Talk:Bored Ape

Accusations of racist tones and dog whistles in the Bored Ape Yacht Club

Would it be worthwhile to document these sorts of criticisms? Specifically the arguments outlined on this article/website:

https://gordongoner.com/

At this point in time it is the only source where I have seen these accusations, so perhaps more sources would be needed prior to writing about these criticisms in the article. Aball85 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a reliable source, but there is quite a bit of criticism from reliable sources that might be able to be added. wizzito | say hello! 05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The accusations are also mentioned in this article which is already cited on the page. https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/05/19/ryder-ripps-bored-apes-and-owning-an-nft/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:BA:C200:59EF:7558:5E86:63C0 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We are also not using coindesk (or other cryptozines) as an WP:RS on cryptocurrency articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Prof. Steen has recently added a section on this issue, using first a WP:MEDIUM post as the source and then a YouTube video. While I adviced the user that those are not reliable sources (and have not reverted a second time due to the article's restrictions), I think it would be useful to continue this discussion and have the input of other editors on whether this video can be considered reliable and if reliable sources have covered this subject. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 15:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd contend that the video described uses lengthy editorializations, makes extremely bold accusations, raises several WP:EXTRAORDINARY red flags, and draws from things that could be considered fringe theories, but it does raise a few interesting points. If more reliable sources have covered it, it'd be important to add to the article. (Note: my personal opinion is in line with the general message being sent, and that the execution is poor.) Lucksash (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This article from Reuters mentions the accusations: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/artist-fires-back-bored-ape-lawsuit-with-racism-accusations-2022-08-15/

However, it’s all just repeating Ripps’s words, so not sure how useful this would be as an extra source. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

not added by ryder

my sections on the controversy were not added by ryder the “proof” tweet is a reply to me asking him if he knows how to use wikipedia so i could get the references right. you cannot erase a controversy that is recognized by thousands of people 148.75.29.1 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

i dont understand this message, but I did respond to the controversy suggestions in the next section down here on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding “Controversy”

Controversy is no secret re. cryptocurrency and the entire NFT space. I see a controversy section was added but then removed by someone in Russia. I’m fairly new to Wikipedia but I do feel a controversy section is important. Thoughts? Is this the medium to discuss changed before actually doing them? 67.181.16.67 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, can discuss here. Controversy sections are common in wikipedia articles. The easiest way to do it is to create an account. Then put your suggested content in the the sandbox of your account, and post the link here for discussion. Please be advised we are only using mainstream sources (nyt, wsj, bloomberg, fortune, etc) for cryptocurrency articles. We are not using coindesk, theblock, any sort of blogs, WP:UGC, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible free use

The current image on this article uses copyrighted images, justified by the rationale that there is no way to get a free image. However, owners of NFTs get rights to the image. Quoting from this article itself: "Owners of a Bored Ape NFT are granted access to (...) intellectual property rights for the image." Therefore, I see no reason why we can't get permission from someone who owns one of these. RteeeeKed💬📖 20:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think if you are talking about wikimedia images, this is not the venue. Post your messages over at wikimedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf The image is on Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Unless I'm wrong and I should be discussing this on Wikimedia despite this. RteeeeKed💬📖 04:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Normally wikimedia hosts all the images, and we just post links to wikimedia here. But any discussion about the image relating to license must go on over at wikimedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I got that, this image is hosted on Wikipedia. If you click on a free to use image, it'll take you to a page on Wikimedia. However, clicking on the one on this page takes you to a page on Wikipedia. RteeeeKed💬📖 20:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, out of my wheelhouse here on this. I stand corrected. I dont know what to advise. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi Guydebordgame, the citation that you supplied [1] for this edit [2] does not say what you have inferred and stated it does, and therefore your edit is a WP:BLP violation. Your citation states that Aronow's early-teens addictions ended when he was 15, and that his MFA aspirations followed by his severe illness began in his early 20s, and that his cryptocurrency trading began at some point in his 20s. Therefore, the text you added to the Wikipedia article is false and a serious WP:BLP violation. Please revert it. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the mention to crack addiction since it made no sense in that section. I can also see the BLP vio angle. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Why do you feel that? It provides important background on the founders past and is an interesting detail that he provided in an interview. Do you not like it because it paints the founder in a negative light? I find it very beautiful that he has overcome these obstacles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 09:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guydebordgame: The way it was written it gave the impression the subject had become an addict recently, after the creation of company. I'm still not convinced by the rewriting, which is more in line with the source, but feels completely unnecessary, specially since we are dealing with a BLP. I also think your sentence concerning the ADL needs rewriting. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle: is there any particular reason you don't like these details? The founder himself thought it was important to note in an interview. It seems you are just against any edit thats in a negative light. Instead of clearing these edits how about you suggest a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Guydebordgame, you need to get WP:CONSENSUS for your edits before reverting or replacing the content elsewhere in the article. See the information on WP:CONSENSUS and on WP:BRD. Also please read WP:UNDUE. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

its extremely obvious that your edits are simply clearing facts that you find put BAYC in a negative light. You have made no other contributions. Guydebordgame (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

why is that? I would argue you do, you are the one blanking, I am adding, expanding and improving this article, it seems like you are simply editing inconvenient facts. Please get WP:CONSENSUS before editing any of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guydebordgame: I've removed mention of the subject's addiction because it seemed undue for this article. On that note, I'd like to say that just because something is verifiable it doesn't mean it needs to be added to the article. Speaking of the ADL note, it was my bad not to suggest a rewrite. I think that it merits addition, but it should likely attribute it to the two researchers mentioned in the interview, in my opinion. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, understood, thank you for clarifying, looking forward to your rewrite. Guydebordgame (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guydebordgame: Apologies for the delay. As I suggested above, the section about the ADL should be attributed to the two researchers, in my view, something like: Mark Pitcavage and Carla Hill, two senior researchers for the Anti-Defamation League, commented in an interview to Input Magazine that some of the traits displayed by the apes are "problematic". These included things such as the "sushi chef headband" and the "gold chain and gold teeth". While the section about the addiction should not be re-added. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The Disney edit

Regarding the "many compare it to Disney" edit, Guydebordgame. The sourced articles are either from people directly involved with the NFT market/the company itself and only quote a handful of people. That does not constitute "many" and the bit about "the epitome of cool" is completely subjective and, again, not something that "many" say. I'd argue this information isn't relevant to the article at all and, at most, might be slotted into the 'Reception' section with very careful wording to avoid misrepresenting reality, which is that a few people with a vested interest in the company's success have talked it up. In fact, looking at it from that perspective, it might not be a good addition period. It's prone to bias, heavily so. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ASpacemanFalls' point here, and was about to revert it myself. The cited articles are clearly mentioning the selling point of the NFT people, which are clearly biased towards its success. CNET, for instance, says: If crypto firms want to become the next JPMorgan, NFT brands want to be the next Harry Potter or Disney. That's the idea. I don't think that information merits addition in this article. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ASpacemanFalls Isabelle I hear you, but regardless I think the general public probably needs to understand why these NFTs are worth so much, and how this company just over a year old is worth $5b, so bringing it into context about how they are viewed as the next Disney, a massive company, helps make sense of that no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Guydebordgame: The issue here is that is a misinterpretation of the sources. I've now accessed the Fortune article "Why FTX Ventures' Amy Wu sees Yuga Labs—creator behind Bored Apes—as a future Disney" and it says: "Their North Star is Disney," Wu says. "They see themselves as holding valuable IP that they want to build, essentially, a media entertainment empire with. ... Disney is what it is because of the culture it has created, and that's what Bored Ape Yacht Club and the Yuga Labs team is trying to do." Wu is the head of FTX Ventures, a $2 billion fund that participated in the recent funding round.

Saying that Bored Ape "is widely considered to be the next Disney" is entirely false, as it's nothing more than the company's (and its investors') selling point. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Film

I have re-removed the claim "itself named after the 1971 film, banned in many countries for being child pornography." The the first citation does not mention Bored Ape, and does not mention child pornography or the film being banned anywhere. The newly added citation (The Daily Dot) is unreliable as it falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film rather than the album and it links to an unrelated 2015 Canadian court filing which does not mention Bored Ape or the album the pseudonym is named for, and although the court filing mentions the film and says that a police officer had said that based on description one or two scenes in the film were "bordeline child pornography", the court filing says nothing about the film being "banned in many countries". This Daily Dot article, dated 18 August 2022, obviously simply copied the false information and non-verifying citation from the Wikipedia article on the film, where someone had added the false claim and non-verifying citation on 3 February 2022: [3]. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Also, based on advice at ANI, I have now also removed that erroneous claim from Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film). 64.64.172.66 (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

“Falsely implies that the pseudonym refers to the film”

Are you seriously suggesting that this guy took the name from the album and never connected it to the film, just because he said so and a “reliable source” (Rolling Stone lmao) printed it? He’s used the name for years and made a billion dollars off it, no WAY he missed the connotations.

How is there so much benefit of the doubt going around here? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the 4chan race troll memeosphere can see the direct lineage to BAYC. I smell infiltration… 97.113.216.105 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

While I prefer to give some benefit of the doubt: I think it's telling that 64.64.172.66's sole contributions was to remove PR-damaging claims for months about BAYC and then vanished Uelx (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore 64.64.172.66's edit in which he completely removes a mention of the other thing "Emperor Tomato Ketchup" refers to yet misleadingly stated just "wikipedia style" in the edit summary is also concerning. Uelx (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

the film is considered child pornography. google it, read reviews, a man who sold child pornography went to jail for selling it, the film was no longer available after, why are you supporting this?

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2005/oct/06/desperate-moviegoers/ https://martinteller.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/emperor-tomato-ketchup/ https://mediaclassification.org/timeline-event/emperor-tomato-ketchup-japan-film-censorship/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/45393535 https://www.reddit.com/r/lists/comments/igu1xa/top_10_movies_that_are_banned_in_the_united_states/ https://rinj.org/porn/R._v._Way_2015_ONSC_3080.pdf https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1735441/?ref_=tt_urv https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1119543/?ref_=tt_urv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dot is a fully wikipedia accepted source and the direct quote from the article is "Another co-founder, Kerem Atalay, uses the name Emperor Tomato Ketchup, the title of a 1971 film that was banned in some countries for depicting a boy in a facist uniform raping an adult woman. " which is 100% true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"Some countries" is unclear but definitely does not equal "many countries" and there is not a sufficient source to claim that it's "child pornography", IMDB reviews and Reddit posts aren't some expert consensus. Moreover, how is that tidbit relevant to the article at hand?

Furthermore, please do not engage in edit warring and reach a consensus here first before you reinstate your edits. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

the film is 40+ years old, its been published in books to contain child pornography, a child pornographer was banned from selling it according to a court document and there are countless references online describing it as child pornography.. The film had been cut from the original version to remove the child pornography, if you google image search the movie you will see children with naked women tied up, what are you arguing for and why are you doing it on the bored ape yacht club page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guydebordgame (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm arguing because you are adding content that is poorly-sourced, biased and unnecessary for the page. You are continuously ignoring large parts of the argument to focus on whether or not the movie is obscene, which is wholly beside the point. Please re-read the discussion and understand the points brought against this edit. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• To repeat, the citation Guydebordgame added is unreliable because it merely repeats a fallacious claim directly from Wikipedia and links to the same non-confirming source. The edit therefore breaches WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How is there still no Controversy section? Cmon people

There’s more than plenty out there to at least touch on the allegations of pseudo-nazi memes encoded throughout BAYC content (which, btw, are true, as is abundantly obvious to anyone with cursory familiarity with 4chan/the proto-alt right)

The company has been forced to respond multiple times, Anonymous has declared war on them. Either of those alone is arguably cause enough for notability

https://futurism.com/anonymous-bayc-hate-group-claims

https://www.theboredapegazette.com/post/yuga-labs-and-bored-apes-responded-to-the-bayc-racism-debate

https://medium.com/@team_69582/a-letter-from-the-founders-678e5a3431e7

https://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/55223/1/breaking-down-conspiracy-theory-bored-ape-yacht-club-nazi-ties-ryder-ripps?amp=1

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/bored-ape-yacht-club-nft-creator-advances-trademark-lawsuit 97.113.216.105 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, on cryptocurrency articles we are not using any low quality, blog, etc type sources as WP:RS. However, I do think that bloomberg is clearly an RS. Medium is certianly not, nor is boredapegazette, and dazedigital also doesnt appear at first glance to be an RS. I am not sure about futurism. I think the bloomberg article is sufficient to include at least some content. If you can find other sources such as bloomberg, wsj, nyt, fortune.com, etc that would be great. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, "Controversy" sections are deprecated. If there is consensus to add any specific negative or controversial content to the article, it should be integrated into the existing sections. 64.64.172.66 (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi 64.64.172.66, the article you cite does not state that at all. In fact, according to wikiblame, the article has never used the word deprecated in its history. Please explain what made you conclude the contrary. Uelx (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated addition of "Derivatives"

Pinging @Heresthechill here. A blog post on Medium is not a reliable or notable source (WP:RSSELF), even if it was written by someone who used to contribute to a reputable source. Please remove the section or find an actual WP:RS. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me here. The source here is Jeff Opdyke who's credentials clearly make him a reliable source. In my opinion it's unfair to discredit him as a reliable source because he uses an online publishing platform. If Barack Obama published an article on Medium his words could certainly be referenced on Wikipedia and no one would say that it isn't really him or the source is unreliable because the same platform is available to the public. I'm looking at another medium.com article cited right above this section under "why is there still no controversy section?" We'll just have to call this a difference of opinion. Cheers! Heresthechill (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that the distinction between a copycat and a derivative of BAYC is notable and relevant to the history and future of Bored Apes Heresthechill (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Copy/Pasted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications Heresthechill (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, point by point.

If Barack Obama published an article on Medium his words could certainly be referenced on Wikipedia

As a rule, Wikipedia uses third-party sources, not direct quotes. Thus, if Obama posted on Medium and his post was notable enough to be covered, it would be used. Not to mention that Jeff Opdyke, whoever he is, is not the President of the United States and unlikely to be the defining expert on the matter. What you're looking at above was another poor source, hence it not being added.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter

I looked up this Opdyke's works for WSJ - all related to finance, not NFTs. By the time NFTs became a thing, it seems that he was no longer writing for WSJ. Has his work on NFTs been published in reputable sources? Provide examples of that, please. The quote you helpfully provided states that his work must have been done in the relevant field. Finance articles from 2009 are not enough to qualify him as an NFT expert. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Finance is extremely relevant to crypto/NFTs Heresthechill (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

From his bio on Forbes.com

I am a former Wall Street Journal Money & Investing/Personal Journal writer, and a former hedge-fund research analyst and trader. I began trading on Wall Street in 1984, and directly in global markets on local stock exchanges on five continents beginning in 1994. I primarily focus on investments that offer value or income, or that fit into a “growth at a reasonable price” framework. I’ve traveled to nearly 70 countries, much of that as editor for an economics/investment-focused newsletter to research investment opportunities or to meet with politicians, central bankers, and economists to build my understanding of the global economy. My fundamental belief: A stock shows long-term ownership of a company, it’s not a lottery ticket you trade in and out of daily. Heresthechill (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

His bio specifically talks about hedge funds and Wall Street trading, not NFTs. Again, please show me works of his from reputable publications that specifically concern crypto and where he is presented as an expert. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're not seeing the correlation between investing, trading, global economics, crypto, and NFTs I'm not sure what else I can do here besides create a vin diagram. Heresthechill (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And if you can't provide proper sources but insist on dismissing and mocking my request that you adhere to the rules, I think it's fair to say I will remove the section and will request a warning from the moderators upon further violation of Wiki rules. It's Venn, by the way, not "vin". ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s just a difference of opinion. I’m not mocking you. If you can’t see the correlation between finance and crypto I’m just not sure we’ll ever agree on this. 2600:1004:B193:FD34:5991:16D0:643F:C193 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Tagging in @David Gerard, requesting a third opinion per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. The new editor @Heresthechill insists on adding a tidbit sourced to a Medium article of a writer they claim to be an expert in NFTs, refuse to provide NFT-related publications of this writer in WP:RS. I've also asked them to familiarize themselves with ways to stop edit warring and edit constructively on their Talk page.

My position is that being a writer in investment and hedge funds does not make one's Medium blog an expert opinion, much less one that is notable enough to merit inclusion in the article. Please advise. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard per Wiki's rules a medium.com article can be used as long as it's from someone who has reported for independent sources (in this case The Wall Street Journal) and has been accredited as an expert in that field (investing, finance, global economics, trading) by that publication. That criteria has been met. The disagreement here seems to be that finance, trading, and investing have nothing to do with crypto and NFTs, which is absurd. Currently Jeff Opdyke has his own independent publication and podcast which are both specifically devoted to NFTs.

https://www.henleyglobal.com/author/jeff-d-opdyke

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffopdyke/?sh=cf1073e4fcb1

https://www.tipranks.com/experts/bloggers/jeff-opdyke

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/c1ebe1af-7b56-4ab8-8cb2-d26a60a91a0f/the-nonfungible-podcast?refMarker=null Heresthechill (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems like extremely wishful thinking to justify bad sourcing. I write and appear in RSes as an expert on my area but my blog posts aren't therefore more than SPSes, and neither is all of this - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

WIki's rules state that independent resources must confirm that he is an expert in his field (investing/trading/finance) which WSJ has many times. Trading, investing, finance, and global economics (all of which WSJ has shown him to be an expert on) are all extremely relevant here. In his WSJ bio he even made sure to mention that his expertise goes beyond traditional investments. The idea that a financial/trading/global economics expert cannot speak with authority on crypto is the difference of opinion here. Thanks for chiming in! Heresthechill (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

From Wiki: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Heresthechill (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I assure you that you are stretching badly and this isn't an excuse to put in blog posts because someone's a pundit - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand you have an opinion that blog post aren't reliable sources but Wiki's rules clearly state that blog post (self published media) are acceptable when the author is a recognized expert in the relevant field. That condition has been met 100%

Respectfully, this is only a difference of opinion. Also, the subject of derivatives isn't out of place here at all. Derivatives are often confused with "copycat" projects and this entry is directly above "copycats" and educates the reader on the difference between a copycat project and a derivative.

Thank you for trying to settle the difference of opinion I have here with another Wiki user and yourself....but it is an opinion. There's nothing in the Wiki rules that says I can't use a Medium article published by a recognized expert in the relevant field. Heresthechill (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You are still working in terms of looking for loopholes to use a bad reference, and you have been edit-warring. This is not competent editing behaviour. I strongly urge you to familiarise yourself with the serious sanctions on this entire topic area in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Your behaviour is the sort that has frequently led to topic bans - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I respect your opinions but these are only opinions and there’s nothing in the wiki rules that says I can’t use this as a source. Heresthechill (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey from BASC! I remember that article circulating when the project first minted out. There was a huge debate in the space about whether or not it was a copyright infringement. Super relevant and you went all out to abide by the rules here that say you can absolutely use a medium article written by a recognize expert. Difference of opinion is one thing but facts and rules should come first. Guitarzan77 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Haha....thanks, roomie. I'm all good. Feeling like the people trying to force their opinions on me should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Assume good faith Heresthechill (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This all started with "requesting a 3rd opinion". There's only 2 opinions here. I'm stating facts and sharing the guidelines to back it up. Not sure why my opinion or anyone else's would be relevant, especially when the opinion disagrees with the clear guidelines. Let's not get a 4th opinion. Let's rather have someone else read the rules, be impartial, and assume good faith. Heresthechill (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

that's very knowledgeable of the history of the debate for your first edit of any sort on Wikipedia. Another good policy to review here is WP:MEAT - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

another bad faith assumption. just simply show me a rule that says I can't use my source and we'll call it a day. you're saying I'm using a "loophole" which somewhat acknowledges I'm within the rules but also opinionated. How do I know the person who tagged you isn't a friend? I don't...and I don't assume it. Heresthechill (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed the url was mistyped and not linking to the article....which makes me wonder if anyone here with the opinion that the article isn't credible has even read it. The link works now. Heresthechill (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Even more expertise on investing/trading/NFTs by Opdyke:

https://jeffoalpha.substack.com/ Heresthechill (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You keep linking Opdyke's Substack when you have been explicitly told it does not qualify as expertise. Please, provide a source from a WP:RS that features Opdyke writing an expert article specifically on blockchain or NFTs. Until then, I am removing your addition and putting forth another question: are you in any way affiliated with BASC? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

the comment above is the first mention of substack. the article referenced is from Medium, which Wiki rules state I can use. cheers! Heresthechill (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

further evidence that the people with the opinion that the Medium article isn't credible haven't even looked at it Heresthechill (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I am requesting you to provide the links to a WP:RS article of Opdyke's specifically relating to NFTs and asking once more: are you or are you not affiliated with BASC in any way? Let's not run in circles here. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am. I've got like 30 of 'em! Guitarzan77 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

looks like someone is trying to make up new rules to me. Just read the wiki rules on using Medium and it says it's fine as long as the person has also written for independent news and is an expert in the field.....in this case finance/investing and opdyke still really active today as an expert on NFTs. Guitarzan77 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree! It looks a lot like the people with the opinion that this article isn't credible didn't even look at it. https://jeffopdyke.medium.com/ape-vs-ape-why-bored-ape-solana-club-is-a-valuable-historical-nft-project-27305b19c693

Opdyke's bio from WSJ included on the page Guitarzan77 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, unless someone has something factual to share instead of an opinion I'm gonna go ahead and ask to stop be harassed. I followed the rules...if you think I found a loophole take steps to change the rules. Heresthechill (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Being asked to follow the rules does not constitute harassment. There's a reason why you have already received a warning for engaging in an edit war and, as you continually dodge the question of being affiliated with BASC and refuse to provide proper credentials for Opdyke, it does start to seem far from a good faith effort. But I'll leave that up to other editors' judgement with a formal request to look into this. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Refer to WP:COI and the aforementioned WP:MEAT and consider whether or not parroting the same arguments as your friend is useful to the discussion at hand or, indeed, permitted by Wikipedia rules. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure you tagged a friend to come share your opinion here. Feel free to tag someone impartial to share facts and keep their personal opinions out of it. Heresthechill (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along? Guitarzan77 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Heresthechill (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Tell me how investing, trading, finance, and economics aren't relevant to NFTs and we'll call it a day. Heresthechill (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

NFTs are goods, much like a watch, a car or a book, though digital. Someone who is an expert in investing is not necessarily an expert in a particular product or good. Warren Buffett isn't going to be considered an expert on celery purchases or notability of apple types, for example. Hope this clears it up.

Now, I have requested a sockpuppet investigation because, and I do note I may be wrong, something seems off to me here. While that's ongoing, I'll leave this to other editors and note that you are still refusing to answer my question regarding a possible WP:COI. That is not a good faith way to hold a discussion. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The only thing off is you trying to make up new rules. First I have to prove that he's an expert on NFTs and next you'll want me to prove that he's an expert specifically of BAYC NFTs on ETH, and then the bar goes higher and higher....all along the rules here just say that he needs to be an expert in the relevant field. His credentials from the WSJ are posted in the article I referenced. If you'd like to continue obsessing over harassing me I can't stop you but I can stop reading your comments. Have a nice life. Heresthechill (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• We are only using 'top shelf' WP:RS on cryptocurrency articles. Medium is a blog and cant be used. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for chiming in. I think this obviously needs some input from other people. My question is there a separate set of rules for this article? Wiki rules read as follows:

  Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Heresthechill (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Taking a close look at all the references that have been cited on this article. Seems like no one cares that people are citing Twitter. Really looks like what people can or cannot post here is different from person to person. Someone can use Twitter as a reference (although Wiki guidelines show no acceptance of this) but we're gonna go after this one Medium article because why? Why not just stick to the guidelines published from Wiki? If I'm outside of those guidelines or there is some other set of rules for this article I am not familiar with I won't edit anymore. Heresthechill (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Please change

the latter deriving his alias from the 1996 [[Stereolab]] [[Emperor Tomato Ketchup (album)|album of the same name]].<ref name=Hissong2021/>

to

the latter claims he derived his alias from the 1996 [[Stereolab]] [[Emperor Tomato Ketchup (album)|album of the same name]]; it is also the title of a [[Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film)|1970 film]] that depicts children leading a fascist society and committing acts of sexual violence.<ref name=Hissong2021/><ref>{{cite web | url=https://nextprojection.com/2013/11/30/subversive-saturday-emperor-tomato-ketchup-1971/ | title=Subversive Saturday: Emperor Tomato Ketchup (1971) | date=21 December 2022}}</ref>

In order to revert this erroneous edit made by a user who has removed parts of other articles without explanation multiple times. The user appeared to be trying to discretely re-add the previously-reverted edit by another user that had been reverted just some hours prior. Notably that user used a misleading edit summary and also did not explain the changes they made. Uelx (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems, without a reliable source specifically linking this person's pseudonym to the film, adding a reference to the film is heavily implying an association that no current sources state. This would then definitely run afoul of WP:OR, and given the film's subject matter, it could be a pretty significant violation of WP:BLPBALANCE as a guilt by association. Even if Emperor Tomato Ketchup doesn't fall within BLP guidelines, the association is a big issue here as original research. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Updated 20:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thanks anyway. Uelx (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

update of who is CEO

The panel on the right side of the article states Nicole Muniz is CEO. This is incorrect, Daniel Alegre has been CEO since early 2023. Can someone update please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.216.72.231 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)