that should not impact my editing decisions.)

Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danbloch&oldid=1272276342"