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)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Reston5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
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)
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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)
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)
depreciated sources should still be retained per site policyWhat do you mean by that? Robby.is.on ( talk) 10:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Greetings! I wrote David Gerard (author). Please make any changes you want if I got something wrong. Maine 🦞 03:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on NXV requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You may want to remove this from your userpage, for obvious reasons. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
I cannnot agree with your removal, rather than editing to clarify, the content around a citation of the Hanania essay at that article. It can and should be presented as a set of personal declarations and claims (thus removing any suggestion we might view the content as factual, or agree with his self-declarations). The source, however, and the fact that he felt compelled to argue its contents, are relevant encyclopedic content (whatever we might feel about the author). Otherwise, the likes of Mein Kampf, et al., might also be suitable for removal, here, in our distaste.) Cheers. (a former prof) 98.46.111.99 ( talk) 23:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The creator of the article Native American Guardians Association has sunk to the level of personal attacks upon me. During my years of active editing of the articles on the Native American Mascot Controversy, I never had to deal with this, and would like your advice and perhaps assistance.
Since I have posted a PROD, the eventual resolution of this issue will be to delete the article. In the meantime, the disruptive editor could be banned. In splite of my 15+ years of editing, I create content 99% of the time, and have little experience with administrative issues. WriterArtistDC ( talk) 00:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not remove citations from articles without a valid rationale, as you did with this edit to Snooki & Jwoww. The sources in question are indeed the ones from which those passages were derived, as I wrote them back in 2012. Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 13:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing attention to The Sun unreliability. I managed to find another newspaper (apparently considered reliable) so added the item about Stephen Purdon being schooled in Riddrie, back but put in a new citation. I hope that's all good now.
Best wishes Pineapple Dolly PineappleDolly ( talk) 16:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is left-wing not written on the Wikipedia page of left-wing media channels? Subham7063.wiki ( talk) 17:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
David, if you want to remove New York Post citations, that's fine, and welcome. Do not, however, remove uncontroversial and potentially citable content just because it happens to be supported by such citations, unless that content has previously been tagged as needing a better source. If it has not, then tag it as needing a source yourself. If I find you continuing to remove such content itself, rather than just removing deprecated sources, I will absolutely seek an editing restriction against this conduct at WP:ANI. BD2412 T 21:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, David! Thanks for replacing bad sources with a more reputable publication over at Wednesday Martin. However, I was wondering if you might be willing to revisit this discussion at Talk:Wednesday Martin, where I've proposed replacement text which actually reflects what The New York Times says. If you (or User:pburka) are not interested in revisiting the discussion, I can add Template:Edit COI for review by another editor.
Thanks! Inkian Jason ( talk) 15:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, David! I don't mean to bother, but since you've expressed interest here, might you be able to revisit this discussion at Talk:Wednesday Martin? If you would prefer I ask for help elsewhere, just let me know, thanks! Inkian Jason ( talk) 18:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Your and Tim's comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 360#Survey (Crunchbase News) are prompting me to ask you the following directly. I'm thinking that Crunchbase may be reliable and thus of starting a discussion at RS/N, but I thought I'd ping you first, as I think you could change my mind if you wanted to. Tim was saying back then in 2021 what has been my impression - that it's generally reliable. I look at their site, and they let investment firms edit, and that they vet. That's hardly anyone. [edit -oops- they allow entrepreneurs too - just noticed as I'm finishing this note!] Still, they claim what amounts to providing vaguely journalism - like editorial oversight and corrections :
I agree with what you said in 2021 (IIRC) - it should not be allowed to be used for notability, but to my knowledge, it is a useful and reliable source, as to facts, and wikipedia, as Tim notes (please do read his comment).
So, do you think it's worth allowing or at least a discussion at RS/N? Or is the status quo essential to keeping spammy stuff at bay? Last discussion was in 2019 (other than on the news side, which didn't address the main deprecation). I see they no longer say they allow anyone to edit anymore, and the AI/ML is surely new too. RudolfoMD ( talk) 11:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
There’s a recent AfD discussion started on No and you’re the most knowledgeable person on 1980s Australian alternative music scene that I know, so I was hoping that you might point me to some reliable sources to confirm the band’s notability. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Dan arndt ( talk) 13:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Paragon Deku ( talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello David Gerard:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Since you say the article talk page won't suffice, I couldn't figure out a better place than WP:RSN. I invite you to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_being_used_as_the_subject_of_discussion_on_Sarah_Jane_Baker. Thank you for your consideration. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Woke up today ready to blank that section on Brave (web browser) that was only sourced from shoddy crypto reporting—but you beat me to it. I sleepily played around with that section way too much last night trying to make it read ok, and never bothered to actually think about the sources I was resummarizing. Oops!
Also leaving this comment because I wanted to mention how intriguing that Martini recipe looks. Rare enough to come across a 2:1 spirit to vermouth recipe these days, but blending the spirits is something I've never thought of, outside of the Vesper cocktail which has never impressed me. I'm curious if there are particular bottles you recommend. Handpigdad ( talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello David... I am one of the founders of the startup whose page was deleted and I have been trying to write this page to meet the article criteria of Wikipedia. I have answered the question about whether I am paid to edit as requested. The answer is no, I am just a co-founder of the startup. I have also made the requested declaration on my profile User:Hatter.glass of conflict of interest as recommended by another editor some time ago.
The page has been rewritten multiple times per the feedback of other editors and I have asked for assistance in how this should be done which has only resulted in being given links to guideline articles which I have tried to follow again and again.
I have even run the content through ChatGPT to get guidance on how it should be written to provide a balanced and encyclopedic overview of the subject.
Once again, I have seen actions taken with no actual feedback on how to improve the content or the page.
The statement that it is unambiguous advertising could therefore be applied to almost every page in the same subject category, eg: Ripple_Labs, Stellar_(payment_network), SWIFT etc or even the page for reality tv show Space_Hero.
Could you explain to me the differences between the paywith.glass page and these other pages in a manner that is specific to the changes that need to be made to the paywith.glass page to meet the criteria for publication? Hatter.glass ( talk) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how you define noteworthyAccording to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), which is quite stringent. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Cryptocurrencies suggests
mainstream reliable news sources, with emphasis on "mainstream". Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) is a descriptive essay, and not a policy or guideline - but it may be useful in understanding the Wikipedia way of dealing with extremely heavily promoted areas - David Gerard ( talk) 23:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi David Gerard regarding recent removal of The Sun source on Dermot Malone- is any instance of The Sun ineligible for sourcing? No big deal about this one as I am sure I can find other background on him it just looked like a neutral profile vs most of the gossip from Sun. Cheers. Earnsthearthrob ( talk) 20:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, David. I invented following aim: fill on the Wiki pages for exchanges from top 10 ranking according to Coinmarketcap. But unfortunately as I see I cannot do it due to lack of permission. They all are protected from creation. What should I do then? And how can I check their previous versions to evade G4 (recreation with same content). I had similar experience before with admin User:JBW on Mykola Udianskyi article recently. I am experienced, I created 4 articles since September. I open to get new exp how it works etc. Thank you.
Stand with Ukraine! Antonio Vinzaretti ( talk) 11:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for delay, I've been away from editing for a week! Looking at some stuff today ... - David Gerard ( talk) 15:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) So it's quite clear (it even went to a third AFD) that the Wikipedia community does not want an article on Bitget as yet. For any such article to pass AFC, it would have to be very high quality - enough to convince others in the face of this. I would suggest leaving the topic alone for now - David Gerard ( talk) 20:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, let's discuss things in the talk page of "William Entriken" regarding the the subject. I will create a few different topics in it to go over within the next day.
A preview of what I'd like to discuss:
1. Possible merge of certain content with the "ERC-721" article. (You stated articles about ERC-721 not mentioning Entriken as if that makes it not directly relevant to the subject, but that's like saying coverage of Harry Potter has nothing to do with J.K. Rowling (or any other book and author). Similarly some articles sourced about ERC-721 projects don't explicitly mention ERC-721 by name yet they are dependent on the solution and are thus still directly related. And just to note, the "ERC-721" article was created after the "William Entriken" article, I did not create the former article. They coincidentally emerged around similar times lol.)
2. Characterization of the coverage being imbalanced or impartial (i.e an advert or non-encyclopedic)
3. Uncontroversial claims being cited from "questionable" / not-high quality sources (i.e crypto outlets or other sources involving interviews of the subject)
Let's discuss and improve the quality of things, as appropriate! Codeconjurer777 ( talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, how are you verifying whether a source is deemed "not reliable." In my assertation, the two sources I have cited are reliable. If we have a disagreement, you should initate a discussion proposal in the talk section before making a speedy deletion. Your edit history seems to show you have a habit of making serial deletions without discussion. Need I remind you the proper mindset is to first consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. Perhaps it would be more constructive if you would help find some solid RSes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebuttka ( talk • contribs)
I didn't mean to revert you there. I think that's the first time I've accidently reverted someone on my watchlist... anyways, I fixed it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
You have deleted a cited reference which supports a statement in this article, unlike the other references. The article in this publication is neither redundant or unreliable. Please restore the reference and discuss on the article talk page. Your edit is disputed. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I’m a COI editor working with United Talent Agency. I wanted to follow up on your removal of Jay Sures’ bio info (wife and kids’ names) due to the Page Six sourcing. I understand they are not a preferred source, but it is my understanding if it is the only source available (which it is), that in very limited cases, such as basic biographical info, Wikipedia has made the exception that "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Given there is no other public sourcing available, would you be willing to reinstate the language? EWChristine ( talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey there. I’m hoping that as a member of WP:CRYPCUR you’ll be willing to take a look at some changes I’ve proposed to Digital Currency Group. Thanks for your time. CertifiedTurtle ( talk) 22:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is
not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach
consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves
images, you also have the option to
configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Per
WP:RSOPINION Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Opinion statements in deprecated sources are permitted per this.
SanAnMan (
talk) 21:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mr. David Gerard, Merry Christmas!
I found that you closed my topic about Needle mushroom dry ski mat from a few years ago. I would like to express a few of my opinions for your reference:
1. We should be discussing the emergence of new material, rather than discussing which brand has the most online exposure as can be listed in Wikipedia.
2. Needle mushroom dry ski mat is a kind of dry ski mat that is different from comb and brush style. It has indeed come to our earth. It is not a virtual existence.
3. Needle mushroom dry ski mat, represented by the JF DRY SKI brand, has produced many cases in countries outside the UK and is a government investment project. It was even used on the slopes of the International Ski Federation FIS World Cup.
4. Relevant web page address:
AUSTRALIA-JF DRY SKI THE AMAZING TECHNOLOGY BEHIND NSTC AIRBAGS RUN-INS)
SWITZERLAND-LE BAG À LEYSIN EST OUVERT TOUTE L’ANNÉE POUR VOS ENTRAÎNEMENTS!
BELGIUM-SUMMER JUMP - ALLEEN MAAR SMILES TIJDENS DE OPEN CLUBDAG VOOR FREESTYLE CLUBS
NEW ZEALAND-NEW DRY SLOPE & SKATE RAMP
Dear Mr. David Gerard, I am a Canadian who has lived in the UK for many years. I learned to ski on dendix dry slope and snowflex dry slope. I am grateful to the British for their invention of dry ski and their contribution to mankind. In addition, I have also studied dry ski for many years and am now engaged in dry ski slope design. I can answer all technical questions related to dry skiing. We should encourage the invention of new dry ski materials rather than copying existing products.
I agree with your point of view that the Global Times has no credibility. I mistakenly believed that the incident itself was true, but it was published in unreliable media. -- Dog150 ( talk) 06:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)