User talk:David Gerard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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


Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svgThis user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

The Sun citations[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Can you help?[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Loose Women and soaps[edit]

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)