If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Softlemonades (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page 2016 Green Party presidential debates and forums, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as primary source-inline and better source, or article templates, such as primary sources and refimprove science, may be used to mark areas of concern: (Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). Please do not remove sources without verifying the exact content and context for inclusion, and use the talk page for any required discussion first. Please note, a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
Optionally, nominate a page for deletion if the information therewithin can be reasonably argued as unworthy detail for encyclopedic concern, rather than removing validly placed sources while referring to the subject matter itself as not notable.
MJHTrailsolid (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and yet, if it wasn't in an RS, it wasn't worth noting, specious talk page templating aside. Do you have an independent third party RS? (That's a yes or no question.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the primary sources citating a statement of fact without a talk discussion or in-line template, and without being bold and removing the content itself, in effect allows for follow up content deletion on subjective basis. It should be noted that other primary sources on that page are still present. No, a third-party source was not sought, as a first party source for this specific circumstance was sufficient to Wikipedia sourcing policy, the citation itself is a simple memorandum of the events.
As has been noted to you before in other warns on this talk, there is also the matter of preserving the page edited and how depreciated sources should still be retained per site policy. MJHTrailsolid (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the opposite of the case. He's claiming "warns" that were also the opposite of the case. Deprecated soures should be removed. If you have a deprecated source, you don't have a source and the claim shouldn't have been present in the first place. He's also adding Fox, which isn't a usable source for politics, but at least it's not specifically deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Careful
If you're going to remove a quote on grounds of WP:DAILYMAIL, you should probably remove the content leading up to that quote, so that we're not left with a sentence that ends "Melissa Anelli said: ".
(Also, I think Anelli / TLC is a reasonable source for an article on JKRiana, regardless of what the Mail said afterward, but I won't fuss if you remove that entire section.) DS (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why you blocked this user without talk or email access, given they've abused neither? I'm not even sure that an indef block is the best course of action. This isn't your ordinary spambot, but rather is someone with a clear conflict of interest, who, at least in the AFD, appears to be trying to understand the proper way to do things, even if they are currently falling way short. I would have thought that additional discussion/instruction might have yielded positive results, or possibly a partial block just from the AFD if they were repeating the same arguments over and over again. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they are literally here for paid advertising and repeatedly pushed spam into the article after it was removed, not to build an encyclopedia. There was no realistic chance of them transforming into a Wikipedian and not a waste of volunteer time cleaning up after the commercial mess they were here to make. Assume Good Faith does not mean In The Face Of The Clear Evidence - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with your assessment, I appreciate your justification for the indefinite block. However, that doesn't explain why you blocked without any appeal access - that kind of extreme "hard block" isn't usually done for spammers AFAIK... I was of the impression that talk page and email are only removed for cause after the user has abused one or the other, or occasionally for blatantly obvious LTAs may be done preemptively. While this account may be a commercial/promotion-only account, it certainly isn't an obvious LTA. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir, I hope you are great can you please restore this page to draft so I will fix the ambiguous text i.e it was looking earlier as COI/advertising, Promotion. I want to make it neutral in all the possible way.
I just wanted to have some clarity on why you deleted the CryptoDickbutts Wiki page on January 1st, 2023 based on deletion criteria A7, G11.
This was my first edit and I was trying to write a wikipedia article for a notable NFT project. Just wanted some feedback on how it met those criteria and how I can make it better so I will be able to revise and publish it again.
Also could you clarify what you mean by "crypto sites"? Does Crypto Sites mean the OpenSea links I had or does that entail other sources? Thank you once again for your time. 104.167.134.73 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use crypto sites as reliable sources. In rare cases, it might be ok to references specific sites that might add additional context, as long as the information is supported by non-crypto sites as well. However, don't rely on any crypto news publications (even CoinDesk, Decrypt, etc.) to establish notability. Please also review WP:GS/CRYPTO to understand general sanctions against crypto. --Molochmeditates (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is absolutely not any sort of policy yet, but Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) is an essay that talks about what's gone well in the past and what hasn't with crypto articles.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gajesh Naik. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest novels (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.
The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Artfi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica Sutta interview deletion
Hi, you just reverted a quite small edit that was previously removed because of a missing source. The comment of the edit explained that the source was there. The source is a "deprecated source" that cannot be generally used, but there are exceptions to that rule, and that is explained on a topic on the talk page (that was already there when you reverted the change). I would expect you to make a mention on the talk page before making such revert if you think that the exception do not apply in this case.
You explain your change saying that: "Epoch times is deprecated, absolutely unusable on a BLP", but in this case the reliability of the source as it is not supporting an external claim, and "even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources".
In this case: the only claim is that she said something on an public interview and the source of this claim is the published interview, the reliability of the source is not important.
Can you point to that precise question with a more precise link?
Following the link provided there are only two mentions of interviews, one of them mentions a similar case and says something like: "It feels like a relatively safe thing to use in [X] article, as it is an interview with [X] himself. I'd avoid using it for a biography of [Y], and it might not be reliable enough to be due in a [different article], but in [X]'s own article it seems safe enough."
So it seems to me, that you seems to make some claims about some resolution that was made that is final, but you are not backing those claims with proper links.
Hello David. I apologise for re-adding the IB Times reference, my aim was to restore the Slope text with a better reference (although that didn't go to well either, so sorry for that as well), and I somehow missed that there was also the removal of the IB Times reference in the previous version.
It is only a coincidence that I've stumbled upon a couple of Crypto articles recently, but I am quickly learning that it is a difficult area, and reliable sources are few and far between! All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle11:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David - you deleted my first Wikipedia article - Epic Cash.
But not only that - you also deleted my User sandbox for Epic Cash! Now the one-week worth of work I put into composing the article is gone! I really don't appreciate it, and consider it an act of pure vandalism. Like, you work on your garden for a week and some stranger comes and plows over it overnight in secret.
The article followed the Wikipedia layout, it was patterned along the Bitcoin, Monero and Litecoin pages and there were no value judgements in the article, just plain facts referenced from reliable sources. The article was actually better and more relevant than Bitcoin, Monero, and Litecoin Wikipedia pages.
If you knew anything about the cryptocurrency space, you would understand why the article was relevant.
There are thousands and thousands of Wikipedia pages like my sandbox-epic:
they just in neutral way and with reliable references cover the subject. Is the page for my smart phone like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moto_X4
an advertisement for Motorola company and my smart phone? No, it is not - it just offers
referenced facts about Moto X4 phone in neutral way. Etc., etc. ...
Literally none of the sources were Reliable Sources that talked about Epic Cash. They were all primary, or to crypto blogs, or not even about Epic Cash. There was also the huge section which was an essay on securities regulations concerning cryptos, none of the cites being anything to do with Epic Cash.
That is: it closely resembled run of the mill crypto spam. I urge you to review WP:GS/Crypto.
It's a speedy, so I've restored it as Draft:Epic Cash with its history intact. I urge you to run it past WP:AFC before it goes live again. You really need solid RSes - finance press, that sort of thing. Crypto press is generally regarded as not reliable sources for Wikipedia. If Epic Cash has actual mainstream coverage, then there's something to base an article on - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Gerard, sorry to bother you on your Talk page but I’ve been trying to reach you about the proposal you weighed in on. Since the discussion about the proposal appears to have concluded, I was wondering if you would be able to implement the changes I suggested? Please let me know if I can be of any help, within the parameters of my COI. CertifiedTurtle (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are conducting research on the reference quality of Wikipedia. You can have a look at the meta page here. As an active Wikipedia member in moderating unreliable sources, I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on the removal of deprecated and blacklisted perennial sources. Specifically, how do you usually decide if you only remove a source (such as here) or both a source and the part of the text that references that source (such as here)?
I'd greatly appreciate your answer! Researcher IDK (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taino Rapper
Hello David I see that you removed a section for the artist on his crypto work. The section was based on the article cited from Endi Puerto Ricos News paper. I cited 2 other articles I found that were speaking on Bosh. What needs to be done to improve it. This was not meant to be spam
Yes I totally understand. The section was mainly cited from Endi (El nuevo Dia) who conducted the interview, which is a reputable newspaper. I have also seen mentions on cointelegraph and coindesk. I will support the section with those 3. Thank You for your remarks Cperez21 (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yep you should avoid CoinDesk (specifically listed on WP:RSP as Generally Unreliable) and CoinTelegraph (another low quality crypto outlet) - stick to the mainstream outlets - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You David I went ahead and checked it. Removed coindesk and instead of having an I/O Coin section for Taino I think the short sentence is sufficient with added citation from Endi. Again thank for your input Cperez21 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted Maria Bakalova edit
Hi, I've reverted your source removal on Maria Bakalova's article. While Page Six is generally unreliable, it can still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, per WP:GUNREL. In this particular case, the article includes an interview with Bakalova's mother and is used as a reference for her parents' names. Still, feel free to change the source if you find a better one to replace it with. Coconutyou3 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
er, no, it's a gossip rag and can't be trusted to say if the sky is blue. Her parents' names are already in the Bulgarian reference. I'd suggest not working so hard to include gossip sections with a history of fabrication - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Gerard. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Harkles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't think neologisms fall under A7. Thank you. BangJan199920:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Gerard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of BullionStar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is surely the difference between "can" and "should", it's a gratuitous additional source anyway. You don't need to shore up any claim with trash sources like Page Six - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes source
Hello, I’m just wondering why you removed the Forbes source stating Sarah Jessica Parkers yearly revenue for her shoe line? You claim it’s unreliable because it’s relying on a blog. Now, my next question is where and which blog is it relying on because absolutely no blog is mentioned. According to WP:RSPSOURCES states Forbes is reliable. I have since then added it back, unless you can show me where and which blog you claim its sales specifically are relying on. Thank you Pillowdelight (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Forbes contributor blog, not an RS (and WP:RSP mentions this wrinkle specifically). The bits of Forbes that are assumed RS from the presumption of editorial review are staff articles and print articles. Forbes seem to deliberately make this confusing - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gotcha, my apologies. I was not aware of that at all.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on NXV requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Submission rejected, possibly by mistake
Hi David Gerard, I noticed that you rejected a draft for Michele Federici on the basis of notability guidelines for persons. However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding. The reason provided, stating that "None of the new sources meet the notability guidelines for persons. Many of the new sources don't even mention him by name," is completely inaccurate. All but one of the twelve links explicitly mention and demonstrate the subject's involvement, either by his name or his usernames, which are also provided in the infobox. These sources are reputable entities in the local and international IT, fintech, and blockchain sectors.
Here's an explanation of the references, that you can easily verify to clarify the matter:
- In$ideparadeplatz is one of the most popular financial blogs in Switzerland.
- Osservatori Digital Innovation is a research department of the University Politecnico di Milano, and CONSOB is the Italian banking authority.
- Aave (Stani Kulechov is the founder) is one of the largest and most significant DeFi platforms, with a current valuation of 5.3 billion.
- CMTA is one of the leading authorities in Switzerland for open tokenized asset standards, compliant with local laws.
- Unicrow is another open source project, the referenced presentation on Twitter Spaces had almost a thousand live attendees and was organized together with Arbitrum, an international leader in the blockchain sector.
- The GitHub and Crates profile demonstrate the public open-source work and involvement with different projects and organizations (including Bitcoin, with both the full bug report and the credits being referenced), as well as published code and packages, that have thousands of monthly downloads.
I believe this information should be considered of enough value for Wikipedia, especially considering that most of the work presented is pioneering, free, and open-source (not commercial).
I kindly ask you, if you can, to review the draft again taking into account the provided sources and their significance in the specific context. 194.230.144.217 (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I also already knew the guidelines, this is not my first contribution to Wikipedia and I'm posting now exactly because I think those references are actually stronger than the average, in their context. With all due respect, this also doesn't answer at all the question about the comment "Many of the new sources don't even mention him by name". Did you actually review the links? 194.230.144.217 (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you put forward involvement in Aave and Unicrow as evidence of notability, let alone his personal github, you didn't understand them - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just additional information and details. The rules mention at least 3 reliable sources, and that should be covered. The Bitcoin bug alone could already be reasonable information for Wikipedia, considering the importance of Bitcoin and that it was one of the most dangerous bugs in its history. It was caught relatively soon, but probably still caused a lot of funds to be locked forever (unfortunatetely impossible to quantify with precision). Directing the digital assets department and obtaining a FINMA license, becoming the world's first regulated crypto bank is another historic achievement. Could you please elaborate further on what's wrong with the page, also about the GitHub profile (same goes for Crates)? I've seen it used as reference in many OSS contributors pages, exactly because it's listing and providing evidence of all the public work and involvement in OSS on the platform, which can't be faked. Contributions, stars, achievements, traffic can't be manipulated.
That's just additional information and details. The rules mention at least 3 reliable sources, and that should be covered. The Bitcoin bug alone could already be reasonable information for Wikipedia, considering the importance of Bitcoin and that it was one of the most dangerous bugs in its history, that potentially caused millions to be locked forever (unfortunatetely the exact number is impossible to quantify). Directing the digital assets department and obtaining a FINMA license, becoming the world's first regulated crypto bank is definitely aanothe historic and unique achievement. Could you please elaborate further on what's wrong with the page, also about the GitHub profile (same goes for Crates)? I've seen it used as reference in many OSS contributors pages, probably exactly because it's listing and providing evidence of all the public work and involvement in OSS on the platform, which can't be faked. Contributions, stars, achievements, traffic can't be manipulated. 194.230.144.217 (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say thank you again for your help on the article Carole Radziwill and I would like to have your point of view about a Wikipedia article (Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky, an American financial analyst and corporate officer, and not a socialite I suppose).
I had deleted the title "Prince" before the name of this person, Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky (1925-2019), at the beginning of his Wikipedia biography, but the term "Prince" has been reinserted. Could you tell me, please, if according to you, we can consider the articles Carole Radziwill and Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky the same in regards to the use of their titles of nobility, titles for persons (not historic characters) who were born at the time where their countries of origin (the monarchical regimes which awarded their titles) were and still are republics (Poland and Russia) ?
I think that the Radziwill and Obolensky families can use their family titles as they want, but for an encyclopedia's article we, Wikipedia contributors, should be academically rigorous and not keep things confusing in conflating courtesy title (meaning here of an abolished monarchy) and official ones (like the titles of nobility of a current monarchy, like the holders of British peerages).
The Wikipedia contributor who changed the beginning of the article Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky, in "Prince Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky" argued for the use of this society title "Prince" (which I disagree with) on the basis of this source: http://russiannobility.org/2019/01/29/passing-of-ivan-sergeievich-obolensky/ (the Russian nobility association which, of course, uses the title Prince to announce the death of one of its member !). This title is genuine but, unlike a surname, cannot stand the time if legally attached to a legally abolished regime.
Do you think that the subject of this article, Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky, can be named academically/at the beginning of an encyclopedia's article with this princely title ? I seek a second opinion for this case...
Thank you very much David for your point of view and advice (and sorry for my few English mistakes, I'm French).
Hi David, Hope you could give your opinion on bit of edit waring thats taking place in Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Its around comments FBI has made about the LTTE in 2008 and two editors seem hell bent on removing these comments they feel is excessive, and sensational [2], [3]. They seem to be so keen to keep these comments off the LTTE page that they are willing to remove content that they until a few days ago were keen to keep [4]. This started with one editor removed without any discussion in the talk page, [5] and now when ever I re-add it even with supporting RS they keep denying it is suitable in the section I add it to or in the article itself. They have put up a major discussion on the talk page and deny that the citations they are removing are RS. Hope you can share your thoughts on the matter. Cossde (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator
Hello, as an administrator your role should partially be to tend to the encyclopedia, and repair it, not cut out chunks. If you disagree with the reliability of a source, tag it in-line, or remove and replace with a CN tag, or take it to the talk page. When content like this is likely to be true, you're just causing conflict and degrading our content by wholly removing it. This is how articles fall apart - small cuts and poor edits over time. Please help maintain this article's quality in a more holistic way. ɱ(talk)16:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this is an adequate response? I did not defend any of those sources either, so I am not sure why you're misdirecting the conversation. ɱ(talk)01:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You deliberately added (re-adding is adding) content with a quote from a source that was called out in detail in the RFC for fabricating quotes, for example. You think that agreeing with you on editorial matters is my responsibilty as an admin. This isn't the case - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rational kind response to my plea to improve, not degrade, content in articles. I ended up doing just that for you. Sure it's a collaborative encyclopedia, but if you have a problem with a reference, that's your problem to address, not mine. And again, I run into articles that are degraded all the time, with countless sources removed, instances of vandalism, editors reworking text or layout mistakenly thinking they're helping, and COI editor trash. It's a herculean effort to restore. Please don't contribute to it. ɱ(talk)14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hope you're doing well. I noticed that the full protection at People's Party (Spain) was set to indefinite, while your comment here indicated an intended duration of a week. Just wanted to let you know in case that was an oversight, or if you were intending to lower the protection manually. (I haven't actually reviewed the article's history or the content dispute.) DanCherek (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Brown (author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
Hi. You removed a deprecated source that was used as a a primary source describing its own viewpoint. But I wonder if that's appropriate. Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:EC66:1952:E8DF:3783 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no, not really? we don't care about a viewpoint in the most unreliable sources we know of - WP:NPOV requires we only cover viewpoints in RSes. If the viewpoint is covered in RSes, use those instead - David Gerard (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New created account, blancking a section of article and reintroduce Blacklisted site
Hello David, new created account Datamonkey18 reverted your edit and reintroduced a RT link as a source, despite RT being a depreciated source. See here. Also he have blanked on his POV some content of the article. Could you protect the page for only Extended Accounts? Mr.User200 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unless uncontroversial or undisputed, that sanctions regime (with its required WP:ECP) should be invoked for anything about that topic area. El_C16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rohit Gandhi 123
Rohit Gandhi 123, which you blocked, is very definitely a sock of someone - but I'm at a blank at whose sock it is. I know that they were on simpwiki, but that's all I remember right now, so I'll hit up a simpwiki admin and get back to you once they reply. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grumpylawnchair (talk) has given you a large glass of milk, for assisting with a very messy article. Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, cool, refreshing goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Glass of milk}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
RfC: La Patilla
Hi. I started the thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#La Patilla, RfC closing review before knowing there was an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. While that post can provide more context, I wanted to ask for questions on the closure too, besides agreeing that there wasn't a consensus for deprecation, as likewise four editors considered that the source either was reliable or have further consideration. Namely, I wanted to ask about the specific content that influenced the closure, since many of its examples to argue for its deprecation were responded, as well as a clarification on WP:USEBYOTHERS: as the examples I provided of the use of the outlet by reliable sources cited it uncritically, and only 2 out of 25 (if I'm not mistaken) used the description "opposition", I wanted to ask what "negative examples" in the closing statement meant.
I personally think that having the clasification under "additional considerations apply" or "no consensus" would address all of the issues mentioned during the discussion, including attribution, the outlet's bias, conflicts of interest and republications. I would kindly ask to consider this, as well as your thoughts on this. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it is too late to comment, but I started a related thread at AN. With several discussion and assuming you would follow the noticeboard, either I forgot to comment or took for granted that you would be in the loop. I'm very sorry, I did not mean you to not be properly notified and did not expect for it to have so much participation. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannnot agree with your removal, rather than editing to clarify, the content around a citation of the Hanania essay at that article. It can and should be presented as a set of personal declarations and claims (thus removing any suggestion we might view the content as factual, or agree with his self-declarations). The source, however, and the fact that he felt compelled to argue its contents, are relevant encyclopedic content (whatever we might feel about the author). Otherwise, the likes of Mein Kampf, et al., might also be suitable for removal, here, in our distaste.) Cheers. (a former prof) 98.46.111.99 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article Native American Guardians Association has sunk to the level of personal attacks upon me. During my years of active editing of the articles on the Native American Mascot Controversy, I never had to deal with this, and would like your advice and perhaps assistance.
Since I have posted a PROD, the eventual resolution of this issue will be to delete the article. In the meantime, the disruptive editor could be banned. In splite of my 15+ years of editing, I create content 99% of the time, and have little experience with administrative issues. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snooki & Jwoww
Hi. Please do not remove citations from articles without a valid rationale, as you did with this edit to Snooki & Jwoww. The sources in question are indeed the ones from which those passages were derived, as I wrote them back in 2012. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NYPOST is Generally Unreliable per a broad general RFC, and thus not usable under WP:BLP which is policy - and was policy in 2012. Particularly as it's Page Six, a tabloid gossip page, and I can see hardly any circumstance in which that would be usable for claims on a BLP. It was never valid, not now and not then, and should never have been added. I urge you to revert your BLP-violating edit - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Riddrie
Thanks for drawing attention to The Sun unreliability. I managed to find another newspaper (apparently considered reliable) so added the item about Stephen Purdon being schooled in Riddrie, back but put in a new citation. I hope that's all good now.
David, if you want to remove New York Post citations, that's fine, and welcome. Do not, however, remove uncontroversial and potentially citable content just because it happens to be supported by such citations, unless that content has previously been tagged as needing a better source. If it has not, then tag it as needing a source yourself. If I find you continuing to remove such content itself, rather than just removing deprecated sources, I will absolutely seek an editing restriction against this conduct at WP:ANI. BD2412T21:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, David! Thanks for replacing bad sources with a more reputable publication over at Wednesday Martin. However, I was wondering if you might be willing to revisit this discussion at Talk:Wednesday Martin, where I've proposed replacement text which actually reflects what The New York Times says. If you (or User:pburka) are not interested in revisiting the discussion, I can add Template:Edit COI for review by another editor.
saw that - I've been stupidly busy (I'm moving house) hence fewer edits in past week, but I'll find a moment to put my editing where my mouth is on this one :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your and Tim's comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360#Survey (Crunchbase News) are prompting me to ask you the following directly. I'm thinking that Crunchbase may be reliable and thus of starting a discussion at RS/N, but I thought I'd ping you first, as I think you could change my mind if you wanted to. Tim was saying back then in 2021 what has been my impression - that it's generally reliable. I look at their site, and they let investment firms edit, and that they vet. That's hardly anyone. [edit -oops- they allow entrepreneurs too - just noticed as I'm finishing this note!] Still, they claim what amounts to providing vaguely journalism - like editorial oversight and corrections :
"AI and Machine Learning
Crunchbase has artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms that validate data accuracy, scan for anomalies, and alert our data science team of conflicts in the data.
The Human Touch: Our Data Team
Crunchbase data analysts are the experts who provide manual data validation and curation. Our team also analyzes key interconnections in our data to develop algorithms, and provide valuable insights."
I agree with what you said in 2021 (IIRC) - it should not be allowed to be used for notability, but to my knowledge, it is a useful and reliable source, as to facts, and wikipedia, as Tim notes (please do read his comment).
So, do you think it's worth allowing or at least a discussion at RS/N? Or is the status quo essential to keeping spammy stuff at bay? Last discussion was in 2019 (other than on the news side, which didn't address the main deprecation). I see they no longer say they allow anyone to edit anymore, and the AI/ML is surely new too. RudolfoMD (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds way too close to pay-for-play, and their eagerness to cram AI into the editing process would place them with other LLM output at absolute best - even if not formally deprecated, they'd be pretty generally unreliable just from that. I mean it's nice there's a human there at all, but even tech sites would generally do a lot better than that. Maybe I'm wrong though - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response!
Re. "pay-for-play": I don't follow ... oh, when they say "investment firms can edit" you think they're saying folks giving THEM money can edit? No, that's not what they mean. They mean VCs can edit. I can see nothing at all close to pay-for-play other than that possible misreading. Something I'm missing? I don't think so.
Also, my reading is that the AI/ML is doing what they say, "validate data accuracy, scan for anomalies, and alert our data science team of conflicts in the data." - not using an LLM to create content. Also, IIRC, google ranks crunchbase quite highly.
mmm. I'm just not very convinced that Crunchbase News is all that independent of who it covers ... I admit I'm being a bit vibes-based there.
One useful thing about Crunchbase - a fresh crunchbase.com link in a Wikipedia article is a strong signal for spam. I occasionally check for fresh Crunchbase links and the additions generally look like promotion, in many cases I would guess paid. Not in a lot of cases, but enough to expect it - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No (hopefully yes)
There’s a recent AfD discussion started on No and you’re the most knowledgeable person on 1980s Australian alternative music scene that I know, so I was hoping that you might point me to some reliable sources to confirm the band’s notability. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Dan arndt (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Woke up today ready to blank that section on Brave (web browser) that was only sourced from shoddy crypto reporting—but you beat me to it. I sleepily played around with that section way too much last night trying to make it read ok, and never bothered to actually think about the sources I was resummarizing. Oops!
Also leaving this comment because I wanted to mention how intriguing that Martini recipe looks. Rare enough to come across a 2:1 spirit to vermouth recipe these days, but blending the spirits is something I've never thought of, outside of the Vesper cocktail which has never impressed me. I'm curious if there are particular bottles you recommend. Handpigdad (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't actually had one in ... nineteen years?! I clearly need to make one again - just to check it doesn't suck. Anyway, the whole point of cocktails is to make bathtub ingredients drinkable, so theoretically you can't go wrong! - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds long overdue! I very much agree with your philosophy about what cocktails for. I honestly can't believe that I've allowed the obsession with precious bottles and precision that drove the cocktail boom of ten years ago to express itself through me. I spent years at parties and bars rolling my eyes about the guys who argued about which hundred dollar bottle made for the version of a basic drink, and here I am doing it! Anyway, I just hope we both get to enjoy a great cocktail soon. Have a great day. Handpigdad (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David... I am one of the founders of the startup whose page was deleted and I have been trying to write this page to meet the article criteria of Wikipedia. I have answered the question about whether I am paid to edit as requested. The answer is no, I am just a co-founder of the startup. I have also made the requested declaration on my profile User:Hatter.glass of conflict of interest as recommended by another editor some time ago.
The page has been rewritten multiple times per the feedback of other editors and I have asked for assistance in how this should be done which has only resulted in being given links to guideline articles which I have tried to follow again and again.
I have even run the content through ChatGPT to get guidance on how it should be written to provide a balanced and encyclopedic overview of the subject.
Once again, I have seen actions taken with no actual feedback on how to improve the content or the page.
The statement that it is unambiguous advertising could therefore be applied to almost every page in the same subject category, eg: Ripple_Labs, Stellar_(payment_network), SWIFT etc or even the page for reality tv show Space_Hero.
Could you explain to me the differences between the paywith.glass page and these other pages in a manner that is specific to the changes that need to be made to the paywith.glass page to meet the criteria for publication? Hatter.glass (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument at Wikipedia. But those have tended to get extensive coverage in solid mainstream financial sources - not just a pile of press releases, press release reprints or references that aren't actually about the subject of the article. When paywith.glass is actually noteworthy enough to have people in solid mainstream financial sources writing about it without action on your part, then that is more likely to generate sources that are regarded as evidence of notability for Wikipedia - because that would actually be notability - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David, I don't know how you define noteworthy but paywith.glass is currently powering the digital asset economies of two nation states with two more being developed in the background.
If you have a look at these you will see what I am referring to:
The nature of this kind of infrastructure is that it will not itself be the subject matter of many articles in the mainstream press. Instead the effects of it will be covered in the mainstream press as it leads to financial system transformation. It is asset agnostic, there is no native currency and it is deployed by consortia. Our job is to make sure it works and then stay out of the way.
For this reason then, I am genuinely asking for your recommendation/suggestion on how the publication of something that is clearly creating an impact in major economies but itself is not a sexy tangible topic like a new app (it enables apps) or some new celebrity product, should be written on wikipedia? Hatter.glass (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at your bio. You are clearly no stranger to the subject matter. Maybe you should have a read of our light paper and if you don't mind, could you give me a few pointers on what I have done wrong with this article.
Hi David Gerard regarding recent removal of The Sun source on Dermot Malone- is any instance of The Sun ineligible for sourcing? No big deal about this one as I am sure I can find other background on him it just looked like a neutral profile vs most of the gossip from Sun. Cheers. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a deprecated source, so it should almost never be used for anything. Even if something looks good, the consensus from the RFC is that we just do not trust The Sun - it's too given to lying about big and small things that being good today isn't sufficient. So basically no, we can almost never base anything about a living person on The Sun. The WP:THESUN listing on WP:RSP is a summary of the original RFC, which lists a pile of examples of just how terrible a source it is. If you think you have a use case for The Sun, run it past WP:RSN - who will almost certainly disagree, especially on a WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bitget, Kucoin, HTX
Hi, David. I invented following aim: fill on the Wiki pages for exchanges from top 10 ranking according to Coinmarketcap. But unfortunately as I see I cannot do it due to lack of permission. They all are protected from creation. What should I do then? And how can I check their previous versions to evade G4 (recreation with same content). I had similar experience before with admin User:JBW on Mykola Udianskyi article recently. I am experienced, I created 4 articles since September. I open to get new exp how it works etc. Thank you.
So, being top-10 on Coinmarketcap doesn't mean they pass WP:NCORP. Particularly for anything crypto-related, they need non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources - which in this case likely means mainstream financial press, and not crypto sites or minor fintech blogs reprinting press releases. If you have sufficient genuinely mainstream non-press-release coverage of these exchanges, your article will likely pass at WP:AFC - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antonio Vinzaretti: Having received a notification of your mentioning me here, I have had a look into matters connected to what you have said.
Let me first mention that following up your mention of me in relation to Mykola Udianskyi, I discovered that in the deletion discussion for that article you said that I "explicitly said that g4 doesn't apply". I did not: in fact I explicitly said that in my opinion G4 does apply, but rather than risking getting into futile arguments about whether it does at a deletion review, I regarded it as easier to take it to another AfD.
I have looked at the deletion discussion for Kucoin, and searched for evidence of notability. What I found did not give me any impression that the business satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so re-creating the article would probably be a waste of time. Interestingly, the particular aspect Kucoin for which I found by far the most extensive coverage was the fact that it has been operating illegally in various countries, with the single most covered incident being New York State's court action against Kucoin because of its illegal activity. Since that is by far the aspect of the company which has most coverage in reliable independent sources, if an article about the business were to be created, in order to give balanced coverage in relation to how the subject appears in reliable sources, that should be a major focus of the article. If you do wish to try to get an article on the subject established, then I suggest putting some effort into covering that aspect. However, my advice is to forget it and move on to other things, because as I said it doesn't look to me as though the business satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. I have not done a similar analysis of two the other topics you mentioned. However, I wonder why you are focusing so much on recreating articles previously deleted at AfD. Obviously by doing so you are biasing your work towards subjects which have previously been found unacceptable, and are therefore likely to be found unacceptable again. It would make more sense to put the same effort into subjects which are more likely to be kept. JBW (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to meet you again, James! Sounds challenging. It is not my fault that Ukraine, UK and crypto-related subjects which I created recently was under AfD or salting like in this kucoin, htx and bitget case. Looks like everything what I start think was deleted before me like admins addict to cleanup everything. I just learn how wiki works even in this field. For me no interesting to fix grammar on random article. For me its a fame to create something important, which I can tell friends. I will start collect info for 3 articles in my sandbox and then ping you one more time again. Sorry if I bother, not be strict pls. Btw I am a Binance and KuCoin user. Should I specify COI when I create the page of new Binance CEO Richard Teng or KuCoin? I dont know, let me know. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Notability - when I mention ranking by Coinmarketcap I just tell how I created aim. I think I'll take a challenge to create all top exchanges who hasnt article yet. May to you crypto looks like a scam, but to me its part of life. I think full listed of my aims will be bitget, kucoin, new ceo Binance Richard Teng, HTX, Bithumb, and 3 ukrainians local exchanges like Kuna, Qmall, WhiteBIT. I'm not gonna say they all notable, lets discuss when I'll create. I has no clue rign now, but dont judge me too early lol. Thank you Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found some time to conquer the wiki. I re-considered on notability subjects from my wishlist. Kuna isnt valid according to .WP:NCORP so I won't move forward on it. But other top10 KuCoin, HTX, Bitget, 2 local WhiteBIT, Qmall and Richard Teng I'll try to build sustainable articles. Sorry for disturb. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. I sorted out that HTX is already exist on Huobi name. I haven't access to move the page to different new name HTX, can you please do it? They rebranded in September 2023. Also now I created Bitget but on different name due to no access. Please take a look and review my efforts. I move forward and will continue the work on other declared subjects. Interesting to me Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved that too :-) I would suggest removing the pure crypto sites from the references (Coindesk, the NFT site, any others) and the blog cites. The cites from mainstream finance press should be OK - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, David. Article nominated by someone to speedy deletion under G4. I have no access to see how my article Bitget violates that. It means articles significantly same? How can I be sure and check if I violated anything from G4 in this case. I have no idea. So I should aware G4 on KuCoin too? For example, how can I check KuCoin's content on former articles to avoid G4? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I really should have noticed that, given that I pressed the button to delete it and protected the page ... sorry if you feel like you're going around in bureaucratic circles) - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better just move to mainspace, then replace speedy deletion g4 to AfD? Or I can just submit review this draft and ask you take a look? I'm confused a little bit. And my question on KuCoin again from my latest comment "How can I be sure and check if I violated anything from G4 in this case. I have no idea. So I should aware G4 on KuCoin too? For example, how can I check KuCoin's content on former articles to avoid G4?" Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I submitted Bitget to review. I feel that my interes not even appreciated, cause someone just got rejected Draft without even leaving any comment. Won't move forward on other exchanges...Looks like I am alone. I saw you are member of WikiProject Cryptocurrencies, it will be kind if you pay some attention, thank you. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delay, I've been away from editing for a week! Looking at some stuff today ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
So it's quite clear (it even went to a third AFD) that the Wikipedia community does not want an article on Bitget as yet. For any such article to pass AFC, it would have to be very high quality - enough to convince others in the face of this. I would suggest leaving the topic alone for now - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, David. It's "Antonio Vinzaretti". I wonder why you not noticed that 3rd AfD was started by me? I started it because I wanted to bring other fellows to participate and take a look on my article. But everyone refused to talk regarding my version of the article and repeating CSD G4 (WHY?!). Might can I ask you take a look in archive logs on my version on the article and former's and help me to sorting out? I won't WP:BLUDGEON, but TBH can you recreate my article into the draft? I not saved it, I want improve and let community continue. They (Bitget）are controversial like Binance, no? BTS, OSL, sanctions, fraud on evan luthra? Antonioooo V (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hi, let's discuss things in the talk page of "William Entriken" regarding the the subject. I will create a few different topics in it to go over within the next day.
A preview of what I'd like to discuss:
1. Possible merge of certain content with the "ERC-721" article. (You stated articles about ERC-721 not mentioning Entriken as if that makes it not directly relevant to the subject, but that's like saying coverage of Harry Potter has nothing to do with J.K. Rowling (or any other book and author). Similarly some articles sourced about ERC-721 projects don't explicitly mention ERC-721 by name yet they are dependent on the solution and are thus still directly related. And just to note, the "ERC-721" article was created after the "William Entriken" article, I did not create the former article. They coincidentally emerged around similar times lol.)
2. Characterization of the coverage being imbalanced or impartial (i.e an advert or non-encyclopedic)
3. Uncontroversial claims being cited from "questionable" / not-high quality sources (i.e crypto outlets or other sources involving interviews of the subject)
I think you don't understand Wikipedia sourcing and what goes into an article. Hence the extremely strong impression that you are editing here on a paid promotional basis - your articles read like spam. At absolute mininum, you need to read and understand the reasons forWP:GS/Crypto. Per the notice on your talk page, you need to address your status as an editor before making further edits - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can address my status publicly as an editor.
I ask you to be respectful and assume good faith here sir. Right now I feel you are treating me with hostility and assuming the worst. I don't agree with your assessments regarding my writing, and you have already rendered judgement before discussing things with me on the talk pages. Let's please work together here in a civil way as I have expressed openness to discuss and collaborate. Codeconjurer777 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded, created several threads and elaborated on several points in great detail.
Even though you mentioned me not providing long responses and urged me to just do things standard, my explanations are comprehensive in good faith, and are relevant in raising valid points for my position. The length is not intended for obfuscation; I didn’t *mean* for the length of things to turn as extended as it may have come out, but that emerged in attempting to thoroughly encapsulate my position within what is "reasonably concise" (meaning it’s not 20 pages long). I don't intend on replying with an essay each time I respond to something if it doesn't serve a viable purpose, but I stand by what I have provided so far.
I do ask you to read through these things I have presented when you have time and not to dismiss it off-hand simply because it is inconvenient to spend time doing so. While the contents may be relatively lengthy, it is not “spam”, it is thoughtfully construed and makes detailed references to my interpretations to Wikipedia's content guidelines and core policies. I am NOT assuming that because I took the time to write it, sourced information from Wikipedia guidelines, and that because some of my explanations are long and thoughtful that it must be right and you must agree with it, no, merely that it is worth taking seriously for due consideration.
Please also note that I am not rushing you, I am not editing warring you, I am not pressuring you to make changes or reverts; I am making efforts to be civil, collaborative and constructive. As I noted in my Statement of Non-COI (which was necessary as per your request to set the record straight), I am not being paid to do this, so I wrote everything literally on my own time because I believed it important and necessary to do so to improve the articles and perhaps a precedent for others in Wikipedia.
Hello, how are you verifying whether a source is deemed "not reliable." In my assertation, the two sources I have cited are reliable. If we have a disagreement, you should initate a discussion proposal in the talk section before making a speedy deletion. Your edit history seems to show you have a habit of making serial deletions without discussion. Need I remind you the proper mindset is to first consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. Perhaps it would be more constructive if you would help find some solid RSes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebuttka (talk • contribs)
You are just referring to a generic wikipedia policy. By that same measure, just because you have a feeling a source is unreliable doesn't make it that way. Please provide some additional verification to vouch for your pov regarding PJ Media, Charisma news.
While I'm here, is there any chance you'd be alright with filling out some questions here? I don't think we've interacted before but I definitely think you count as an experienced editor. :) Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted a cited reference which supports a statement in this article, unlike the other references. The article in this publication is neither redundant or unreliable. Please restore the reference and discuss on the article talk page. Your edit is disputed.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post is so unreliable it was nearly deprecated. A statement cited to an extremely unreliable source is not in fact well enough cited. For an encyclopedia, we should actively not care about a low-rent gossip rag writing up what it thinks is a "crazy" sounding name. I'm at a loss to think how that would do any service to a reader. I've removed the claim as well - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Daily News has not been deprecated. I checked before I originally listed it. This is an article that quoted naming experts on current trends. The article is neither redundant or unreliable. Again, your edits are disputed and this is a matter that needs to be discussed on the talk page. Please restore the cited material and the reference. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that it is not listed as a deprecated source; the news article quotes naming experts and is reliable. I object to your removal of the material and the citation and ask again that you restore both and discuss it on the talk page of the article. Yes, additional sources can probably be found for the statement but it’s not necessary because it was already cited. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-Up on Jay Sures Page
Hello. I’m a COI editor working with United Talent Agency. I wanted to follow up on your removal of Jay Sures’ bio info (wife and kids’ names) due to the Page Six sourcing. I understand they are not a preferred source, but it is my understanding if it is the only source available (which it is), that in very limited cases, such as basic biographical info, Wikipedia has made the exception that "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Given there is no other public sourcing available, would you be willing to reinstate the language? EWChristine (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he puts it on an official site or similar, that would be a self-published source - we prefer third-party, but self-published is much more trustworthy than Page Six :-) But I also found [6] which covers their marriage, and I've put that in - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request for editor assistance on Digital Currency Group
Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Per WP:RSOPINION Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Opinion statements in deprecated sources are permitted per this.SanAnMan (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think removing a deprecated source is "censorship", then you need to urgently review WP:V and WP:RS and should probably stop trying to use talk page templates until you do. Also WP:BURDEN, which applies to you knowingly adding a deprecated source after it was removed - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING; Please stop vandalising my edits. You have little knowledge regarding the world class journalists that are employed by tabloids in the UK. If you repeat your uninformed reversals, sanctions will undoubtedly follow. Jaymailsays (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needle mushroom dry ski mat is the latest dry slope material that physically exists on earth
Hello Mr. David Gerard, Merry Christmas!
I found that you closed my topic about Needle mushroom dry ski mat from a few years ago. I would like to express a few of my opinions for your reference:
1. We should be discussing the emergence of new material, rather than discussing which brand has the most online exposure as can be listed in Wikipedia.
2. Needle mushroom dry ski mat is a kind of dry ski mat that is different from comb and brush style. It has indeed come to our earth. It is not a virtual existence.
3. Needle mushroom dry ski mat, represented by the JF DRY SKI brand, has produced many cases in countries outside the UK and is a government investment project. It was even used on the slopes of the International Ski Federation FIS World Cup.
Dear Mr. David Gerard, I am a Canadian who has lived in the UK for many years. I learned to ski on dendix dry slope and snowflex dry slope. I am grateful to the British for their invention of dry ski and their contribution to mankind. In addition, I have also studied dry ski for many years and am now engaged in dry ski slope design. I can answer all technical questions related to dry skiing. We should encourage the invention of new dry ski materials rather than copying existing products.
I agree with your point of view that the Global Times has no credibility. I mistakenly believed that the incident itself was true, but it was published in unreliable media. --Dog150 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
