Talk:Alex Fridman

Translation

The article was translated from the Hebrew Wikipiedia. Dgw (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If you translated the article from Hebrew Wikipedia, it's often a good idea to use Template:Translated page as explained in WP:TRANSLATE. This makes it possible to know exactly which revision of the Hebrew Wikipedia article you translated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ranging

Moved from Talk:Dorian Gray Wild#Ranging

 – Dgw (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey. You canceled my edit. May I know what was wrong with this link? Thank! 可愛い (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I have written it in my edit summary, and you are welcome to read it. Dgw (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverting public relations awards in the article, that have no place in an encyclopedia

Hello:

User:Dorian Gray Wild has reverted my edits without without explanation. These edits are removal of public relations only awards (In the from of "Person of the year" of some world non-famous persons). There was a heated discussion about the nature of these type of awards for these type of persons in the Hebrew article of Alex Fridman in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and the system operators decided to ban such awards, as this information is non-encyclopedic and contains only public relations stuff.

Thanks זור987 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello and good evening 可愛い.

Please see this discussion. It is known that the English Wikipedia is not the Hebrew Wikipedia. In any case, no system operator in the Hebrew WP decided to ban such an award. The question was raised in the general discussion in Hebrew, but was erased by a user which was not a system operator.

In the English WP, the version which was erased was a stable version. It was written in the edit summary. A big part of the article (5,967 bytes) was erased, and the erasure was focused on this article, in spite of there were other articles with awards. In the Hebrew WP, two other articles with awards were also erased by the same user, for legitimizing this erasure. An award is a part of the encyclopedic notability of the article. There was no proof that the awards had been paid for. Therefore, this repeated erasing is an edit war. Dgw (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This revert seemed to me like some kind of an accounting, because it came more than three days after my last edit of the article, following my RFC.

To the point, "You do not seem to have read WP:STABLE" does not stand with WP civility: "Don't make personal remarks about editors". It has also to be written on the talk page, instead of an edit summary. Dgw (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not a personal remark about an editor, it is a reason for the revert. You made an edit citing that essay, but that essay does not provide any justification for your edit. Perhaps instead of quibbling over these kinds of things you could try to explain what policy basis you have for wanting to include the content that has now been disputed by three different editors. Melcous (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I found no reply for the late revert. Five editors had accepted the removed content, before it was removed: Sokuya, Senior baron, Marchjuly, 84.108.32.96 and 可愛い. Tony1 had also accepted it, because he had not erased the awards. Dgw (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean by "no reply for the late revert." But just because an editor makes an edit to an article doesn't mean they 'accept' all the other content in it that they didn't touch. The point is that a number of editors have now disputed the inclusion of that specific content and so now if you think it should be restored, the onus is on you to obtain consensus for that here by explaining on what basis you think it should be included and seeing if other editors agree. I for one do not think it should be in the article. Melcous (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Melcous is absolutely correct, and going back to the puffy version is not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It is well explained here. Dgw (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello Alucard 16 and AxG. I ask for your advice in this article, after edit wars were made by two editors. The template {{Uw-1rr}} says: "To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors."
WP:Ownership of content says: "The editor might also be an expert or otherwise very knowledgeable in the subject matter and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources." It is shown here. The reverters did not know where the sources were. One of them blamed me of sources in other langauge than Enlish, although it is accepted, and I did it: "In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation."
It is seen also here.
Copyedits (correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout) does not mean erasing a massive text, like here.
The file which was removed from the article was a video, not an image. It seems that the reverter did not watch the video. It was made as a matriculation work by high school students in a different city than Fridman's city. The film director has a father who was also disabled due to a road accident, but this text was also erased from the article, in spite of it was reported by a secondary source. The video showed Fridman and his activity for the disabled people in Israel. It was not promotional because it was made by school students and was awarded by the school management as well as the Ministry of Education in Israel. Will you delete the Titanic (1997 film) article just because it won 11 Oscars? If Fridman is successful, it is not a reason to delete a video about him. Dgw (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The video represents Alex fridman's public image and shows the way that the public sees his activities. As long as there is no proof that Alex was involved somehow in producing this video, the video should stay on his page. Ranroby76 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Are there substantive objections regarding the inclusion of the video — because the time to pose these is now. El_C 16:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, thank you for your comment. The single user who objected the video was זור987, who deleted the video on 28 April 2019‎, with the edit summary: "Promotional?" זור987 was not convinced that the video was "promotional". He just assumed it, although the video was put on 30 October 2018, and on 2 January 2019‎ זור987 deleted all the awards, but did not touch the video. As I have already written, זור987 did not edit honestly, due to his contradict replies: "The English Wikipedia may include content that is considered in Israel as advertising / marketing content, public relations, trivia, and fan content, as well as the use of generic names such as Xenon, for example, to describe the front lights of a vehicle." versus "Lots of things that conventional in the Hebrew Wikipedia, aren't considered conventional in the English Wikipedia (Like using generic names as part of the article like xenon, writing trivia information like Pitfall! appeared #1 on the Billiboard Charts, and non important/PR awards)."

Regarding awards and "promotions", please see reactions of McChizzle and Indrian. McChizzle wrote that rewards were accepted with vehicles. If rewards were accepted with vehicles (which were intended to be sold), they were accepted with human beings, especially when they were disabled. Indrian simply wrote that זור987 edits were vandalism.

To the point, the film was made as a matriculation work by high school students who learned in Kfar Saba, was awarded by the the school management and by the Ministry of Education (Israel), but Fridman lived in Yavne, 43 kilometers away from Kfar Saba. Dgw (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the above, User:זור987 was not the only editor who objected to the video being included. I also did and still do. The video is a school project, and it is already mentioned in prose within the article, with a link in the references for anyone who wants to find out more. A link to an image/recording of it adds nothing of encyclopaedic value to the article, and can be seen as promotion of the video itself, if not promotion of Fridman. Melcous (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that the content of the video itself is in Hebrew, with Hebrew subtitles, meaning it has no value to non-Hebrew speakers, and this is English wikipedia. Melcous (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It is quite late to raise it in this stage, and seems like a personal attitude. The editor also erased content from the article on 6 January 2019, but did not touch the video until זור987 deleted it in the end of April 2019. Therefore it was only זור987 who objected it. The editor was fast to reply today, but has not replied since 12 June 2019. The editor also did not reply El_C who posted yesterday, but was prompt to reply me.

There is no rule against any media in any language, and I described the content of the video, but the editor did erase it. If it was the English Wikipedia, the video had to be erased when it was advertised on 30 October 2018, but it was not. The article says nowhere that Fridman was diagnosed when he was 8 years old. Only the video says it, but the editor deleted it. The article also says nowhere that Fridman was paralysed when he reached twelve, and the video does, but the editor deleted both text and video. The article also says nothing about watching Shlomit Anzio in channel one, but the video says it. It was written also in the article, but was erased, claiming "copyedit". The article also does not say anything about 84 MKs who accepted the legislation, but the video and the erased text do. It definitely seems to me personal. Israel–Jordan peace treaty has also its video in its gallery, in spite of it is fully described in the article: "Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Abdelsalam al-Majali signed the treaty and the President of Israel Ezer Weizman shook hands with King Hussein. Clinton observed, accompanied by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher." The article about Israel-Jordan Peace also requests citation about: "colorful balloons released into the sky", but it is shown in its video. Dgw (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There are no time limits in wikipedia, so it is never 'late' to raise an issue. Nor is the timing or frequency of my editing relevant. Nor is the fact that the video was previously left in the article in October 2018 a valid reason for keeping it now, and nothing 'had' to be done at any time. You should see by my edit history that I have edited here for a number of years on a wide range of topics, so imputing motives of 'personal attitude' is inappropriate, as it would be for any editor, you should instead assume good faith. More to the point, the video does not actually in this context say any of the things you claim above, because it is not in the language of this encyclopedia. So its value for those purposes is nil. Melcous (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The word "you" appears three times in the above reply, and 11 times in the editor's replies in this page, therefore my assumption was correct. Repeating the same claim adds nothing. If an editor does not know Cuneiform, does the editor have to erase all the images of cuneiform from this article, as well as images of Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese language? Would the editor who deleted both video and its text, erase also this text:

"Foreign words, mainly proper nouns, continue to enter the Chinese language by transcription according to their pronunciations. This is done by employing Chinese characters with similar pronunciations. For example, "Israel" becomes 以色列 Yǐsèliè, "Paris" becomes 巴黎 Bālí. A rather small number of direct transliterations have survived as common words, including 沙发/沙發 shāfā "sofa", 马达/馬達 mǎdá "motor", 幽默 yōumò "humor", 逻辑/邏輯 luóji/luójí "logic", 时髦/時髦 shímáo "smart, fashionable", and 歇斯底里 xiēsīdǐlǐ "hysterics". The bulk of these words were originally coined in the Shanghai dialect during the early 20th century and were later loaned into Mandarin, hence their pronunciations in Mandarin may be quite off from the English. For example, 沙发/沙發 "sofa" and 马达/馬達 "motor" in Shanghainese sound more like their English counterparts. Cantonese differs from Mandarin with some transliterations, such as 梳化 so¹ faa^3*2 "sofa" and 摩打 mo¹ daa² "motor".

Western foreign words representing Western concepts have influenced Chinese since the 20th century through transcription. From French came 芭蕾 bālěi "ballet" and 香槟 xiāngbīn, "champagne"; from Italian, 咖啡 kāfēi "caffè". English influence is particularly pronounced. From early 20th century Shanghainese, many English words are borrowed, such as 高尔夫/高爾夫 gāoěrfū "golf" and the above-mentioned 沙发/沙發 shāfā "sofa". Later, the United States soft influences gave rise to 迪斯科 dísikē/dísīkē "disco", 可乐/可樂 kělè "cola", and 迷你 mínǐ "mini [skirt]". Contemporary colloquial Cantonese has distinct loanwords from English, such as 卡通 kaa¹ tung1 "cartoon", 基佬 gei¹ lou² "gay people", 的士 dik¹ si^6*2 "taxi", and 巴士 baa¹ si^6*2 "bus". With the rising popularity of the Internet, there is a current vogue in China for coining English transliterations, for example, 粉丝/粉絲 fěnsī "fans", 黑客 hēikè "hacker" (lit. "black guest"), and 博客 bókè "blog". In Taiwan, some of these transliterations are different, such as 駭客 hàikè for "hacker" and 部落格 bùluògé for "blog" (lit. "interconnected tribes").

Another result of the English influence on Chinese is the appearance in Modern Chinese texts of so-called 字母词/字母詞 zìmǔcí (lit. "lettered words") spelled with letters from the English alphabet. This has appeared in magazines, newspapers, on web sites, and on TV: 三G手机/三G手機 "3rd generation cell phones" (三 sān "three" + G "generation" + 手机/手機 shǒujī "mobile phones"), IT界 "IT circles" (IT "information technology" + 界 jiè "industry"), HSK (Hànyǔ Shuǐpíng Kǎoshì, 汉语水平考试/漢語水平考試), GB (Guóbiāo, 国标/國標), CIF价/CIF價 (CIF "Cost, Insurance, Freight" + 价/價 jià "price"), e家庭 "e-home" (e "electronic" + 家庭 jiātíng "home"), Chinese: W时代/Chinese: W時代 "wireless era" (W "wireless" + 时代/時代 shídài "era"), TV族 "TV watchers" (TV "television" + 族 zú "social group; clan"), 后РС时代/後PC時代 "post-PC era" (后/後 hòu "after/post-" + PC "personal computer" + 时代/時代), and so on."

I do not intend to continue this discussion, because the editor had a wide window of 15 days to reply, but did not. Now the administrator may make a decision. There is no real argument in any reply of the editor. Dgw (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The above comment appears to show a basic misunderstanding of the way English wikipedia works. Administrators do not make decisions on content. Editors do, by seeking to obtain consensus, and that can take time, and there are no arbitrary 'windows' on how long editors have to reply. (As a side note, it's difficult to reach consensus as editors without talking to (i.e. using the second person pronoun) rather than simply about one another). The comments about the use of the characters of other languages are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the use of video content in another language, a video which is already described within the article. Melcous (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies and Marchjuly as experienced editors who have previously edited this article and may like to contribute to this discussion. Melcous (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Icewhiz who knows Hebrew and has an exprience with the English Wikipedia rules. The discussion deals with this video.

Two notes to Icewhiz:

1. "The comments about the use of the characters of other languages are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the use of video content in another language" says everything. In Hebrew it is called Straw man.
2. The video is not described within the the article, because the description was erased by the editor who pinged Drmies and Marchjuly. Dgw (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well - it is a high school project (but fairly well edited) - mainly interview segments (+ some segments at Knesset and demonstration). I'm not sure I'd call it promotional, but it is quite sympathetic to Fridman (though coverage of Fridman usually is). I have to say I'm not quite sure what the fuss here is about? I can't say I think it adds much to the article (it is in Hebrew, though you do see the BLP subject move around - so that might add something to a reader's understanding). I don't see anything in the video that causes me to yank my pitchfork out of the shed and advocate for removal. I guess maybe one could argue it isn't reliably published? To put it bluntly - I think I'm at a meh. Why is this such a dispute (from either side)? Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

To participants: this entry needs some outside input, so please move this forward by launching a proper RfC aimed at resolving this dispute. Aimless, back-and-forth edit warring is not the answer. El_C 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I also asked for some help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Alex_Fridman. El_C 18:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• That there was some serious promotional editing in this article is made clear enough by this kind of edit. I don't quite understand the very verbose posts above, which should focus on the appropriateness of the video. We typically do not use video as a reference; of course sources don't have to be in English, but one may well ask what the value is of this video here. (Dropping in a huge list of foreign terms adds nothing to any argument.) The argument brought forward by User:Dorian Gray Wild (and reiterated by Ranroby76), "it was not promotional because it was made by school students and was awarded by the school management as well as the Ministry of Education in Israel", has no value: that he didn't make doesn't make the video's placement in the article not promotional. Earlier versions of the article seemed to try very hard to inflate the article with all kinds of stuff, and regarding this video as yet another element of promotion is a matter of course. And statements like "84 MKs who accepted the legislation" cannot be verified by such a video, especially not if it's a high-school project. There is no reason for us to accept a high-school project as a reliable source.

  So, let's get this "reference" thing out of the way: the video should not be used to reference anything, because a. it's a video and b. it cannot be a reliable source (try it on WP:RSN; I think you'll find the Wikipedia community agreeing with me). Oddly enough I had something similar this week, in 1 the Road; a documentary was made which had some useful information--but our guidelines do not support my including that information in the article. What I did was note, in the article, that the video was made (a secondary source said so), and included the video as an External link. If editors agree that the video has value as extra information, including it in the EL section is a possibility. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  I concur that this video would not pass RSN. Maybe WP:ABOUTSELF for self-statements - though the video not being published by the subject makes this quite murky. Counting MKs shouldn't be done off of such a video.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  So Icewhiz, I suppose you might could support it as an EL? (I'm trying to help El_C find a way forward.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  As an external link - yes. Maybe also as embedded media in the article (we're looser on photos at least - not sure of our video policy). As a source for our text - no. Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  It was originally embedded, as shown here. The voting is shown at minute 3:44 of the video, and the Hebrew title says: "שמונים וארבעה בעד, אין מתנגדים, אין נמנעים". It is definately more clear than all the Chinese characters above, but nobody would even dare to delete this Chinese, although it is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese Wikipedia. The video has to be re-embedded after Icewhiz said that it was not promotional. There is no rule against high school projects. Dgw (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Dorian - the problem with the 84 vote is not that it is in Hebrew (you can use Hebrew sources) - but that the video is not a WP:RS on the English Wikipedia - and unsourced or poorly sourced statements on WP:BLP are a big no-no here (on the Hebrew Wikipedia they aren't as strict about this). You need a better source for the vote - e.g. something like YNET.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, the voting is described here. The text which was in this version, has to be returned as a description of the video: "In June 2018, three students of "Ort Shapira" high school[27] in Kfar Saba made a documentary film about Fridman as their matriculation work.[28] The film was directed by May Moran, one of the three, and described Fridman childhood, diagnosing him when he was eight years old, and being paralysed when he reached twelve. Fridman learned individually a screenplay, and on January 13, 2015, he made the struggle of the Disabled people, after watching Shlomit Anzio in channel one. In the Knesset, Fridman said that he did not accept 3,700 ILS instead of 4,000 ILS, and aborted the session. The film was ended showing the vote in the Knesset in February 2018, while 84 MKs accepted the legislation, and made the allowance on 3,272 ILS. Moran was shown towards the end of the film, sitting alongside Fridman in a group photo." It is not BLP but a description of the video, like writing: Netanyahu said that, "this phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity." Dgw (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  The video itself is not a reliable source for describing the video - in particular not on a BLP page.Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  You can use the YNET article (you linked below) on the video as a source - as YNET is a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• BTW I am not aware there's a 1R restriction on the article, so I don't know why Dorian Gray Wild would bring that up here. El_C's closure of the edit warring report was proper; there is no good reason to relitigate it here. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  1RR shouldn't apply here, though assuming ARBPIA applies to Israeli content is a general "better safe than sorry" assumption - but this article is clearly not conflict related. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

1RR does not apply to this dispute. My personal opinion on including the video, as well as its mention in the body, is also meh. I'm not sure what value it adds to our readers, here, on the English Wikipedia as opposed to on the Hebrew Wikipedia, regardless of it promotional facets (on that front I also do not have a strong opinion). So while I don't really have an opinion on including or excluding the video per se., I do feel that if the decision is made to exclude it, then mention of the video in the body may need to go, too. But again, I have no objection to it being included, either. If one speaks Hebrew, it can be seen to be informative, I suppose. The question I would, however, submit is what reliable sources mention this video project so as to make it noteworthy? El_C 16:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, what value do Chinese characters add to the text in the English Wikipedia? Can a non-Chinsese reader pronounce 價, 摩, 蕾 or 爾? All these signs and much more, are written in an article in the English Wikipedia. A reliable source is here. The original video is longer, and goes also with ads. The embedded video is without ads. Dgw (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Chinese? What are you talking about? But that's a good source. I'm definitely leaning toward inclusion now. El_C 16:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, thank you for your words. I suggested to embed the video, as it was from October 2018 until the end of April 2019. In Chinese language, there is a chapter which is called "Modern borrowings", and it has Chinese characters in the article itself. Dgw (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Chinese characters still seem tangential, but okay... Anyway, whether the video should be embedded, added as an external link, or added as a ref, I will leave for other editors to decide. Myself, I still don't have a strong preference, even though I am now convinced that it's noteworthy to the subject's biography. I note, however, that there's a fourth option: do nothing. Because we do have the video project up in that Ynet article you brought up here, which I subsequently added to the article as a ref. Except, right now the reader has advertisement to contend with and it isn't the full video. El_C 22:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If the Chinese characters are tangential, they have to be removed. It is possible to write "Yǐsèliè" for Israel, but not Chinese characters. The point is that nobody dares to remove it. I also do not understand a word as "dik¹ si^6*2" (Taxi).

The video is shorter, because a content was removed by the request of Commons. As Icewhiz said, it advertises nothing. Fridman does not request any donation from the reader, nor voting for him. He was focused on disability rights, and the video deals with it. Dgw (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Tangential to your point. Advertisement in the video hosted by the Ynet article. Focus, please. El_C 01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not write the word "tangential". If the video in Ynet contains advertisemnt, there is no reason to direct the reader to that Ynet's video. The video in Commons is shorter and without any ads. Ynet is a source, not a replacement for Common's video. Dgw (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I said it was tangential, and I still do. You are undermining your own argument with it, is my point. Anyway, fair point, but the reader still have access to the full video as of now via the Ynet article. Again, I have no strong preference. Let's see what other editors say. El_C 20:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I still did not understand why it was legitimate to use Chinese words in an article in the English Wikipedia, but not a video in non-English language. The article in Ynet is not a replacement of the video, because Ynet's video has copyrighted scenes, which are not belong to Ynet. The video in Commons is clean of these scenes. Dgw (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, that comparison of the Hebrew video with Chinese characters seems like a bit of a stretch and, in my view, does not advance your argument. Other stuff exists is a weak argument, anyway. As for copyrighted scenes in the Ynet video — that is really not our cross to bear. El_C 16:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Instead of "win-win", there is here a lose-lose situation.

Two users who claimed a "promotional" video, got a reliable source which they could not delete, while all other users claimed that the video was not promoted.

The student who created the video, also lost her video, which she OTRS confirmed. Instead of her video, she got a link to a video in YouTube with ads. Linking to YouTube in WP is forbidden, due to this reason: "Many YouTube videos of newscasts [...] are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations."

If the video in Commons is embedded in the article, it overrides the YouTube video which is embedded in the Ynet source and is not OTRS signed by the director. Ynet did not take its video from Commons, because it is an mp4 video, not webm. Dgw (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, what Ynet does is beyond our remit. That the video is, in one way or another, available to our readership through their article specifically about the video, which we use as a reference for its notability — well, that is just a fact. The question as to embedding the video in this Wikipedia article is something which, again, I have no strong opinion about. Personally, I watched it and found it to have been informative. Highly sympathetic, too, which there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. El_C 03:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This constant very detailed back and forth doesn't appear to make it easy for other editors to engage. I will reiterate my few thoughts: There is and has continued to be a paragraph about the existence of the video in the article, now with a WP:RS which is an improvement. I personally don't see how important it is to retain, but have not disputed including it. However, the video as an embedded link (a) Looks promotional, because it appears as an image with a slogan over the subject of the video; and (b) is unhelpful as content in English wikipedia because it is not in English. BTW, the comment above that a student "lost" their video is unhelpful - the feelings of the creators of content are irrelevant as to whether that content should be included, and in fact per our conflict of interest policy we usually lean against including something just because an involved person wants it. Melcous (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents - while the student "losing" the video is irrelevant - we do ourselves (well - at least on commons - Wikimedia) have a goal of having commons-compatible content hosted. Having CC-by-SA content is useful (in this case with a remix license) - it allows us for instance to cut out (with attribution) photographs, short segments, and so forth. Getting CC-by-SA content licensed and uploaded is hard - and once we get it - we should generally want to retain it. Can we perhaps have the video embedded with the preview frame changed to a different segment (e.g. Fridman himself - the opening sequence) or blank? Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz that getting a CC-by-SA licence is very hard, and it is possible to cease asking for CC-by-SA licences when the video remained on the floor in the editing room. Since El_C wrote that the video was informative, the point became clear.

I am not Fridman nor the student, and claiming that I was involved or any "conflict of interest" seemed to me as a personal attitude.

Framing the video could be done to any desired frame. Deleting the video from the article due to this argument was quite puzzled.

A film about Alex Fridman, 2018.

Alex Fridman is interviewed, 2018. (Thumbtime does not work in this template)

Dgw (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)