User talk:David Gerard/archive 17

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

The article Rosegarden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It really isn't a good or suitable source. The "industry" is boosterism. This comes up repeatedly at

WP:GS/Crypto seriously - David Gerard (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The reference to

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]

yeah that's great thanks. Have you considered using better sources, that indicate a given claim is even worth noting? - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 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: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

]

Maybe this is the reason that Coindesk citiations are allowed to remain on Wikipedia? (https://www.forbes.com/sites/coindesk/#21335e867cb3, "CoinDesk is the world leader in news and information about bitcoin and other digital currencies. It also provides real-time bitcoin price data.")(https://quotes.wsj.com/fx/BTCUSD/, usage of Coindesk data for chart population) Or are Forbes and WSJ classed as biased and unreliable sources in your mind also? Metatronsqube (talk) 14:44, 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.

And you just cited a Forbes contributor blog as evidence of a claim about RSes on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

(https://www.coindesk.com/the-sec-case-against-kiks-ico-appears-strong-experts-say, https://www.coindesk.com/as-ico-business-dried-up-this-firms-headcount-fell-from-120-to-50, https://www.coindesk.com/korean-crypto-scam-fleeced-investors-for-over-18-5-million, https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-price-longest-ever-bear-market, https://www.coindesk.com/bearish-cross-hints-at-more-losses-ahead-for-bitcoin-price).. a simple Google search or two. I won't be citing Coindesk again until I understand the process of escalation here better. For now I would like to contribute in peace. It's easy enough to find conflict and negativity in the real world without seeking it here also. Perhaps when I have more understanding of the way that Wikipedia's editorial hierarchies and processes work, I will submit another Coindesk citation, and await your removal of it with better preparation next time. Metatronsqube (talk) 08:35, 23 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]

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]

WP:GS/Crypto - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 25 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]

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.

Mauerwerk (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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! 07:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauerwerk (talk • contribs)

I answered you above. I note also the advertising page for the book has spelling errors, which makes me wonder about it too - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Mauerwerk (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Mauerwerk (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a third-party page, why are you claiming it wasn't "promotional"? - David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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!)

Mauerwerk (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ramize84 (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best thing would be to get a version that clearly passes AFC first, since I see it's been declined previously - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. Ramize84 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

It's definitely not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely concur. Do I need to report the behavior problem to anyone other than you? This was the ninth individual addition of that same article by Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs). Feoffer (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably

WP:FTN might also be a suitable place - David Gerard (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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:RSN not here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

I set up

I'd forgotten that was me! - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah funny that...has happened to me too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

god we've been doing this a while ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Simple? I thought it was Meta.

I went back to the first version and that's what it says ... remember that this was 2004, and a lot of those were actually red links - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, is this the place where I reply about the Hanne Albert page? Regards Ingeborg Wiltoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngeborgWiltoft (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

WP:ELNO is meant to keep external links down to just an official link, maybe a couple - if the references are useful, I'd expect they'd get cited as sources in the article - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Please read this notice carefully.

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.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KMeyer (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you perceive this as some sort of own. I'd suggest trying to work with others - David Gerard (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:KMeyer. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David, I strongly suspect that the image on CryptoKitties articles is not the author's own work. This is the image - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cryptokitty.gif which looks exactly like the original website's logo/gif. I wanted to ask your advice on how best to proceed here. --Molochmeditates (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

yeah, "advocating" probably overstates it - go for it :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 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]

Nevermind, just saw the entry on the

Perennial Sources page. Misread deprecated as "depreciated". Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

yeah, I'll put

WP:RSP in the edit summaries - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

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.

Edit Cards

• On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
• There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
• Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar

• 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.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

• 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.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed a reference to Daily Caller -- and two other completely unobjectional references -- and then added a {{

Please don't do that. It just generates more work for other contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, very sorry! I'll try harder not to do that - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please lift the creation protection on Manika Kaur so I can move Manika Kaur (singer) to that name. The article seems quite well sourced now and she has featured on BBC and ABC (Australia), regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, have at it - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi Dave. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road_(marketplace)&diff=923246848&oldid=923212409 As you left no explanation , what was wrong with that pending change? User is making the same request again which has been accepted. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference link says 2 October, not 1 October as the edit claims - and freeross.org isn't a source for anything - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 27 October 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

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Andy Digley to stop making personal comments [[11]], its makes it hard to justify a report if he is responding to another user.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no prob :-) - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

]

actually, I've raised the issue myself - getting more eyes on the issue is generally a good idea - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Sun_being_used_for_content_on_living_people_again - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 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!

https://news-tunisia.tunisienumerique.com/tunisia-tunisia-issues-central-bank-digital-currency/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancho781 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a user attacks you report them, or at least take it to their talk pages. But please do not de-rail RSN threads with it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a statement of the claim, because ignoring the user doesn't stop the continuous walls-of-text derailing - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then report then for PA's if you think they are making them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Gerard,

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)..

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926565951&oldid=926563085 This change I don't fully agree with, but certainly not for the reasons given in the reversion. I believe the correct text here should be `Forecast Foundation OU` and the board of directors left out. It certainly isn't "unsourced rambling".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augur_(software)&diff=926562036&oldid=926509418 This change includes a source, from an article published in a well known and reputable journal, by a nobel prize winning author that describes prediction markets and their use in depth. This source strongly supports the opening sentence.

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.

I suggest the use of

WP:BROCHURE sourced at least - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

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]

This editor turns out to have been a contractor on the Augur software project, who removed his COI notice from the talk page [12] [13] - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. see section JohnReed 1917.--— Maile (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of unreliable sources listed on

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]

You cite

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

]

Not per

WP:DEPS. Please also stop using fake edit summaries. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BLP overrides that, and the edit summaries aren't fake - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No, nothing validates your removal with false edit summaries I'm afraid. As you well know, deprecated is not synonymous with "should never be used for anything". This is really unacceptably misleading. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally what the word means on Wikipedia, good lord - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally not what

WP:DEPS says as you know. Good lord. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances" - what do words even mean - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 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]

It's clearly sports reporting. As it's a minor claim, backed up by other sources, I think you can sleep peacefully David. --

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]

By the way, characterising DEPS as a "guideline" (i.e. a

WP:GUIDELINE) is also false. That should stop too. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:30, 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]

Get back to me when you're not posting increasingly querulous defenses of The Sun to my talk page. Or keep going and have fun, I suppose - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow you. You are making mistake after mistake, and none of this is related to The Sun or any more false claims you are making about me personally. As an admin you should know much better. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:09, 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]

You keep making this claim that I've already answered. Presumably you enjoy this - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 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]

that's great, you keep having fun - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure playing

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

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 24 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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited June 1969, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you at

None whatsoever that I recall. I don't remember encountering this editor before this at all - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I believe the user below meant to post this here, and not at the notice board. Have fun! Beach drifter (talk) 20:58, 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)

Ah, yes, I didn't realize I had to manually copy that text here. I thought just including it on the top of the noticebord entry would automatically notify the person.

talk) 21:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks User:Beach drifter![reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts at keeping some appropriate level of sanity to our content about crypto-babble. — JFG talk 18:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

WP:ARCA

Apparently you don't get a notification about this ARCA discussion because nobody has listed you there. That seems quite formalistic. Anyway. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

cheers :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=928476570

I'm pretty sure he's talking about you. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith!! - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Micah Zoltu (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerrard,

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 kill 13:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Twitter is not considered a reliable source per

I figured it was a suitable primary source from the event organiser, but yeah - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

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]

Thanks for disclosing. The relevant guideline is

WP:COI - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Everything on Draft:Kim Iversen is backwards, I missed the o vs. e issue on d:Q6408835. Maybe you recall the Iverson PROD. –84.46.52.229 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Edit history merged, draft published, All's Well That Ends Well. –84.46.53.86 (talk) 10:14, 13 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]

goood question ... maybe?

WP:RSN good place to ask - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I found and added an Irish Examiner source for a Coughlan writeup of the game - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 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,

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 (

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.

Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I also note that you

pretty much don't edit on much else - do you have links to the organisation? - David Gerard (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

]

Perhaps the fact that I am a fan of it comes through when I am editing. Thanks for the tips and for the space on your talk page! Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:31, 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.

Please, could you say, what I should do next?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovumGates (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked NovumGates because The company did not hire me for advertising promotion or something like that was the sort of lie that

WP:OUTING and all that. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And you G11'd the sandbox version of the page literally seconds before I could, too :-D - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change the source, don't delete the celebrity, Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.125.193 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry 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|Talk 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David Gerard, please help me, why is this relevant for an encyclopedia? Regards --Serols (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not? Uncontroversial personal details - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realise you removed two links from Oleksandr Usyk, apologies for leaving the second one in there. – ².O.^Boxing 17:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

np :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 20 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.

If you had a point, you'd be making it on the article talk page - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?

If you had a point, you'd be making it on the article talk page. I notice you're not doing that - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak 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. Beland (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

cheers - the article's shaping up well too! - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see at 2012

Yes, sorry, I'd been hitting a string of BLPs then that one. Thanks for catching that - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

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P 04:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sidechain (ledger) RSs

Hi... Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sidechain_(ledger) I'm at a loss as to what constitutes an "RS"; apparently all of the previous citations I provided weren't (and were thus removed). Do any of these count?

• https://fc19.ifca.ai (where this was presented: https://fc19.ifca.ai/wtsc/PowSidechains.pdf ).
• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-94340-4_12
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.04077.pdf

I mean, if we are to exclude exclude all "crypto sites", that kind of limits the discussion, no? Kind of like excluding all "math sites" when you want to talk about a Lagrange multiplier? --Jhfrontz (talk) 20:26, 30 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]

Sorry, I'm not sure of the right place to reply (so I put some stuff over on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sidechain_(ledger) )

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]