Hi David,
You have flagged several sources as being unreliable, including EcoBusiness, an independent media outlet focused on sustainability in Asia which qualifies them as a subject expert. You have also incorrectly flagged Kontan, an independent Indonesian media portal, as being a non-primary source, when it is. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt1979 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David, I see you flagged this name in the past due to credibility issues, can you please release the lock up? I have a Daily Fantasy Expert and Sports Betting Guru of the same name who I feel deserves attention. He is often on many radio programs and has a huge following in the industry. As DFS and Sports betting gets more coverage as a game of skill I think an expert like this should be notable. There is a great deal of algo number crunching and game knowledge, like the movie Money Ball. Hope to hear back. 16:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)
Hello David Gerard,
I'm the editor of Indodax page that just recently got deleted, I want to thank you for your hard work and hope I can retrieve the material of said page for future reference and possibly for improvement. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPhydra (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted IOTA_(cryptocurrency) page
Hello David,
I noticed you immediately deleted the page. As stated in the Talks page, I want to start a discussion on making the page purely informative. I have tried to conform to all the guidelines, but as an Employee, I cannot be purely objective. That is why I requested feedback to the page.
Please let me know how I can improve it in order to not be "Unambiguous advertising or promotion".
Could you please stop removing the english page? And tell us what s wrong with its current content?
Thank you
Conflicts of interest
Hello David,
You are apparently the author of a sensationalist polemic, Attack of the 50 foot blockchain. Sensationalist polemics have their uses, so this is not an insult, but have you considered declaring this monstrous conflict of interests (applying to any edits/deletions that you comment on and/or undertake in Wikipedia crypto-asset articles)? First, it would set a good example to all opinionated and discourteous editors. Second, it would help readers and contributors to decide for themselves if your objectivity is warped by a desire to sell your book.
The irony of making this observation anonymously has not escaped me. My answer is that by neither confirming nor denying that I'm Satoshi Nakamoto, I may perhaps persuade you to judge my words on their intrinsic merits or demerits. Happy editing! 88.145.105.238 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree David Gerard has an conflict of interest when it comes to editing cryptocurrency articles (which he does a lot of). Critiquing any new technology is a good thing and I greatly appreciate your efforts to do so. But I feel any edits you make will have unintended bias. Degeri (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions normally run for a week. This one had been extended twice, and it was eight days after the previous extension. In any case, the article was eminently G11-able crypto spam, its creator getting banned for a year for such - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?).
Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making.
Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness.
There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.
PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review
Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?
Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.
Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
Re Peter Ryan Police.
Please delete Greater Manchester after Little Hulton.
Greater Manchester wasn’t invented then and is not relevant to his service in Lancashire.
Many thanks
Hi, the blp=yes in Special:Diff/605572094 ended up in the archive bot parameters, I removed it. You know the tool, if it's a bug please report it or do whatever is necessary (stop the bot, get its account infinitely blocked, inform the WMF, ask for an UN intervention…) –84.46.52.31 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Lions Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition with Source Code.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Lions Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition with Source Code.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API.
APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web.
Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
Working With Wikibase From Go, Digital Flapjack blogpost 26 November 2018, Michael Dales, developer for ScienceSource using golang, with a software engineer's view on Wikibase and the MediaWiki API
Sunny King, the creator of Proof-of-Stake consensus, bring out continue version of PoS, called SPoS. And he will apply this consensus on V Systems.
[1] The Supernode Proof-of-Stake is used in V SYSTEMS blockchain.[2][3]
Didn't meet WP:RS? This source is from Forbes and Coindesk. Are Forbes and Coindesk unreliable? How about "Randomized block selection" and "Delegated Proof-of-Stake" parts? There are all coming from unreliable source.125.215.177.202 (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter H. Salus 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. Black Kite (talk)22:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Zerocoin Vulnerability Entry
Hey David, I see that my entry about a recent critical exploit found in a Zerocoin proof was removed from the wiki.
It was my first entry so I am not surprised it was rejected but I tried my best to format it properly. Where did I go wrong?
Sorry about giving you a bitey first experience :-( But on crypto/blockchain articles in particular, Wikipedia's getting very strict about sticking to sources that pass WP:RS, pretty much because spammers mean we can't have nice things - so either mainstream coverage, or peer-reviewed academic sources, or academic books of reasonable quality, that sort of thing. So self-sourcing generally doesn't cut it, crypto blogs don't cut it, etc. There's even a "general sanctions" on anything crypto/blockchain - Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. It makes sourcing a lot tougher, and means we can't generally put in the very latest news until it's achieved note, but keeps the firehose of spam under control ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point.
Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around.
Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs.
What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
As you are clearly aware, the IOTA (tech) page was recently undeleted for a second attempt at its creation. I understand that crypto is a realm of hype and scams, so I completely understand the need for reputable sources and objectivity. My question pertains to what your expectations are for third party sources. Being relatively new technology, the academic papers that are written about Iota are mostly written by those within the non-profit organization. This does not make them less reputable, but may be considered a primary-source. Will you be accepting these academic papers as academic papers, or consider them as 'biased' primary sources?
Lastly, you noted certain sections require third party RS even though the section states that 'IOTA defines x as ...'. At some point it is reasonable to reference the creator of a technology for basic nomenclature and low level functions. For example, if I was to write an article on a Ford truck, I would probably refer to Ford for engine dimensions and specifications. Will this be acceptable for Iota?
Thanks, just trying to see where we lie going forward so we don't go down the wrong path or waste our time on the wrong things!
-Jacob
108.60.238.31 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
we are super, super stringent on sourcing for anything crypto-related, basically because spammers mean we can't have nice things. So in practice, absolutely all sourcing has to be: 1. mainstream (not crypto) third-party Reliable Sources per WP:RS; or 2. peer-reviewed academic work. This limits the scope of article content, but then an encylopedia article is meant to be a general overview of a topic after all ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative rock
Here's my justification for my edits on the alternative rock template:
1. alternative hip hop: There is nothing in the article that suggests any connection between alternative hip hop and alternative rock other than the fact that the former is usually listened by those who like the latter genre.
2. Nu metalcore: This link simply redirects to the nu metal page.
3. Ambient pop: Specifically stated to be a subgenre of dream pop.
4. Baggy: Specifically stated to be linked with the Madchester scene.
5. Blackgaze: Specifically stated to be a fusion genre of black metal and shoegazing.
6. Chamber pop: Alright, I will admit I wasn't sure about this one. There is clearly some debate on whether chamber pop is a subgenre of indie rock or indie pop, but in the end I decided it was an indie pop subgenre.
7. Cuddlecore: This link simply redirects to the Twee pop page.
8. Dark rock: This link simply redirects to the gothic rock page.
9. Dream pop: Usually seen as a subgenre of Neo-psychedelia.
10. Dunedin sound: Specifically stated to be a subgenre of indie pop.
11. Emo: The article states that the later form of emo falls under indie rock.
12. Gothabilly: Specifically stated to be a fusion genre of gothic rock and psychobilly.
13. Gothic rock: OK, I was wrong to delete this one.
14. Indie electronic: This link simply redirects to the indie rock page.
15. Indie folk: Specifically stated to be a fusion genre of indie rock and folk music.
16. Indie pop: I will admit there is a major overlap between this genre and indie rock. However, because both their articles suggest that indie pop is just a sister genre to indie rock and not a subgenre, I decided to just limit it to the pop music template.
17. Industrial metal: There is nothing in either articles that suggests industrial metal and industrial rock are related beyond being fusion genres of industrial music.
18. Lo-fi music: A production style, not an actual music genre.
19. Psychobilly: Specifically stated to be a fusion genre of punk rock and rockabilly.
20. Punk rock: Alright, this one a little bit tricky. While alternative rock can refer to any form rock that is different from mainstream rock, the type of rock most people are talking about (including both the punk rock and the alternative rock articles) developed right after the punk scene. So my reasoning is that punk rock cannot be considered a subgenre of alternative rock, nor can any punk subgenres (unless its a fusion genre of something that is a subgenre of alternative rock).
21. Shoegazing: Usually seen as a subgenre of Neo-psychedelia.
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.
It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).
Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"
The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.
The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.
I'm never sure where I should post responses, so just in case, I'll add it here, too: I added some additional references to the Sidechain (ledger) page. I can dig up some more if that's not sufficient; please let me know. tnx --Jhfrontz (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enquiry about SkyWay Cryptocurrency
Thanks for your input to the SkyWay Group article by checking on and removing the unreliable SkyWay cryptocurrency reference. Since you appear to know a lot about cryptocurrencies I'd like to confirm that what SkyWay is selling is not actually a 'cryptocurrency' as it promises to pay monthly dividends. Initially on posting the update to the SkyWay Group article, I included a link to the cryptocurrency article as this is what the SkyWay group claim they are selling as witnessed and advertised in recent promotional sales meetings around the world and actually for sale via the SkyWay website, but the more I thought about it the more misleading this seemed, so I put it in inverted commas and removed the link; the cryptounits they are selling seem to be further unsupported by literature but it's important that any statements made are a reflection of verified sources. –Zachar (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific: the sentence that could easily be questioned in the future is the relatively vague assertion - "These claims [about the cryptounits] have been disputed". If there is indeed anything wrong with the claims SkyWay are making about this particular investment product currently being offered and promoted by SkyWay, a reliable reference which questions claims such as "payment of monthly dividends" would be great. Could we word this more succinctly as supported by a verified reference. Your advice appreciated in this regard. A reliable resource on cryptocurrencies and how this could relate to what SkyWay are selling would be invaluable. –Zachar (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On rm'ing cryptocurrency sources...
I know there's been discussions on Coindesk and other cryptocurrency sites with regards to reliability, and I fully agree there are concerns related to conflict of interest/promotional concerns. But I'm not finding a group central place or places where the bulk of cryptocurrency sources should be not considered as RS. I can't readily find one at RS:N that clearly gives allowance for mass removal as you have done over the last few days - if there is, great, but you should have a place somewhere you can point to to show this consensus. If this doesn't exist, I think you might be doing this too aggressively. --Masem (t) 21:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. But considering they're almost entirely incredibly low quality sources, many of which are known pay-for-play sites, I think it's way overdue. We seriously had contributors trying to use icodrops.com as a reference - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: I just wanted to touch base and say I think overall this is a great idea, to remove stuff that's referenced to Med Hypoth as fact. But I think there's a lot of cases where you're removing material that could, instead, just be better sourced! See this edit I just made to True hermaphroditism for what I mean. The content was perfectly factual, and it was easy to find a better source! So maybe it would be better if we worked together to find better sources for the content instead of just removing it all wholesale just because someone used a poor source for it? I usually consider myself a deletionist (in jest), but I think this is an actual case where deletion is not the answer! --Shibbolethink(♔♕)19:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David, saw that you removed my edits in the Cryptocurrency and security section. Can I know why Ciphertrace is not deemed to be a reputable source but somehow news outlets are?Greengnomes (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
News outlets take their source from Ciphertrace themselves.
Also, I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this question. If not, please do let me know how to do it in the future. Thanks.
Sorry, I was probably overzealous about primary sourcing in crypto articles. I'll put it back with some third-party sourcing in front to explain - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David, I saw you deleted the page I published last week. I'd kindly like to ask you to help me improve the content so that it meets the criteria. I spent a lot of time doing my best to gather all the information and resources available on the internet and setting it all up into a user-friendly content following best practices and examples from available FinTech Wikipedia pages like the ones of Binance, Revolut, etc. I am willing to put more effort into that following your guidance. I'd appreciate your feedback and support. Thank you in advance! -- Nedy123 (talk) 7:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of Douglas Torr page
You appear to have deleted the Douglas Torr Page (which was reviewed a few months prior with no issues) with no reason specified.
Why did you delete the Douglas Torr page? And don't make a circular appeal to a 7 day PROD because invoking a PROD without a valid reason isn't justification in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.84.127 (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David, I think I've added the appropriate tag to my profile now. Several of the sources cited on the page are not written by us, but by independent industry publishers - understandably, those publishers often publish editorial content, so I can understand the perception that they may not be neutral. I could certainly make the page's language more encyclopedically-appropriate. Would it be worth it to try given that it's currently marked for deletion or do none of the interviews from industry magazines qualify as significant enough to maintain the page?
Also, if the page is deleted, do I need to bother continuing to have "paid" in my profile since I would no longer be editing on behalf of the organization?
I fixed your tag for you :-) Basically to stay, the article needs significant third-party coverage - not just PR fluff or churnalism. Is there any serious coverage in the press clippings collection? - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Over the weekend, to commemorate the album's 40th anniversary, the Washington Post ran a long article about the cover image's increasing use as a meme. It referenced a Scientific American article about the genesis of the image, including an interview with Harold Craft, who made the plot.
Based on what that article said, I have made an argument that it is, in fact, a free image since it was originally published in 1970 without a copyright notice. See what you think. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think claiming the cover is, is unlikely to fly - it'll be Peter Saville's work for Factory Records based on public domain material - but good work anyway! We can definitely put the plot in as PD then - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Tradeshift
please provide feedback on eliminating flags on Tradeshift page. And how it differs from similar company pages such as,[1],[2],[3],[4] and [5] as these pages were used as examples of pages abiding by Wikipedia standards. Would love to correct errors to make sure article abides by Wikipedia standards. Tscopy (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)tscopy[reply]
Please explain removals of several people from the section on Notable Cypherpunks, including Dave Del Torto, Alex Fowler, Michael Froomkin, among others deleted. These people were absolutely active and key figures in the early days of the community who contributed to numerous advocacy, legal, and policy victories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.188.124 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Gerard. Regarding your recent edit (10:26, June 23, 2019) to Highline High School, your edit summary did not explain the removal of the cited press release. The press release does verify that Raymond Conner attended the school and a relevant quote from the press release was included in the reference cite. I replaced the {{citation needed}} you added with a different reference that also verifies attendance, but would like to understand better why you found the previous one lacking. Thanks. — Archer1234 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically because press releases should never be used in Wikipedia as citations for a fact, particularly a fact about a living person - they're not Reliable Sources, in Wikipedia terms. I left the fact in with a {{cn}} because it was probably true :-) But press releases are still not a sort of reference we should use at all - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis Yarvin
Dear David Gerard. Your reinstatement of an editorialized snippet featuring facetious air quotes around the word 'facts' is inappropriate for entries found in a neutral encyclopedic reference. The inclusion of such references is unanimously rejected across the Wikipedia platform, especially when featured in introductory paragraphs for controversial persons. The sentence in question stems from a book published by Pluto Press, a former arm of the Socialist Workers Party that is currently dedicated to expounding progressive viewpoints. As such, this is certainly not a neutral or widely-respected entity with regard to the individual in question. Inclusion of such material is contrary to Wikipedia's dedication to maintaining neutrality in its citations. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.19.9 (talk • contribs)
Hi David Gerard. Similar to the comment above, your reversion of a policy-cited removal should be discussed on the talk page, rather than assuming the role of article captain. I'll be reverting back on the basis that the citation in question is absolutely wp:undue, carries with it an undercurrent of agenda and perhaps most important, it's just plain redundant; the matter is discussed later in the article (and if someone proposed deleting the matter entirely, I'd be opposed to that, too). If you'd like to discuss further, the article talk page remains open. Xyxer (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's not just a felon, his felony rated an actual press release. I suggest whitewashing is inappropriate. I've started a section on the talk page to discuss it, though - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases
I didn't know that we can't use press releases any more. Can you point me to the policy or the relevant discussion where this was decided? - Bilby (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a template for citing press releases. I don’t think it has ever been policy to never use them, especially for something uncontroversial like notable awards. In fact I’d say the award press release is the best place to find a list of awards and nominations. There are circumstances where they are useful AFAIK ToaNidhiki0515:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly that template should go as well, if it encourages their use. There are definitely cases to add them - I've added them myself. They're still not an appropriate source where a third-party cite would go, and definitely not for a controversial BLP - David Gerard (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a perfectly viable source, unless you want to argue that the UCLA Anderson School of Management might be wrong when they list the people they nominated for their own awards. Hard to see how that could possibly be unreliable. Can you point to the discussion that decided that press releases were automatically unreliable? I can't see it at [{WP:RS]]. - Bilby (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read that - it doesn't help. It was three years ago and says nothing about banning press releases, and most of the comments in that very short discussion say that press releases are ok. I'm not seeing anything there that supports the wholesale deletion of press releases as sources, per what you have been doing. - Bilby (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re talking in circles. Where has it been said that all PR sources need to be removed and that PR sources are never appropriate? You seem to have taken on this massive task and are unilaterally removing content from a ton of pages, without regard for merit, solely because it is cited to a press release - but I can find no indication in policy or any discussion this is something the community has decided to do. ToaNidhiki0519:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been removing them because press releases as cites are overwhelmingly either bad sourcing (to claims that should have a third-party source) or simply promotional sourcing, particularly on company pages or BLPs. They're a really good indicator of low-quality and/or COI content. As well as not being third-party reliable sources, which sourcing on Wikipedia should still be and press releases are not. That's not "talking in circles", it's stating what Wikipedia policy literally is. I'm sure you understand that Wikipedia policy is to use third-party reliable sources. Why are you so keen on defending bad sourcing? - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A press release is not a bad source for a list of awards and nominations of an awards show. I have literally spent weeks on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson demanding each award be cited individually to citations independent of Attkisson so it’s not like I want garbage sources, but I see absolutely no issue at all with using a primary source (the award show/event/whatever) to cite a claim that somebody was nominated for or received an award, provided that primary source is from the award show - like, say, their website or a press release. In fact, it’s probably one of the best ways to source those claims since the list will be generally comprehensive and accurate, whereas a secondary source might introduce an error - like excluding some awards, misspelling a name, etc. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. ToaNidhiki0520:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've read WP:Primary. I have no problem with removing sources where they are inappropriate. But you've been removing viable and reasonable uses of primary sources with no more of an edit summary than "rm claims cited only to press releases - not a WP:RS for Wikipedia". We can raise it at WP:RSN, but you already know what the outcome would be. - Bilby (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David, WP:RS does not state press releases cannot be used. Of course third-party news sources are preferred, but that's not the same as saying they are not allowed at all. I don't particularly care where else you remove them, but you removed them from Heartbeat (BTS song), which is not a BLP, credits a quote explicitly to the press release, and is not making controversial claims. As Bilby said above, I think this is a "viable and reasonable use of [a] primary source". Ss11222:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the problem is no evidence that it passes WP:NMUSIC and shouldn't be redirected to the album page, as it was. It's got literally one independent source, and that just notes the single's existence. As is, it makes no claim of notability at all - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The press release was mostly just a placeholder until news sources were published. I still don't think they always need to be removed, however. Ss11223:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on decrypt as a source for crypto articles
Hey David, what are your thoughts on decrypt as a source for crypto articles? I am guessing it is probably inappropriate for a WP:BLP but perhaps ok for regular articles? I've come across some good reporting from them, but since you're probably more in the know on this, wanted to ask your thoughts on this. --Molochmeditates (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even as I've literally written for it myself ... it's way too into empty boosterism - that entire "Web 3.0" column down the side, for example. There are good bits but way too much that isn't. We could say "but what if editors exercise editorial judgement?" - but most of the point of GS/Crypto is that "editorial judgement" wasn't enough in crypto. Fundamentally, the same problem as Coindesk. So no, I wouldn't use it as a source beyond the usual exceptions that apply to experts writing somewhere etc - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks David! I know we disagree on CoinDesk but of course I am happy to go with the consensus view here, whenever it is resolved. --Molochmeditates (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mate, just wanted to explain myself a bit better. I've removed academics who are not notable as per WP:NACADEMIC. I too have had papers published in peer reviewed journals, but you wouldn't use me to cite a statement of fact in an encyclopedia...an academic it does not make me. To qualify as a reliable academic source the author needs to have been widely published, and be respected in the field, publishing a couple of times doesn't cut it. I'm starting to err towards nominating the page for deletion, because none of the citations are really that strong, I think the subject is borderline in terms of notability. Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning David. I seeking to clear up some of my confusion over the two maintenance templates added to the Legal Sea Foods article. I've spent many hours editing this page and carefully adding references and it’s important for me to understand exactly what needs to be changed and what the next steps are. May be because of many edits to this page I'm too close to see exactly what needs to be changed. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:
The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.
Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.
New and active projects
This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.
Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how:📲Try Edit Cards.
Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use. The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.
Looking ahead
Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.
Learning more
The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.
Thanks for your feedback on the page "George Danezis". I have only written a few articles in the past so I'm not fully acquainted with best practices. I have addressed your feedback and added a number of mainstream sources from non-cryptocurrency websites. Additionally, I've removed potentially unnoteworthy facts. I'm not sure which facts you considered were unnoteworthy, however I have removed research contributions that do not have any news/secondary sources published about them, and removed the Catalonia Data Privacy award, given that there is no secondary sources about it. The rest of the content I have kept all have secondary sources about them. I would appreciate it if you could review the page again and let me know if there is anything else to be addressed. There are a minor facts in there however that still rely on non-secondary sources, such as date of birth and thesis title, however for these facts I have followed the practices used in other academic pages such as Ross J. Anderson and Markus Kuhn. 01chambers (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Satoshi a pseudonym?
Hey David, would you say it is accurate to say that Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym? An editor in the Satoshi Nakamoto article is claiming it is not, even after providing several RS (that the editor now marked as failed verification, which they don't). What do you think? I will back off if you think I am in the wrong here. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding the word widely on cryonics page. 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! --Theodorus75 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Spinal Tap logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Spinal Tap logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Did you actually care to check up the picture before editing/reverting at that article? Your edit is "Gloria Jones with her and Marc Bolan's son Rolan in 2014", whereas there are two persons on that picture: the mother and the son. Woovee (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and the description is accurate? [Gloria Jones] with her and Marc Bolan's son, [Rolan]. This is entirely correct English grammar for the accurate description of the picture. Are you a native speaker of English? - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Harald Seiz
Hello David, thanks for your correspondence. I'm travelling and only have limited access to the Internet at the moment, but I'll take a look at the situation. (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:NPRODUCT - it gets lots of mentions, but nothing more than a couple of lines in any reliable/independent source. Google unfriendly, advise extra keywords for BEFORE.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello David, I reverted the edit that you made regarding Coindesk not being a mainstream source, because anybody within the cryptocurrency industry knows that Coindesk is a very reliable news source, and that it has been cited on Wikipedia without removal almost 200 times already. Based on the confidence that 200 other citers and countless more reviewers have previously had in this source, I believe that you have made an honest mistake but will escalate this issue if this source is removed again.Joel McLeod (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't a good or suitable source. The "industry" is boosterism. This comes up repeatedly at WP:RSN. I strongly suggest you find an actual mainstream RS, if the fact in question is even worth noting. If it isn't in one, it probably isn't. Please take WP:GS/Crypto seriously - David Gerard (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to WP:RSN you provided seems to amount you taking on dozens of other editors, with your claim that Coindesk citations should be completely removed from Wikipedia being refuted successfully by a wide number of other editors. Your opinion (because that is clearly what it is) seems to be further nullified by the fact that, as I previously mentioned and despite your objections, more than 200 citations using Coindesk as a reliable source are still present on the platform. Because, as an experienced editor here, you no doubt understand the system of escalation of issues like this better than I do, would you advise me on the correct process for finding administrational resolution to this dispute? "Context" is a topic brought up regularly in WP:RSN with regards to Coindesk, and it seems that within this specific scenario the edit that I added is contextually informational, beneficial to readers, relevant to the historical developments of Mt. Gox, and clearly non-promotional. This is not to mention that the author is not just a writer, but one of the editors of the publication, having created and published over 600 articles by his own admission in his bio. Moreover, and possibly most importantly, it can be seen (https://muckrack.com/daniel-palmer-1) that the author has written for many other mainstream publications, including Nature, Yahoo Finance, Nasdaq, The Courier Mail and Finextra, amongst others. This information was quickly found with a simple Google search. Please either explain how this source remains unreliable in your opinion and provide the details of how to escalate this for objective consideration with administrators, or revert your previous reversion, as I believe is blatantly fair and correct in this situation based on the substantial credentials of this author, and that your reference to reasoning for why Coindesk should not be used as a source amounts to a highly disputed and opaquely unpopular opinion, instead of a policy in place here at Wikipedia. (Please note the recent approval for the change of my username from "Joel McLeod" to "Metatronsqube" also, to avoid confusion) Metatronsqube (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the Coindesk addition was promptly reverted by another editor. Crypto sources are bad sole sources, and they're consistently treated as such by the editors that try to hold back the firehose of spammy garbage from crypto articles. If the fact is notable, find a mainstream source for it. If there isn't one, it's probably not worth noting - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're using a broad generalisation to describe a complex system of websites. Saying that all crypto sources are bad is as lazy as saying all crypto sources are good. Clearly both opinions are simplistic, but both also suit certain opposing and manipulative narratives, that are largely based in ignorance. But it's not my interest to debate your opinions about the cryptocurrency industry as a whole, just to understand whether your actions are based upon an unsupported decision that you've chosen to make, or on the official policies of Wikipedia. As previously requested, please explain the appropriate step for me to escalate this. If Coindesk is indeed a blacklisted source as you purport it to be, I'm happy to avoid using the platform as a source in the future. But that will be based on knowing that the reasoning for it isn't simply the opinion of a single editor (or even two "co-editors") that share a personal disdain for Coindesk. Metatronsqube (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you don't want this escalated? Surely if you were in the right here and had the authority to make the decision that you've made, you would be more than happy to have this explained to me by more senior editors or administrators, instead of filibustering. Can you at least advise me on whether there is an escalation process, or whether you have the authority to make conclusive decisions on your own without the input of other experienced editors? A direct answer would be appreciated. Metatronsqube (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you can try adding bad sources back again if you really insist, but it'll get you reverted at best and sanctioned and blocked at worst (and not by me, my only enforcement for GS/Crypto has been notifying people it exists). I really, really, strongly recommend you actually read WP:GS/Crypto - as you were indeed notified (and not by me) - and think to yourself what sort of contribution style led to such strong sanctions on a given area of editing. Also the list of blocked and banned editors at the end of that page who insisted on rules-lawyering an electric fence. I'd much rather you had a good time at Wikipedia than an endlessly frustrating one - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A reply that starts with a straw man (I intend on adding bad sources to the platform) and ends with a threat (the list of blocked and banned editors I will join if I escalate this issue). Nice. Professional, welcoming and fair. Your actions embody the tenants that Wikipedia was founded on. I'm also not sure if you're accusing me of promoting Coindesk, Steemit and the other sources I've cited when you say "think to yourself what sort of contribution style led to such strong sanctions on a given area of editing", but I'd like you to take note that I haven't needed to throw personal accusations and threats at you during our exchange, and when I look at disputes objectively, seeing that behaviour always tends to tell me a lot about the strength of the arguments on both sides. I'll ask for the fourth time, as politely as I've asked the past 3 times, is there an escalation process available in these situations and if so, what is the normal process that should be taken by editors in order to get resolution? Surely you must have had to use it once or twice before? Metatronsqube (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are various dispute resolution procedures, but I'm sure you can find them. I predict, though, you're not going to have the patience for them - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that you are operating in bad faith here, and not in the interests of solving this fairly, or in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole. My purpose for wanting to get involved with Wikipedia editing isn't based on enjoying arguments with everyone I can find, but a love of tech information and a desire to learn more by contributing here and helping others to learn about tech also. All I'm learning so far from this encounter is to avoid "rule-lawyering an electric fence", whatever you were clumsily implying with that remark, and that in the time you have been an editor that you yourself has had a decent number of issues here, and somehow are still editing cryptocurrency-centric information with a clear COI (ref: WP:COI "A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics."). If others advise me that your decision to blacklist all Coindesk citations is within your rights and the confines of WP:RSN, WP:RS and WP:GS/Crypto, I'll ensure to avoid using the site for citations in the future. If not, I'll better understand how to avoid an "endlessly frustrating" time while editing. Metatronsqube (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I have a COI on cryptocurrency that should be flagged, WP:COIN is where to take it, not blustering on my talk page. I've lost count of how many people have made this particular spurious claim and not followed through, though.
I'm not interested in trying to flag you for anything, or edit war with you, or any of the other things that will probably get me banned for making unnecessary waves. You and I both know it's technically a COI, that's also why a small army of people have brought up the same.. it feels a bit hypocritical. My suggestion would be to declare it and then you won't have editors repetitively questioning your motives, and it won't seem as deceptive.
I'm not using them as reliable sources for citation, it's making a point. Forbes and WSJ both rely on information provided by Coindesk. The managing director of Coindesk actually used to work at Bloomberg I found out from his Linkedin page earlier too. Coindesk (and Cointelegraph for that matter) aren't "crypto rags", and their not banned as sources here, and you're implementing decisions based on your own ideologies that are combative against all of cryptocurrency, and its transparent, and a shame that a site which has provided so much objective information tolerates editors that police whole swathes of cutting-edge human technological knowledge based on their own significant personal biases. Metatronsqube (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it isn't a COI. You finally admitting you're a crypto booster explains the claim, though. If you think it is, then either make your claim in the correct place to do so, or stop blustering accusations you can't back up and admit you have no claim to make that you can support. At this point, you're making personal attacks in the interest of your crypto holding. Which is a COI under Wikipedia rules, by the way - it's explicitly named as such in WP:EXTERNALREL.
I see you also hit the general sanctions on medical sources. This and your attempts to push crypto industry sources suggests you don't have a grasp of what constitutes a COI, what constitutes a source or quite what you're really doing here. Perhaps read more, think a bit and post less until then? - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a) I'm not making personal attacks, obviously. As others have also pointed out, you have a book condemning cryptocurrency, which means that your financial interests are directly at odds with the success and prevalence of the technology you hang your reputation on dismantling. You need to read your own reference on what a personal attack is and/or stop building more straw men regarding my intentions. b) I don't know what a crypto booster is, but if you mean that I think the technology can be beneficial to the world in some ways, while understanding the drawbacks of it as well, then you should just say that instead of making it seem like I'm trying to nefariously promote an entire technology for my own gain. c) the source I submitted has been used as a source 200 times previously. Not once, 200 times. That doesn't seem to matter to you, because you are only interested in winning an argument, which is not what the purpose of the editorial process should be, and you should well know that. d) Creating 2 edits in within a topic that I understand and have studied academically (blockchain, decentralized structures) hardly constitutes as "pushing crypto industry sources". When did you become the person that decides who can contribute to Wikipedia and who can't? The only reason that this discussion has taken up 100 lines of this page is because you have not given one reasonable explanation for removing the citation to Coindesk. I've continued to engage, begrudgingly, on principle, despite multiple threats from you now by the way. e) I made a significant mistake. The mistake was attempting to discuss the Wikipedia guidelines and logic behind your decision with you, as you don't seem to be capable of a fair discussion about this. f) I'm disconnecting from this discussion, because you are starting to create deliberate misconceptions of my intentions and actions, and to be frank, you are making this discussion toxic. Metatronsqube (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's called being a subject-matter expert who is widely quoted in press and media. But if you think that constitutes a COI, I urge you yet again to take it to WP:COIN, because you'll be literally the first crypto advocate making that claim to have done so. In any case, you should definitely stop blustering unless your intent is personal attacks.
Coindesk is a bad source that never saw something tagged "blockchain" or "crypto" that it didn't hype, whether or not it existed. If you have a claim you want to cite to it, I strongly recommend finding a mainstream source or a peer-reviewed academic source instead - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete those Coindesk links after you have seen the pages I'm referring to, so that I can't be accused of trying to promote them in this talk page. Metatronsqube (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gourish Singla
Being listed under forbes 30 under 30 list makes him notable public figure, so it full fills wikipedia criteria of Notability. If you talk about coverages I have put coverages fro Yahoo, NasDaq. Forbes also mentions him two to three publishings. I dont know what you require more. If you require toning up the article then I am doing it right now.--Babitahamdard (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David. I hope you are well. I was here for the same AfD. What exactly does it mean by "block-chain site"? —usernamekiran(talk)21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you had replied me here sooner, then you would have loved my comment at the AfD But then again, I wouldn't have been able to close it. See you around —usernamekiran(talk)20:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HODL and Blockchain
David, you have deleted sources I provided to two articles which were definitely lacking sources and accuse me of "promotion". Moreover, you obviously put me on a sanction list. Hence: Why are you doing this? What am I promoting??? Why did you put me on a sanction list? And you don't even bother to provide a reasoning for actions.
I find this behavior outrageous given the democratic and decentralized ideals of Wikipedia.
Sorry, I got that impression because you linked to the advertising web page for the book.
The blockchain notice applies to everyone editing in the area - I got one myself previously - we've had enormous troubles with spammy additions on blockchain/cryptocurrency articles - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David, are you talking about this address which I added in the source section: https://www.heg-fr.ch/en/media-corner/news/hot-off-the-press-crypto-encyclopedia/ ? It's the page of a public university. It merely announces that the book has been published and that it can be downloaded there. Obviously, nobody makes a dime on anything. On the contrary, finally there is a reliable book on cryptos that I can cite without my professors chopping my head off...
Mauerwerk (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David, can you please kindly let me know what made you believe that the source I have cited was "promotional", respectively spam. It is an independent source, fully compliant with Wikipedia rules, and I would thus like to avoid these of misunderstandings in the future.
Thanks, David, for your response. And no, you had not yet answered my question above. At the same time I can see what you mean by the spelling errors on the "adverstising page". However, I wanted to know, why you judged the source itself to be non-citable. A quick search on Google Scholar revealed that the authors have gathered appr. 500 citations from the academic world only. By that measure it is more sound than 98% of all other sources cited on Wikipedia. Given these facts would you now accept the source to be citation worthy on Wikipedia?
David,
Can you please oblige? Can you please share with the rest of the Wikipedia readership for which reasons you have deleted an independent scholarly source other than there were spelling mistakes on a third-party page that was informing about that book? Thanks & cheers!
David,
you're diverting from the topic: I have now asked you multiple times for fact-based reasons why you deem the SOURCE that I had mentioned as non-citable. You have not been able to provide me with a single one. I therefore conclude that the source itself is ok, yet the third-party Web site should not be mentioned. Accordingly I'll add the source again (without the third-party Web site). I hope that's fine with you.
(I trust that this entire episode has nothing to do with the conflict of interest mentioned on your TalkPage!)
Hullo. There's a lock placed on creating an article on Hubhopper. I have submitted a fresh draft which should be well within Wiki guidelines (including notability - subject Hubhopper is India's largest podcasting company in terms of content hours and has been written about extensively by independent news outlets). Since you have set the protection, could you unlock it and allow the article to be created? Thanks.
Heh, it took me a while to read the talk page, look into the edit history of the page etc. I remembered I wanted to remove the last paragraph of the lead section. But meanwhile it had already been removed and I wasn't paying attention, so I removed the other paragraph from lead. I approve of your revert. :) -- intgr[talk]14:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious editwarring related to Scientology; Determining RS for fringe claims/organizations (CENSUR) ?
Hi David, I wonder if you have any opinions on a group called CESNUR that has recently published a revisionist article [1] alleging that L. Ron Hubbard was well-received during a 1950 presentation at the Shrine Auditorium. This is an extraordinary claim, as all reputable historians on the subject universally describe the event as having been poorly received.
Another editor first observed that a non-reliable source had been added to multiple articles by user Iamsnag12, specifically: Timeline of Scientology, Clear (Scientology), Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard. As a result of that observation, the unreliable source was removed pending consensus for its inclusion. The user promptly readded the source right back in to the articles without discussion. [2][3][4][5]. I reported this to WP:ANI, user was alerted to discretionary sanctions[6] and the material was removed by admin User:JzG. [7][8][9][10]
The same user has continued to make controversial edits which are perhaps suggestive of an organized effort / tendentiousness -- citing an image in an online auction and yet again re-adding the same CENSUR article that was removed as a non-RS by JzG after the ANI complaint. Given that the user has repeated the same behavior thrice now after multiple warnings, it seemed wise to bring this to you admins instead of just reverting him another time before addressing the behavior issue.
In addition to the repeated editwarring as a behavior issue, CENSUR in general seems to fail RS, as googling suggests they may have financial entanglements with the objects of their study. In particular, the group allegedly had financial ties to Aum Shinrikyo which led CENSUR members in 1995 to giving a public press conference, erroneously arguing that the group could not have manufactured the Sarin gas (which they did in fact use in the Tokyo attacks). CENSUR had instead publicly claimed that the group was merely the victims of religious persecution. [1][2]Feoffer (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"Tokyo Cult Finds an Unlikely Supporter", The Washington Post, T.R. Reid, May 1995.
Excuse me but "all reputable historians on the subject" agree? Given that 1/2 of them are ex-Scientologists I'm not sure they are exactly objective. As for the rest, did anybody actually read this article or the actual transcript/email which it shows? Every single historian and claimant had only repeated the same claim which came before it which it examined thoroughly.
Also, what does the rest of that about CESNUR have to do with the article? This is the guilt by association fallacy. Iamsnag12 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a source has shown a very poor reputation for fact checking or accuracy in the past, then it's likely not a reliable source per our WP:RS policy. But in any case, if you wish to dispute whether or not something is a RS, I suggest you do it somewhere like WP:RSN not here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kiana Danial
Hey, I am curious why Google Books and Barnes & Noble aren't reliable sources on the publishing of a book? Why a published science paper that has been referenced in other scientist's work (education) is not a reliable source for proof of education? Less so, I am also curious as to why a NY Business Journal Women of Influence award is not notable. The NYC metro area contains over 20 milion people and they name 30? Are you going to say because they take nominations? Because so does the Cooper Hewitt Design Awards as well as many other prestigious awards.. I will give you that the reference from the Great Neck Record which is a local newspaper is somewhat questionable after fully reading the article. Though one would think a local newspaper, with an article with an independent author would usually be an acceptable 3rd party but i guess not in this case. I'd have to go look through the rest of the awards listed on her nasdaq profile to see if they are notable but I dont have time right now. Either way the bottom two tags should be removed as every statement on there is referenced, any more would be reference bombing and any questionable statements have certainly been removed. I apreciate your help.. I'm not overly committed here but I would like to keep the pages I made from becoming a mess. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @David Gerard: I am somewhat surprised that you rejected a few external links, mentioning WP:ELNO. I agree askthecomputerguy.com might not pass, but the BBC? Slate? Why would you say such prominent sources aren't reliable? I mostly contribute to the French WP, so our customs might differ. --Vega (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
yep - if it's not the official logo, it's a mixture of the logo with another image on that page. Obvious thing to do: grab an image that is definitely an official image, fair-use that as the logo on en:wp, mark the current image on Commons for deletion as not a free image - David Gerard (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Advocating" on Curtis Yarvin
I see why you added "advocating" to that sentence in Curtis Yarvin, since the sentence as it stood made it unclear as to whether he was for or against the claims. But the source specifically says he was "alluding to debunked revisionism", and "advocating" seems too strong a verb. Do you think that leaving the verb as "alluding", but putting the "debunked" in parentheses, would get the point across sufficiently? I think so, and ordinarily I would go ahead and make the edit, but I figured I would defer to your seniority by checking here first. Thanks! Standardorder (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. I see that you have been removing footnotes from various articles that cite to The Daily Caller, which is a deprecated source. Thanks for doing that. With respect, however, it seems to me that you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater a few times. On the Caviezel page, you removed a sentence on Caviezel's portrayal of St. Luke in a recent film. On Maggie Hassan's page, you removed an entire paragraph on a relevant issue (felony conviction of former staffer). In both instances, it would have been better to either find new sources for the material or to mark it with a "better source needed" tag or a "deprecated" tag. Could I ask you to please be more careful not to get rid of relevant material for which other sources could be found? SunCrow (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky with BLPs at times - if the only cite for a claim is a deprecated source, leaving the claim in is potentially problematic - but sure - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to this discussion to say that some of the sources you removed (like this one) have archived versions. Instead of deleting the source entirely, just change the url-status parameter from "live" to "dead". Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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! Bodole (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019
What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!
Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.
Talk Pages
The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.
The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.
Mobile visual editor
The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.
In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.
Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.
Hi, any updates from your end on Rinnai checking? Appreciate if you can guide or advise on this matter as I would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CZ-wk (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Gerard, any updates from your end? I have been waiting for an update ever since on how to rectify the issue on Rinnai page. Can you please respond? (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
How do you feel on the heavy reliance by our piece on Carlo Maria Viganò on LifeSiteNews for exclusive documents released to them? Is there any other way to document the controversy without resorting to this source? Elizium23 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the specific case, but to talk about the documents as discussed - and verified - in non-deprecated reliable sources would be the general answer - linking a site that literally can't be trusted not to just make stuff up (the reason it was deprecated) seems to me not to be an option. It's a site as bad and untrustworthy as the Daily Mail or Infowars - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I protested about the heavy use of this site but my opinions were shot down because, essentially, "there is no other source" and LifeSite had had an exclusive from Vigano (WHY???) Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well, it's a deprecated source because it just can't be trusted ... so it shouldn't be used for anything. WP:RSN would be the place to turn if someone on a talk page is insisting that only a source that shouldn't be used should be used - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Initial exchange offering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi Sorry to bother you. I'm a casual user who has been editing for a while learning rules from other users. I am a fan of I'm A Celebrity and the new series is coming up in a week or so. Right now, The Sun has put out a list of the purported Starting 10 and there is a user who is using it as a source for a confirmed list. The celebrities have not all arrived in Australia now and already there is a surprise celebrity who has arrived not on the Sun List (Andrew Maxwell). I reverted the edit and we raised the source asking for them to wait for the confirmation by ITV whose Press pack will most likely come out this week. He cited me for vandalism, and said that the Sun and Metro had the confirmed lineup even if there is already a deviation. he's trying to semi protect the page. Could you possibly take a look at I'm A Celebrity Series 19 page or perhaps give me a bit of advice on handling these editors. I'm just going from past experience with pages like this and I also noted that you were reverting edits with sources from The Sun, so I thought I would try to talk to you. Thanks!!!96.20.110.32 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC) samusek2[reply]
yeah, The Sun literally can't be trusted as a source for anything, and especially not for details about living people ... I suggest you note it on WP:RSN for best considered attention - it might be time to add it to the spam filter - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David, and thank you for your message. I really didn't know about the restriction on pubblications regarding Crypto and blockchains and of course about sanctions too.
What I want you to know is that the news I add on History section, is real and confirmed, totally mainstream, and notice that the arcticle I post on my second attempt is from a non-crypto site.
I would like you to check by yourself, and eventually, if you will understand the goodness of my intentions, I ask you to please repost my edit and remove my mention from 2019 list.
Thanks again!
Have a nice day!
Hello, I'm an employee of Dunamu/Upbit, and have been trying to update the company history.
It seems my edits were deleted due to lack of reliable sources even though most of the citations were from the Korea Herald Investor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Korea_Herald), probably the largest English language media in South Korea. I understand if you don't consider Block Media to be a reliable source, but I feel all the Investor cited content shouldn't be deleted?
Also, it seems rather wild to designate all crypto media as unreliable sources. I understand there are some questionable outlets, but media like Coindesk are cited in mainstream publications like the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FongBuster (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926578276&oldid=926567057
This revert reverted 5 different change sets, from 2 different editors. I believe all 5 reverts were inappropriate and I would like to open dialog on this topic with you on this subject since it appears that you have been reverting every edit by people who try to improve this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926567057&oldid=926565951
This change was merely a rewording for clarity. Originally the text indicated that Forecast Foundation was separate from its leadership, and the edit corrected the text to make it clear that the software is being developed by Forecast Foundation and the two mentioned people are the founders of that foundation. This information is public knowledge, and available on the incorperation documents for Forecast Foundation in Estonia. I believe this document was not included as a citation because such inclusions are generally not part of a normal Wikipedia article on a business, product, platform, etc. For an example of a mention of a founder without citation to incorperation documents, see Microsoft.
If it is desired, I believe the incorperation documents can be linked to directly from an Estonian government website (but again, this is out of line with standard Wikipedia practice)..
The purpose of including this section is to give the reader a very brief primer into prediction markets as they relate to Augur. This information is critical in understanding how Augur works on a mechanism design/game theory level. The description provided is a very high level overview of how the system works, fit for human consumption. For comparison, most Game Theory articles on Wikipedia do not include citations in the descriptive section of their mechanism design because they are a humanized description of what is essentially a logic problem (no room for debate). They usually open with a source that goes into depth on the concept (as this article does) and then proceed to give a high level humanized overview of the topic. See Chicken_(game) for an example.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#WP:WHYCITE, "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Since the code for Augur is publicly available and executing in a public execution environment (Ethereum), there is no grounds for challenging the description beyond corrective edits. If it would help, a link to the source code on GitHub could be included, or a link to the verified source code that is currently executing on the Ethereum blockchain (which is a well known public execution environment) could be included (which matches what is on GitHub).
For a comparison, the Superbowl page does not include citations for the final score of the game, because the game results are considered public knowledge and not likely to be challenged outside of trolling. This is true throughout wikipedia, where public knowledge of definitive facts (not research or theory) is largely un-cited. It is worth noting that no claims about human behavior are made in this paragraph aside from the opening statement which includes a very valid citation. The rest is just a process description.
I'll not comment on the remaining 2 edits for now, as I suspect any debate will likely be the same as the debate around the above edits and I would prefer to keep the conversation focused.
Discussion
On the topic of sources, there are numerous sources that describe the mechanism design of Augur in more detail than in the reverted edits, including http://www.augur.net/whitepaper.pdf, https://augur.guide/ and a number of other blogs and such. However, based on your reversion history, I suspect that these sources would not be acceptable to you, so I haven't mentioned them above. Reverting this article based on lack of sources, and then proceeding to disallow any sources from within the ecosystem that this product lives feels simply like a blanket ban on Wikipedia articles describing blockchain projects. I am aware of the extended authority given to administrators over blockchain related projects, but this authority does NOT extend to a blanket ban against all blockchain related projects, which in effect is what is being exercised here.
As shown above, these edits align with standard Wikipedia practices for describing mechanism designs and I believe warrant a much more in depth critique than what was provided in the reversion comment.
Opinion
Calling text that someone took time to research, author, and proof read, "extensive unsourced rambling" is a pretty hostile and empty statement. I would like to see Wikipedia administrators hold themselves to a higher standard when providing reasons for mass reverts like this. Micah71381 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edits that I referenced do not contain self-referencial material or crypto sites as primary sources, and I even discussed my choice of sources in the paragraphs above. I would like to engage with you on this topic and get to place where I can actually update this page and provide accurate and useful information to Wikipedia users, but I believe that will require you engaging with me on this beyond just repeating the same "use reliable sources" over and over.
I implore you to actuall read the above discussion rather than making snap judgement and assuming I am just another Wikipedia troll. I understand that there are a lot of Wikipedia trolls in this space and the job of maintaining blockchain related Wikipedia pages is time consuming, but your comments imply that you did not read anything I typed above nor click on any of the links to edits I provided. I did my best to make your participation in this dialog as easy as possible knowing how difficult your job is, but it will require you to exercise some effort. Micah71381 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See article talk page for discussion of why I removed the latest version - the article talk page is the proper venue to discuss edits to the article - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah. I've been whittling down the absolute worst of the worst, which the Sun definitely counts as. Something to do in idle moments, improves the world more than Angry Birds ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You were using it for biographical detail, not sports reporting - a clear violation of WP:BLP. Perhaps stop bending over backwards to include known liars as sources in articles - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"(should never be used for anything)" does not equal "The primary exception to deprecation is that deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion" now does it? Stop making those claims in your edit summaries from now on. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making fake claims. The link does not say that The Sun should "should not be used for anything". If you find somewhere to link to which does say "should not be used for anything" use that, but in the meantime stop asserting that this says that because it patently does not. You should know better already, and have just recently been warned about this. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to cut'n'paste a whole guideline page into an edit message, and I think that's an entirely reasonable summary of what WP:DEPS means for these sources: even if you think you might have an exception, you shouldn't use them for anything. You being insistently bad at understanding words - and your dogged insistence on stanning for a source that literally can't be trusted - doesn't constitute a "warning", and doesn't change this - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling people the wrong thing in your edit summaries and you know that. "bad at understanding words... stanning"? Pardon? Please, you must do better. Deliberate miscommunication of the content of guideline for the specific instances you are attempting to address must stop. Deliberately misleading the community in your position is wholly unacceptable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite an accurate summation of what deprecation means in a sentence, despite your personal problems with it and fondness for The Sun. At this point you're just coming across as querulous and inane - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you are unfortunately coming across as someone who is continually making false claims of "guideline" and false claims of what that "information" page actually says despite being told many many times to desist. It would be better if you simply linked the DEPS "information page" rather than make your own incorrect interpretation of what it says. You are, after all, apparently an admin so some people will actually take what you say about such matters at face value. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're still making false claims in your edits summaries, to whit rm The Sun - deprecated source, should not be used for anything, which, as has been pointed out to you numerous times by multiple editors, is not written in any guideline, nor even in the "information" page you refer to. Please desist from spreading misinformation, as a supposed admin you need to really start doing something about this behaviour. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy seeing a purported admin making overtly false claims time after time despite multiple advice from multiple editors to desist, and now to see the same so-called admin simply removing items from articles which can be easily cited? No, I'm not enjoying seeing this meltdown. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU is appropriate per WP:ADMINACCT. I'd like you to explain why you continually use false edit summaries, remove perfectly citable material, and make accusations against me which you can't substantiate, predmoninatly around your claims that I and others are bending over backwards to defend The Sun. If you aren't prepared to answer this per your position as an admin, I'll happily take it further. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using false edit summaries, you tried super-hard to keep The Sun in as a reference for biographical information about a living person, and you "cited" a claim about the actions of a living person to a primary source and not a third-party RS. This answers your concerns, even if you appear unable to hear the answers - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, you claim The Sun amongst other can't used ever, that's patently false, and not even the information page you use says that, and you know it. I didn't try "super-hard" to keep The Sun, I actually tried "super-hard" to keep the information that you summarily removed because you couldn't be bothered to find an alternative source or mark it as [citation needed]. Your continual refusal to listen to others and your false edit summaries and accusations about my and others' motivations here are deep failings of your position as an admin. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered your questions, even if you seem to insist you can't hear it. If any of my responses are unclear, I suggest reading them again. I expect you'll keep repeating the same incorrect statements though - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have all I need here I think. You are completely incorrect in (a) your edit summary assertions about Wikipedia's "information" about the use of The Sun and (b) your accusations about my and other editors' (including a fellow admin/'crat) use of The Sun. I'll give you some advice, stop editorialising and using fake claims in your edit summaries and stop removing perfectly citable material and start using [citation needed] and stop calling WP:DEPS a guideline, and there shouldn't be any further issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you recently commented on the RSN thread about an organized related to CESNUR, I'd like to ask you to help review that organization's article here on Wikipedia. In an attempt to comply with the spirit of WP:CANVAS, the same message is being sent to everyone who commented on the thread, and no specific editing-conflict is being referenced: the article could simply benefit from more eyeballs. Feoffer (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you at WP:AE, but I figure I should give formal notification since you're coming up in discussion now. I'm not aware if there's more history between you two than what I've briefly seen, so I didn't go in-depth on older diffs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Micah71381 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to drop you a note to let you know I removed your COI notice for Micah Zoltu. I saw the reference you placed on the COI notice. In that reference Micah says he worked for the parent company as a consulant for 4 to 6 months , and no longer works there. Yes, he says he's interested in the subject, I saw that. The deal is, since he no longer works there, he no longer received any salary or compensation from this company, therefore there is no conflict of interest.
Put it this way, I used to work for a Dollar store as an assistant manger, I no longer work there, it's literally been a decade since I've been there. If I contribute to an article about that store or it's parent company I would have no COI as I receive no compensation from them, it makes no difference to me whether or not they look good or not. I would have no COI with that store. Same is true for Micah.
No, I don't believe you have a COI either because you have a book on cryptocurrency either. You would specfically on your book, but not on cryptocurrency itself. Anyrate, I wanted you to know why I removed the COI notice. also, per this discussion on the COI board a COI has not been established either. Should a COI be ruled as existing, I have no problem reverting myself and reinstating your edit. Necromonger...We keep what we kill13:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inadvertent revert revert
I made a number of edits to the Blockstream article today after encountering someone repeating false claims from it to libel me. After doing so, I noticed that some of my changes substantially duplicated a change someone else made six months ago which you reverted. I believe your revert was an error: The sourced material doesn't support the "large number" claim in the article, it says "some". In fact, AFAIK the actual number is currently one (Pieter) and was never greater than two (Pieter and myself-- I resigned from blockstream two years ago and am also not currently involved in Bitcoin development). Regardless, had I been aware of the edit history at the time I would have taken a different approach. Instead of reverting myself to what I believe to be a less accurate state, I thought it would be useful to discuss the edits with you directly. Cheers --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
np, you were there :-) I have no worries except that our crypto stuff has impeccable sources - the best antidote to the firehose of spam - and you've been adding peer-reviewed academic stuff, which is as good as mainstream media RSes - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. To clarify the part about my having a financial stake backing my edits, I don't have any. I'm an employee of AppViewX. We recently hired a new CEO and I wanted to add that information to the page. We also got funded some months back, something I wanted to add as well. If I've inadvertently violated some Wikipedia policy, kindly let me know what it is so that I can either rectify it or refrain from doing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishevitha (talk • contribs) 11:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks for the link to the deprecated blacklist (I would have appreciated that in your first edit, but all good). I just wanted to ask: if the article is by a credible author, can that be overruled? John Coughlan is the main basketball writer in Cork, Ireland, and his articles are posted in various credible places, including the The Irish Examiner and echolive.ie. It appears this post on The Irish Sun is one of his standard weekend recaps, and it's a shame I can't find it on a different website somewhere. All good either way. Thanks in advance. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recently you reverted my edit about the Sun being used as a source.[14]
You stated that The Sun is a deprecated source, should not be used or trusted for any claim, however this is completely false; in the very page that you linked to as justification of it's removal, WP:RSP, states that The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Additionally stated in WP:DEPS, deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source and citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately.
For context, my reference to The Sun was under the Responses subheading, which is used to show the response to the fundraiser from media groups. The Sun article was not used to improve notability, nor to verify any new or exceptional claims. The article was used to verify the tone of the article and the fact that The Sun have written about Team Trees. The content of the article is not used as a source of information for any claims, and no claims in the content are disputed by any other references on the page; which means that they are not lying or making anything up (unless all other sources are doing the same (which I doubt)).
A reason to remove this reference would be if it doesn't improve the page, however I think the reference improves the page by showing that a additional and different type of media group, a tabloid newspaper, responded positively to the fundraiser. To show that a variety of media groups are responding to this fundraiser is something noteworthy and useful in this context, I think. Even a questionable source can may be used for information on itself (WP:ABOUTSELF).
Although I know you have a strong aversion to citing The Sun, the article in question and context it has been cited are not a typical case of unverified claims from a unreliable source.
A list of the topic's entire press clippings collection - as that was - is the sort of thing that non-notable things use to try to puff themselves up as more noteworthy for Wikipedia. The entire list should go, if it can't be used for references. Don't take your cues from spammy Wikipedia articles. And don't bend over backwards looking for excuses to include bad sources.
A list of the topic's entire press clipping collection - as this was not - does not actually relate to the removal of this source (unless you're planning on slowly removing the list bit-by-bit). Rather than bending over backwards to include the bad source, I am bending over backwards to explain why it's a half good source... and also why it should be included. With as low edit count as I do, it's hard to have edited on much else - although Federer does manage to pull me away. Occasionally. Perhaps we can compromise and I can be a Double Purpose Account. Anyway to bring it back, is there a reason why The Sun shouldn't be included under the responses section? Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - that's a list of reasons for notability, and a deprecated source is not evidence of notability. Given the project is almost certainly notable, the entire list is gratuitous. Bluntly, you edit like you work for them on PR. I suggest the talk page of the article for the general concept of the list, and if you really want to make the case for use of a deprecated source then WP:RSN is the correct venue, not my talk page - David Gerard (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David. Thank you for the time that you've spent checking and deleting our article.
For the first time, the main complaint against my article was that it was too "advertising", it contained a lot of insignificant information and had many links to the website of Zecurion.
I tried to correct all these shortcomings, the article turned out to be complete, neutral and 98% of references to sources are independent resources. Yes, I did wrong that I posted this article in the main space right away without submitting it to someone from the community with rich experience like you. I understand this and will never do that again. It is important for me to write this article, because for many years I have seen how this company is trying, it makes many attempts to get into the foreign market and at least get a little closer to the American industry giants. Surprisingly, even such a reputable analytical agency as Gartner has noticed the progress of Zecurion and continues to include it in its reports.
No, I do not get paid for it. The company did not hire me for advertising promotion or something like that. I want to start making a serious contribution to the development of the English-language Wikipedia here in Russia. And I want to write my first full-fledged article on the subject in which I am really well versed.
Now the draft of the article is in my Sandbox. I really want to do the article as neutral and encyclopedic as it possible. And I seriously hope that you will kindly help me and give a support, as you are one of the most advanced and active members of the Wiki-community.
ehh, fair enough. In a couple of those though I couldn't find anything that wasn't the bad source tho (I did look), so I erred on the side of caution. But if you can, that's awesome (and encyclopedically pierced nipples) - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed sources
Hello. I see, you remove many sources from articles, especially The Sun - with incorrect description of changes. I remind you that:
"References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended." [15]. So - discouraged, should (not) be, recommended does not mean must be deleted; there is no absolute prohibition to use this source, this source is not recommended, that's all. There is no consensus for remove The Sun from all articles, so - please stop mass removal of sources. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)00:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I've been removing of late has been literally dead links. If you can find RS links for this stuff, feel free. (And don't be like the editor who's been repeatedly re-adding dead links as 100% top A-class references.)
In any case - The Sun is a source that needs to go. It's not a "source" - it's an anti-source. It's a deprecated source, it's "actively discouraged from being used in any article", as a source it literally can't be trusted, and having a little blue number point to it is deceptive to the reader. If you think you have a case to make to keep it, then my talk page isn't the venue - you need to go to WP:RSN. Can you do that? - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well DG. MarnetteD|Talk02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The incident in question was not a far right conspiracy theory. The network graph contained hundreds of links to source material, 2 of which were to far right websites. That does not make this a "far right conspiracy theory". You can call it a smear attempt, but it had nothing to do with the far right. If you think it did then you would have to give some evidence to back that up. As things stand you've provided nothing of the sort.
Where's your link to the original website? If you can't provide that then you have no evidence of anything. Corbyn has a long track record of associating with terrorists, along with his new hobby of achieving the worst Labour result at a general election in 84 years. I think it's time for him to retire to his allotment, don't you?
Tbh I haven't edited Wikipedia for years, so I thought I was supposed to contact you here. I'm happy to make my point in the article talk page, which I'll do now. You're the one adding nonsensical edits here. I've got nothing to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.2.236 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. Beland (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you re: Bait Ur Rouf Mosque edit
Hi David,
I hope all is well. Thank you kindly for pointing out the depreciated resource that I mistakenly used as a citation. I appreciate the opportunity it has allowed, as I was able to go back to the article and fix it. I'm happy to let you know that I've included a relevant citation now, and wishing you a wonderful day!
Thank you very much! – Journey of Learning (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see at 2012 WTA Tour Championships you simply removed a Daily Mail source calling it deprecated and left nothing in its place. I have been been told through the years by many administrators that this is wrong (depending on the situation). Certainly in some sort of slanderous accusation it would be dumped. Or if no other source could be found to corroborate a sentence. But the deprecation section says "the restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail." Many of the removals are simply tennis match scores. Instead of just leaving "needs source" it would be far far better to simply find a better source and replace the daily mail source. Otherwise the "needs source" might be missed for years until some stickler simply removes the sentence because it hasn't been sourced for years. Please replace, don't remove. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDavid Gerardたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP04:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being that crypto sites pretend to be specialist press but are literally all promoting their owners' hodlings. See discussions linked from WP:RSP#CoinDesk.
Of those, the first two may count as conference proceedings - though actually peer-reviewed would be vastly better. The last appears to be just an upload to arxiv - was it actually published in a journal? - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But for my edification (and potential inclusion in the article-in-question)-- are conference proceedings acceptable? Are references in patents? --Jhfrontz (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
