User talk:Danbloch

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Why didn't you notify my talk page when nominating the four templates? Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you on Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#uw-editwar templates at the beginning of the discussion so I assumed you were following but you're right, I should have notified you again. Apologies. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be editwarring at Earthsea either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you have any interest in fairy tales, but the plot summary of Jack and the Beanstalk needs attention. The version in the cited source is the Joseph Jacobs one, which can also be found here. The current summary contains several errors:

• The story never refers to the giant's house as a "castle".
• Jack does not "find the giant's wife in the kitchen". The story specifies that Jack first sees her on the doorstep, outside.
• Could you please give me something to eat? I am so hungry! is not an accurate quote. What Jack says here is Good morning, mum. Could you be so kind as to give me some breakfast.
• There is no boy in here! is also not an accurate quote. What the giantess says is Nonsense, dear, you’re dreaming. Or perhaps you smell the scraps of that little boy you liked so much for yesterday’s dinner.
• "In the night" is not accurate. In the story, the giant goes to sleep after breakfast, and Jack escapes then.
• Jack never hides "under the bed". He hides in the oven the first two times, and in the copper the third time.
• Jack does not meet the giant's wife at all the third time. Rather, he sneaks into the house, probably because she knows by then that he is a thief.
• Help master! A boy is stealing me! is not an accurate quote. The harp simply calls Master! Master!

All of this can be solved simply by restoring this version.

I also thought this would be a good example for WP:PLOTSUM, better than the Red Riding Hood example which is currently there. But this was reverted and revdeled. I wish people would focus on actual content.

Improvements to WP:WAF and MOS:NOVEL were also revdeled. Maybe someone could request that an admin un-revdel these edits? Perhaps they could just strike the edit summaries, but leave the actual revision history in place so that established users can take a look when they have time? 47.83.234.100 (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit. Let us sse what's best. First I will explain the background of my edit. Your reason -"Unsupported" refers to support by people, not geographic features- is incorrect as incomplete. In the expedition/adventure world we have been "debating" over the definitions of "unsupported" many times until for the POLAR expeditions, we (I should ask Eric Philips but i think we are like 15-20 to contribute) set the PECS rules here (GUIDELINES) and more accurately we set the rules for any aid/support here: https://pec-s.com/guidelines/aid Why did we do that? We did it after the Colin O'Brady controversy: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/the-problem-with-colin-obrady In short: he was unsupported in the "no humans helped him" (no food, gas, equipment) and no support for the wind (often used on Explorerweb.com sister 2002-site: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://adventurestats.com/ ) But Colin used a "road" made flat by snowcats which is a tremendous help of course. (read the natgeo article). Of course a person not using such "polar road" (it's not asphalt of course) would be slower. Also there are less creavasses but snow put in crevasses=bridges. A bridge is safer and is faster that going around a hole/obstacle/void. If we were on land, with rivers, and let's say there an "open trail" and we would compare the time of people using bridges and man made paths/roads, well it's easy to understand a person that is completemy progressing on nature ground is slower than a person using man made structures like bridges or roads. And we if we compare records, we need to know. So in the adventure-expedition world, when it matters, we need to tell if we are unressupplied in food, gas, equipement etc... or 100% unsupported as if no human have existed and had a positive impact on the "unsupported" record. Now comes the FKT records. Those records usualy are based on a GPX path and if everyone follows the GPXpath, then the conditions are the same (except if a ground path suddenly becomes paved or asphalted, or dirt become stairs, or a bridge is added above a stream, again manmade structure added or improved). This is why I added "Any road or bridge is not considered support as they are part of the route, track or trail followed." to the FKT definition. Those are support in polar expeditions (or adventure in very remote areas) but not on regular trails etc... What I propose is to leave your version and add a remark in the FKT categoeries with something like: Remark: A FKT Unsupported is different than the unsupported adventure, the adventure and expedition community considers manmade roads or bridges being support as expeditions that are off track are usually seeking remoteness and try to avoid manmade structures that do help the adventurer's progress. --> and refer to the page: https://pec-s.com/guidelines/aid What do you think ? Meetexplorers (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background information.

I'd have to see the edit to be sure, but I think this would be okay if the additions are in a paragraph beginning, "In the polar exploration community," or similar. The issue is that these are specific to polar exploration, which this article isn't otherwise about, so they're confusing if they're presented without that context. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert, please point out to me where it is mentioned. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the first paragraph of the Help:Link#Specifics subsection. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's pretty far from where the WP:ANCHOR redirect lands. Do you have any suggestions regarding how we can help an editor who goes to WP:ANCHOR in search of information about the ANCHOR template? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could move the paragraphs from "The characters [ ] { | }" to "so the result may look ugly" to the bottom of the Specifics section. This is almost never needed, so moving it further down makes sense.

The paragraph with {{anchor}} is a complete mess and could do with a rewrite, but that would be a lot of work. Failing that, bolding "Editors can create anchors" might (or might not) help. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]