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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

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.

The Sun citations

Why are you removing all the Sun newspaper citations for sport? The Sun has a good reputation for sporting events, if it's not an opinion piece, and The Sun is reporting factual events I suggest you leave the citation. I also found this edit that you did [1] rather offensive to me. The Scottish Sun is independent from the English version of The Sun, they are two different newspapers and should be treated as such. Not only that, one user goes to the effort of filling out the "cite web" in full and you return the favour by placing a lazy ref? Can you please be careful with how you edit thank you. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Sun and Scottish Sun are both deprecated as The Sun - see WP:RSP#The_Sun and discussions linked from there, if you want to argue the Scottish Sun is good actually then WP:RSN is the place to start.

I'm taking care to check sports replacements as I go, and increasingly I don't trust anything the Sun says beyond basic result numbers - and I really, really don't trust anything that's a quote or a characterisation. I keep finding remarkable and eye-catching claims from the Sun that aren't in other press coverage of the same event - and given that the Sun are deprecated because they're habitual liars, I would assume that the Sun was making stuff up again, just like they do in every other field of coverage. Effectively the Sun is not a reference for the purpose. For statements about WP:BLP details - even of sports people, who are Living Persons under that policy - the Sun is absolutely unusable. Keeping the Sun 'cos it's pretty probably isn't a factor in sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just trying reFill now for added prettiness - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

... or I will if there's ever an available worker - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Same reliability problem with the Daily Mail - just corrected another one Nathan Aké where the DM got the year wrong per every other source. The sports carveout for the Sun and DM is fundamentally an error and should be amended, 'cos they're as trash-tier for sports reporting as they are for every other subject - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm really confused by this since it says: "Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended." You've been removing reviews of shows from reception sections and I'd feel that would fit into this category.--WillC 20:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll see the RFC mentioned in passing "sports score-lines" and "sports results" - that doesn't mean "it's vaguely related to sports, I have an excuse to use the bad source!" - and both the people saying those note that that basic numerical information can always be found in better sources. I'd call the summary in WP:RSP excessively generous, and anyone trying to use it as an excuse to use the bad source hasn't read the RFC. The Sun is a deprecated source, it's generally prohibited, and it shouldn't be used for anything except in remarkable circumstances - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a query on that (IMO misleading) summary at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Amend_summary_on_The_Sun?, which would be the place to discuss it - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you at least allow The Sun to remain as source for old articles like SummerSlam (2009). At that time it was very reliable, and it had been considered that way for 10 years. It has been cited unreliable in recent time so it should not be used for recent articles. But removing all the information from the older articles destroys the quality of the articles and some of the articles you removed the Sun as a source from had broken links, you do not do any thing about broken links. Are administrators supposed to start calling sources unreliable anytime they want? Just saying, I respect your decision, but please take into account the quality of the older articles which are affected by removing the Sun as source and their recent unreliability is not associated with the Sun being considered an extremely reliable source back in 2009, and the contents were the 2009 contents of the Sun not the present day "unreliable Sun's" contents. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a dead link you furiously defended there. The Sun was literally never an "extremely reliable source". If you want it considered such, the place to argue it is not my talk page, but WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I defended Sun, not the dead link, I removed the dead link slam.canoe.ca/ and replaced it with bleacher report, but I respect your judgement, I wasn't aware that you were admin, I thought it was a vandal removing sourced information. I have also discussed the matter here Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and I leave the final decision to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Again this [2] link is (although broken) is simply a film review from that newspaper, it's not lying, or making claims, your comment when removing it, makes no sense to what the link was suppose to go to. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Given it's a generally prohibited source, why would we mention its opinion?

(If its opinion is noteworthy, the opinion will be noted in an RS.)

It's getting to the stage where I feel like I need a cut'n'paste macro for this - but if you want to rehabilitate The Sun's status, my talk page is absolutely not going to shift the needle on that, and you need to start the discussion at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not the RS, it's your edit summary that annoys me, just put down deprecated, the extra bits you wrote "should not be used or trusted for any claim". It's a source pointing to a film review! Trusted or claim??? I hate it when admins are not precise, that really annoys me a lot. Not to mention people calling a family member of mine not to be trusted, calling them a liar, wikipedia is full of unfounded accusations against a whole paper calling everyone person that works for them liars. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Your point would be stronger if The Sun was not a paper that had been deprecated for in fact being completely untrustworthy liars over several decades, which is why they're generally prohibited as a source. Your family members presumably are not that class of liar - but The Sun absolutely is, and it turns out that's why the paper's been deprecated as a source. I urge you to read the many, many discussion on this point, 'cos they're how this consensus was reached - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

like, literally a minute later I hit The Sun just making stuff up. I don't understand why you keep defending this terrible source, nor why you'd compare your family members to it - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean compare family to it I don't understand your English sometimes, Anyway, I am related to David Haldane. Calling everyone that has done stuff for the Sun is a liar just really annoys me!! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, nobody is calling everyone who has contributed to The Sun a liar (well, no serious Wikipedian - I know some Scousers who have a view). What we are saying is that The Sun has a defective or nonexistent mechanism for distinguishing lies from facts. We can't trust a word it says. Guy (help!) 14:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Cryptopotato

Given your interest in cryptocurrencies and your blacklisting of it, thought you'd want to check out the draft that links to it: Draft:Xena Exchange Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you help?

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

Someone on Talk seems very determined that we remove a sourced word because it doesn't include the definition he absolutely for sure personally knows to be true, but doesn't have a source for. I'm right out of fucks to give. Guy (help!) 23:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have suggested that he doesn't get it, which he clearly doesn't. I hope reading of the policies and guidelines will help this enthusiastic fresh editor in their Wikipedia journey - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated ≠ "Generally prohibited"

Will you cut the garbage and adhere to the consensus? I'm not sure what you get out of trying to act like a bully to enforce your incorrect version of the consensus. Removing sources just because you don't like them is no different from other vandalism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Effects_of_deprecation Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited. See article talk page.

As I've said to you multiple times - if you really want The Sun to become a usable source, take it to WP:RSN. Is there some reason you're unable to? - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of DM and Sun sources

I can understand that you are removing information cited to The Sun and Daily Mail because of the discussions that have taken place. You appear to be going around multiple articles at a fast pace just removing information. In some instances alternative sources can be found and I have replaced a couple. Some of the sources you have removed were just used for critical analysis of fictional subjects, which does not really detract. But they are still a source and were not making any claims about a living person or saying something that was not true. The troubling cases are those where you have removed sourced information leaving holes in paragraphs and disrupting the general flow. In one article the other day, you removed a citation and did not replace with a CN template.. It seems as though you are working to some deadline when there is not one on Wikipedia. It also seems to be disruptive now and I know that was not the intention you originally began this mass clean up task with.Rain the 1 22:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

critical analysis of fictional subjects, which does not really detract? There is literally no reason to print "critical" analysis of fictional subjects from a deprecated source, especially when what we're actually talking about here is someone at the Daily Mail saying that if a soap opera character "started charging for sex – they'd never worry about money again. It would be a busman's holiday for them. They could even make it a family business – slappersRus.com". I submit that I'm hard pressed to think of any circumstance in which this is an addition to the sum of human knowledge. I'm really, really not going to spend time looking for some other commenter in an RS who I can cite calling fictional characters "slappersRus" to.

The trouble with deprecated sources is that the information is effectively not sourced. Worse than that, it's deceptively sourced - readers see a little blue number there, but it leads to sources that are liars that consensus has ruled literally cannot be trusted. (Twice, in the case of the WP:DAILYMAIL.) Deprecated sources don't count as sources, and, per 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." (bold in original.) A "reliable source" means "not a deprecated source", and not one of the limited permissible uses for a deprecated source. Deprecated sources are presumed bad.

This is only "disruption" if you think these sources are usable - and if you do, you are incorrect.

If you want an exception for soap opera coverage, the message board to achieve new consensus is WP:RSN.

If you want to dispute the concept of deprecation of sources, or discuss how or why these sources should be protected from removal - again, WP:RSN is 100% the place to go, as my talk page is 0% that place.

I'll note that - surprisingly to me - Digital Spy is well regarded as a TV fiction source, in fact it's green-rated as an RS for it! I've substituted it for the Sun and Mail previously, including today. I wouldn't use it for science, politics, medicine or even BLP content on celebrities, but it doesn't seem to exaggerate or lie about fiction, so ... good?

I do every edit by hand, and check before. I probably make mistakes - and I click "thanks" when people fix these - but I'm pretty sure I get a much lower reversion rate on removing deprecated sources than I do on any other editing - and quite a few "thanks" clicks for it.

There's no deadline, I want to remove frankly terrible and unusable nonsense sources from Wikipedia, that are absolutely not things that should ever have been used as sources. This improves the encyclopedia, and makes the world a better-informed place.

Does this make it any clearer? I'm absolutely open to further discussion - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes it really clear thank you for a really detailed response. I do not want either source made an exception for soap opera coverage. I would always cite a more reliable source and skip past the DM when looking for sources since the consensus was reached. I did mean that the removal of reception does not really detract too much from a notable subject with plenty of reception already available from better sources. I was just worried by how fast it was being removed. I guess if it is really important it will be added back citing a different source at a later date. Like we both said, no deadline here. I think looking over the sources I noticed being removed, the biggest "loss" was the interviews with actors. I understand that editors on here would not put it past them to conjure up a fake quote. Say they hosted a video interview, that could possibly be used?Rain the 1 00:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Deneen

I have reverted your warnings because I saw no reason to keep them, except for two of them. It honestly doesn't seem like pro-Deneen propaganda, it's just a summarization of his views, like a lot of other bio pages. If you really hate him, and I assume you do because of your user page, you can easily add a criticism section of him, there are a few online of him. Does that resolve things? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cointelegraph

Hello there! The Cointelegraph page has been deleted due to «Please note that you are required to cite reliable sources when adding content in this area. Cryptocurrency enthusiast sites, such as CoinTelegraph, are not reliable sources. MER-C 16:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)», but it is. 1) It is a media company that works as a US mass media. 2) Resources such as CoinDesk are similar and publish news, but they are published in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artillar 1 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the original deletion was because there are pretty much no sources about Cointelegraph - see the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cointelegraph. If you want an article that will be kept, there's helpful explanatory criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) that might help - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Damn you Gerald

First i see you in the cryptosphere and love you and then i find out that you are the top guy of rationalwiki? I suddenly feel that someone is trolling me...Anyways, now that i may have your attention. Are there any good websites/forums like RW or Buttcoin? Maybe a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.191.230 (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

My book was substantially written on the SomethingAwful buttcoin thread, which was where buttcoin first gathered. Though /r/buttcoin is more active these days - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved your sandbox and left a redirect

The remains can be viewed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_focus. Please make any needed revisions there, but we'll take care of all the bizarre formatting at the top and bottom of the draft article. Thanks, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

cheers, i'll get my backside into gear for the suggested changes! - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

I didn't start this, the editor that did forgot to notify you. Anyrate, a user has commented on your reverting The Sun on Ani. It looks fine to me, but I did want you to be aware of this. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

Would you be able to take a look at the Loose Women article and trim sources accordingly? I would do it myself but there are a lot of deprecated and unreliable sources such as The Sun, IMDb, Daily Mail and the Mirror. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

oh gawd, that thing's in my little list of "articles so saturated with bad sources I don't even know where to start". There's always the option of tagging every bad source, noting on the talk page that if we can't find replacements in a week it gets a serious RS cull, then proceeding a week later - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a bold edit, but I'm gonna go through the article and remove all unsourced/IMDb-sourced information. I'll leave the items of info that are sourced with non-RSes, as users can willingly improve those. There is a lot of info on the article which is overly detailed and it bugs me. Like who cares that Stacey Soloman took a maternity break for a few months, really? – DarkGlow (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

yeah. I did tag stuff and leave a note on talk, but it's an immense pile of trivia really - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article and removed roughly 8k bytes of pure tripe. That should make it easier for yourself and other editors to improve the article. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

cheers :-D - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

While I have you here, would you be able to take a look at the sourcing for EastEnders, Coronation Street, Hollyoaks and Emmerdale? I'm relatively sure I've seen references to Daily Mail, Mirror, YouTube, fansites, etc, and usually I'd handle it but you're skilled in this sort of thing! – DarkGlow (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mirror I can live with, just ... they're not quite the level of synthesist that the Sun or Mail are. I've been concentrating on zapping the most deserving. Doing the Sun, will start on Mail after it. But yeah, I'll look over those.

It turns out Digital Spy is actually considered OK for TV fiction - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Digital_Spy - so, er, good? Sometimes you can find stuff in there if you really want to go looking - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Digital Spy is great. I primarily edit on soap and television articles, and their articles are reliable and a lifesaver for sourcing information. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen the sourcing on This Morning? – DarkGlow (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your work, on and off-wiki, to prevent fraud. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Source Clarification

Hello! What is considered a "reliable independent source" for the crypto industry? There are no guidelines on the sanction page and the only reference I see is that CoinTelegraph is not considered as one, although it is one of the most reliable industry publications. Is CoinDesk also not considered notable? God knows the mainstream media publications are not reliable at all especially when it comes to a highly technical field that they do not understand. Please provide some clarity on how to navigate this area for new editors who work in this industry and would like to contribute correct information? Thank you! Also, sorry if I'm not using the talk page correctly, trying to figure out how to navigate all of this. Econlady (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP#CoinDesk and the discussions linked there may be a start - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Suzanne Scholte

I have no financial interest in her citation. She wants a more accurate up-to-date version, provided to me what she wanted and cited source material. If you can't accept her edits, they're not mine, please contact her at skswm@aol.com to arrange what you find acceptable. She has not been a candidate since 2014. There are numerous flaws in what you keep restoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQGore (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Pigbag Talk Page

David I added a message which you have probably already noticed, C21bohemia etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by C21bohemia (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You can probably tell I am not a Wikipedia veteran but if official USA Gymnastics have put up a vid with Claudia using Pigbag in 2015 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSBCY15GY18 ) - added to the previous 2016 link I showed, isn't there some way of constructing this 2015-2016 / Olympics evidence back into an official ref. I only mention this because of what's out there to see / hear... — Preceding unsigned comment added by C21bohemia (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Medium

Hi Dave. Can you remove the Medium link in Help Me Out page? Because it's not a reliable source. I'm just an ordinary IP and I can't remove. 2402:1980:240:1D7E:88B7:5AE4:6A36:7740 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a magazine using Medium for hosting. Or maybe a blog, I don't know the minutiae of our music sourcing well enough to be confident (though it would probably be good if I did) ... anyone reading my talk page who does? - David Gerard (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The Sun

Hi,

May I ask what tool you've been finding helpful to remove these sources?-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just the search - [3] - note that about the top 20 or so there have plausibly reasonable cause, and would need very careful attention to be properly replaced - David Gerard (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! 5 albert square (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Is what you did kosher?

You said "1:38 pm, Today (UTC−8) — AndewNguyen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Maybe that's how you do it correctly. Seems funny since if I didn't see your edit, I would have no idea who said that.[4] Also, I look at their edit history, and it doesn't seem clearly justified. Special:Contributions/AndewNguyen What is up? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-gossip use of national newspaper

Hi, I note your use of the general policy not to rely for news on papers like The Sun to remove a chunk from Yoga pants. In this case I don't doubt I can find a different fashion editor to say the same thing, but I really don't consider it a sensible application of a policy meant to prevent the use of gossip-news when all that's being discussed is the course of fashion, and the paper's fashion editor has certainly told the truth, too. Perhaps the policy itself is at fault, but I think this is an over-zealous application of the rule. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

well, it was making a claim about a whole continent, which is pretty large to attribute to The Sun, especially as opinion. Surely there's absolutely anything better ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've found the same thing in Vogue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

For a fashion claim, that's an excellent source! - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)

Hi, why did you delete my comment? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a run-of-the-mill edit conflict bug. Sometimes the automatic detection/warning function fails and deletes large swaths of the page for some reason. –dlthewave ☎ 23:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to delete anyone's comment - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Be careful with summaries when removing content and sources

Under this edit [5] with the summary (rm deprecated source the Daily Mail WP:DAILYMAIL (should not be used or trusted for any claim)) in addition to remove sources, two of which were marked cc (I prefer the better source needed) there was also removal of a further source there was also the unexplained removal of content associated with a further source. I am perhaps to WP:AGF this was a mistake. In which case you need to rethink and recheck your work. Or if it was deliberate unexplained removal of content under another pretext of another banner that is another and more serious matter. If you feel the content associated with the reference should be removed then explain why in the summary. Just because the Daily Mail has said it it doesn't have to be false. I regard the weather predictions useful as seemingly consistently over-the-top and puzzles seem accurate. Indeed it is well assumed on Wikipedia I am a Daily Mail reader User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2018 1#Car user and Daily Mail only reader?. Anyway can you please explain the content removal on The Biggest Little Railway in the World thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you read WP:DAILYMAIL, which I linked in the summary? The Daily Mail has been so deeply untrustworthy a source previously that it literally can't be trusted for basic factual claims. There have been two broad RFCs to this effect, in 2017 and again in 2019, that no claim cited only to the Daily Mail can - or should - be trusted. So I removed the claims cited only to the Mail, because it is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia.

Certainly if there are good cites for the claim, then nothing stops it being re-added. However, it would need to be cited to a reliable source, per WP:V - which is policy. And the Daily Mail has been found in not one, but two, RFCs, to be such an unreliable source that its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited ... nor should it be used as a source in articles.

You may be a fan of the DM as a source, and "generally prohibited" is not the same as forbidden - but then the WP:BURDEN is on the person adding the DM as a source - or re-adding it - to justify it in the face of strong consensus at two RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant what you say here .... you are removing content when your summary says you are removing sources. You are being somewhere between deceptive and lying. Certainly disruptive. Think about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have, thanks. If you want to make the case for the DM as a source, certainly consensus can change - you would probably want WP:RSN for that discussion - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting I self source? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mary Lou McDonald article

Could you possibly partially revert this edit please? In addition to removing The Scum you also removed this reference to the Irish Independent which does appear to adequately reference the text. I can't revert it myself due to the 1RR restriction. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

ouch, sorry about that! Fixing - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. FDW777 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Las vegas shows"

Hello. You created the page as a redirect to The Las Vegas Show. Honestly, I thought the term may also mean other live shows in Las Vegas, seen in Category:Las Vegas shows. Alternatively, you can try {{db-g7}} if there aren't suitable pages at the moment. George Ho (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was a while ago ... I mean, sure, point it wherever seems useful - David Gerard (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I went bold and then redirected it to the category page. -- George Ho (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Replacing deleted sources

As much as I appreciate your removal of material referenced to the Daily Mail in this edit (and other such edits), when will you be replacing the deleted source with an alternative reference? If you are systematically replacing the sources, why not do the removal and replacement at the same time? If you are not replacing the sources than all you are accomplishing is replacing a questionable source with none and making the encyclopedia worse, just in a different way. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, that's making it better - instead of having a little blue number leading to a known-bad source, we admit then that we don't have a reliable source. We should not be falsely putting forth the Daily Mail as a reliable source in this manner, when it just isn't - that's a disservice to the reader.

With that particular edit, I judged as an editor that the claim could well be the case, so I left it there - but we shouldn't be leaving a little blue number there, implying it's properly sourced. Because the DM isn't a proper source - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Simpsons episode on cryptocurrencies

Given your history with cryptocurrencies and this thing you wrote about the trouble with cryptos, I'm watching an episode of The Simpsons about cryptocurrencies right now as it's airing on TV so I'm asking for your opinion on the episode. If you have one let me know. ミラP 01:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

Hey David, wanted to bring a new article to your attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitAIrt. Should we classify such articles under the crypto sanctions (I ask since this is seemingly about art, but it's a token on Ethereum)? If so, I think this article should be deleted for lack of reliable sources. What do you think? --Molochmeditates (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunno about best way to approach "source or don't do this", but it's unambiguously in the related area - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'll start by adding citation needed tags whenever relevant. --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"Parahuman" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parahuman. Since you had some involvement with the Parahuman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Crytocurrency Draft

You may be interested in Draft:NewYorkCoin. I noticed the article when it was created, and then found it interesting that NYC Coin's twitter account tweeted about their inclusion on Wikipedia within an hour of the page being created. Now an IP and an SPA seem to be fighting over the draft... so it might be worth a look. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It takes a lot to G11 a draft, but Twitter promotion within half an hour of an article sourced to pay-for-play sites reaches the bar I think. Thanks for flagging it :-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Eric Tucker

Would you consider reverting this edit? I realise the Daily Mail is a deprecated source and so it is considered generally unreliable and citing is generally prohibited (the keyword being 'generally'). Given I'm not relying on it here to support a claim but rather directly quoting the opinion of the paper's art critic (and it seems highly unlikely they would fabricate a quote from their own art critic), citing it in this particular instance seemed reasonable to me. Northernartfan (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's in the DM, it's not from a source that's worth putting in, in the usual case. Surely the article doesn't need it? The artist is clearly noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP Clarification

A question of clarification. Over on the Yudkowsky entry I'd suggested that making fun of subjects through tongue-in-cheek statements was an inappropriate tone for a WP:BLP entry. You responded saying that's a completely made-up interpretation of WP:BLP. I think you misunderstood me and took me to be saying one couldn't cite a derogatory article (which is not my view), but I'm not certain. If you did understand me correctly, can you explain why a mocking or tongue-in-cheek tone is appropriate for a biography (and why thinking otherwise is outside the scope of WP:BLP)? Thanks. 77.164.155.115 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Can you explain to me how the Mark Macias page is up for deletion? I removed some of the dead links in the edit source of my references page. Jondavis349 (talk)

Hi, I made some edits to this page to make it sound less promotional. Does this help fit the criteria or are more edits that need to be done? Jondavis349 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

What is going on with cardano?

David: I realize that it's a bit unfair to think of you as Wikipedia's resident expert that all crypto questions come to but I was wondering about this one. I rejected an edit request to List of cryptocurrencies because it was ineligible and the sources seemed dodgy. I see today you've undone an attempt to just plain add it to the article and called it "cardano spam". The cardano draft article was rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I just saw another of a long line of flash-in-the-pan crypto bandwagoneers but these comments alert me to there being something else going on. Is this like OneCoin or something? Is it something I should keep my eye on? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cardano's just another crypto that will definitely save the world if they ever make a version that fulfills all the wild promises. The founder posted a video yesterday or the day before complaining of Cardano's exclusion from Wikipedia, and is drumming up a meatpuppet army to promote the coin here. See Talk:Proof of stake, and possibly also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnygreeney - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. These pop up in weird places so I generally only notice them when they get to the heavily-used pages and trigger first protection and then edit requests. Aside from the video, then, normal reject-on-sight stuff. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Monero

Can you please restore at least some of the edits? I improved the sources compared to what was available, including a Reuters source that you removed. You also removed some edits on the mining algorithm and supply, etc. to make them less accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monero_(cryptocurrency)&oldid=945096145

If they're from mainstream RSes, they stay, if not, they shouldn't really be in there - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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. Thank you. GitR0n1n (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cardano

I saw a post from Charles hoskinson claiming wikipedia is censoring Cardano. I edited the Cardano draft page adding some content but to show a positive side of being strict about wikipedia policy I'm working on User:Spada2/sandbox7 Charles Hoskinson that assert more notability due his involvement on Ethereum. I carefully added a few reliable sources. the admin who deleted the page before is not avaiable anymore. What do you think about it? Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

DM and RSOPINION

I know you've been removing DM links, but please keep in mind that as long as we're talking a staff writer for DM and its use is for RSOPINION, as the case here [6], then it is a valid use. It would be a problem if the person's opinion wasn't a DM staffer, we'd not be assured of the legitimacy of their statement. --Masem (t) 00:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That's nice, but it's an opinion from a non-notable individual in a deprecated source - there appears to be absolutely nothing worth noting about it. Even from a notable individual, it's no better than e.g. a blog post from them at absolute best.

Why are you defending the particular usage you link here? There appears to be no way in which it comes within a mile of RSOPINION - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And probably you should answer this on WP:RSN, given you seem to me to be misreading sourcing guidelines again - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Particularly as your claim of RSOPINION when you inserted a reference to the Daily Mail can't possibly hold when it's not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• WP:DAILYMAIL doesn't make an exception for attributed opinions. In any case, WP:WEIGHT requires us to cover all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, so we should either attribute it to a reliable source or not include it at all. –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Dlthewave Looks like Masem doesn't get that, because he put in a link to the DM claiming it met RSOPINION, even though it's a non-notable person writing in a deprecated source. I must admit I cannot fathom the thinking here; should he persist, it will definitely be a matter for RSN to start with - David Gerard (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Neither the DM RFC nor the fact that Daily Mail is deprecated required the outright removal of all Daily Mail links without question, nor does it address the issue about RSOPINION. It only talks about facts. Remember the close of the RFC said "should not be used", not "must not be used", there's a significant difference. The case in Face the Raven is one I think didn't meet the statement in the DM RFC closure and one of those covered by RSOPINION, at least, it needs further disussion to see if its an essential opinion that needs to be kept or if can be replaced. I restored the removal, and then it was reverted again, so I started the RSN as stated in the edit comment. "Can the DM be used for RSOPINION" is a 100% fair question. Whether it can be used in the case of Face the Raven, I don't know, that specific case needs more discussion once the first question is answered. --Masem (t) 03:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
      • However, its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. And Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. Your addition of the deprecated sauce was not reasonably supportable by WP:RSOPINION, and was blatantly WP:POINTy editing - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Birulik (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by hacking

I see you spent precisely one second reading I'll Leave It to You before hacking out a quotation from a WP:RS that quoted the drama critic of The Daily Mail. May I suggest you actually read articles before censoring them? All the best, Tim riley talk 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(struck misleading heading)

From what I see in your talkpage, you have already been questioned about this multiple times. I understand that you don't consider the DM to be a reliable source, but deleting content the way you are doing may cause a great, unnecessary and unjustifiable loss of information. It is better to just tag it and let editors look for better sources. Editors won't be encouraged to look for better sources if the content is missing and buried in the history pages. And, in most cases, a simple google search is enough to find better sources covering the claims. Also note that: "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." Daveout (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

So in practice, most of the complaints above are from people who want to defend an actively bad, deprecated source, and/or who really just don't understand that actively bad, deprecated sources are effectively anti-references, and leaving them in place decieves readers into thinking sources are well-supported, when they're not.

And you'll be glad to hear that I'm reviewing every edit! So your concern is misplaced.

If you think I'm not - then you'll need to show that, not just blankly assert it, if you're going to make that sort of claim about another editor. There's been a few blank assertions of this claim, and zero so far have proceeded to substantiate it. I've struck your heading as misleading, as what you claim is literally not happening.

If you think that actively bad, deprecated sources should not be removed from Wikipedia - then you are incorrect, per policy (WP:V), strong guidelines (WP:RS) and strong general RFCs (the deprecations of the sources), and the venue for you to argue that point is WP:RSN.

When I look to my thanks and my reversion rate, the first is much higher and the second much lower for removal of actively bad, deprecated sources than in usual editing.

- David Gerard (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not at all defending the use of deprecated or unreliable sources. I am concerned about the valid content that is being lost by your revisions. I know that the burden to provide source to info is on th writers, but The DM was just recently declared a deprecated source, until then it as used like any other source by other editors who didn't bother to look for more than one source. This doesn't mean that the content is invalid and should be immediately deleted. Until now, I've only checked two edits of yours, and was very easy to find sources to the content you deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if ALL the content you are deleting could be backed-up with a simple google search for other sources. Please, reconsider your highly destructive actions. Daveout (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Content cited only to the DM is effectively uncited. It was always a bad source, and that's been formalised. Your claim that it was ever a good source is incorrect - what's being "destroyed" is uncited claims from a source that literally can't be trusted.

You seem to be advancing a notion of grandfathering bad cites and content if they're old. Nothing in Wikipedia has ever worked like that - indeed, WP:V and WP:RS notably contain no such provision. Where did you get the idea that keeping dubious content because it had been there a long time was a thing that actually applied?

(Possibly you should answer that at WP:RSN - since you seem to be trying to debate the entire concept of a deprecated source, and my talk page is a 0% effective venue for doing so.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition - please stop adding links to the WP:DAILYMAIL that clearly fail WP:BURDEN - which is policy. The DM is not "perfectly valid", it's a source deprecated twice by strong consensus at RFC. That you're a Daily Mail advocate doesn't make your actions any less a violation of WP:V - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed it was ever a good source. Stop twisting my words. As I said, all the content, cited by the DM, that I've checked so far turned out to be accurate and supported by other sources. Daveout (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Then stop calling it "valid" - it literally isn't - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The content was valid (and proven valid), even though the originally provided source wasn't. Also note that the DM RFC states that: "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case." And there goes your claim that all the content covered by that source must be removed (that is just your personal opinion). So stop trying to justify your revisions based on a consensus that clearly states the opposite of what you claim. Daveout (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You're looking for excuses. If you want the Daily Mail not regarded as a deprecated source, I strongly suggest yet again that you try your arguments at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was very clear, and it was not a complete ban. If you really want a total ban maybe you should try discussing at WP:RSN. Till then, what you're doing is against what was deliberated in consensus. Daveout (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're not someone's sockpuppet, in which case you've made less edits in your entire Wikipedia history than I make in a day. So I'm reasonably confident of my interpretation compared to yours, and of what constitutes a clear consensus - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to have a high edit count when all you do is mass vandalize articles. Daveout (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I also know better than to add the Daily Mail to articles to make claims about living persons, as you just did. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I also know better than deleting content that i didn't even read. The claim about "a living person" is that he received a standing ovation (which is true, corroborated by more than one source.) grow up. and respect the consensus. Daveout (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case, use the other sources. The consensus, per WP:DAILYMAIL, says that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited and that the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. So stop putting it into articles - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I know but there is a YouTube video of him receiving a standing ovation (which makes the claim uncontroversial). There is no other "news source" reporting it. (at this moment i couldn't find any). please respect the consensus. Daveout (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Admitting you have no sources other than a deprecated source and a primary source that per WP:RSP is generally unreliable is not a reason to use the deprecated source. I urge you to review WP:RS.

The consensus, per WP:DAILYMAIL, says that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited and that nor should it be used as a source in articles. So stop putting it into articles - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Then remove just the citations that you dislike so much and leave the content that may be (and most likely will be) corroborated by other sources. It is not that hard. Also, the consensus in the RFC is crystal clear: if DM is the only source of an uncontroversial statement, DO NOT DELETE IT. Daveout (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It literally doesn't say that. I quoted what it literally said. At this point, you're just being deliberately disruptive - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

the RFC LITERALLY states that: "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case."  Daveout (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:V requires the use of reliable sources, as defined in WP:RS. The Daily Mail isn't one. Extracting a line from an RFC can't be used as a justification for violating policy - RFCs don't do that. In particular, I really urge you to reread the paragraph at WP:BURDEN.

Your claim works out to being that WP:IAR lets you ignore one of Wikipedia's core policies. I'm pretty sure that would take quite a lot of broad convincing.

You seem extremely reluctant to bring up your weird interpretation at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The RfC consensus is that the use of the DM is acceptable in certain cases. This total ban of the DM only exists in your mind. Do you think you can define what is a reliable source all by yourself? This wiki is democratic. Respect what was decided by the majority. Daveout (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I use WP:RS, which allows reliable sources and not deprecated ones. Also, you probably really want to review WP:3RR at this point - for someone who says he isn't a DM advocate, you're sure behaving like one - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You have a great deal of patience dealing with the WP:IDHT on display here. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

At some point, his arguments in favour of, and edits replacing, the DM are going to go over 10% of his entire Wikipedia contribution history. Pretty good for someone who is totally not just a DM fan - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't break the 3RR and I don't intend to. Again, I dont care about the DM, I care about the valid content that you are deleting. Remove only the reference and tag it so others can have time to replace the deprecated source while preserving the information. Daveout (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's really annoying when people dont know how to format their posts properly. Davout, have you heard of "colons"? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Daveout keeps not taking his claims to RSN. There's probably some reason for that - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You have every right to delete content backed by unreliable sources, and that is generally a good thing. But most contents that you are deleting could simply have their references replaced (the "Last Tango in Paris" article is good example of that. A lot of important information could have been lost by your purge-style revision). If you don't have time to look for other sources, please delete only the deprecated reference and tag it "source needed" so others can look for references, and if no reference can be found, I'm sure the content will eventually be deleted. I don't have time, energy or will to continue discussing this. All I'm asking is for you to be a little reasonable and fair on your revisions. Daveout (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to learn to format your posts. Not doing so is incredibly rude. I sincerely hope that David will continue his great work removing unreliable sources, plus the unreliably sourced accompanying content. Your instructions to David in the post above are arrogant in the extreme, and well worth ignoring. Just sayin. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

So, I was checking your revisions and most of them are far from being careless as I previously stated. So here is my proper retraction and apology for being rude and disruptive. Daveout (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Fail removals

Hi David! Your name keeps appearing in my watchlist with all the DM removals you've been doing. Thanks for your work combating the problem! :) Acalamari 09:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers :-D - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

But not all ...

Re this one: I have no problem, generally, making a dead letter out of the Mail (certainly one of the indisputably better things about living in the US over the UK is that you don't see it poking from any newsstands) on Wikipedia.

But ... in this case I think there's a possibility of an exception (one that proves the rule, actually). Ms. Jones, who IIRC does not normally write for the Fail, wrote a first-person piece about her independently-verifiable experience as a fashion magazine editor and the perspective it gave her on the film. That's not the sort of objective "reporting" we have come to distrust the Fail on. (I am also unaware of her having claimed later that the piece was embellished or anything like that).

I think way back when this whole thing was under discussion originally (early 2017, was it?) I raised exactly this point as a possible exception, pointing to this in particular, and someone else agreed that this wasn't the sort of thing we were blacklisting the newspaper over and that maybe it didn't count (And haven't we also decided that the Mail's sports coverage is exempt from the ban?) I can't find the diff right now (I'm going to be going out and making a food delivery to someone soon) but I might be able to later.

If you'd prefer to discuss this at RSN or something like that, I have no problem. Just let me know if and when you do.

(In the long term, I have vague plans of getting this article to FA in the hopes of having it on the Main Page next June 30, the 15th anniversary of the film's release. So obviously I'd like this resolved sooner rather than later). Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I would point out that our article about Jones uses her Mail columns as a source for information about her own life ... definitely per ABOUTSELF. I think that might encompass this use of one of her columns as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ehhhhh .... maybe? If it's an irreplaceable SPS and the rest is unimpeachable, I guess so - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You do remember having this discussion, I hope? Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I do now! Sorry and thanks for the catch :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

referencectomy...

You performed a referencectomy on Billy Evans (hotelier) with the edit summary "rm deprecated source the Daily Mail WP:DAILYMAIL (should not be used or trusted for any claim)".

However, the reference you excised was to a completely different publication, Business Insider.

A consensus was reached to deprecate The Daily Mail, because, in theory, the community concluded that there were so many instances when the editors at The Daily Mail failed to behave professionally, and published articles that were reliable.

This does not mean every article published by The Daily Mail is unreliable. On the contrary, long before they started publishing tabloid non-sense, they published reliable material. And, even today, when they are known for publishing tabloid non-sense, they have a whole other set of reporters who publish highly reliable material. I have hundreds of google news alerts, that send me an email when a topic I am interested gets an article published about it. About once a month one of the emails shows me that The Daily Mail's hard-hitting professional reliable journalists are still working hard.

So, not every article published by The Daily Mail is tabloid crap, and, when another publication arranges to re-publish an article first published by The Daily Mail that article goes through the review process of that other publication's professional editors. I suggest that, when an article first published in a deprecated publication, like the The Daily Mail, is subsequently republished in another publication, it is judgement of the second set of editors that counts.

Therefore I am going revert your referencectomy. If you think that Business Insider should also be deprecated, and you initiate a discussion to do so, at RSN, or elsewhere, please give me a heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a dangerous move. One of the major problems with the Daily Mail that's been pointed out repeatedly at WP:RSN and was part of its deprecation (JzG has a few examples) is those times when the Mail runs something, it promptly spreads to a zillion other publications - because it's interesting, and colourful! - and the orjginal story was made-up Daily Mail BS.

If you check WP:RSP, it notes specifically re: Business Insider that syndicated content should be checked per the original publisher. That would be the DM, so your action here is likely incorrect.

I would really strongly urge you to find an independent source.

- David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, it is, at best, a terrible story to be using in a BLP. Guy (help!) 23:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I rolled back my reversion.

• Business Insider says Katie Warren wrote the article in question. I don't see anywhere in the article that says it was originally published in The Daily Mail, so I googled "elizabeth holmes" "billy evans" "katie warren". None of the ghits point to The Daily Mail. Hmmm. Can you share how you determined it was a republication of a Daily Mail article? Geo Swan (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misread your message! I thought you were talking about BI reprinting DM.

Yeah, if I accidentally excised BI, that was a mistake on my part and thanks for reverting. Uh, I'll have a look in an hour or so, it's early here ... - David Gerard (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Or, maybe I'll look right now. Wow, yes. Sorry, the long thing above got the situation completely wrong. I made a mistake and you caught it, and thank you very much - David Gerard (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

More drive-by edits

You are at it again, I see. Do please consider actually reading an article before censoring it. I see you spent up to one whole minute looking at your latest purge. Tim riley talk 22:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think if you call removing a deprecated source "censorship", your scale is ill-calibrated - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think if you censor an article without reading it your opinion is negligible. The article in question is an FA, has been through PR and FAC with numerous inputs from respected editors, but, no - you sail in and overrule everyone else's considered judgement. Just calm down and read articles before barging in. Tim riley talk 22:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I did. Sorry you didn't like the edit, but a FA with a deprecated source means it needs reviewing at the least, not that it's suddenly bulletproof. You're not coming off balanced here - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In one minute? Gosh! You're a quick reader. I detest the Daily Mail with all my heart, but it is idiotic to imagine its arts coverage is a wicked Tory plot. Tim riley talk 23:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Tim riley, not a wicked Tory plot, just unreliable. That's the consensus. Rather than challenging people who are following the consensus, you need to go and change the consensus first.

Or find better sources. That works too. Guy (help!) 23:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Heigh ho! Entire section removed, as you insist. What a favour you have done our readers. Tim riley talk 23:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Tim riley, you flounce beautifully, though, Tim. Guy (help!) 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

What an offensive and (?) homophobic remark, you unpleasant person! Tim riley talk 23:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Tim - Featured Article Criteria 1(c) is "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". I'm pretty sure that having a deprecated source would be an immediate hard fail at FAC - of the "didn't even do their homework" variety.

Grounds for removal at Featured Article Review do routinely include having let the sources rot. A deprecated source would be grounds for removal as a FA.

It may have "been through PR and FAC with numerous inputs from respected editors" - but the existence of FAR shows that is very much not in any way the final word, and an article's quality is up for reconsideration at any time.

Could you please clarify - where did you get the idea that it would have been a final word on the sources themselves?

- David Gerard (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you get wicked Tory plot from. Anyway, the actual claims in the article text seem fully covered by the Guardian site, which is a Reliable Source and not deprecated. So I've restored the text. The cite to the deprecated source seems to have been completely superfluous - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Insilico...

...has been the topic of a lengthy discussion at Teahouse. My contribution was that based on the flawed and weak references for one small part of what B wanted to add, the entire massive addition was suspect, and rightfully reverted by you. Also pointed out to B that paid editing is supposed to be via proposing content changes at Talk, and not directly to the article. Lastly, I trimmed the existing article by 20%, as it had existing weaknesses. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

good one, thank you :-) I mean, they might be notable? But it's pretty skimpy - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to cede notable, but a six year old company with venture funding around $50 million and 60 employees does not warrant a long article. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Reckless claim deletions

In your haste to waste the DM. Diff removal of "Sotloff fasted secretly". A google search of "Sotloff fasted secretly" brings up numerous reliable sources, including The Telegraph and others. This is reckless removal of content, even a fact tag would do. -- GreenC 00:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Butler (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominic Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Western Mail

When removing citations from the Daily Mail, please take care not to remove those from the Western Mail, which is an entirely separate and unconnected newspaper. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Been watching for those, yes. (And the Oxford Mail, and the Hull Daily Mail, and the Sunday Mail, and the Courier-Mail, and ...) If I inadvertently hit any, please undo - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Australian-charts.com

Hi – following a discussion on the talk page of WP:RECORDCHARTS, we are wondering why you added australian-charts.com to the "websites to avoid" with this edit. It's especially confusing because the same website is listed immediately below at WP:GOODCHARTS, and indeed is used along with all the other Hung Medien charts to log chart placings. It's true that it can only be used for ARIA charts from 1988 onwards, but this is already noted at WP:GOODCHARTS. Could we therefore remove this from the list of websites to avoid, as currently it's confusing information? Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"to avoid" is overstating it, yeah - fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to check with you... I think "use with caution" would be appropriate. I'll remove it from the "avoid" list then – thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I originally worried about it because someone wanted to delete Rain (Dragon song) because they couldn't find evidence of it even having charted ... because Hung Medien hadn't licensed David Kent's data (showing it went to No. 2 and was in the charts for six months), and Kent's charts were the accepted Australian charts for years. But the current note is clear enough I think. Just added a note explaining why 1988 - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Read this in another language • Subscription list

This early version of the Reply tool automatically signs and indents comments.

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

In a future update, the team plans to test a tool for easily linking to another user's name, a rich-text editing option, and other tools.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

• On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
• The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
  • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
  • a rich-text visual editing option, and
  • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your war on the Daily Mail

You've probably got your reasons for deleting the DM as a source - I don't particularly feel that strongly about it - but I trust you'll be replacing the DM source for a more reliable one and not just lazily tagging it expecting someone else to find it for you? Cassianto^Talk 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, you're not replacing them and you are tagging them, only. Well, thanks for your collaborative attitude. I'd dig you out a barn star, only none are worthy enough. You certainly have to question someone's motives when they consider a piece of sourced information to be less reliable than something that is unsourced completely. Anyway, I'll leave you to continue with your enabling of Wikipedia's weird, gooey-eyed obsession with the left wing media. Keep up the fantastic work, you're doing a wonderful job in creating more work for others. Cassianto^Talk 06:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's some sort of left-wing conspiracy, you need to ask yourself why The Times and the Daily Telegraph are not similarly ill-regarded, despite having similar politics. Also, reverting random edits WP:POINTily is unlikely to work out well - David Gerard (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop with the bloody tagging! It is lazy and not collaborative. If you insist on removing DM sources, remove the entire lot, including the text, if you can't be bothered to replace it. Do not leave unsourced information in WP articles, particularly BLPs. I see that you're an administrator...the mind boggles. Cassianto^Talk 06:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The precise course of action to take with DM cites is a vexed topic that has been long discussed. If you're actually interested in discussion of it, probably the place to achieve any is WP:RSN. Or you could keep going here, if you just feel like posting - David Gerard (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't care less; just stop tagging unsourced information and leaving it in situ and expecting others to fix it for you. Being an administrator, you'll be aware of WP:BLP? You'll be even more aware of WP:CITE? You should be. Your contributions, which I've pipe-linked above, are just too much for me to waste time going through and reverting, but I would if I had more time, make no mistake about that. Thankfully, for you, your many years of being thoroughly unhelpful will go in your favour on this occasion. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your civility is an example to many - David Gerard (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You love a straw man, don't you. Why would that be? To take the heat away from your own questionable behaviour? Cassianto^Talk 07:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is better. Keep this up and I may just have to stop posting here. Cassianto^Talk 07:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel confident that you will not stop posting - David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

And I feel confident that you'll not stop behaving like a complete dick. But there we go. Cassianto^Talk 08:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop it

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cassianto^Talk 06:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You're going to random edits of mine and reverting them, because you're a Daily Mail advocate - David Gerard (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No I'm not an "advocate of the Daily Mail" (that's italicised, by the way), and I'd request that you keep it civil. I hate the paper, but unsourced information is not better than sourced information. If you don't like the DM as a source, delete it and its supporting text, if you can't be bothered to do any hard graft. Cassianto^Talk 06:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

See above. If you want to discuss the vexed topic of the correct course of action for DM cites, WP:RSN is definitely the place. If you're more interested in just posting, by all means feel free - David Gerard (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no desire to discuss the merits of what is and isn't a Wikipedia-approved source...frankly, I'd sooner scoop my eyes out with a rusty spoon and play football with them down Wigan high street. I'll continue posting all the time that you continue to breach our policies. And the level of "thanks" I'm receiving in my notifications is a telling sign that I am right and you are wrong. Cassianto^Talk 06:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You're expressly refusing to discuss the correct application of the policies you claim I'm breaching, in the precise venue for doing so, and instead will continue to offer helpful advice here instead? Also, the lurkers support you in email? ok - David Gerard (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"The lurkers"? "In email"? What are you wittering on about? Would you care to provide "a source" for that "conspiracy theory"? I'd accept the DM, btw. Or maybe just tag it and expect someone else to find out? Cassianto^Talk 07:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Anyway, I'll leave you to continue with your enabling of Wikipedia's weird, gooey-eyed obsession with the left wing media." Again, ask yourself why the DM is deprecated but the Times and Tele aren't. Or don't, if you don't like asking yourself things - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

In my view, it is because The Times and The Telegraph are not vociferous enough in their disliking of left-wing agendas, unlike The Sun, Express, and the DM. I'm sure that time will come. You could also argue that it is a class thing; The Sun, which prides itself on being the mouthpiece for the working-class white-van-man, and the DM, its posher (in my view) equivalent, are both written with those types of people in mind. Cassianto^Talk 07:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Times and Tele are too left-wing, got it - nothing conspiratorial about that sort of claim. You'll excuse me if I don't put much store by your opinions on sourcing given this, however. If you do ever feel like attempting to convince anyone else that your ideas aren't conspiratorial, WP:RSN is there for the discussion. In the meantime, I'll be continuing to remove the source that was deprecated twice by broad consensus as generally prohibited and that should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. (I'll leave it to you to discuss whether a broad general Wikipedia consensus constitutes left-wing bias.) Please don't put deprecated links into Wikipedia articles (restoring deprecated links counts), unless you can clearly meet the WP:BURDEN (a policy) of doing so in each and every case - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm unable to decipher anything remotely coherent from this load of textual diarrhoea, but I'm glad, at last you seem to have got my message. Cassianto^Talk 08:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You have a Daily Mail reader's grasp of "civility", but anyway. I was quoting the conclusion of WP:DAILYMAIL. I thought it was pretty clear, but it's surprising how much ambiguity some can find in terms like generally prohibited - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so there is a left wing conspiracy...the fact you've now shown your colours inasmuch that you don't like the DM. Very telling. Cassianto^Talk 11:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, well now. I have a lot of experience with this same type of editing, and what I find is this:

1. Tagging as {{sps}}, {{dubious}}, {{better source}}, etc. almost never results in the source being replaced.
2. Removing the source and tagging {{cn}} very often does result in a new source being added, or, if none exists, the content removed as unsupportable from RS.

The aim here is to improve the encyclopaedia. In our case, by removing crap. I don't care - and I don't suppose David does either - whether some superficially uncontentious material remains unsourced for a while before being nuked, but leaving a crap source gives the spurious impression that this content is factual, even if the source is tagged as dubious, whereas {{cn}} prompts people to check the content not the source, and that's what's actually needed.

Of course, some people (not you, I think) demand that we jump through hoops to "preserve content" but this fails to understand WP:ONUS. This is Wikipedia, there is a bar to inclusion, the bar is reliable sourcing, and it is on the editors seeking to include the content, to clear the bar. Guy (help!) 12:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto Sorry for meddling in here, but I don't think that immediately deleting all the content referenced by the DM is the best move. That would result in a great and unnecessary loss of valid information. Because, statistically, claims made by the DM have a high probability of being supported by other sources (that being the case, a simple replacement of references is enough in order to keep the information in the article). And I believe that we should try to preserve as much information as possible during this DM removal process. As pointed out by JzG (guy), tagging it "source needed" encourages and gives editors some time to look for sources before deleting info. It's really upsetting to see content being deleted without ppl even checking if the claims are backed by other sources. But I can see that, in some cases, David is looking for replacement sources before deleting content (the right way to go). If the editor doesn't have time for that, the second better choice is to tag the text and let others do the job (because this wiki is based on collaborative work). But it's a terrible idea to delete content backed by a only-recently deprecated source without checking for better sources first. Daveout (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, let's add all manner of shit to our articles then. What's the point of WP:CITE, WP:RS, or indeed any of the sourcing guidelines if we are saying that it's a free for all? I'll tell you what, I'll pop along to add a conspiracy theory to the Elvis Presley page in a minute, to say that in my opinion he was abducted by burger-munching aliens from the Planet Zoz, unreferenced of course. I trust you'll leave it alone and not revert me if I did? Cassianto^Talk 15:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Quoting policy? I presume you've duly scooped your eyes out - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You're speaking more unintelligible bullshit, David. Might I suggest you take something for it. Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto, Cool down your head a little. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: It is ok to delete content backed by a deprecated source, but if there's any chance that the content may be backed by another source, it is worth checking that out BEFORE DELETING IT. Daveout (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Then direct your comment to David Gerard, who's left it sourceless. It is completely brain dead to suggest that a newspaper which is 150 years old and the second highest selling newspaper in the UK, is less reliable than some IP who nobody knows who adds something that is unsourced. Tell me: What is the difference in deleting unsourced material on sight (which we should all be doing, especially on BLPs), and deleting it several months, or years in some cases, later? Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

If only you could read policy discussions without wanting to scoop your eyes out, then you could research the many, many answers to your concerns, and why not one, but two broad general RFCs hold that your claim there is nonsense, and why. Possible worlds, eh. Good to see you're still posting here, rather than, e.g., anywhere that might change any of your concerns - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll carry on posting here if you carry on being a dick. What does that tell you? Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Great work David keep it up. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You too, Roxy, great work. Cassianto^Talk 15:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, for those inspired by this to help with clearing down the backlogs of deprecated sources - here's an RSN section I posted a coupla months ago. In that time, the DM is down from 21,768 to 16,198 article-space uses as I write this. Plenty of source review to be done during the lockdown! - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have much free time, but I think I can manage to fix a couple of them per day. Daveout (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Geordie Shore

Hey, just looked at Geordie Shore, a lot of the sources are very unreliable/ill-formatted – would you be able to take a look at it? Thank you! – DarkGlow (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Reality TV shows are frequently a disaster, aren't they ... overflowing with BLP issues too. Will look later - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! And yes, I find them to be as bad as magazine shows and talk shows, and that's saying something! – DarkGlow (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina

I know Daily Mail is "generally unreliable", however, it also states in the summary column at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that, "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." Seeing as Eddie Hearn is the author of the article (it says at the top "by Eddie Hearn for the Daily Mail") that was referenced, and the accompanying quote used in Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina was attributed to Eddie Hearn, does that not count as one of the rare "about-self fashion" instances? – ².O.^Boxing 12:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece in a deprecated source - what makes this a vital inclusion? It's not clear it actually adds anything of substance - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the author, Eddie Hearn, is Anthony Joshua's promoter/matchmaker, not some random journalist giving an opinion. He's listing the potential opponents he has in mind for Joshua's next fight. The 'Background' section in boxing event articles details a general timeline of potential opponents, the decision making process and negotiations. – ².O.^Boxing 13:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a stretch to me - past WP:CRYSTAL. It's not clear that a first-party past promotional opinion in a deprecated source passes sourcing policies. Run it past WP:RSN tho - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of the WP:RSN, it was helpful. Just to note, using the Daily Mail was a one off, I figured the circumstances would permit it, you won't catch me adding to your already overwhelmed workload in the future lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

DM, Lindzen

With respect to this edit: the link you removed was not being used as a reference. (There is probably a question to be asked about whether it is sensible to have a listing of op-eds written by the article subject on the topic for which he is a proponent of fringe views, but that's a different matter ....) --JBL (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It's largely promotional nonsense, yes - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The reference to the Daily Mail that you removed were to two articles that I wrote under my byline. There was therefore no question about authenticity. If material from articles and books under an author's byline is to be removed, we would have little content in Wikipedia. I was one of the few journalists to predict in a published article that Trump would win the presidency even before he was nominated, and that is certainly noteworthy. With respect for your diligence, please reconsider and add back the reference!KesslerRonald (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Ronald Kessler

WP:NOTRESUME suggests that that section should be cleared down much further - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I am not a proponent of "fringe views." I am a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter whose op-eds appear in the Washington Post, Time, and the Wall Street Journal. As noted in the Wikipedia bio, I have written articles praising President Obama and denouncing Sen. Joe McCarthy. FactCheck.org said my Secret Service book has favorable and unfavorable items about presidents of both parties. My Trump book, while overall favorable, has dozens of negative items about him. My website lists these quotes from respected journalists and publications: "Ron Kessler...has enjoyed a reputation for solid reporting over the past four decades."--Lloyd Grove, The Daily Beast. "Kessler's such a skilled storyteller, you almost forget this is dead-serious nonfiction..."--Newsweek. "[Ronald Kessler] is the man who broke the story about the [Secret Service prostitution] episode in Cartagena...."--New York Times. "His [Kessler's] book quotes both flattering and unflattering observations about presidents of both parties."--FactCheck.org. "[Kessler has] done groundbreaking work over the years, [producing] major scoops."--Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo! News. "[Ronald Kessler] is one of the nation's top investigative journalists."--Fox & Friends. "Ron Kessler appears to get everything first." Slate. KesslerRonald (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Ronald Kessler

Please note that I am not a proponent of "fringe views." Yes well since my post has nothing whatsoever to do with you, what’s the problem? Incidentally, David Gerard is correct to point out that Wikipedia articles are not CVs and long lists of the subject’s published works are generally inappropriate. —JBL (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

These are not long lists of the subject's published works but only citations of those that are newsworthy or have been picked up by major newspapers like the Washington Post. If that is not relevant Wikipedia material, I don't know what is. They have been on my Wikipedia bio for years and have not raised any objections by Wikipedia editors who have repeatedly reviewed and approved them.KesslerRonald (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Ronald Kessler

Bianca Ryan

Thank you for forcing better citations in this article. I was unaware of WP:DAILYMAIL, though I knew the source was mostly to be avoided (I recall specifically searching for whether there was a siteban and coming up empty). In this case, I felt at the time that the individual page cited was acceptable since, despite a fair bit of gushing, it was a relatively straightforward recap of a television broadcast. —ATS (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

cheers :-) yeah, that's why I left it a {{cn}} - I figure it probably happened? But that it needed a proper cite - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hello, can you explain why you have removed mine as well as some other comments on this diff? I am assuming it is some kind of mistake, if so would you please re-instate the removals. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing, as I was pinged in one of the messages that you removed and was confused about why I couldn't find the response on the page. I'm assuming it was an accident, but just wanted to check that I didn't miss something you think needs redacting? GirthSummit _(blether) 07:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sort of weird editing error (me, the software, something)? Feel free to revert - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - thought that was probably it, I couldn't see anything too dodgy in there, thought I'd better check. Reinstated. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Harold Ambler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold Ambler 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/Harold Ambler 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. Jlevi (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

When a moment presents itself

... would you be so kind as to have a look at Isa Briones and tell me if anything stands out? Thanks. —ATS (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

hm - a few tabloids and primary sources (Apple Music), but nothing that really makes me go "WHAT ON EARTH". Slightly puffed, but not more than is typical for actors. Was there anything that struck you as dodgy in the sources? - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not after all that work, no. The 'tabloids' are there largely for familial citation and critical reception—the latter being subjective by nature—and the primary sources are pretty much the only confirmation for music releases. It was mostly an issue of whether I was being more true to an encyclopedia than a résumé, which it frankly was to start.

That said, the reliably of a 'tabloid' and/or the author of a specific piece, in terms of how it is used in an article, is something with which I have struggled at times. 😁 —ATS (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

One more question

In your studied opinion, does a shot-but-unaired TV pilot (Cutthroat, Career > Film and television > graf 1) satisfy WHOCARES? —ATS (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like we'd have to fall back on WP:GNG for an article on that one. If it's got a cite to an RS, no problem mentioning it in e.g. a bio if it's relevant - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mariam Tillyaeva

Hello, I saw you deleted my contributions and the entirety of the page. Could you possibly suggest more information on the reasoning. If you could possibly suggest any recommendations on how to better the writing of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLvovich (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vernon François

Hello David Gerard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vernon François, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: accepted AFC submission means that an experienced editor (in this case admin) thinks this subject is notable enough for inclusion and meets all requirements, thus speedy deletion cannot possibly be uncontroversial. Thank you. SoWhy 07:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. I created this Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Andreas_Antonopoulos. Note i am iffy if there really is a COI, but I thought I would create this rather than waiting for the article subject to do it out of courtesy. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

По поводу статьи о Дине Шнайдере.

About the article about Dean Schneider. In case you haven't noticed, there's a haters ' war going on against Dean. They are making edits based on partial excerpts of the articles.--Бутывский Дмитрий (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's really not a reason to use The Sun and the Daily Mail on a WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, I didn't know that these were unreliable sources. But then all the links of Dean's critics are just as unreliable. So thank you for your help. I also ask you to remove the deletion dispute from the article about Dean Schneider. You can not delete the article, it is significant and does not contain any advertising for money, no more than General information, no photos at all, I was not able to contact Dean and ask for his photo for the article, he does not respond. So I don't get any money for my actions, I'm a volunteer, a volunteer, I'm a Russian wiki user. Enough information?--Бутывский Дмитрий (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can't remove the AFD notice while the deletion discussion is in progress - but the discussion appears to be progressing to keeping the article, because there's coverage of him in WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RoboCop (2014 film); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Millennium (novel series)

I did read WP:Daily Mail and as you said it is only "generally prohibited." That means there are circumstances to allow it. That Daily Mail article was written by Kurdo Baski, a friend of the novels' author who is mentioned in the Wiki article, thus it has firsthand knowledge about the creation of the series that can not be found elsewhere. If this isn't one of the special circumstances to allow Daily Mail then provide an example of what is. Xfansd (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's only in the DM, it's almost certainly not a usable source. (I'm somewhat perplexed by the logic "There might technically be an exception, therefore my favourite example might be that exception, prove me wrong.") I would think surely that if an article is basically based on content from the Daily Mail - as you're saying - then that's not at all usable sourcing for the article, and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. We could start a discussion on WP:RSN, given that WP:DAILYMAIL was a broad general consensus that was ratified twice on that board - it would definitely be the place to discuss it, and avoid claims of any sort of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - David Gerard (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

dcrypto.news

Anyone else spamming this? We could blacklist. Guy (help!) 11:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see any others. I've been blacklisting crypto spam domains when multiple users/IPs spam them. (Perhaps an excess of caution.) In this account's case, they appear to have been the new account of a previous indef-blocked spammer, flummoxed by MediaWiki keeping track of blocked users' IPs internally - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert war on Adam Back article

Checking the history for some bizarre false-sourced claim I removed from the adam back article I see the it was restored by an apparent revert war against you. You might want to check if User:Zvikorn is an alternative account of MisesPieces and was switching accounts to avoid an appearance of a revert war and/or avoid the semi-protect. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That article's a problem. It's not clear he's even "notable" in Wikipedia jargon - having trouble finding the RS coverage we'd expect for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I threw in some book suggestions on the talk page to address some of the poor sources for his work in the 90s. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2020 (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.

--Perohanych (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've got no answer :( --Perohanych (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

John Franzese Jr

I have reverted you there, for two reasons the info that the Daily Mail is simply sourcing the name of his wife and that she was on the TV show it states. It is a non controversial addition and as such that source is appropriate. If it was citing anything more heavy or controversial then that I would agree wholeheartedly. Unbroken Chain (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet, the Daily Mail being used on BLP material such as this is still utterly unacceptable. As such, I've removed the DM. Is there literally no other cite for this? - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

IMDB, and possib;y [[7]]. Per that ruling it does actually state.."The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead...There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." BLP is more about controversial statements and making sure things are sourced correctly, this simply says John Franzese Jr has an Ex Wife, her name is this and she was featured on "I married a Mobster" There is nothing negative, defamatory or controversial in sourcing that one edit to daily mail. I think and believe it actually is in spirit of what Yunshui wrote in the excerpts above. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As you literally noted right there: "if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead". Per WP:BURDEN - which is policy - do you have an RS for this? - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I also forgot the part "Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases." It allows us to use common sense when making the removal decision or not. I think you are making a mountain out of a very small, minute even molehill. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Common sense" says to me that, given (per recent WP:RSN discoveries) that the Daily Mail is so untrustworthy that we literally can't trust dailymail.co.uk as an accurate guide to the contents of the Daily Mail, that using it for any fact whatsoever is an obvious and blatant failure, and that "generally prohibited" means it should be avoided in pretty much all circumstances. To repeat my question, which you didn't answer: Per WP:BURDEN - which is policy - do you have an RS for the claim? - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue I'll bring it up on the BLP bard and get a consensus, it's clear you aren't even coming close to discussing or looking at the issue circumstantially. If others feel that way too fine but I think it's petty. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Common sense also predicts the result of saying on BLPN "hey, I want to use the Daily Mail on this BLP!", but don't let me hold you up. Be sure to link back here - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been pretty nice and respectful about this, I even state I'm willing to let it go with a consensus. Don't know why you are throwing attitude but it isn't needed. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Disp[ute resolution usually entails trying other avenues first, I am going to start here [[8]]. There is nothing super urgent about resolving this right now and a proper consensus may still be obtained on the talk page. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointed out there as well, you're still playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with WP:BURDEN - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm adding this comment because I'm following the most recent. I've seen citations from the Daily Mail in the past and have always taken them with a grain of salt. However, I just noticed that you'd removed the citation from the Alek Skarlatos article. When the 2015 Thalys train attack incident occurred that made the subject notable, there were many stories written about it in the next few days, sometimes contradictory ones, attributable perhaps to the "fog of war." In trying to determine what actually happened, I read a great many original articles and in doing so, came across two contemporaneous Daily Mail articles about it. I was stunned to find five rather obvious serious errors of fact in those two. Thanks for the efforts you've made to remove it as a persistently unreliable source. Activist (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

cheers :-) yeah, one of the worst things about the DM is they just don't care. The facts don't matter, they just pump out copy as fast as possible. Then get upset when people don't treat them as a newspaper of record. It's amazing - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Henry Allingham

I trust that my replacement of the DM ref with one from the ES is acceptable. This is something you could have done. Took me all of five minutes to find. The delay in adding it is because I am a carer, and the person I care for takes priority over editing Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul of timeline-article Pandemic in December

Hi there.

Short memo. Found your account via Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents with a link to "Recently Active Admins".

This is about the article Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019.

Since the overhaul at 5 May (diff[9]) there has been increased activity. It looks a little directionless, there are a couple of examples of edit conflicts, and then also an Rfc.

The talk-page is lenghty, but the article is not so long, and worth reading. I hope you'll find time to read the one or the other and perhaps to participate in one of the open discussions. Sechinsic (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

cheers :-) I guess the main thing is participants in the discussion at this stage, which has only just started. At least nothing is actively on fire yet ;-)

Anyone else reading my user talk page, who wants to have a look? It's a pretty important topic - David Gerard (talk)

Honey Boo Boo

Apparently characters from her show keep making news. Anyway, I did my latest check and my total number of viewers from Wednesday night of the 2012 Republican National Convention was missing. At the time I added that, I knew nothing about The Daily Mail not being considered reputable. I asked for help the last time I checked on this and a Google search turned up nothing. The Daily Mail got it from somewhere but wherever that is, it's nowhere to be found, at least online.

My concern is an urban legend that Here Comes Honey Boo Boo had more viewers that night than the convention. I added enough information to the article to show why that's not true, but it would be helpful to have some evidence that yes, the convention's total number of viewers was higher than Honey Boo Boo. It's still a milestone for the series.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

This is why I'm super-cautious about Mail claims of audience numbers - like every other area of "gosh, isn't that interesting" content they run, you can't tell what's made up and what isn't ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: The Daily Mail had the truth, if in fact it was the truth. The urban legend was not created by them, but rather the fact that if each network's coverage is considered a separate program, Honey Boo Boo was the number one show in that slot with that audience. And that's the story that got out.

The way the article stands now, there's no evidence the convention had more viewers. I could find all the networks that aired it and add up their numbers, if I could even find that now. And it would still be WP:OR.

The best I can do from the reliable sources is a statement with wording similar to "obviously, more people than that watched the convention", which isn't useful. I wish someone could help with this. You'd think such information would be out there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it okay if I move this to Talk:Here Comes Honey Boo Boo?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Jerusalem archaeology

Hi. I noticed you made an edit - maybe in a general crusade against "deprecated sources", but maybe out of care for this particular topic, I don't know. If the latter: maybe you want to take a look at this. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Why do you you think I would think the Daily Mail is a reliable source? I don't understand where you are coming from. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh... I see now. I inadvertently and inappropriately reinstated another Daily Mail reference you had removed when I was trying to restore the legitimate text you had inappropriately removed. Okay, apologies for that. —Epipelagic (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I see you are on a zealot's mission of indiscriminately removing any content, however appropriate, if it was solely sourced to the Daily Mail. It is only in recent years that the Daily Mail has become unacceptable as a source on Wikipedia, so many of those entries were originally made in good faith and the associated text may well be entirely valid. I cannot see that indiscriminately removing all such text, without making the slightest effort to see if it is valid and can be readily cited with a reliable source, is anything like an optimal way to contribute to Wikipedia. —Epipelagic (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not true that "It is only in recent years that the Daily Mail has become unacceptable as a source on Wikipedia". It has always been an unacceptable source. It just took us a while to realize this. Being an unacceptable source isn't something that magically starts when Wikipedia decides that the source is unacceptable. Being an unacceptable source is an innate attribute. There are unacceptable sources that we haven't identified and unacceptable sources that we have identified.

Now it is true that before we identify an unreliable source nobody is going to get in trouble for using it back before there was a rule saying not to, but that doesn't, as you claim, imply that "the associated text may well be entirely valid". We cannot trust anything that came from The Daily Mail. The only time the text can be retained is if there is another source for it. No other source? Nuke it. The alternative is to allow unsourced material, which violates WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Epipelagic, David is on a "zealot's mission" to remove sources that, by wide consensus, are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Every Wikipedian should be on the same mission. Guy (help!) 09:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you think that the Daily Mail was ever, ever, a reasonable source to use for scientific statements, it's hard to know what to say - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Really. Amongst the flurry of righteous virtue signalling, there's not the slightest attempt anywhere here to read what I actually said and address the actual point I was making. Which was to have some respect for whether the disputed text itself was actually scientifically valid, and whether it could be easily cited with a reliable source. But I accept the point is wasted here. — Epipelagic (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you literally think WP:RS and WP:V are virtue signalling, I think you need to reread WP:DAILYMAIL and the fifty-odd discussions leading up to it, and keep in mind that we literally can't trust dailymail.co.uk as a source for the past contents of the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the actual edits involved.

First we have [10], where David Gerard removed a claim referenced to The Daily Mail. (Source)

As is usual with The Daily Mail they lifted the information from another site, in this case [11] or possibly [12], added a few completely fabricated details ("discovered the previously unknown creature, speckled in red and black, sitting on a leaf" -- the source doesn't say that, and the actual frog is found in tropical wet-forest leaf litter) and published it as the work of "Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail" (usually credited as "Tamara Cohen, Political Correspondent For The Daily Mail") as if she wrote it.

Later, Epipelagic restored the claim with a proper citation.[13]

So we now have a question of Wikipedia policy. We don't need any further opinions; we need a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy or guideline. The question is:

Is David Gerard REQUIRED to look for a source to replace the citation to The Daily Mail?

#Deprecated sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources don't address the above question directly, but they do address removing the citation, as opposed to the claim. The citation should be removed, either with the claim or leaving an unsourced claim.

WP:UNSOURCED does answer the above question.

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

WP:V also answers the above question.

"Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

When you're cleaning up cites from the Mail, don't replace them with {{fact}} tags, just get rid of it. If the material is not verifiable to another source and easily replaceable, it shouldn't be in there, full stop. There's an old rant from Jimbo somewhere about this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

PS, you may find this link useful - number of BLPs citing the Mail (currently over 400). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

YMMV. I'm applying editorial judgement as I go - if it's plausible, seems likely true and isn't too terrible, I'll often leave it with a {{cn}}. But not anywhere near every case.

(More generally: there is literally no approach to this that will please everyone, except doing nothing, which leaves a lotta trash that really needed clearing up ...)

I've been doing various subcategory lists like that - beating the crap out of the Wikipedia search functionality, PetScan, etc ... current total DM: 10,700 - well on the way to four figures!! - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the Keith Moon quotes, I left them because he's super-well-studied, and I figured if it was good then someone particularly expert would do something with them. OTOH, just yesterday I had an experienced editor annoyed that I had in fact removed BLP details cited to the DM ... And then of course there were the two (not one, two) who literally claimed that removing bad sources under WP sourcing rules was censorship, contradicting WP:NOTCENSORED. I suggested they not take this argument to WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference for information

Hi David. I've provided a source (from the British Trust for Ornithology) for the information you questioned in the Eurasian blue tit article. I hope that suffices! MeegsC (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi David Gerard, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ben Goertzel's page

Does the official TEDx website not count as RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermind-Punk (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a primary source, not third-party, so is far less than ideal for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerard, I notice that you keep deleting media appearance. While I completely appreciate your help in editing Wikipedia, I really disagree with your edits. We can have a discussion on whether media appearances are a good fit for Wikipedia articles (they have been there for ages) however I don't think that the argument that these are "primary sources" therefore not reliable or "promotional edits" is a valid one. There is, in fact, nothing promotional about stating some of the most noticeable media appearances for one of the world main expert on a field that will shape the future of humanity. These are source that anyone can consult to better understand his ideas.

Therefore unless you don't provide with solid arguments to support your thesis, I will ask you to stop this editing war and revert back to the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermind-Punk (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be a single-topic promotional editor. Please stop using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and do not edit past a request for COI declaration - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is most defenetely not promotional editing. Without me, Wikipedia was missing Ben goetzel's primary occupation therefore was highly inaccuate thanks to some editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermind-Punk (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a source

Hi there, just to clarify a recent edit made to the page Bruce Ritchie that included a Daily Mail reference. You asked if another source has covered it: the update concerns a charitable donation to a charity established by the Daily Mail, and as such no other source has picked up the story. Would it be possible to reassess the edit? Thank you.