User talk:David Gerard/archive 20

Ann Nocenti

Hi. In your recent edit summary, "no cause for dep in ELs, however", what is "dep"? Thanks, and Happy New Year. Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr Eat (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The Sun as a depreciated source

Hi, with regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan_Army_Sunshine_Appeal, I did explain my choice to use The Sun in the talk page. Please note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Sun that for sports reporting (which is what this is) it can be considered reliable. With that in mind, would you agree to revert the edit? CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

PS Actually the same content is covered in sources that are not the sun, so maybe it better to have it removed....maybe just ignore this request. CT55555 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's always better to use another source :-) In the actual RFC, it did not find a general open-slather permission for sports - that was something an editor added to RSP later and resisted the removal of, and not the finding of the RFC. I think that note at RSP is misleading and open to hazards like this, but oh well - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, one less link to The Sun in the world is a good thing. :-) Have a good one. CT55555 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands?

I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands? where I have asked you a question about where a consensus to redirect was formed after you reverted to a redirect with the edit summary "Please keep to consensus". Cunard (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated this for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 4#Yat Siu. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of two editors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 4#Yat Siu that the use of rollback should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrative action review, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#David Gerard's use of rollback at Yat Siu. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, David Gerard. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! SoyokoAnis - talk 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis - talk 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, David Gerard, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 20:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of CounterPunch RFC

Hi David,

As the closer of the CounterPunch RFC, I just wanted to bring this discussion to your attention, as it appears that the RFC will need to be reclosed with the !votes of the non-ECP voters ignored after that clarification request is closed. I'm not sure how the current CounterPunch RFC will affect this, and whether it is best to close it separately or with the initial RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably run the RFC again if it came to that - though the arbitrator discussion does not appear to be going in a direction as yet. I'd say that the closure would hold on policy grounds - the multiple examples provided of misleading, fringe, or downright false statements published on the site, per both closers. Many contributors considered Mhawk10's analysis hit the nail on the head. Getting some contributions struck isn't going to get over that problem - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(I should note that I was barely aware of CounterPunch before going through and closing, and concurring fully with the previous closer's assessment of the discussion as it stood. But in cleaning up the backlog of deprecated source usages in Wikipedia, Mhawk10's analysis of the problems did seem to me to hold in practice. It's really not a good source and I'm now more confident it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, not less.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; even if it only a formality, I do think that a discussion that went from 9 !votes against and 24 !votes in favour to 13 !votes in favour (assuming ArbCom does conclude the ECR applies to such discussions) needs to be reclosed, just to ensure that the close is still correct. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction; 28 to 18, discounting the six socks and the four non-ECP editors (Crystalfile, Estnot, Kathy262, AllOtherNamesWereTaken) BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure you start with 26, including the two votes that were for 3 or 4, and end up with 14-16 depending on how you apply the 3 or 4 votes. nableezy - 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked again; 28. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

who am i missing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mhawk 10 - 4 Crossroads - 4 Dr. Swag Lord - 4 Shrike - 4 Inf-in MD - 4 (sock of NoCal100) Generalrelative - 4 NoonIcarus - 4 GretLomborg - 4 BobFromBrockley - 3 My very best wishes - 3 or 4 11Fox11 - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Nableezy - 2 Horse Eye's Back - 4 Grayfell - 4 Georgethedragonslayer - 4 Neutrality - 4 Huldra - 2 Alaexis - 4 or 3 Rosguill - 2 Nishidani - 2 NSH001 - 2 BilledMammal - 4 Free1Soul - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Davide King - 2 or 3 Nyx86 - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Estnot - 4 (non-ec) Qiushufang - 2 RFZYNSPY - 4 Crystalfile - 4 (non-ec) Kathy262 - 4 (non-ec) Amigao - 4 AllOtherNamesWereTaken - 4 (non-ec) Droid I am - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Zero - 2 Selfstudier - 2 Hippeus - 4 (sock of Icewhiz)

nableezy - 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, but we're just counting votes at this point. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, ty, but then I guess we were both wrong, 27 then, down to 15-17. And yes that is counting, which is not the only thing, but it is something, and when 28% of the support in a discussion were banned users and more than one in three was ineligible to participate, making a project wide consensus on that basis seems untenable. I dont really expect David to change his mind here, but will wait to see what he says before proceeding with any other CLOSECHALLENGE steps. nableezy - 21:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

David, as per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am challenging your close of the CounterPunch RFC on the basis of substantial participation by ineligible accounts and the recently closed Arbitration clarification that the EC requirement does apply to RSN threads related to restricted topic areas. 5 of the deprecate !votes were Icewhiz (11Fox11, Free1Soul, Nyx86, Droid I am, Hippeus), another was NoCal100 (Inf-in MD), and a further three were not eligible to participate due to being non extended confirmed. Additionally, two of the votes in favor of deprecation were soft, both saying option 3 or 4 (or 3 or 4), while the arguments about CP also hosting subject matter experts were not addressed at all. Finally, I question the very idea that 13 1415 editors may restrict the usage of a source across Wikipedia entirely, and suggest that further RFCs with such limited participation not be used as a basis for project-wide decisions, especially in the absence of any policy that supports such wide-ranging changes across the encyclopedia. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE I am asking you here to reverse your close to no consensus. If you would prefer I ask WP:AN please let me know. Thank you. nableezy - 18:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Its clear that RSN discussions regarding the conflict are covered by ECP but who said that is a Counterpunch case. Many arguments were not about the conflict at all. If someone thinks that the topic is covered by DS they should go to WP:AN or to WP:AE to enforce the restriction. --Shrike (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats why the non-EC accounts dont have a history of editing in ARBPIA topics. Wait, no. And actually, pretty sure one of the non-EC accounts will be blocked as an additional Icewhiz sock as well. nableezy - 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The first account is from 2012 icewhiz was not active back then or you think its master account? Shrike (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I said one of the accounts. Not all of them. And no, not either of those. One of the other non-EC accounts I am fairly certain is IW, but still gathering material for an SPI. Regardless, this was very obviously ARBPIA related, and the fact that there are 6 ARBPIA sockpuppets of two banned editors active in it should make that obvious to anybody looking at it objectively. You think IW would use 5 accounts in one RFC if it wasnt about the topics he cared about? nableezy - 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As someone who thinks CP is trash, I find these arguments persuasive that we should look again. I've suggested at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rerun_Counterpunch_RFC? I think we shouldn't relaunch the RFC without discussion for a bit first, but the socking was bad enough to re-examine it - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

also, fuck Icewhiz - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. nableezy - 01:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

David, if you agree the RFC is invalid, then the source is not deprecated. You cant continue claiming that there is a consensus for deprecation while also agreeing the RFC that gives that consensus is invalid. Whether or not a new RFC makes it deprecated is besides the point, it cannot be called deprecated now. nableezy - 18:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't solely declare it, as much as you would like me to. It's deprecated until it's un-deprecated. I suggest you formulate a neutral RFC and bring your best arguments. But you might want the RFC I'm about to file to go through first - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

But you actually can, as WP:CLOSECHALLENGE explicitly allows you to modify the close due to new information that materially impacts the discussion that was not known at the time, eg Icewhiz running 5 (or more likely 6) socks through that discussion. That is exactly why I came to your talk page first to challenge the close. If you felt that the RFC no longer demonstrates a consensus to deprecate then you absolutely can modify your close. You can still feel that CP is trash. You can still feel that it should be deprecated. And we can argue about that in the new RFC. But it is unfair to continue to enforce a consensus that you yourself say is hollow. Believe me, I am totally prepared for an RFC on CP. I even welcome it. But it is unfair to require a new consensus to overturn what you admit is not a valid consensus. nableezy - 20:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion already has divergent viewpoints on this, suggesting that me not taking such a drastic action, and instead starting a discussion, was in fact the correct move - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Shocking development, people who argue CP should be deprecated dont want the RFC overturned. But let me ask you a simple question. Where is there a consensus for CP to be deprecated? nableezy - 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It certainly looked that way at the time. But there are reasons to question this, so I put it to RSN to discuss what to do next. I see you've participated in that discussion, so you're aware of it - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it looked that way at the time. Thats why I did not challenge the close until now. But now, where does there exist a consensus for deprecating CP? Because if you say that RFC cannot be relied on then I am unaware of any such consensus anywhere. Is there one? nableezy - 21:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not your mother. Please continue discussion at the more central RSN discussion that is already open - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The answer of a man with a winning argument. Toodles. nableezy - 21:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Byline Times (Robert Tombs)

Have you changed your mind about Byline Times? To be fair, I did not even use this source for the Brexit claims about Robert Tombs and History Reclaimed, which I personally think are warranted because they claim to be non-partisan when they are clearly not, but I used it mainly as secondary coverage for the website's own description. Anyway, this has been totally removed. It is true one is a university blog (Lester) but it is explicitly cited by Solares, and I do not know if you think North East Bylines is a good source but it is not a blog or self-published (this was the main argument against it) and is written by an expert. Since Lester and Solares seem to present a mainstream view, while Tombs and History Reclaimed have promoted revisionism, especially in regards to colonialism, I think this fact makes their scholarly criticism due. Davide King (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SLEEPER crypto spammer?

Hi! I don't know whose account Special:Contributions/Bigelephants is, but maybe you might have an idea? Other than Draft:Cashaa, the rest of their edits inserted commas to random places (which for some reason have not been reverted); I am assuming they were WP:GAMING for WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

well, we are required to WP:AGF, despite the quacking and waddling. Doesn't resemble any past editor who springs to mind. They're clearly interested in the area, and we have more than 0 decent editors in the cryptocurrency area who are themselves hodlers ... perhaps they'll become another one! But in practice, spammy crypto editors who don't learn to cool it get topic-restricted, blocked or both in pretty short order - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Folding Ideas mention

I'm back! Looks like Folding Ideas is a fan of your work (time stamp). That's high praise. El_C 23:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Metameme

• Metameme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would you mind looking at the recent edit to this article. It added a bunch of excited commentary about "The Squirrel Token" which I assume is another crypto promotion, but it's over my head. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

yeh, just spam - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Eternity (1990 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eternity (1990 film) 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/Eternity (1990 film) 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.

The Film Creator (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RS and Economy of Marshall Islands article

Hi, regarding your edit here, is there a statement somewhere that Cointelegraph and the other sources you removed don't meet WP:RS. Cointelegraph, Benzinga, and Decrypt aren't listed on WP:RSP as being barred, and there's only a passing mention of Cointelegraph and Decrypt in the Reliable Sources talk archives. I see a statement in the archives of WikiProject Cryptocurrency that there's a consensus that crypto-related trades are considered unreliable, but is that documented anywhere? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not how RSP works. Crypto sites in general are boosterist media with no heed for massive conflicts of interest. What you're after will be indicative in the discussion of CoinDesk linked from RSP. You could take the publications to RSN if you want a firm verdict, but I predict that "generally unreliable" will be the best outcome - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually edit on crypto-related topics (Pacific islands is one of my beats, ergo the crossover in this case), so I haven't encountered this blanket ban on a class of publications before. WP:RSP is the go-to for indications about sources that might be questionable; it's not comprehensive, but if a site is blacklisted I would hope it would be added there. Cointelegraph in particular appears on a basic WP:RS check to pass the sniff test (editorial board, not self-published, news articles appear evenhanded and not hype). Looking at the CoinDesk conversation, I don't see a definitive consensus around a total ban on those sites, but this is an area you clearly spend more time on than me. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

All the crypto sites are basically bad. They're boosterism and advertorial pretending to be trade press. They're really not usable sources in Wikipedia. Look at the material I removed - it was boosterism that fails to note details like the project's failure, because they try to only talk about good news for crypto, and tend to ignore when projects fail a bit later - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did look at them and they didn't raise a red flag for me. In this case, they seemed mostly straightforward reporting on the development of the SOV, including the IMF's criticism and concerns (which was hardly boosterism or good news). The project is still active, so it's hard to talk about it's failure yet. I've re-added information about the IMF's criticism (tied to a primary source, the IMF's report) along with reporting on the project's ongoing nature from Bloomberg and Global Finance. I also added a RNZ report on the failure of the no confidence vote you added mention of. Hopefully that all passes muster to provide a more current picture of the project. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why you have removed article and redirected?

Article : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Siminoff&redirect=no

I checked the articles and the statements and source looks verifiable. Religiousmyth (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

100% of his notability was actually about Ring, not about him outside of Ring - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have undone your redirect to the article because it looks good for me because article do not get created in day. If you keep the article than other contributor may improve it with more valuable source (time to time). If you still consider redirect is only solution, you can add redirect to the article back. I am not experienced wikipedia editor, so i believe you may know better what good and what bad for wikipedia. Religiousmyth (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It was created in 2019 and has never had anything more substantial in three years. If you can find anything, this would be a good time to add it - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you and i have moved the page in draft. Ones it improve than it can be move back to main-space. Religiousmyth (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

odd interpretation of various wikipedia policies

Hi David, although I just emailed you, I thought perhaps I'd write to your wall, as I'm all for transparency and open forums. I've been encountering some very odd interpretations (from admins and editors) of wikipedia policy lately, and I'm asking you, as a fellow Aserpergan, what you make of it! (I'm assuming you have Asperger's at least). So, firstly, people have been stating in articles as fact what people have claimed, without proof. This to be seems POV, and to use a persons words as proof, is surely not conducive to writing a good encyclopaedia. I reverted these edits, explaining they did not have adequate sources (the only source being a PRIMARY source, which according to Wikipedia policy isn't an adequate source), but each time my edits got reverted. Each time I reverted the edits, careful to observe the 3RR, even though technically (accoriding to the "Edit warring" policy) my reverts can't count as part of an edit war, given that it is explicitly mentioned as an exemption in the "edit warring" policy, number 7, removing unsourced material from a BLP (bio of a living person). Nevertheless, an admin blocked me, on the basis of "Edit warring" and "disrupting wikipedia". (This second basis seems highly dubious and over-used. it seems very vague as to when it applies, and seems to be applied in any situation of a dispute). I requested to be unblocked on the basis that I was not edit warring given the explicit exemption. Another admin rejected my unblock request, without even addressing the basis on which I was requesting to be unblocked. I then spoke to them on their talk page pointing out they had failed to respond to the basis of my unblock request, and twice more they continued to ignore my unblock request, instead choosing to focus on my "threats" to them (which was that I would have to escalate things if they did not address the basis of my unblock request - I only felt it fair to let them know this is where it would go if they didn't do their job). Given they continued to neglect their admin duties, I then posted on ANI to ask for feedback/assistance with this curious behaviour (I was not aware of a more suitable place to seek assistance than ANI) - and then another admin, within minutes, deleted my ANI request, also saying that they agreed with the rejection of my unblock request, and also without addressing the basis of my unblock request. They also said that if I didn't effectively shut up, that I was asking for a site-wide ban (without elaborating on how I was doing this). Sorry for the long message..! Can you help me to understand what's going on here please? (Other than perhaps Wikipedia being run by the egos of admins with little care or attention to actual policy)? Rebroad (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Not aspergic myself, just have lots of friends who are! Do you have links to the specific edits? (This sort of thing is always heavily dependent on facts and circumstances.) In the case of apparent edit-warring on a BLP, I'd always advise posting to BLPN for outside opinions and then stop and leave it to others - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Note the OP has been blocked for edit warring, disruptive editing, IDHT and failure to drop the stick. So you can just ignore the above. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"André Konsbruck" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect André Konsbruck and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#André Konsbruck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[1]] regarding continued deletion of the entire history section. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[2]]".The discussion is about the topic CryptoPunks.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

"Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaetr (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Contributions on pages

Hello David, I have noticed we happen to contribute to mutual topics. Thank you for your contributions, I appreciate it. However, I would like to know what do you think is not 'non WP:N' or 'non WP:RS' in the Dangiuz page. Just like you, I am very meticulous when it comes to Crypto/NFT related articles, and I only cite actually reliable websites when contributing to these articles. For this reason, I want you to notice that in the aforementioned article there is no sign of a single Crypto website, in any of those 37 references, thus tagging it as a 'non WP:N' when the art shows and references are clear for all to see seems a bit out of place. And, I haven't done any WP:RM at all; I simply followed the Template rules, if you check the article's Talk page. I contribute to many articles about artists, specifically those who are into NFTs/Digital Art. If there's anything you think I could have done better about WP:CE, please feel free to edit and contribute. But the references are undoubtedly reliable and no different from any other artist I contribute to. Thanks! JohnnyCoal (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the references to crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Nijinsky

Hello David, Can I ask for your advice, as an Admin.? Certain anonymous editors keep insisting on reverting my edits to tone done claims that the horse was the greatest ever. As it happens, I agree with them! But thatz irrelevant. My experience is that Wiki frowns on such claims, even if referenced. The main problem is that the sources cited cannot easily be checked, and the text states that 'some experts' say: what about other experts that disagree? My 'one of the greatest...' edits are not going down well, clearly. Thanks, Bill Billsmith60 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I found the actual link for the Daily Telegraph, and the title does not appear to be what was originally in the text - perhaps it is that in the original print version? Anyway, tricky one. We would I think basically need sources that are expert and say precisely that, yeah - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll go ahead in a bit on that basis Billsmith60 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"Magical Britain" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Magical Britain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Magical Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1rr

You have violated the 1RR at Palestinian right of return, kindly self-revert or be reported at WP:AE. nableezy - 00:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Erm, no I haven't. Please list diffs.

Also, you might think hard about reflexively reinserting a weird fringe white nationalist blog as a source in Wikipedia, even if it's an article by someone you like - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont actually agree with Morris, it isn't somebody I like, but he is an excellent source. As far as diffs 1, 2, with you having previously made this exact same removal here in an earlier editing rampage. And reverted by another editor then. Kindly self-revert or be reported to AE. You do not get to enforce your positions through reverts anymore than anybody else on this website. And calling Benny Morris extremist or fringe borders on a BLP violation. Maybe think hard about your reckless editing in which you do not even examine what it is you are removing beyond its url. nableezy - 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

1rr is per 24 hours, not ever in the history of Wikipedia. But feel free to report if you disagree. Also, you really shouldn't be adding the white nationalist blog to Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and you did 2 reverts within 24 hours, in under 2 hours. nableezy - 14:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#David_Gerard nableezy - 14:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope you've learnt more about how 1rr works - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

lol, good one. Good luck on your next crusade, I have some more CP links to restore. nableezy - 22:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yuriy Sedykh

Hello again,

May I request a "semi-protected" tag for the above page to allow only registered users to edit it? It's just one casualty of the war in Ukraine. I hope this request is in order. Cheers, Billsmith60 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, a contact of mine (billsmith60) has asked me in desperation to send you this note that an unknown user is blanking all his content on messages to administrators about the Yuri Sedykh page. Can that IP be banned and the article restored. Its far too much for an accredited user to be treated in this manner. Thank you bigpad (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected and the IP blocked - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sandi Bachom

Any objection if I lift your protection on this article? Was deleted back in 2016, but a different editor has a current draft ready. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

yeah, no problem - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Handful of Earth by Dick Gaughan

I noted several years ago, with much amusement, that a passage from an article about Dick Gaughan which I wrote for CounterPunch was cited on the page for his album Handful of Earth. I hadn't imagined many would read it, nevermind consider me a quotable authority.

That said, I think it says something about the kinds of publications the kinds of people who listen to Gaughan might read, that a CP reader was prompted to visit Wikipedia and quote from the piece in the first place. To see, then, that after many years of both readers and moderators having no problem with the citation, that an individual has declared any citation of CP ipso facto "undue" rubs me up the wrong way. The passage quoted was an expression of opinion, not fact, and therefore whatever concerns you have about the reliability of the text strike me as baseless. All music criticism, not only (but certainly including) mine is given "undue weight", since it's completely meaningless. That doesn't alter the fact that it would be self-evidently absurd of you to delete a quotation from, let's say, the artist himself, simply on the grounds that it had been printed in a publication you find distasteful. You stated that a CP citation is prima facie giving undue weight. Should you, or anybody, be deleting things from Wikipedia based on first impressions? 77.98.247.200 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing newsletter 2022 – #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Counterpunch as source

Greetings. I just noticed you deleted a reference to a Counterpunch article from the lemma "List of acronyms associated with the eurozone crisis" (here), writing in the edit summary "rm deprecated source Counterpunch". The publication, though, has not been deprecated lock, stock, and barrel. We see in WP:RSPSS that, although its articles should generally be avoided and should not be used to establish notability, an exception is made for articles published by subject-matter experts writing about subjects within their domain of expertise. The article cited is written by a veteran economics-reporter and refers to the 2015 developments in the Eurozone, making interesting comparisons between Washington's handling of the 2008 crisis and Eurozone's response to the region's public-debt crisis. It should be a legitimate citation. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Ethereum scaling solutions

Hello David Gerard. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ethereum scaling solutions, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. BangJan1999 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

EverRise Removal of History and more

Hello David,

Can you please clarify why several sections were removed from EverRise page? History was for me obvious to be cited from the project official press releases because it was when things happened (I'm a close follower for EverRise project). Not sure how it could be different.

Your revision states: rm history, cited *entirely* to press releases, primary sources and non-RS cryptocurrency sites; rm uncited sections

I'm quite new to writing in Wikipedia, so maybe I'm missing something. Thank you. SlobaDoba (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the article marked with the template that states it contains content that is written like an advertisement? I don't find it any different from other articles I've read in Wikipedia.

Why history was deleted? Should I cite the official project Articles and Updates web page instead of other sites? SlobaDoba (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You should stick to information noted in Reliable Sources, such as mainstream financial press. Crypto sites are not considered RSes on Wikipedia. Anything sourced solely to the project is probably not worth noting in Wikipedia.

The relevant guideline is usually WP:NCORP. Anything that isn't genuinely notable outside its own sites or crypto sites is probably not usable in an article - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Marshall Inu

Hi David, I am writing to you about the deletation of the article about the Cryptocurrency Marshall Inu. I would like to know why it has been deleted since the claim to notability is very strong as per WP:ORGSIG "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they had a significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Some users didn't like the tone (deemed promotional), but they did also mentionned that there was sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, but would like to work on the wording of the article. There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources in MMA websites (notably MMA Fighting, MMA Mania, Sportskeeda, Yahoo! Finance, Marca Newspaper, The Portugal News, Front Office Sports, Combat Press, Overtime Heroics, Essentially Sports, Calf Kicker, Media Referee, Speak MMA, ect.) and we've removed pressreleases, and crypto blogs.

Im quite confused about why instead of deleting it and wans't improved instead, or tagged as neutrality or else. Aren't we supposed to be here helping expand the encyclopedia? Seemingly the only issue was the tone, not the notability. I don't know the process for this, but I have started a draft Draft:Marshall Inu and will be improving it until deemed ready to be published. It seems like I've been too much in details, and like Pawthereum and EverRise, it's better to keep it simple and let the community expand. Thank you for your help and any advice you may have. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It was the consensus of the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Inu, and the arguments are explained therein - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand concensus, my question is: If notability is clear and coverage is sufficient, is a "promotional tone" enough to delete? Or it is necessary to improve instead? Lethweimaster (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus was that notability wasn't clear - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, users were saying it was the seemingly promotional tone that was the issue not the sourcing, especially not after real the improvements and citations added since nomination.

User Artw & Loew Galitz said delete as per promotion. User jp×g said Delete unless significantly rewritten (no promotional content)

User jp×g said: There may well be enough sources to keep this article, but if it's kept it needs a thorough rewrite

You are an admin and you can see there is sufficient coverage to establish notability, therefore wasn't it prompted to improve and tone down instead of deleting? Lethweimaster (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you keep working on the draft and get much better and clearer notability - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of passages sourced to deprecated sources

Hi, I noticed you are on a campaign of removal of content sourced to deprecated sources, or at least this is what your recent edit history shows. However, per WP:DEPRECATED, such content should not be removed unless it belongs to the category of content that requires an inline citation (see there). In most cases, content referenced to a deprecated source should stay. I'm sure you'll agree that not every single sentence or claim on Wikipedia requires a citation and that deprecating a source is not the same as banning or blacklisting.

So, your removal of valid and frequently important information only due to the use of deprecated sources is quite controversial, as in [3][4][5][6]. I suggest you discuss it first at RSN. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEPRECATED is advisory. WP:BURDEN is hard policy. This has been discussed extensively at WP:RSN over several years, and is only "quite controversial" with editors who really, really want to use deprecated sources.

If you want your claims in, you have to supply reliable sources for them, not deprecated ones.

If you want to restore claims that were removed for only being cited to a deprecated source, you have the burden of first finding an RS to back them: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

There is nothing ambiguous about this policy. - David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As stated in BURDEN, In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a "citation needed" tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Did you try to follow this advice (or actually policy)? A lot of the information you removed can be easily verified using two mouse clicks. For instance, Fournitet's story is in the top 5 Google results: [7]. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You need not to try so hard to put deprecated sources into Wikipedia. If you want a claim in, it needs an RS. Frankly, thinking Press TV was ever a usable source for Wikipedia suggests you need to understand Wikipedia sourcing better, and not act like you're looking for loopholes in quite clear policies - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Unknown Pleasures Joy Division LP sleeve.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Unknown Pleasures Joy Division LP sleeve.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. Muhandes (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Anne Marie Waters

Hi David, that was my edit. I had the link whitelisted. I think it's a reliable source for the statement. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

mmm, it was solely primary-sourced to the deprecated site. Googling "anne-marie waters" "national secular society" looks like no RS cared. I found one mention in The Times that she was formerly of the NSS. That's it. So I've put that in to back the claim she's formerly of the NSS - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

the other sources in the article are really a bit primary too. e.g. OpenDemocracy is an excellent organisation, but I've qualms about using it in a BLP of a controversial person - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Just gave the sources a polish and touch-up. Pre-2014 she was definitely a frequent spokesperson for the NSS ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Good work there. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

now you've got me reading up on her, darn you - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC issues at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sky_News_Australia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Decrypt as a media source

Hi David.

I noticed you removed a source from a news site called Decrypt in this edit of the Ethereum article: diff. Has there been some sort of vetted decision that Decrypt is not a valid source for sourcing in Wikipedia. Even for inane things like the dates of blockchain protocol upgrades? If you would link me to where, I'd appreciate it. N2e (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You know better than this, we had this discussion on the very same article about crypto sources six years ago. The crypto blogs would never pass WP:NEWSORG or even as specialist trade press. CoinDesk is the least worst of them and is GU; all the others are worse. The standard is not "this particular crappy blog has not been specifically forbidden". Literally all the crypto media are boosterism with massive COIs who don't stop their writers from owning the coins they write about and would never pass muster as RSes. I mean, we could do a discussion on RSN, to add to the previous crypto media discussions on RSN. But you should be experienced enough to show better judgement on sourcing quality by now. Cryptocurrency is adequately covered by multiple solid RSes - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

fwiw, the most recent discussion is here and the crypto sites are not well regarded, especially given the considerable RS coverage of cryptocurrency. See also this discussion, which specifically mentions Decrypt - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course some of the sites following the whole blockchain space since whenever it started are not solid. But that is not true of every source. There are several that are pretty regular trade press, covering an industry in a fuller and deeper way than any non-industry source does. Decrypt is certainly one of those, not a "crypto blog." So some discussion about poor sources 6 yrs ago is hardly the relevant discussion about an industry that has obviously evolved, and is both much larger, more complicated, and with better media sources having emerged since then. We don't have a Wikipedia wide policy to never accept trade press as sources. N2e (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Literally none would make the bar, I think. They're promotional boosterism, not "trade press." As I noted, none at all have the zero-COI policy that's routine in financial press, for instance - and that includes Decrypt. But if you think you can swing it at RSN, go for it - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Irish Daily Mail

I noticed you removed the Irish Daily Mail source from the 2022 FA Community Shield, can you tell me where this source was deprecated? At WP:DAILYMAIL, it mentions The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail. Given the Irish Daily Mail is a separate newspaper, and is not currently listed at WP:RS/P, I do not see why it would be forbidden to use as a source. New Scientist is also published by DMG Media, but is listed as generally reliable. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: It's not separate. From Daily Mail (disambiguation): "an edition of the UK Daily Mail published in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland". Robby.is.on (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

it is in point of fact the same paper - David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Then shouldn't this be mentioned at WP:DAILYMAIL, as is done at WP:THESUN for The Irish Sun? Because currently the wording implies the opposite – there is no mention of the Irish paper, and the wording says UK Daily Mail. There is also no mention on Irish Daily Mail that it is the same newspaper. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. The precise wording of the RSP entry has been contentious previously (when someone wanted to just note that dailymail.co.uk cannot in fact be relied upon as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail), but I'll suggest it on WT:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wording_tweak_for_WP:DAILYMAIL_re:_other_editions - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Federalist removals

I see you are mass removing refs to this site on the basis it.is general unreliable. Some of the removals under that are kosher (where it is being used to source facts) but several of the uses popping up on my watch list are for TSOPINION statements which do not require a reliable source. You are adding on these that you think the opinion is UNDUE, now thats a stance far and beyond just trying to remove a generally unreliable site being used to source facts. I don't know if the usage of Federalist opinions are DUE when they have been used, and don't really care honestly, only that compared to when you have scrubbed bad sources out if articles before it was nearly always just because they were used as facts, and thus hD implicit community support. However, you alone should not be trying to judge when a source is appropriate under RSOPINION, unless you are 100% familiar with each topic you are handling. I would this recommend you stop removing this source when used for attributed opinion, though have no issues with other removals when used for wikivoice fact. Masem (t) 14:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to disagree, but I think that if a non-notable commenter in a Generally Unreliable source is rambling about something, that's extremely unlikely to be worth including in Wikipedia. Some of these are hilariously inappropriate e.g. The Federalist Political Blog's earnest opinions on My Little Pony.

Your objection is that I'm reviewing the usage of a source that's been found to be generally unreliable at RFC, and considering its usage on the basis that, by policy, Wikipedia should use reliable sources and not unreliable ones. I suggest you need to spend less of your time defending bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please be more careful with these removals. With this edit, you removed the source that supported a quote but left the quote in the article (with another source that doesn't support the quote). Either remove both the source and the material it supports, or leave them both in the article, but please don't leave the article in a state where material appears to be cited but isn't. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed - David Gerard (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove a video link on Tornado Cash?

Hello. I could not find what ELNO means. Can you elaborate?

You removed my link.

-- PabloCastellano (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ELNO. In almost all cases, the external link on an article should only be the single best link for the subject. Others might have a few more. But basically just the one best link that's actually for the project.

TC has the problem that both its official links were taken down - I suppose tornadov3.cash might do the job, if it's verified by the devs - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC )

TrustToken

I have reverted your edit on TrustToken, if you would like to raise an issue with a specific part of the article please open a discussion on the Talk Page. Feel free to use Template:Better source needed if you would like to raise a concern on a specific source that has been referenced. Removal of content is conter productive except in cases of obvious issues.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Do not deliberately add unreliable sources to Wikipedia, and desist in your promotional editing - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no deliberate usage of unreliable sources. You may raise your concerns about specific sources. Again, there is no promotional editing going on as I have mentioned in my talk page.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit where you removed my contributions that are addressing issues with accuracy and improving citations is not helpful. Particularly because you simply reverted everything, you may have legitimate concerns about some parts of the text, please address those specifically. It is more helpful to contribute to an article that is being worked on with maintenance tags that address specific issues so that they can be fixed by the editor(s) working to improve the article.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It is filled with cryptocurrency promotional sites and press releases - not reliable sources. And it's overwhelmingly promotional in tone. Don't do either of these things. The issue is that really, the article should be deleted. And that if you really aren't editing promotionally, then you don't seem competent to understand the problems - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is up for a deletion discussion due to apparent lack of notability, at this point it is the primary objective to convince of the topics notability. If it is deleted, having fixed other types of issues will not have mattered in retrospect. I understand your point on sources. There are some but not very many academic sources discussing a specific, relatively new, cryptocurrency topic like this one. However that does not mean it is not notable. The two prevalent types of sources that we have at our disposal with such a topic, besides primary sources, are news articles about it and mentions in academic and financial reports. As there are limitations to the scope of the information provided in the reports, it was necessary for some parts to rely on source material from news articles about crypto. As is the nature of online publishing concerning the topic of cryptocurrency, even reliable sources sometimes have a hyped tone, and it would make sense that when using these sources some of this hyped attitude leaked into the article making it sound a bit more like a promo piece than it should. This can and should be fixed.... Also it is interesting to see that sometimes the sources that appear at first glance to be hype cryptosites are some of the more critical pieces of writing concerning these sometimes shady business practices or cryptocurrency related companies. If there are still any issues that need to be addressed please don't hesitate to let me know.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

it was necessary for some parts to rely on source material from news articles about crypto no, that's never necessary. At that point, you don't have sources, because those aren't RSes. If you need to go to unreliable sources, then you don't have sources. If you need to make extensive claims based on press releases, you don't have sources - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean here reliable news articles on crypto, they do exist, do you not agree? I believe I have avoided writing about claims based solely on press releases and have used sources that potentially may be press releases for raw facts only. What do you think?--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You literally cited multiple claims to content from the company. You are at best failing WP:CIR - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The cases you are referring to may be cases that I have overlooked critical details, or these may be cases where content coming via via from the company was used in a way that is legitimate given the context. Can you point to the specific instances you are referring to?--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for heads-up

I appreciate your edit summary noting replacement of the GU source, The Federalist. The discussion here was also helpful. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

cheers :-) it's not a deprecated source, but it sure isn't a good one - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Editing news 2022 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

The [subscribe] button shortens response times.

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

Hello, I think best to just double check this. I assessed Wikipedia:Deprecated sources and observe it explicitly only says the UK version of "The Sun" (it doesn't appear to include international variants). Please just let me know where it says this is a blanket international coverage so it's clear what isn't acceptable (as an aside, I have already flagged this article for notability concerns anyway so it may get deleted at some point regardless). Many thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Sun US is literally just the US edition of the UK Sun and suffers all the same issues. And it says "U.S. Sun" on WP:RSP. If you seriously think you can argue it isn't, I urge you to take the argument to the reliable sources noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok perhaps calm down a little. Yes, I observe on closer inspection it suggests the US version too (although the link indicates it's UK only). No worries, as I note, I already flagged concerns on the article anyway but wasn't necessarily aware the editorial concerns on that paper extended worldwide. I am not arguing anything - I just wanted to double check this and I clearly implied I was just looking to ensure that was correct. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Weissmann

This is an unreliable source: Unsealed Documents pertaining to Andrew Weissmann? MurrayGreshler (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Awareness

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. brief

Apologies if this is a redundant notification; I was unable to find a notification for this topic in the page history. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Massive trading platform with no page

Dear David, XM.com is one of the largest (maybe the biggest) online trading platforms worldwide but it has no Wikipedia listing. On the contrary, other smaller players like Saxo Bank, Avatrade, FxPro, Pepperstone, and FXCM do have a listing. Can you please advise on what is needed to create an accurate Wikipedia-friendly profile? I'm not experienced enough, still learning. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolzpap (talk • contribs) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

so basically you need coverage in mainstream (non-crypto) sources. I had a look and found zero coverage in the FT, Bloomberg, NYT or WSJ. Reuters had some industry comments from XM.com traders, but no coverage of the platform itself. Basically the outside world has to cover it first, so it clearly passes WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RSN closure

Please kindly retract this closure. It contains two errors: One, that was absolutely not the same matter as the 2021 discussion whatsoever; the libel case was only mentioned as a side issue briefly. And two, I made a single comment in the 2021 discussion, and was not the OP. This looks poorly, like shutting down criticism of this source, doing this after only one hour with an erroneous justification. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You were clearly forum-shopping (from BLPN), so yes it is appropriate. In any case, it appears moot, as posters kept right on posting - David Gerard (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would I "forum shop" when most at BLPN agreed with me that the text would change? I posted at RSN so a new issue with the source could get wider consideration - whether or not it went my way. But that wider consideration was the goal. By shutting it down so fast it sure looks to me like criticizing this source is not allowed (especially for some reason if the critic ever posted in a past discussion).

And again, the evidence I presented was not mentioned in the 2021 discussion, so it can't be redundant. As the closure is in error and attacks me I still want it removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv Post

Why are you deleting references to articles in the Kyiv Post? It’s a generally reliable and award-winning outlet. I can’t find anything in the article about the outlet or on WP:RSP to contradict that. —Michael Z. 22:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur that Kyiv Post is fine and a NEWSORG - but the actual content I'm concerned about is near bare links with slight reprinting to 112.ua, which is the GUNREL source I'm talking about. Did you look at the links before reverting? Each of the five is a single paragraph and a "Read more" pointing at 112.ua - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I agree 112 should go, but I reverted several of your removals of Kyiv Post, because your edit summary seemed contrary to the facts. —Michael Z. 22:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The links to Kyiv Post are literally reprints of one paragraph and then a link to 112.ua as a "Read more". This is not Kyiv Post NEWSORG content, it is just a pointer - hardly any of the content - to the GUNREL content. Is this clear enough?

Syndication and reprints are treated as the original source. e.g. Yahoo! News is a NEWSORG so presumed RS - but if they reprint a trash source, then we assess it per the original trash source, not Yahoo! News's otherwise good reputation - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. Sorry about that. —Michael Z. 23:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

RE Belmont 112

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Wikipedia Kdammers (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

TradeStrike

Should we send TradeStrike to AfD? It really seems like the company is failing NCORP from what I've seen in your edits. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Just did :-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Boston Grammar School unreliable sources - Metro and Daily Express

I don’t understand the justification behind calling Metro and Daily Express, two national newspaper publications, unreliable sources? The articles cited are not opinion pieces and reference legal reports/panels.

I also feel that because there are two national newspapers reporting on the same story, it is of significance and adds further credibility to the story. I can find a local newspaper article to cite instead, if necessary? Prodjex (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, particularly for controversial claims like you were making. This is outlined on WP:RS. Both DE and Metro are listed as "generally unreliable" on WP:RSP. That's an information page, but the discussion should be informative. Neither is used for anything the least bit controversial, and - being unreliable, rather than reliable - probably shouldn't be used in general - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"Seal (Chinese" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Seal (Chinese and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Seal (Chinese until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yarvin

You are misinformed about the number of children. Please stop reverting that info in the entry on him. As of today, there are two children and one pregnancy. That equals two children.Johnlumea (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail.

Please read my notes at the Talk page of the David Carradine article, and give a reason to delete the only mention to the Daily Mail in it, which was clearly defined as an unreliable source, and which on that only occasion did a better job than usually reliable sources, and which citation link took directly to the comments to the report, the main reason to include that reference.
The whole point of the edition in that section is to show how poorly the media did their job (aka misinformation), both the "unreliable" and the "reliable" sources, to the point that the Daily Mail surpassed The Associated Press that day, but all of them misrepresented the events.
Simply putting "no, don't use the DM" is no argument, even less when the point is criticizing sources comparatively. The sources you left informed that situation worse than the Daily Mail. Just read the section and the paragraph. And please remember that citing deprecated sources is allowed when the objective is criticism of sources.
I don't like to write "Captain Obvious"-type texts (maybe I trust too much the intelligence of the readers), but it seems it will be necessary when putting openly in the text "Wikipedia considers the Daily Mail as an unreliable source" with links and everything is not clear enough... Maykiwi (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit. Just found out you added a note to my note. I didn't think somebody was reading them. Now, it is clear that it was understood that the Daily Mail is an unreliable source (phew), but I disagree about the importance of the point. The fact that one reliable news agency and two reliable sources underperformed in comparison to a notorious tabloid, and the most available media (mainstream and tabloids) misinformed the public to the point of eliciting animosity, and all of that based on practically nothing, is noteworthy. There are few opportunities to know the public's opinion in matters related to popular culture like this one; it shouldn't be dismissed. Respectfully, I disagree with you. Do we call a judge of sorts? Maykiwi (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't care what the DM says - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) We care even less about what the comments section below the DM articles say. This looks like a good removal to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the rewording of the paragraph. Public opinion has importance. By the way, that day the DM said exactly what The Associated Press said, better than reliable sources, and in other days it followed ABC (I won't quote the DM again, don't worry). Mainstream media giving misinformation to the public, is relevant. There is an article on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to deliberately add deprecated sources to Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked for disruption - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So, any specific constructive suggestion?
How was it that instead of flagging the article or the section with "it may contain original research" you preferred to delete everything after June 4, including the well-sourced investigation, the funeral (which existed before my edition) and even the quotes inside the citations of three reliable sources in another section? How all of that improves the article?
I have taken a look at your Talk page. Lots of complaints. It appears your main activity is to take down unreliable sources, which is good, and which you do no matter your competence on the article's subject, and sometimes you take away the citation but leave the quote, and so on, and so forth.
I observed that in the Kyiv Post issue, you said that sources are judged by their own source, one of which you called "trash." If you have an article by ABC, and its source is The Smoking Gun, which in turn deliberately disinformed the public in 2009 by reuploading a 2003 article and modifying it to misrepresent its origin (just compare the two citations) how do you judge the ABC article? Doesn't it also become an unreliable source?
The way you work, the speed at which you work, it appears that you follow the use of the "unreliable sources" template and proceed to take down the citations at full speed, sometimes ignoring the rule says it shouldn't be done "indiscriminately."
This problem started with the arguable use of a Daily Mail citation, which content came from The Associated Press (not trash) as proven by the other reliable sources that accompanied the paragraph and which contents were the same, and that suddenly became you taking down almost all of the section, including what was undoubtedly sourced with reliable sources - the Investigation. How can I edit/improve the section without a criteria of what do you consider unreliable after that - including your threat to block me?
Anything to say before the process of mediation toward arbitration starts? Maykiwi (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You should follow the advice of the multiple other editors suggesting that your approach is fundamentally wrong here. Don't write your own essay-like section in which you synthesise your conclusions from exceedingly long quotes from newspapers, including from deprecated sources, and then including the fact of Wikipedia deprecating the Daily Mail in the article as if that has anything to do with David Carradine. Also, the bit where you decide I personally just hate your amazing revelation rather than considering that your approach is bad and needs to be reverted. Competence is required - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Page protection request for Takeoff (rapper)

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but you were the first active admin I could find on recent changes. Takeoff (rapper) has been getting absolutely bombarded by IPs (and a few new accounts) for the past hour due to the purported/rumored death of the subject. There are three requests on RfPP but no admins have responded yet. Could we get some level of page prot on the article please? Thank you! Blue Edits (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

1 week autoconfirmed - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Blue Edits (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Just put it on 1 day extended-confirmed, hopefully we won't have to go to full protection. I figure one day is enough to work out what the heck is going on here, and obviously it can be extended as is necessary - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Harry Pollitt

Hi David. Regarding this edit, linking to a deprecated page for quotation/aboutself is permitted. The situation is the same as linking to a copy of a work on GBooks, Internet Archive, or YouTube. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The bit where it's almost certainly a copyvio - per the edit summary - is not, however - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The situation is exactly the same as material copied on to YouTube. I’m not particularly bothered either way because the quote is referenced well enough for someone to find it anyway, but this is overzealous. FOARP (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

David Carradine - Mediation

Greetings. I requested mediation for the issue we have. I am required to notify you of this situation; in 15 years, I had never done this. There is a template I am supposed to use, I don't know where or how, here it goes:
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The discussion is here:
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#David_Carradine
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit of John Westwood

The unreliable source you mensioned was that in particular to GB News?

As it is factually correct he was interviewed on GB News

Its subjective WikiEditor Lennon (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact of being interviewed in a GUNREL source isn't, unless it was talked up by an RS. Even then, we can just use the RS - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 25 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Improper removal of content from article for Atlantic City, New Jersey

Per this edit, I have reviewed Wikipedia:Deprecated sources -- a mere "information page" -- and the Irish Daily Mail and its pressreader URL are neither named nor listed. Furthermore, you have deliberately and improperly removed not only the source, but also the material in that article based on that source. WP:PRESERVE -- a genuine "English Wikipedia policy" -- specifies that you make an effort to retain the content. Even if you genuinely believe that the source is unreliable, and even if you genuinely believe that you have no responsibility to find an alternate source, the simple alternative available to you is to add a tag asking for a source. Why would you refuse to follow WP:PRESERVE? Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail. The deprecation of the Daily Mail includes its Irish and Scottish editions, and the Press Reader reprints. The WP:BURDEN policy says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. That's you. If you're looking for excuses to add and re-add deprecated sources to Wikipedia, then you're fundamentally misunderstanding Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk)

and it turns out the pressreader URL for the Irish Daily Mail is specifically listed on WP:DEPS - click the "[show]" link at the right - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is explicit "Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies..." This means YOU, yet you removed both the source and the encyclopedic content. It's so pathetic that some of the editors doing the most damage to this encyclopedia are the ones who believe that they are doing something positive without realizing that they are the ones who refuse to comply with fundamental policies while citing an "information page". Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

and it turns out that if you have to go down a column on WP:DEPS and click the "[show]" link at the right for every single row, then it's not "specifically listed". Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

You're literally pointing out where it's listed. Stop deliberately inserting deprecated sources into Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions regarding the notability of a crypto org

I nominated Dfinity for deletion, as at the time I thought it lacked corpdepth level coverage. However, I've since been wondering whether a handful of sources cited in the article, specificially these articles amount to corpdepth sigcov? Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

hmm, bprderline I'd think. Would be nice to have more but that makes not a terrible prima facie showing of slight notability - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the deletion reason: it's all funding rounds and WP:CRYSTAL. Yeah, that fails NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "deprecated" here?

Hi David. What's your meaning of "deprecated" in this edit? On Wikipedia, that term usually refers a no-longer-used parameter. Here, you've removed a source that appears to work just fine. Can you please explain what you believe the problem is? Tagging author CorradoNai, so he's also aware of any potential problem you've found. MeegsC (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@MeegsC: Hi, I'm not David but I think WP:CGTN should answer your question. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

yeah, it's Wikipedia jargon. It's the term we use for a source that is so bad we don't use it as a source any more. As well as the WP:RSP info page linked there, WP:DEPS is an informational essay on the concept. Deprecated sources should pretty much never be used for anything, with only an extremely few exceptions - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Okay. So you're looking for a more reliable source. CorradoNai is a new editor, so won't know the jargon. Heck, I'm on old editor, and I didn't know it either! ;) Thanks. CorradoNai, see WP:Deprecated sources for more info. MeegsC (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MeegsC & David Gerard & Robby.is.on for your help. So basically CGNT should not be used as source. Noted! I've acutally had an automated note while editing my sandbox, then I wans't sure anymore which source it was. So thanks for finding it! Cheers, and I wish you a magnificent 2023! CorradoNai (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)