User talk:David Gerard

Wikimedia Foundation

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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.

Deals Today

Hi David,

Deals Today

Hi, I saw you want the page Deals Today deleted due to G11, I have changed the infobox from company to website, as Deals Today was acquired by the main company. The article is not commercial, even the name sound so, we are linking this page to other Wikipedia pages, to give more details on the project and also reduce pure commercial pages here on Wikipedia The page includes the related websites, we didn't place the commercial text etc. I stay open for further questions, suggestions. Frederik

Request

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)

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)

Notice

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.

Walrus Ji (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

curious

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)

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)

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)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

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

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

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)

Oh hey

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)

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

Decoy-building spider

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)

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)

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)

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)

Slimelight and Electrowerkz

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)

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)

Adding map references to Wikipedia

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

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)

• 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)

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)

gemini usd

	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)

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)

ANI Bitcoin Cash

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)

Daily Star

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Daily Star 2 Electric Boogaloo

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)

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)

Daily Record (Scotland)

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)

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)

2409:4041:E08:76DD:0:0:FBC9:4002

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

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

Simon Dolan

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)

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)

Your comments about Scott Siskind

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

@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)

Apologies

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)

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

Please AGF and FOC

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)

DS alert

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.

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious username

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

Thinking of you

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)

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

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)

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

CoinTelegraph Creation Protection

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)

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)

Notice regarding topic ban

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)

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

@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)

new source type

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)

Deborah Burlingame page

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)

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)

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

More Wrong, or less?

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)

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

Removals of deprecated sources

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 so that other users would be able to do that. Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Red Link Removal

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. I am petitioning that the edit be reinstated.

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

References

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)

Question Time British National Party controversy

"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)

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)

Nomination of Superpages for deletion

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)

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)

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

cppreference

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)

More explanation on "rm crypto sites, crypto site reprints" edit

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agoric

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)

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

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

NFT history wildly wrong, please help

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)

Etheria is at etheria.world. They are the same thing. Etheria.world was linked to in the RS/Techcrunch article here: https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/08/the-cult-of-cryptopunks/ There are *several* projects that predate Cryptopunks including Quantum/Monegraph, Etheria, and Pixelmaps on Ethereum. Quantum/Monegraph and Etheria were both presented at conferences contemporaneously and regular users dabbled in them. It's not like they were unknown. And Quantum was sold at Christie's for $1MM. Major institutions obviously disagree with you about the significance of NFTs before Cryptopunks.

In general, it feels like you're trying to ignore The Wright Flyer and, instead, claim that aviation started with the launch of American Airlines or Boeing. Why suppress the pioneers? User5109nfsaln (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Russian Armed Forces casualties in Syria deprecated source

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)

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)

crypto sources

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

This is money reference

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)

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)

"Standing committees"

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)

Reducing protection on Proof of stake

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)

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)

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

Chad Knight

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)

Nosh (app)

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)

pageviews as outside utility

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)

Brian Transeau - Genesis.json

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)

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)

Okay. Is Allships a reliable source? Lacon432 (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Deleting content

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)

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)

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

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)

Response

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

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

Contentful

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)

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)

State of Palestine

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)

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)

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.

Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Easy to source and a well known fact to anyone familiar with the subject.Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Then I'm sure your contributions will show your track record of removing the unacceptable sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash - Bitcoin SV splitting proposal

I have seen that you are an active contributor to the Bitcoin Cash article. I would like to inform you that there is currently a discussion on the Talk page about splitting Bitcoin SV out from the Bitcoin Cash article. It would be great to get your feedback on the split proposal. torusJKL (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello David Gerard:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#user:_David_Gerard_reported_by_Autonomous_agent_5. Thank you. —(i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@ Chainlink (blockchain)

with regards to WP:3RR:

11:24, 6 July 2021‎ - 14:33, 6 July 2021‎ reverted 12 edits

15:23, 6 July 2021‎, 15:27, 6 July 2021‎, 15:27, 6 July 2021

08:57, 7 July 2021, 10:38, 7 July 2021‎, 10:42, 7 July 2021

sincerely, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this must be stressful for you (perhaps) - in my own consideration - if the investigation finds you in error I would be satisfied if you simply didn't edit the article, without enforcing the block as I'm not malicious - but I'm not an admin either (obvs.)

best wishes, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC) striking banned sockpuppet

FYI, I have declined to take any action on the noticeboard report. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

c.f. 15:47, 9 July 2021 Talk:Chainlink (blockchain) - The article Chainlink (blockchain), along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorised by the community. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

q.v. Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules

with regards specifically - cite 6 @ this version "Chainlink is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands" is yet again reverted from the article @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainlink_(blockchain) - the user has reverted this sentence @ 15:18, 8 July 2021, 08:57, 7 July 2021, ‎ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎

with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

this message is not intended to contradict or contravene 02:28, 9 July 2021 under this heading - as that comment was with regards to the 3RR rule, with regards autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC) striking banned sockpuppet

You've been led again to the water at User_talk:Autonomous_agent_5#Warnings; it's up to you to drink - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Ctelnet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ctelnet 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/Ctelnet 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.

Leschnei (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Crunchbase News

Hi David - I noticed you're removing Crunchbase sources from articles. I also noticed that you also deleted at least one [[[7]] that was from Crunchbase News, which is different from Crunchbase, and IMHO should be treated differently. I put together an RfC that you might want to participate in. I mentioned your activities, but not by name. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_reliability_of_Crunchbase_News_versus_Crunchbase's_user_generated_information TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - there does not appear to be consensus that Crunchbase and Crunchbase News are the same, so please don’t remove Crunchbase News sources and the associated information from articles until this is resolved at the discussion I started at the reliable sources noticeboard. Just to be on the safe side. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. As churnalism, it doesn't warrant being kept - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Controversial changes to Martin Eberhard Wiki Page

Hi David, I noticed you and an unknown user identified only by an IP address, made several significant changes on 15-16 July to the page for Martin Eberhard. I have reversed them, as the information entered is false and slanderous (I assume you did not know that). I expect you were asked to make those changes by someone who did not want to be seen as having made the changes themselves. I'd be glad to help you with sources and information which is correct. On what do you base your comment "looks pretty relevant, actually"? On what authority do you know more than the person himself knows about his own life and experiences?

How can you remove ALL external links, claiming they are excessive, after I added only 1 link? Is there some specified number of allowed external links? Prior to me adding 1 link, there were 9 external links on the page, and I added one, for a total of ten. You proceeded to remove 9 of the links, leaving 1. Those links had all been on the page for months/years, but suddenly you decide that they are all excessive? This makes no sense.

There is a legal non-disparagement order in place which affects what content can be posted or not. I wonder, what/who is telling you to make these changes mere minutes after I have made corrections? DO you have a specific motivation that is something other than a pure interest in valid information? I offer direct contact to discuss along with credible sources and documents. I would like to settle this with you in a civil way. I will raise this dispute with Wiki Edit Dispute resolution. PamKayJohnson

I certainly hope you aren't making a legal threat there.

That a page has been below standard for years does not somehow mean it cannot be brought up to standard.

I also urge you to review WP:COI concerning your edits. - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No legal threats being made David, do not fear, I mean only that the what can be said by the page subject himself and about him by a specific other person is protected by a legally binding non disparagement agreement. Indeed, I am not the owner of the page, but I have extremely close links with the subject at hand and personal knowledge of the person and the facts at hand. I seek for the closest to the truth to remain on this page, unmolested by others who are completely removed from the subject/person/sources of facts and seem motivated to diminish achievements and distort facts. What is your beef with this page? I don't see you suddenly declaring yourself one-man-show to bring all "sub-standard" pages up to speed. Why this one? I ask again, who is pushing/motivating you to target this page? Please show me what where the "standard" is to which you think the page all of a sudden needs to be brought (somehow triggered only by my one small edit 24 hours ago in which I added 1 external link)

I am happy to learn more about the standards that you think I have not adhered to. Please refer me to the links (I've not been able to find them). yet I have tried to make adjustments in respect of your concerns. I offer and ask for a civil discussion about any point in particular. If you can point me towards a range of other pages that you've so activity and repeatedly rejected changes by other authors, please do so. I suspect a particular bias against this particular person, which by exercising that bias, you are disrespecting my authoring. Again, I ask for a civil discussion and not a war of editing.

I am not the owner of the page, but I have extremely close links with the subject at hand and personal knowledge of the person and the facts at hand. This is a direct statement that you have a strong WP:COI, and absolutely should not be editing the article at all - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes Mindddblowerr11 (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Savings.com Nomination for Deletion

Hi David, I saw your comments regarding a lack of non-PR source references and broken links. I have removed the broken links and updated the references to reflect notable national sources in most cases. After reading the procedure for AfD, and my lack of familiarity with proposed deletions, I wasn't confident in engaging in that process, so I wanted to share my changes here with you. Thanks.

Cryptocurrency

Dear David Gerard,

You recently deleted an entire section of mine on the cryptocurrency page regarding the institutional adoption of cryptocurrencies. I appreciate that some of the sources are press releases, but these are nevertheless truthful reports of what had happened and to remove my entire section, as a result, is unwarranted. For instance, the part regarding Paypal allowing customers to purchase with crypto is supported by a reference to Paypal's website, outlining that they do allow this.

It would be more suitable to leave a comment on the talk page or replace the alleged unreliable source with a reliable one. It is undoubtable that there has been a significant increase in institutional adoption of cryptocurrencies and to remove an entire section because the events were reported by the press (where else would they be reported?) is unfair.

Please consider undoing this deletion. Thanks, Artlaw44.

All content needs to be sourced to independent third-party reliable sources, and that especially applies to cryptocurrency articles, which are the subject of a firehose of spam. As such, very harsh conditions have been put on such pages - see WP:GS/Crypto. In general, unless you can find coverage in proper independent media - not crypto blogs, and not press releases - it shouldn't go in. In particular, you added an entire section based on content from CoinDesk, which is actually listed on WP:RSP as a generally unreliable source. If something hasn't got mainstream third party coverage, it's not up to scratch, and probably shouldn't go in - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit shown in the revision history of the article World Pantheist Movement

It is not nice to behave like this - especially to a relatively new member of the English-language Wikipedia. Why do you express yourself in such an arrogant way towards me? If we cannot resolve the matter here, I feel compelled to involve the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. My concern relates to your comment in the revision history of the article World Pantheist Movement. I have corrected my mistake in a dummy edit. Here is what you said in your edit summary:

"09:03, 3 August 2021 diff hist +84‎ World Pantheist Movement ‎ Restored revision 1036659277 by David Gerard (talk): Do not remove tags you don't understand Tags: Undo Twinkle"

- Lothaeus (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably in the first instance, don't remove tags you don't understand. Another useful move would be, in the deletion discussion for the article in question, for you not to allege a conspiracy theory against the article topic on the part of other editors - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

How do you know I don't understand the tag? I had only confused "primary" with "secondary" sources and realized my mistake. It is very noticeable (especially with regard to your attitude to skepticism, as can be seen by linking to the RationalWiki on your user page) that you are very active with editing articles in the field of religion and topics which possibly do not correspond to your personal world view (see my point about Carl Sagan on the deletion discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Pantheist Movement (2nd nomination) that proofs you wrong at the end). If my statements should not correspond to the Wikipedia regulations, it is a pity, because I think that a potential (!) existing personal bias should be particularly examined by the corresponding moderator before a deletion of an article. - Lothaeus (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think if you want that article to stay, you need to find good sources, and not just a flurry of passing mentions. And I'm not the only editor saying so - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Where are the "good sources" here? Only passing mentions on a few and their own website(s) at the articles The Paradise Project and Universal Pantheist Society. Sorry, but in my opinion it makes sense regarding the relevance to have a look at comparable organizations that are not subject to a deletion discussion for a decision whether an entity is irrelevant or not. - Lothaeus (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This point has been answered in the AFD, and that's the place to go to argue on this article's merits - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, David Gerard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Steve Quinn (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Zizek bibliography: deletion of Russia Today publications

Hello. You keep deleting mentions of RT publications on the bibliography page. I'd like discuss it here. --Quin451 (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, If you got a moment, I´d like you to formulate your argument. --Quin451 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

RSN

You may have missed my comment here. In any case, please keep your meta commentary confined to the meta section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You brought a series of RFCs without actual disputes to hand, there's no reason not to mention that - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Mention it in the appropriate section which has been set aside for that purpose. The survey section is intended for responses to the posed question about the reliability of the publication, and it is disruptive to refuse to stay on topic and use it for any other purpose. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel it warrants multiple repeated mention, given you filed multiple RFCs clearly without having read the part in the page header about requiring a substantive dispute and your response has been to double and triple down. WP:NOTBURO - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith—I read the instructions before I filed the RfCs, and I explained (admittedly not thoroughly enough at first) why I did so and why they fit with the purpose of RSN. Masem's reply captures how I would hope every user would respond once they understand. I will assume good faith that if you continue to object to the RfCs, it will be after having read my comments, and that your further comments will reflect your understanding of them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question of good faith, it's a question of competence - ignoring the instructions then doubling and tripling down - these are descriptions of what you're doing. The best action for you to take at this point is to withdraw the RFCs as a bad idea aspiring to a worse precedent, that won't even do the job you posted them for - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I could use your opinion on something: I strongly suspect I have encountered another HeadlyDown sock

Hello David,

Forgive me for dropping some oversight work in your lap, but I wonder if you put eyes on issues here, here, and here (amongst a large number of other articles, primarily relating to psycholinguistics) with regard to User:Weidorje. Issues include: extreme POV pushing against overwhelming consensus, to an extent that is bleeding into outright WP:Attack page territory; a constant stream of accusations of bias and/or improper conduct against other editors; complete WP:IDHT with regard to both a) contrary views on policy and content and b) efforts to stop the endless WP:ASPERSIONS; and just a general outright chaotic disruption of the effected articles and talk pages, severe enough that it has become difficult to excuse by way of AGF.

There were a number of factors in the user and account details that were already driving me to seriously suspect an LTA situation. Even so, I was about to adopt a wait-and-see approach when the user, unprompted by anybody, began moaning about issues on an article dating back to 2006 (while their account was registered in 2016). And the article in question? Neurolinguistic programming. At this point, given the admission to being involved in a dispute that far back and before the registration of their account, combined with other red flags, I was feeling pretty WP:DUCK about the whole situation, so when I finally found the time today, I went digging through the LTA archives, and sure enough if I didn't find one that seemed to be a pretty amazing pattern match. The reference to that particular article in that particular year feels like it was almost calculated to get attention, frankly: if this Headley, that makes much more sense now that I know they are more a troll looking to stir the pot than just a garden variety POV warrior.

But in any event, all of the other indicators are there: slowly marching the content (mostly BLP content relating to figures in the area of the overlap of linguistics and cognitive science) towards extreme positions (usually by providing a source, but then significantly misreading its claims) and then lashing out and stonewalling against the resistance of every other active editor on the effected articles when they try to control the increasing slant towards either an attack page (for "darwinists") or hagiography (for behaviouralists and the like). Followed by accusing pretty much every other editor involved of bias, even when it's an 8:1 affair. Between the overlaps in the pattern of behaviour, the shared subjects of fixation, and that comment in which they admit to involvement in the vexatious NLP situation...

Anyway, I am pretty convinced, but you have a much deeper experience with the sockmaster here, so I'd like your opinion. Also pinging Woohookitty as the admin who blocked the account most associated with the disruption at the NLP article, and Mackensen, who has also apparently dealt with behavioural evidence with regard to this LTA in the context of their role as an Arb. Thank you to each of you in advance for any time you may spend looking in to this matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

huh. Of course, there wouldn't be checkuser data that far back. I'll have to think on it. But depressingly plausible. Of course it could all turn out to be fine - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"Of course, there wouldn't be checkuser data that far back."

Yes, alas. But then, to be honest, it is for exactly for that reason that your behavioural analysis seemed like the necessary next step: if there is to be a block here, it will need to be on such a basis. Mind you, from observing this editor and their approach to these pages, I do believe an indef will be coming from some direction at some point, whether it is by way of ANI, SPI, AIV, or an admin operating from their own analysis of the situation. But determining a link to the LTA would simplify matters somewhat when it comes to undoing the substantial amount of damage to multiple articles here, since Headley is manifestly a troll looking to consciously disrupt these areas. By the way, you'll want to take note of the fact that the very first edit by the Weidorje account was to add content to their user page to blue-link their user name, and the account then did nothing but a handful of edits a year until it went into overdrive at a much later date: both of these behaviours are pretty stock standard sock farm techniques, and the first one is pretty difficult to explain in a fashion that is consistent with a genuine new user. Anyway, no rush as far as I'm concerned, but I'll be looking forward to your conclusions if/when you investigate further and consider the conduct/subject matter overlap. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Three more pieces of evidence I've observed:

• The LTA report notes that when facing an unfavourable consensus, Headley's socks will typically respond to concerned opposition with "Eventual vicious personal attacks on more neutral editors, especially alleging bias or pro-<subject>.". If you look at recent discussions at Talk:The Language Instinct, you will find examples of Weidorje railing against the "pro-generative grammar posse" and the like. The account also makes a great habit of referencing a pro- and anti-"darwinist" dichotomy across multiple spaces, as seen here on constant repeat.

• The Headley LTA page also mentions that the socks will typically try to position themselves as being more "scientific" and "skeptical" than their opposition. This can be seen repeatedly in the pages linked above, but note in particular how the only word that Weidorje bolds in the entire FTN thread is the word "skeptic" (in reference to themselves). They have emphasized that word and that notion repeatedly across individual article talk pages as well.

• Further, the LTA page summary states that the physical location for Headley may be the Netherlands (presumably this was gathered from checkuser data at the time, but I can't confirm that from the record). Meanwhile, the main theory that Weidorje POV-pushes (as evidence of the fact that linguistic nativism is a dead field) is a competing (but much lesser known) framework called Complex Dynamic Systems Theory: this theory is overwhelmingly the product of scholarship from a small group of relatively niche scholars situated mostly at Dutch universities.

Note also that on the talk age for our The Language Instinct article, Weidorje responds to more or less every single post made by every single other editor once they join a thread. The one and only time they have not responded to another editor debating with them on that TP is when they (Weidorje) were asked to explain why they are talking about 2006 issues on the NLP article, despite their account being registered in 2016 and being almost completely inactive until 2020: the one question the user has not risen to discuss vigorously was when they were asked point-blank if they had previously edited under other accounts--that's the one and only topic they have dodged without any response whatsoever.

To my eye, this is really stacking up. But since I did afterall come here to get your impression, I'm going to take a pause here and give you the time to do your own search of the record and draw your own conclusions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Well over a decade ago, and I don't remember anything about it at this point, sorry. Mackensen (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank you for responding anyway Mackensen. And thank you for contributing to the original LTA summary, directly or indirectly: I never would have noticed this potential link if not for the detail and observations of that report. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise, thank goodness you are aware of all this and bringing this up. As someone who dealt with Weidorje at those three discussions, and is still dealing with them at one, at every single one I got an impression of WP:NOTHERE behavior. IMO this user needs to be indeffed in any case. I haven't written up an ANI since they are a massive pain and I'm rather disillusioned with ANI right now, but I would certainly support one. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Crossroads, I agree that something is going to need to be done sooner or later, given the level of disruption: the mounting BLP issues are probably the biggest concern, but the constant aspersions against other editors and other talk page conduct issues are also out of control. I want you to know that I seriously thought about telling you and all of those other editors engaged with them on the relevant articles where the POV pushing/incivility are most pronounced; I recognize this user is draining a significant amount of volunteer time. And if the Weidorje account really is another Headley sock (and I think the evidence makes it about as clear as any behavioural case ever gets that it almost certain is), then this wasted time is very much an objective. All of that said, having discovered the links to this sockmaster, I felt WP:BEANS and other concerns argued for as low-key an approach as possible, while still keeping the discussion in project space. I wanted to get the impressions of some of the previous admins to restrain the various prongs of this sock farm and make them aware of the new disruption before deciding how to proceed.

As for what the next steps might be: well, one of these admins might yet block on the behavioural evidence alone, but we should not count on their having the time and opportunity to look into the matter. I don't think ANI is the right call here as the first most logical community space to deal with this user. SPI would seem to be the obvious place to begin efforts if a filing becomes necessary. Note that even if we can't rely on checkuser given the circumstances, this user has all but admitted that they are socking, given that they are openly obsessing over a community discussion that took place 12 years before their account was even registered. I just don't see how you can realistically explain that any other way, especially considering the other multiple red-flag sock behaviours coming out of the account. When you then consider that the discussion they are fixated on (from twelve years before their account was registered) happens to be the one which lead to an LTA being banned after an ArbCom case found them abusing numerous sock accounts over a protracted period...well, not to sound like a broken record, but this isn't rocket science. And if you take a random sampling of talk page contributions of each account and compare them, any remaining doubt begins to evaporate pretty quickly.

All of that said, I brought this to the admins who have tackled the sock farm in the past for a reason, and I would like to give them a little more time. In the end, David might not have the time to engage the matter (or like Mackensen, may decide he doesn't recall the sockmaster's M.O. well enough to draw any strong conclusions), but I think it makes sense to give it another day or two. I don't have an abundance of time for the project over the next few days days anyway, so that's just as fine by me. One thing I can do in the meantime, I suppose, is ping FT2, who compiled much of the LTA report. But that's about as far as I am willing to go with the issue for the next few days. But if none of the admins has been able to find the time to look into the issue in the next few days, SPI would be the appropriate next step. I have some intermittent experience with filing cases for new accounts to established farms, so I'm willing to take the time to do that if it comes down to it: there's a lot of evidence linking the accounts, so it would be important that whoever does it takes the time to present it in an organized fashion. In any event, SPI is the next step, but not necesarily the only one; even if the SPI behavioural evidence doesn't convince a reviewing admin to block (which would surprise me, but could happen), then the multiple other policy violations and problematic behaviours associated with that account would still justify an ANI thread on those independent grounds.

Anyway, none of the above should be taken as me trying to discourage you from pursuing this on your own: I'm just trying to lay out my own thoughts on the disruption and how to address it. If you have the motivation and other ideas about next steps, please by all means do not feel discouraged from acting on my account--I understand that this editor is all over the place across multiple articles, and that the BLP concerns are getting substantial. But this message is the best I can do for the next couple of days at least. Good luck, whatever course of action you opt for, and bear in mind that (given the likely sockmaster's historical profile), this whole situation might have been cultivated just to get the discussion to this place, where maximum disruption can be achieved. I mean, it's certainly consumed a non-trivial amount of time from every editor who has entered into one of those talk pages in recent weeks. I want to try to rob that situation of oxygen if possible, but sooner or later the other editors impacted by the sock's time wasting shenanigans and personal attacks deserve to be notified as to what is going on here. So use your own discretion in that regard, but do consider the WP:BEANS factors.

On a side note, and directed toward David in particular: David, I'll hope you'll forgive the walls of text: I've just wanted to keep the discussion where it began, and you know how it is once sock tracking comes into the picture, so I hope this is not an annoyance to you. But by all means, please feel encouraged to tell me to take it elsewhere if you're not fond of the clutter here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

AUDT Coin

Hello, David Gerard! I recently encountered on the article AUDT Coin. I checked the publications and haven't found a single notable one. I know you are one of the crypto projects here on Wikipedia and this is the reason I wanted to ask for your second opinion on the article.

Analysis is needed before removal

Hi David Gerard. I appreciate your efforts to rid the encyclopedia of poor sourcing, but I think you have misread or misinterpreted the policy about blog use. I noticed that you removed a citation, causing a reference break in a featured article with the notation, "rm forbes contributor blog, not an RS on Wikipedia". Looking at your contribution log, you have removed this source from over 40 articles in a few hours. While you could have done, it seems unlikely that you could, adequately evaluate the authors of each of these pieces in the amount of time that you made these changes. The platform upon which material appears may or may not indicate whether the material is reliable. There are other steps involved per policy for blogs, including is the person an expert in the field?, has the author published elsewhere in curated sources, is the material presented irrefutably accurate?, etc. Further, newspaper and magazine blogs have a separate category in the guide indicating that they "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". Before I used the source, I evaluated the author of the piece, who has published elsewhere and is considered an expert. The article contained a concise list of locations which could be verified in multiple other sources, but would have resulted in an excessive amount of references rather than one citation, i.e. it was accurate.

Rather than run the risk that someone else will break a citation making the same misinterpretation that you did, I replaced the referencing. We have far too many uncited and unreliable sources on Wikipedia and as I said, I appreciate the work you are doing. However, I would ask that in the future, you take time to evaluate the citations rather than simply removing them because of the platform on which they appear. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to note that I evaluated each one, and considered that serious matters need RSes, not blog posts.

If you have particular edits you dispute, please detail those, and we can certainly discuss them. Please include in each case your evidence for how the specific blog poster satisfies the requirements of WP:SPS.

However, you have not raised an actual specific complaint. Please list the edits you particularly dispute, else you are not in fact raising an issue - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I actually wasn't complaining, simply making note of a situation. I assumed that I had made an error and failed to do my due diligence. It took me over half an hour to reconfirm that Kelly Phillips Erb is considered an expert and has published in curated sources.[8],[9],[10],[11]. Thus the fact that you reverted over 40 citations to the blog in a few hours seemed problematic. As you say you did investigate each author, I AGF your reply, though I would differ with your conclusion that Erb did not meet our inclusion criteria. SusunW (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Following up on this, this was a really poor source removal – the opinion poll cited was a Press TV opinion poll, so removing the reference to Press TV isn't a solution. Either the poll results should have been removed from the table if Press TV isn't deemed a reliable polling client, or the reference should have been left as it is referencing something from Press TV. Cheers, Number 57 10:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

So remove it entirely if you don't like it. Your response is a good example of editors certain that any of don't remove/find replacement/delete entirely/replace with {{cn}} are obviously the correct way to go with deprecated sources and not doing it their way is malfeasance, even as these contradict each other - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF checks

Thanks for your hard work with maintaining reliable sourcing. Would be appreciated if you could put your eyes on the remaining deps at WP:PRESSTV to see if any satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I've got the last of them. Cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Self citation

Hi David, I saw that you removed the new report I added today. You cited self-promo, which is a correct assertion as I did write the report. It took me several months, and even more to get through the peer review. It is an academic article that covers AQIM and JNIM - and I added it precisely in these two wiki pages. One of the problems of academia is that too little of the work is accessible and read by the broader public, in part because many scientific journals hide the articles behind paywalls. It is therefore - in my opinion - a good thing if a piece of research becomes available to the broader public. And the ICCT-article contributes to the broader knowledge on AQIM and JNIM and is therefore more than relevant to their respective wiki pages. If you don't want authors to link to their own reports (why not, I ask, if the research is relevant and peer-reviewed?), then you are of course welcome to read my report (only recommended if you have a detailed interest in the topic or suffer from chronic insomnia) and add a link to the report yourself! Looking forward to your reply.

Hi David, I tried to post a message on this forum yesterday, but it either disappeared or was deleted. I added an article under further reading that I have written myself - which was removed citing conflict of interest/self promo. I am not spamming pages with my own work, there is no conflict of interest present, and the only self-promo is an academic making his report accessible to the broader community (which is a good thing, as much research is still hidden behind paywalls of big scientific journals). The piece involves a lot of work, is published by a recognized institution (and peer-reviewed for quality) and contributes directly/is relevant to the wiki-pages on AQIM and JNIM. Why remove it? Please reconsider (and/or read the piece!) 2003:F9:C724:A495:21EA:FAC:A296:4BE9 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You haven't said what Wikipedia article you're taking about. But adding papers you wrote yourself to an article is generally a bad idea, yes - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Humphryes

Howdy, you removed content from Stuart Humphryes stating "this is trivia" but didn't remove the whole section. The whole section is the similar to the one sentence you removed. So my questions are; why can that sentence not be added to Wikipedia? and Why is that classed as trivia and not the rest of the section? Cheers, Paulpat99 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph struck me as egregiously trivial - passing mentions about a tweet are blatant puffery. Sure, you could remove the rest, and probably should - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Miss Supranational 2021 mass-attack, need more protection

Help! Previously I found that Miss Supranational 2021 article using so many unreliable references, from sites Facebook, Instagram, Blog such as Conan Daily and many other blogging sites. It's ridiculous that the beauty pageant page on wikipedia uses haphazard information, I removed some unreliable references that wikipedia has banned from using, based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, but suddenly now some users continue to edit using the blog site, I warn some of them, but can you take a look on Miss Supranational 2021 article. Some of the irresponsible users kept on editing without reference and delete the actual information that is already backed by trusted reliable sources since the finale nightof the competition. This Miss Supranational 2021 article was flagged for disruptive editing, and the edit history shows a flurry of aggressive drive-by IPs and fresh accounts. So under WP:BLP, I do hope that this page need a multiple protections, cause the recent protection seems didn't help. But New accounts and IP editors are still able to discuss proposed changes in the talk page, and should.--Lukewon (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you have placed identical help requests in 2 locations. I've already replied on the article's talk page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Namecoin § The added namecoin.pro links are spam and not relevant

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Namecoin § The added namecoin.pro links are spam and not relevant. Could you take a look? 203.210.102.68 (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear David Gerard! I have seen that you have regularly been involved as editor of the article in question, thus I consider your recent admin action as violation of WP:UNINVOLVED. Therefore, please review and undo your admin action (your revert and page protection) or forward the issue to another admin! Thx, 46.125.249.82 (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Any admin who wishes to reverse the ECP should feel free to do so - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

As desired. 46.125.249.82 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Elongate article

Hello User:David Gerard, I'm reaching out because you're listed as a contributor to the Cryptocurrency WikiProject. I am trying to get a draft published in the Cryptocurrency domain, but it's a bit difficult as the reviewers seem to have an opposition to the topic of crypto as a whole. Meanwhile there are other topics published with significantly less notability. As you are knowledgeable on the subject, could you please look at the draft and let me know if you can assist? Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elongate_(cryptocurrency)

Thanks

Thanks for the work you've been doing to remove content sourced from Mankind Quarterly across a range of articles! It is hugely appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I was absolutely boggling at the usage of this horrifying pseudojournal on such esoteric articles as Sun and Moon - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it horrifying too. We definitely have a plague of white supremacist POV-pushers trying to weasel their way in every which way. The most disruptive are often unfailingly civil about it too, which makes them especially hard to sanction. Anyway, thanks again for your efforts. Generalrelative (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Russell Warne for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russell Warne 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/Russell Warne 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.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr. David Gerard

Hello, in regard to article Felix Dean, i have added a reference and citation, but you may need to check it, if you know which sites are reputable, disgarding Daily Mail, i sa tabloid?, i don't see many local references mainly in Britain, the series is very popular there.

That's literally a Daily Mail reprint. Please stop this - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

im sorry i didnt realise it was a reprint, maybe you can help?

If you want to add a negative claim about a living person, it's up to you to find a reliable source. Or perhaps you should edit other articles instead - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it was just a news article, it s not meaning to be negative or discredited someone. my apologies

Solana (blockchain platform)

Greetings, and thanks for your edits. I have followed this cryptocurrency, but do not want to do substantial edits because I might buy some in the future. Please note that all sources indicate it is the creation of Anatoly Yakovenko. The info box incorrectly attributes co-creator status to Avtelina Yakovenko, a marketing employee of Solana Labs, and the trollish Batts Masterson, Sr. As you prune references, could you also remove these tagged unsourced statements? Please look at the original white paper, cited in the infobox, with Anatoly Yakovenko the sole author. Regards, Edison (talk)<

Ricky Martin (businessman)

Hi - I recently created a new page about Ricky Martin, winner of The Apprentice (British series 8). This page was tagged for speedy deletion, citing criteria A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) and G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The page I created stated that Ricky Martin was a past winner of The Apprentice (British TV series), which makes him as notable as the likes of Lee McQueen and Yasmina Siadatan who already have their own pages. I do not feel that the content of the page contained 'unambiguous advertising or promotion', but if you agree that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant his own page, I can submit a rewritten version with any offending passages removed / edited. Jason Fortt (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the article was sourced to primary sources and not third-party ones, with the only third-party source being the Daily Mail, which for the most part can't be used on Wikipedia and certainly not for articles about living people. Other articles of a type existing isn't usually considered a strong argument. Basically, you need actual coverage in proper quality sources that this person is noteworthy to the requirements of WP:NBIO - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability of cryptocurrencies

Hi David. I felt inspired tonight and decided to write Draft:Notability (cryptocurrencies). What are your thoughts? Any feedback would be appreciated! JBchrch talk 23:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That looks basically sensible. I might fiddle with it a bit - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

14:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)14:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)~~

Alexander Boot

My understanding is that primary sources can be relied on for facts but not opinions, do you disagree? Moonraker (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

They can certainly be used in many circumstances. But if primary sources are all you have - and on Alexander Boot, they do appear to be all you have - that's not enough to make the article stick, especially on a WP:BLP. Is there any independent third-party biographical coverage of Boot in solid RSes? - 23:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Moonraker, without primary sources there is NOTHING there, certainly no notability. And no, they cannot always/automatically be relied on for facts--I know that many an academic has been less than truthful on their resumes. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree that RS are needed for notability, but I do not know what you mean by “many circumstances”. No doubt there are other sources. Moonraker (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If you can find these other sources, then that would help the article survive - David Gerard (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• American Thinker is clearly not a liberal’s idea of an ideal source, and I’ll look for a better one, but I am wondering what your authority is for deleting the reference with the comment “americanthinker is a white nationalist blog of opinions, and not in any manner a WP:RS”? Here are the details of the editorial team, who have mainstream qualifications. Has that source been “deprecated” in Wikipedia policy? If not, will you please explain “not in any manner a WP:RS”. Moonraker (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Because my description of it in that summary is factually correct. Here's the most recent RSN discussion, for example; I doubt it's improved any since 2018. Sources don't need to be formally deprecated to be clearly unusable as sources for Wikipedia articles about living persons. If this were to come to a serious deprecation discussion about American Thinker, I am quite confident it would be out of here. If you think American Thinker is in any way a Wikipedia-quality RS, I would question your understanding of Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • As you say, perhaps my understanding of Wikipedia sourcing is at fault. On my first question, I gather you are saying that American Thinker has not been deprecated, but you predict that it would be if it came to be considered. That’s as may be. I read through the thread you linked, and it all strikes me as very subjective. On my second question, can you please say which tests of WP:RS American Thinker fails, and what evidence there is that it fails them? Moonraker (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • This is answered fully at the RSN discussion I listed above - a blog, given to white nationalism, conspiracy theories and no apparent editorial control or fact checking. If you're seriously trying to argue that that previous assessment was incorrect, you should take it up at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

New thread

Hello, Nick Nelson here, you left me a message about my edits, I couldn't find where to reply to that message so please forgive that this is probably not the right place to reply. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for edits at all. Sorry that I deleted your paragraph from the article, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

McGuinness 1997 reference in English Language

Re references in the English Language article, fully agreed that the FEE site is run by fringe types, lightweight and unnecessary (even if the bit about Bloomfield is of interest). But McGuinness is quite legit (Diane McGuinness). I plan to reinstate McGuinness 1997 in the article, but I thought I'd check in with you first in case there's some good reason to exclude her work that I'm not aware of. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

urgh. I don't suppose she said it anywhere better? I'd be surprised if she had to resort to FEE as her sole outlet for the claim. My reaction was "FEE on the whole actual English language? LOL no." But yeah, McGuinness seems obviously a relevant expert - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved. I removed the url to the lay summary and left the reference to her book. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ah good, ty :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those tags on the The Artifice (magazine) page

I created it in the August of last year, but people have added all sorts of stuff since then, so honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there is puffery or unreliable sources. And there probably too many sources too, as the original version last August only had 33 sources, but now there are over 100... sigh. I don't know, personally, if I have the energy to fix the page, but I am hoping some other editors will step up to fix the page. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Andan Foundation (deleted)

Hello David Gerard, I accept without reservation the deletion of my Andan Foundation page on Thursday, I was actually quite enthusiastic about my draft in the beginning, but afterwards I realized that the article reads almost like an advertising brochure, especially because of the very high number of references to the Andan company website, also the external links were probably not very neutral. I have put down a new compressed draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deejott/draft2?action=edit, which is reduced to the essentials in terms of content, as a central point only the collaboration with MIT (MIT Solve & Andan Prize for Refugee Inclusion ...) is presented here. From your point of view, would I still have a problem with this redesign ? If that should not be the case, I would like to publish the new reduced and revised version ... --Deejott (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Pizza Day; Eponymous Cryptocurrency Units

I didn't contest the speedy deletion of Eponymous Cryptocurrency Units because I was tired. I would like to note, however, that many currencies have eponymous units -Benjamins and so on. Why not crypto? kencf0618 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably the bit where it was cited entirely to crypto sites, from Generally Unreliable to worse - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... We'll just have to wait on more reliable sources, then! Thanks. kencf0618 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jpers36 (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sidetalk

I filed an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sohonewyork about the creator. Third time the article Sidetalk has been created, by three different accounts that have suspiciously similar editing patterns. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

not that it smells stupendously promotional or anything - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

just deleted as AFDed, salted as multiply recreated past an AFD - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Urgent request

Hello David,

We have a serious problem with an article which you have edited previously. The so called Human Rights Foundation. Please come and say something about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation#All_public_criticism_has_been_deleted%2C_Bolivia_and_Venezuela_completely_purged.

semi Protect Anti vandalism,

Please protect this page for anti vandalism. Thank. Nippon rise (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

semiprotect in place! - David Gerard (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hello David Gerard,

I tried to improve the article about EduBirdie. I shortened the text, removed or changed unauthorized sources, and revised the writing style. Could you please reconsider the appropriateness of your labels "advert", "notability", or/and "puffery" there? - SKlimovych (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Atlas Society

You might be interested in this largely-self-sourced directory entry: The Atlas Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi David,can you give me IP block exemptions right, because I'm use public wifi.then I'm already use Global IP block exemptions because English wikipedia this right not working.thank you.Prince ovy (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)