This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard .

Past talk: 2004 2005a 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Happy New Year!

David Gerard,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Reston5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G1, meme https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/activate-reston5

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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]

Hey, David Gerard. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Hope you are doing well. I'd like to know If any hidden purpose to delete the newest article on Gregory Duralev's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasputin2024 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 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]

depreciated sources should still be retained per site policy What do you mean by that? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:39, 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]

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]

whoops, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 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]

I'm still utterly unconvinced it'll go anywhere useful, but sure, I'll remove the talk/email block - David Gerard (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I need some assistance with the editing of a page relating to a Maltese entrepreneur. Can I discuss this with you @David Gerard? DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:49, 23 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.

Dhanireddy Sudharshan Reddy IntelisMust (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored at Draft:Dhanireddy Sudharshan Reddy - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice on not using MBFC as a source for the article Live Science. I'm a new editor, and am learning the ropes - this was actually my first real edit. Neutron jf (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, hope you are doing well!

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.

Thank you for your time! :D 0 MoneyMitch 0 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly that there was no sourcing in reliable sources whatsoever - it was crypto sites and tweets. All the RS sourcing was not about CryptoDickbutts.

You need a page that's sourced entirely to mainstream high quality sources where the sourcing is actually about CryptoDickbutts.

I've restored the page at Draft:CryptoDickbutts if you want to keep working on it - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh okay I see. I'll go and fix it now so it will include this. Thank you very much for the clarification! 0 MoneyMitch 0 (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest running it through Articles For Creation for a second opinion before taking it live again - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll be sure to do this David thank you once again for the help and explanation! 104.167.134.73 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Great! Thank you very much for the info! 0 MoneyMitch 0 (talk) 22:47, 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.

Most things about Wikipedia's attitude to cryptos makes more sense when you realise the whole area's been a firehose for spam - David Gerard (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 17:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that templating me for flagging what appears to be a massive COI on your part will not work for you - David Gerard (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Vietnamese with Taiwanese nationality, please change the picture for this entry, thank you!

File:Peter Nguyen Van Hung 2015-12-13 a.jpg → File:Peter Nguyen Van Hung 2015-12-13 b.jpg

--George Bui (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock of LTA User:Nipponese Dog Calvero. Favonian (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, for this revision, I'm curious how [1] is not valid to verify that someone starred on a program? Thank you J04n(talk page) 17:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of longest novels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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.

Why? I Ask (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

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.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.

Please, revert your reversal. Thanks.Eloyesp (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This precise question just came up recently on WP:RSN. The answer is: no, we don't trust deprecated sources for interview quotes either - David Gerard (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

On the other hand... who are "WE" that make that claim? - Eloyesp (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400#Is_the_New_York_Post_reliable_when_used_for_a_direct_quote? - that's a GUNREL source, but the same applies. If you think you can argue that there's no "we" on this point of not trusting deprecated sources for quotes, you should take it to RSN, but I predict you will be told we don't trust deprecated sources for quotes - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate entities with their own entries in WP:RSP. My edit to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources was prompted by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Amigao keeps mass deleting content and sources; pages originally published on the RIA Novosti website several years before Sputnik existed were moved to Sputnik and the URLs in the citations had been updated by a bot. Peter James (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hm, fair enough. I also asked about its status on RSN - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's a tricky one. There's an essay (NOT YET A GUIDELINE) on the topic: Wikipedia:Notability_(cryptocurrencies). But basically, sticking to mainstream finance press is the way - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 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. ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FreemanIntel (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

but I was there so the reference to the sun and mirror articles is incidental as it was a first hand account Willwatts23 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you posted "Lots of celeb blogs here ..." Do you have some suggestions on how I can improve the article? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stick to solid mainstream WP:NEWSORG-type sources - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, for future reference, could you link me to the RSP that points to Ad Fontes being an unreliable source. Thanks...Unnecessarily (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there on WP:RSP#Ad_Fontes_Media. There's a limit to which other editors can reasonably be expected to read for you after they've given you the page - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I missed it on that. Quite an interesting list🤔

Unnecessarily (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also I appreciate the condescension, nice one 👍Unnecessarily (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome! - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard:, Can you please restore Yam Karkai or at least draftify it so I can improve it? If it looked like unambiguous advertising or promotion, that was definitely not my intention. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sure, it's back now at Draft:Yam Karkai - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 25 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]

Hello @David Gerard!

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]

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

Thank You Cperez21 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - just be sure not to use articles from low-quality sources, such as crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Ok let me review the list. Thank you Cperez21 (talk) 19:49, 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]

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. BangJan1999 20:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, I've endorsed the PROD - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 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]

no problem, it's back in draft and that's the place for it at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the Jackie Evancho article can cite these per WP:GUNREL, as they are non-controversial descriptions of published album itself. If you like, we could add a reference to the liner notes to back this up, per MOS:ALBUM#Sourcing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:09, 25 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]

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.

Pillowdelight (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it catches people a lot! If it says "Contributor" or "Former Contributor", it's just a blog post - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I wrote David Gerard (author). Please make any changes you want if I got something wrong. Maine 🦞 03:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol, per wikipedia rules I can't touch it ;-) I'm sure others will. Did you know I previously failed AFD? - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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]

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 suggest reviewing WP:GNG and subject-specific notability guidelines, also WP:IRS - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 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]

Apology for the double message, I copy pasted two times by mistake. 194.230.144.217 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, I hope you are doing well !

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).

Regards,

Philotam (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Hypothetical,_dissolved_and_defunct_titles says not to use inactive titles. So unless a title is actually an active title, it shouldn't be in the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer and for the link. Philotam (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

WP:ONUS, and if you think a gossip site like Page Six is usable as a source for anything then you have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 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]

Error on my part! It's unprotected now. Hopefully everyone's come to some agreement - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenneth Brown (author), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wikipedia:Deprecated sources states, in its section entitled "Acceptable uses of deprecated sources": "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." That strikes me as pretty clear. In light of that, perhaps you will reconsider, and revert your deletion? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:EC66:1952:E8DF:3783 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This means examples such as (Almost) Straight Outta Compton. Is the deprecated source you want to cite literally the article subject itself? - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I see El C got onto it :-) yeah, WP:GS/RUSUKR is appropriately strong medicine to apply here - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 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_C 16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I assumed it quacked like a paid spammer with a long history of accounts behind it. I'm utterly unsurprised though - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered the account I was thinking of - it's Alisa Genevieve. I mean, just look at the two accounts' edit summaries. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to remove this from your userpage, for obvious reasons. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OH NO - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A glass of milk for you!

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!

Thanks for your help on Jacobsen syndrome!

Spread the lovely, cool, refreshing goodness of milk by adding ((subst:Glass of milk)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

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 think if you want it reversed, the procedure has been outlined - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reliability of La Patilla closure review. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]