This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard .

Past talk: 2004 2005a 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I just saw you deleted Pepperfry (company) as G4. I can understand that it was previously deleted through an AFD but I beg to differ with you on it being identical to previously deleted article. The current version was completely different from the one deleted in 2016. It had many new sources added, each covering the topic directly and in detail. Pepperfry is the largest furniture ecommerce in India, it has got discussed in many mainstream newspapers including Business Line, The Times of India, The Economic Times, Mint (newspaper) and there is a lot more sources available online if we do a name search on Google. Requesting you to please undelete it as this version was not at all identical to previous versions and has received a lot of coverage in reliable sources since last AFD and passes WP:NCORP with ease. TYSM.Tungut bey (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if you got around to checking that Pepperfry article. It was not at all identical to previously deleted article and was not qualifying for G4.Tungut bey (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

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.

Template:Z33 Walrus Ji (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added a GSCrypto notice and created the user's talk page [1]. Since I created the talk page, in theory no users would be following the new user's talk page that didn't yet exist. However, a couple of hours later another user scolded me on the new user's talk page. The new user I can see never contacted any users via talk in wp, at least in user contributions, thus how would an existing user have known about the edit I made (assuming it was impossible to follow the talk page of a not yet created talk page)? Then within a day or two the Bitcoin Cash RfC was launched. Today we see a second apparent SPA also voting in the RfC. Seems like quite a coincidence. I am wondering if a few more SPAs will show up in the next few days, as even if this is not an SPI issue, it might suggest some type of coordination. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While participation in Wikipedia is lovely, SPAs raise an eyebrow. I've noted that RFCs are not a ballot - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant to be a separate, standalone comment. I do not see how to create a new entry. My apolpgies for editing the existing paragraph. David, why are you deleting credible factual information from the Reggie Middleton pages? Yo literally deleted patent grants from the world's 3rd largest economy from his page, citing it as unreliable, yet left a litigious allegation from an adverse party claiming negative things on the page. Then you deleted his reply to the allegations. Basically, you deleted fact, published opinion, and deleted the reply to that opinion? That is horribly biased. You then deleted multiple accomplishments claimed and detailed on a variety of mainstream and leading media outlets (i.e. Bloomberg, CNBC, VPRO, RT, etc) and then claimed that there were no credible secondary sources to support his accomplishments. The man has a long list of accomplishments, clearly memorialized throughout mainstream media, many, many times. You also deleted references and descriptions to well over a thousand people who disagreed with the allegations that you allowed to remain. This again, shows very unprofessional bias. Why are you doing this? I apologize if this formatting appears in another's message, I am new to the back end of Wikipedia, but felt obliged to call you on your one-sided gatekeepr-like actions and request that you refrain. There are hundreds of inventors on this site. Why haven't you deleted their inventions citations and hidden their patent references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberethno (talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

• The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
• It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

• As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
• There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[2]
• The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[3] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
• A large A/B test will start soon.[4] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[5] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have looked at your site if you hadn't been on here, and wouldn't have bought Attack if you hadn't posted some samples there.

Good work. DS (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed [6], thank you. It says explicitly: "The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 ... old articles may be used in a historical context. ... The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail". As the reference is dated 2014 and is informative, I am asking you — with due respect — to either restore it or replace it with a better reference to a video. Oitio (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a recent edition of the Daily Mail. Are you seriously claiming 2014 is "historical"? Under WP:BURDEN, if you want to add, or re-add a source, it has to be from a WP:RS - that is, not a deprecated source. The WP:BURDEN is on you to find an RS. WP:BURDEN is policy - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually do claim that 2014 is objectively historical in relation to 2017 stated in the rules. If you have a different personal opinion, please justify it.Oitio (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clearly nonsense - the same editorial problems as it had for ages. You have no justification except "I want to" - I submit that this is not sufficient to overturn two broad general RFCs. The Daily Mail is not a usable source for scientific topics, and you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing if you think it is - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed merging Slimelight into Electrowerkz. I'm letting you know as I note you appear to be an active Wikipedia user with an interest in these articles, so your view on this may be valuable. H. Carver (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if that's all we have for the Slimelight article, seems reasonable to me - the section in Electrowerkz is actually longer than Slimelight - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What source is considered copyright-claim free for adding GPS co-ordinates? LED BodyBuilding (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ... don't know at all, sorry! I'd think there'd be no such thing as a copyright claim on pure data such as this ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• David, thank you for your time. I think it has to do with WIPO use of Moscow, Russia hockey teams in reference to GLONASS use and modified Russian language Apple CarPlay --LED BodyBuilding (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LED BodyBuilding, {{mapframe}} can be used to add maps in articles based on the coordinates. There is no need to add reference for Coordinates. Adding {{coord}} on the page should be sufficient. You can add the map frame if you want to prove the coordinates to be true. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	gemini usd
	hi, why u revert my edit ? is there any reason ? gemini dollar is used as a stablecoin.... did u know that ? Horoporo (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, why u revert my edit ? is there any reason ? Per the edit summary: it doesn't have an article already, and so isn't presumed notable - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David, hope you are well. I just wanted to message you regarding your removal of the Daily Star from articles relating to soap operas and television dramas. The Daily Star was once owned by Northern & Shell, which also owned Channel 5 and has had a good track record on soap opera reporting. Yes, a primary source in that sense but it would often host exclusive interviews etc. It also produces a television supplement which it profiles the soap operas airing in the UK. In this instance as it does not make claims about BLPs and historic events I ask if you will consider not removing the references and information from television fiction.Rain the 1 01:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this. Soaper1234 - talk 03:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a deprecated source. This means it literally cannot be trusted as a source in Wikipedia. If you want a carveout, the place to relitigate that is WP:RSN. The usual carveout for deprecated sources is WP:ABOUTSELF - which this isn't.

If all you have to back a particular claim is a deprecated source, then the material almost certainly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This should be a simple and uncontroversial statement.

Please don't deliberately add, or re-add, deprecated sources to Wikipedia. Under WP:BURDEN - which is policy - 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 a reliable source - which a deprecated source is the opposite of - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deprecation discussion, FWIW: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#RFC:_Daily_Star - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining in depth. I understand why you removed them and I just read through the original discussion. A discussion has been started about a carveout, so I will also reply there too.Rain the 1 17:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Your edit here removed a reference that wasn't the Daily Star. I'm in the middle of trying to sort this reference out but you reverted me before I could get a second to save it. Please can I get a minute to change this? Thanks-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, please do! - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, spent a lot of time earlier trying to sort out the references before to try and re-reference everything that was attributed to the Daily Star, must have missed something as a bot put it back in. Then when it reverted it took out a reference that wasn't the Daily Star for some reason. I did try to put something in the edit summary box but it wouldn't let me. I've sorted it now and when I've checked the Daily Star isn't showing under the references :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit here in the Orla Gartland article, you removed a link to the Irish Daily Star per WP:DAILYSTAR. While owned by the same conglomerate, they are separate publications. Does the deprecation of the UK paper apply to the separate Irish paper? Furthermore, the source is used in the article for an award given by the publication itself, which seems like the one way that even deprecated sources are okay to use for, since there are no outside facts involved. Thoughts? 23:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ah. That might be a WP:RSN question. We've tended to treat same-owner other-nation editions (Sun, Mail) as the same paper, but RSN might do with a discussion from locals on the Irish Daily Star - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up on RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Star:_is_the_Irish_Daily_Star_covered_by_the_deprecation? - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, you seem well-versed in what is, and what is not, a reliable source where UK tabloid newspapers are concerned. Do you happen to know the current RS status of Scotland's Daily Record, a sister paper of the Sunday Mail? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's discussed it much on RSN. It's a tabloid, so treat with caution. I think they aren't into fabrication, but I'd be careful about treating it as evidence of notability. Sports is probably OK. So much like its English equivalent the Daily Mirror then.

I did find this discussion from 2017, where the general tone is: not terrible, but it's a tabloid so best take great caution on BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can user:2409:4041:E08:76DD:0:0:FBC9:4002 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good call - blocked 31 hours - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with the notability of this article. His wealth might suggest WP:Basic, but I'm really not sure how to rephrase the page to address his recent promotion of conspiracy theories and legal quests etc. I know you are more versed in this field than I am. I've done some trimming of non RS - so any further advice would be welcome! All the best No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! He's in lots of RSes, but largely as passing mentions ... he might have a sufficient flurry of small stuff with bio details in RSes to pass GNG ... one to examine closely (though not right at this moment) - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on ANI about your "14 words" comments. Mo Billings (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I just want to make sure you don't miss my question on ANI. There's a topic ban proposed, but I'd like to give you a chance to reply to my question before commenting. I'm hopeful that imposing an explicit topic ban is not necessary. Mo Billings (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm deeply sorry for the way that I've mishandled some of the disagreements about the Slate Star Codex article.

I've now realized that I have acted improperly around issues relating to what I thought might be a COI regarding you and Slate Star Codex (and which I am still sincerely unsure about, after far too much discussion). I misread the COI policies and thought that the proper thing was to bring it up at the relevant article talk page, and then bring it to the COI noticeboard, but I see now that instead the proper behavior would have been to ask you here at your user talk page and then bring it to the COI noticeboard if necessary. I'm sure that doing it that way could have avoided a lot of unnecessary argument and harassment, and for that I am truly sorry.

I still believe that you have been overly harsh towards the blog and its writer, but that is entirely within your prerogative and simply having a negative bias is of course completely within your rights, both as a human and as a fellow Wikipedia editor. I will do my best in the future to emotionally disengage from these debates, and not let my emotions lead me to misreading Wikipedia policies. I don't believe I have misread any other policies in such a way, but if so, I hope that I will do so less in the future.

I apologize.

Gbear605 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you commenting on me and other editors with which you're having a content dispute? What does your opinion--apparently baseless--that I'm a "fan" of SSC have to do with the content I'm proposing? We have a good faith disagreement, I've civilly explained my position, and maybe the majority of editors will end up agreeing with you. There's no need to make remarks about me or the other editors you disagree with, and doing so is against WP policy, as I'm sure you know. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is in relation to the discussion on AN/I because of the BLP issues.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

Template:Z33 SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think the user MenciusMoldbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is actually Curtis Yarvin/MenciusMoldbug? Is this a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE without confirmation that this user is indeed Curtis Yarvin? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I was thinking similarly. OTOH, it's not a real person's name - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERSONATE states Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. Editing under the name "MenciusMoldbug" clearly implies that they are Curtis Yarvin, a specific, identifiable person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not Curtis Yarvin. Lol. - MenciusMoldbug (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MenciusMoldbug: then why edit under his nom de plume? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and specifically on Moldbug-related pages - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently their original username was PierreBourdieu007, and was moved on the 29th of January, according to this diff from their talk page, which makes me think that they are unrelated. Still weird to change your username to the nom de plume of a well known blogger who you are likely to be mistaken for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you haven't edited in a couple of days, which is unusual for you. Hope you are well. Stay safe. Mo Billings (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to echo Mo Billings' words. I hope you're okay. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am alive and well, and delighting in doing other things in my towering pile of things to do for a week or so. (And recovering from a COVID vaccine reaction. That means it worked, right?) I recommend it.

If you're ever in doubt, check my widely available social media, I've been tweeting at my usual pace - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! That's good to hear. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David, I was going to give a shot at creating the CoinTelegraph wiki page today, but then saw it was deleted a bunch of times in 2018 by you, and as such it's creation is under protection. I can petition an Admin to make the page, but am not sure it's worth my time. I do believe that the growth cryptocurrencies have experienced in recent years that the website is indeed notable. Has this been deleted recently? It looks like there are some notes of deletion from 2020, but I have trouble deciphering them. In your opinion, would petitioning for creation be a battle worth fighting, or is it basically just not worth trying? Thanks my man!

so basically, it foundered on the fact that there's about zero coverage in Reliable Sources of CT itself. Existing isn't enough, it'd have to be noteworthy in itself. See Wikipedia:Notability (media) - A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. So you'd need to find that first - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the clarification David! I'll do some slight research to see if I can find anything that would allow me to make the case. I really wanted to make it just because I'm currently drafting a page that would link to Cointelegraph, and I don't like red links in my drafts ;-) --PopCultureSuperHero (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news today, as I have just closed the ANI proposal to impose a topic ban against you editing content related to Scott Siskind, broadly construed in favor of implementing the ban. As this is a community sanction, any appeals should be made at AN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cheers - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I came here looking for some Bitcoin comments, and then saw this. The T-Ban enforcement at wikipedia is now going to absurd. DoubleCross aptly points out that if David wasnt a well known admin and a regular user he would rather likely be 't-banned or indeffed in ten seconds.' Wikipedia is a sad and absurd place now where regular editors leave as they can't tolerate the POV patrols and thought police that look for any violation and blow it out of proportion. I got t-banned from a small asian nation's politics (i dont care about politics) because I was working on removing POV content from a BLP (something i regularly do on a swath of varied BLPs). The other parties opening canvassed on a wikipedia political group page and then the pile-on started. While I might have crossed the line with a few reverts on the page in question (apparently I am not even allowed to mention the page name anymore, ha) I never even did a 3RR. I was also guilty of being impatient and dismissive of a small handful of POV editors that wanted to among other things cite a rare out of print book and use it 20+ times in the BLP article (that of course nobody can verify except for the OP) to substantiate negative content about a controversial BLP subject. I as a what DoubleCross might call a 'regular user' was repeatedly threatened in the ANI with a indeff for behavior that largely represented an editor (me) with an isolated RGW issue. In this case about David, I am not up to date to the details as David and I only cross paths on crypto articles, but I do read from this ANI that David agreed to stop editing and you guys still implemented a ban. Sad and pathetic! I just noted to SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) who I sometimes see on AP2 related BLPs (again I am generally trying to remove POV content and we are often on the opposite side of the fence) that the WP process has gone badly astray. As evidence of this WP:GRAVEDANCING started immediately at Talk:Slate_Star_Codex#David_Gerard's_Edits as soon as you (sorry you get singled out here since you were the one who swung the sword). This per the duck test looks like it won for the parties and they are dancing in the street now they that can likely re-insert some POV content that was removed (I admit I am just guessing as I have never heard of this discontinued blog before today, but the ducks quacking is loud and clear). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seems to be a new hybrid type source (forbes contributor + editor), i listed it at RSN Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Forbes_advisor. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,David, New to Wiki editing and don't want to break rules or offend well-intended users. You reversed an edit recently which published a direct comment by a the CEO of the 9/11 Memorial & Museum Foundation, responding to calls for Ms. Burlingame to removed from their board. This was a public comment, published by the foundation's leader. Why did you remove it? Cheers, FOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeOpticalWall (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard gave the explanation in their edit summary: the quote was sourced to Newsmax, an unreliable source per WP:RSP. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah - it's not a noteworthy comment unless it was noted in an RS - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a follower of LessWrong, you might be amused to see the determination to use it as a source, as seen here: Ideological Turing test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (help! - typo?) 23:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IT'S LITERALLY A GROUP BLOG - David Gerard (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deprecated sources in this way is disruptive. The WP:DEPRECATED recommends that "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." If you had spent a minute googling it you would have easily found a reliable source saying exactly the same thing. You could have at least tagged it with ^{[citation needed]} so that other users would be able to do that. Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEPRECATED is advisory; WP:BURDEN is policy. I would suggest - as I do to Daily Mail and Sun partisans - that if you're trying this hard to make excuses to use Sputnik, of all the jawdroppingly terrible deprecated sources, in Wikipedia, you're approaching Wikipedia sourcing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of Sputnik at all. You very well know that I'm happy to replace it with other sources and I in general almost never used it myself. FYI, WP:CIVIL is also a policy so casting aspersions like you are doing here doesn't look good. In any case this discussion is going nowhere so next time you do similar disruptive removals I'll go straight to ANI and we'll see what community thinks. Alaexis_¿question? 09:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Alaexis_¿question? 17:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the removal from James Hollis is unwarranted? Why is an interview that he gave unreliable? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because RT is not a suitable source for material for a BLP. That whole section should go - it's puffery, and is part of what makes the article read like an advertisement or a fan piece - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made an edit which was reverted by author with the message "it can wait for a link until it has an article really." I believe this is in direct violation of the Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Red link standards (emphasis mine).

In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject.

The goal of the edit was to begin to build linkages to an article so as not to be orphaned on creation, which is the express intent of red links. I am curious why this was reverted, as I would argue that the organization being discussed is clearly worthy of a full article^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}. I am petitioning that the edit be reinstated.

Geoff (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed unlikely at the time. If you think you can write an article and have it stick ... - David Gerard (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"So find an RS doing so, not a deprecated source." That's ridiculous. Do you deny that RT covered the event? We know RT covered it - it's in its archive. But you want to hide this fact, solely on the grounds that RT covered the event! What better source can there be that RT covered the event than the RT coverage of the event itself? RT is not mentioned in the article because its reprorts are accurate or reliable - that's totally sensible - but in support of the statement that "the programme received attention around the world" including by RT Russia. Emeraude (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question you're not asking is: so what? The fact of it being on RT cannot be worth noting for the sole reason that RT noted it, because RT is deprecated and cannot be used as evidence of notability. Did another source note it running on RT? Then use that. It's not complicated. And you should stop trying to come up with excuses to add or re-add deprecated sources to Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superpages 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 page 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.

TSventon (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know I have nominated a disambiguation page you created in 2009 for deletion. It has gone astray a bit since you created it. TSventon (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

has it ever! - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a note here since I know you work on removals of non-RS, but cppreference is an open wiki, apparently used and/or referenced a hundred times or so. I doubt most of the information it is citing is wrong, but I'm sure you can figure out where it's appropriate to CN tag vice remove info. Izno (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added a section to the "digital fashion" article, but my edit was removed for "crypto sites, crypto site reprints". Can you please explain more in detail about why my edit was removed? Is it because I talked about NFTs, which are cryptocurrencies?

NFTs are becoming an important part to the growth of digital fashion, and I want to explain its significance through my edit. Can you provide any suggestions of how I can still add my edit to the article?

Thanks, Nathanghiya Nathannghiya (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS - very important for crypto-related pages, always use solid mainstream sources, and not crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your reply. Would websites like Business Insider or Nasdaq be suitable mainstream sources? Nathannghiya (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ mostly runs reprints, which are only as good as the source (e.g., if it's a crypto site reprint, don't use it). There was a bit of discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#NASDAQ_News. Yahoo! News has the same issue - its original reporting is fine, but it reprints some awful rubbish. WP:BI suggests BI is not the best source, but could be usable with due consideration.

Basically sources should be normal WP:NEWSORGs: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)."

If you have questions about particular sources in particular contexts, WP:RSN might be a good place to ask - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David, can I please have the Agoric page you've deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" moved to a draft? As you can see from my edit history, I've done a lot of very careful research on their notable founders during a retrocomputing research spree I was on back in Feb, and would welcome suggestions on how remove any perceived promotional tone. -- Dandv 23:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping? -- Dandv 10:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here you are - User:Dandv/Agoric - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. I saw that you recently edited the "NFT" article and am seeking your help to correct some promotional suppression activity that has gone on there.

You see, the first NFT project ever was Etheria.world, deployed in October 2015. This information is verifiable on the blockchain itself (ultimate, mathematical truth) but is also noted in this RS Techcrunch article (towards the bottom): https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/08/the-cult-of-cryptopunks/

Problem is there are other later projects that have built their brand around being "first" and have continually deleted all mentions of Etheria from NFT Wikipedia entry's History section.

There are other big problems with the article: colored coins are literally fungible, for one thing. This means that all early trading card mentions (which were, technically, just ERC-20-like coins with many copies) shouldn't even be in the entry. Anil Dash/Kevin McCoy's experiment is a legit cryptoart "pointer" NFT with on-chain metadata, but was not a "project" like Etheria, Kitties, Punks, etc. It deserves a mention, IMO, but Etheria is clearly the first NFT "project" by almost 2 years.

Would you be able to help set the record straight? Christie's and Cryptopunks have a major auction coming up on May 13 where they are going to claim "first" project and the Wikipedia entry should reflect the truth for anyone seeking it.

You'd need to find the WP:RSes, and it is true to say that Cryptopunks was the first NFT art as we know it.

The big problem is that there doesn't seem to be a single WP:RS even mentioning etheria.world. There's about five hits on Google News, and they're crypto blogs.

Is there anything that meets Reliable Source standards? If not press coverage, then is there a peer-reviewed (not preprint) academic paper, or something? - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a number of replacement sources for Russia Today to the article Russian Armed Forces casualties in Syria, but my last edit was tagged that I added a deprecated (unreliable) source. Can you tell me which one it is so I can find a replacement for it as well. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found it. Replacing. It was another Russia Today article. Must have copy-pasted it from an older/earlier version by accident. EkoGraf (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coindesk, Coin Telegraph, Bitcoin Magazine, etc. Do you know which crypto exclusive or mainly-crypto news sites are considered RS? afaik most are non-RS but it makes me wonder which are considered reliable? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of them. Even the best of them have the same problems noted in WP:RSP#CoinDesk: massive unstated conflicts of interest with their crypto-VC ownership, they pretend to be specialist trade press but see their job as promotion. Especially since 2017, there's enough coverage in proper RS mainstream financial press not to need the crypto blogs;if something can't get coverage in a proper paper, then it's almost certainly not notable. The cryptocurrency area of Wikipedia has been tremendously improved with harsh sourcing; and sourcing something largely or substantially to crypto sites is a death sentence at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's mostly what I expected. Thanks! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a citable for it - but I can absolutely assure you from my own experience writing about this stuff for money that the crypto press sees its job as promotion of crypto. The notion that anyone could write about crypto without promoting it gives them a mental blue screen. Like, I'd consider it a branch of finance journalism, and that doesn't at all imply promoting the thing you're writing about - and the mainstream finance press critiques the obviously critiquable at least a bit (e.g., FT Alphaville's deep dives into things every now and then) - but the crypto press is much less interested in rocking the boat than in becoming the boat, or at least the rudder. There are some great people I respect a lot who do good stuff, and I see names and go "yep, they're good" - but the outlets themselves are consistent in what their purpose in life is, and it's advocacy of their hodling - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you. It makes sense why those with a holding in cryptos have an incentive to keep up the facade and portray things as a utopia. I suppose with a speculative currency that's necessary to keep the momentum and price going. I suppose to some extent I did hope there was at least one good crypto publication, but I'm not entirely surprised there isn't.

Tangentially I was discussing this with Eloquence earlier this year and went back to find it to link here, but I noticed (from the comments section) you've already seen it, heh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David,

Regarding your email to Patsy Richardson, I am surprised that you personally and/or Wikipedia has a blanket ban on what may be a large number of sources. That sounds like authoritarianism to me.

What matters is not the messenger but the accuracy of their message.

Mail on Sunday references [7] and [10] are entirely accurate.

I invited Dominic Connolly the freelance journalist to write the Mail on Sunday article, because he can be trusted. Exactly as expected, he gave Patsy, her family and myself, more than one opportunity to make corrections and clarifications to his drafts.

I am wary of all journalists because many don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

For that reason, I stopped helping with TV documentaries and news reports. I cannot trust the BBC and have had to lodge a number of complaints against it.

For example, one said I was burying people in a legally protected landmark without planning permission shock horror. Most of that area is owned by the National Trust.

What the reporter knew and did not say, is that planning permission is NOT required and I had a legally binding certificate from the Local Planning Authority to prove it.

Another BBC report gave the impression that a relative of someone who had died, had committed a criminal offence, by breaking into an undertaker's premises to collect a body. The undertaker had become bankrupt and could not be contacted. I invited the BBC to mention that the undertaker was the criminal and could be prosecuted for a very serious criminal offence, by not handing the body over. The BBC refused to clarify the true legal position, leaving the public with the belief that the bereaved relative was a criminal. That is outrageous and a public disservice.

Unless the MO of Dignity Plc changes very radically, there is every reason to place a ban on what it says. Its website contains false information on bereavement law and the company secretary has put in writing that what it did to Patsy's family, it does to all of its customers. So, her family and I are striving very hard to have Dignity prosecuted. The main offence is one with no time bar and no maximum penalty, so we cannot run out of time.

You will see that we have had to cite Freedom of Information requests to a crematorium, to prove via Wikipedia what is happening.

A major problem we have, is that we cannot put many of the details on Wikipedia, because almost all of the evidence is in personal correspondence, e.g. Dignity's "senior legal counsel" accused me of displaying "bogus" and "fraudulent" qualifications on my letterhead. His MO is to shoot messengers and avoid their messages and the police, Funeral Planning Authority and Financial Conduct Authority have a report from me on the issue.

Re. my easily provable qualifications, on or about the 2nd December 2020, the company secretary said he would investigate the libellous claim on Dignity notepaper (in an email) but five and a half months later, has still to come back to me. I informed Dignity that I am still displaying the same qualifications when I write to the police and the courts.

You will find a number of Freedom of Information requests which I have displayed via the What Do They Know charity website. Those prove that I am a whistleblower in defence of vulnerable people. This is an example to North Yorkshire's Chief Constable and links to other FoI requests:- Police providing false information to the courts https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_providing_false_informati

If that link doesn't work try this:- https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_providing_false_informati#outgoing-1139681

If anything in my many FoI requests on display to the whole world are untrue or unfair to any degree, you can be sure the public officials would have said so.

In summary, with the exception of Dignity (!!) please ensure Wikipedia does not have blanket bans on messengers but do test when necessary, the credibility of all messages.

John Bradfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petmacpat (talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "authoritarianism" is not some personal decision on my part, but the result of not just one, but two broad consensuses on the unacceptability of the Daily Mail/MailOnline as a source, and one on the Mail on Sunday as a source - please read WP:DAILYMAIL1, WP:DAILYMAIL2 and the Mail on Sunday decision. None of these were just a few people, either - both had extensive discussion before reaching a conclusion. I appreciate your concern over the article, but Wikipedia requires only Reliable Sources be used - not deprecated ones, such as the Daily Mail. What you want to add would need to be in independent third-party sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Charles Matthews#Nomination for deletion of Template:Constlk, the 6.2 Matters arising (broader view) section. Years ago now. But weren't standing committees and process wonkery some of your interests? Charles Matthews (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You put Proof of stake under indefinite ECP back in March 2020 due to what appears to be someone edit-warring glowing language about Cardano into the article. The user doing that doesn't seem to have been active at all since then. Additionally, I rewrote the article last month to use better sourcing, and in doing so tried to de-emphasize the mention of any particular cryptocurrencies, which should reduce the accumulation of spam.

There's been discussion on the talk page from non-EC editors about reasonable changes to the article. I think it would be beneficial to either lower the level to semi-protection or unprotect the page. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's plausible. I'd say suggest it on the talk page, and if editors concur, then sure - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested it - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Gerard! I contributed to this article:\ Chad Knight, and I see it still has a lot of issues. Could you give me any recommendations on how to improve the article with regard of re-wording/removal of any redundant information? I'm not so experienced, so I\d appreciate if you share some practical suggestions. Also, I apologize if I don\t answer quickly as I usually edit in my spare time. --Habibiroyal (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David Gerard! I noticed you left me a message on my IMLone wolf talk page about Nosh (app) article, which I started. Recently I removed COI, advert, puffery maintenance tags after removing the award's section, which might come across as Wikipuffery. I have also fixed some of the references and wording to make the text neutral, hence, the removal of the maintenance tags. I am a fairly new editor and would greatly appreciate your suggestions on how to improve the article. Could you please spare some moment to share some recommendations in improving the Nosh (app) article? Thank you in advance. IMLone wolf (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify on what outside means in outside utility? Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#pageviews in stats. - Jay ^Talk 05:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you reverted my addition of "Genesis.json" on BT's page due to RSes issues. Is CoinDesk not the reliable source? What can I do to see that it's added properly; it seemed important to put on his page. Lacon432 (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no, CoinDesk is generally unreliable - see WP:RSP#CoinDesk. We'd need to find proper third-party coverage in a Reliable Source outside the crypto press. Did it get any? Looking in Google and Google News, I can't actually see any at a glance, just CoinDesk and a CoinDesk reprint - David Gerard (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate WP:RSP gives clearance to delete sources, but it is not a rationale for deleting content, as you have been claiming. Example. Or, show me the RfC that says we delete not only the source, but the content also. In a better world we replace unreliable with reliable sources; or leave a fact tag so other people can do so. If you are concerned about re-addition of the unreliable source, leave a comment. -- GreenC 14:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is not sourced to an RS, then we have no basis to keep it. This follows obviously from WP:V, which is policy. First sentence: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. You've been around long enough to know WP:V.

The content you're objecting to the removal of was cited to (a) RT (b) YouTube. You've been around long enough to know that these are not acceptable sources for claims in Wikipedia.

Obviously, it's a judgement call every time. But we're talking about a controversial claim in a controversial subject area of Wikipedia, and RS backing every statement is likely quite important in this case.

Do you have an RS for the claim? Under WP:BURDEN, which is policy as a section of WP:V, it's up to you to find an RS if you want it back in - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

• Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
• The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. FYI, I left you a response here.  selfworm^Talk) 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FYI I left you another response there. Wishing you the best.  selfworm^Talk)

Hey, quick ping to let you know I launched a page for Contentful. I saw you deleted an old problematic version, so was hoping you could check out my version. Thanks! --FeldBum (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are very skimpy - a lot are not RSes, or not independent third-party content; NYT is great, except it's literally a single line. Probably needs a lot more depth per WP:CORPDEPTH. But an ok start - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove a deprecated source do not also remove the material, instead put a cn tag so as to permit an alternative source to be found. Better still, try to find one yourself. Thank you.~~ Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends very much on the claim. Do we even have RSes? Is the claim solely from Press TV? Then it's literally unsubstantiated, and in a controversial area we should be extremely reluctant to leave claims sourced solely to deprecated sources in at all - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

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.

Template:Z33 Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]