Why are you removing all the Sun newspaper citations for sport? The Sun has a good reputation for sporting events, if it's not an opinion piece, and The Sun is reporting factual events I suggest you leave the citation. I also found this edit that you did [1] rather offensive to me. The Scottish Sun is independent from the English version of The Sun, they are two different newspapers and should be treated as such. Not only that, one user goes to the effort of filling out the "cite web" in full and you return the favour by placing a lazy ref? Can you please be careful with how you edit thank you. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun and Scottish Sun are both deprecated as The Sun - see WP:RSP#The_Sun and discussions linked from there, if you want to argue the Scottish Sun is good actually then WP:RSN is the place to start.
I'm taking care to check sports replacements as I go, and increasingly I don't trust anything the Sun says beyond basic result numbers - and I really, really don't trust anything that's a quote or a characterisation. I keep finding remarkable and eye-catching claims from the Sun that aren't in other press coverage of the same event - and given that the Sun are deprecated because they're habitual liars, I would assume that the Sun was making stuff up again, just like they do in every other field of coverage. Effectively the Sun is not a reference for the purpose. For statements about WP:BLP details - even of sports people, who are Living Persons under that policy - the Sun is absolutely unusable. Keeping the Sun 'cos it's pretty probably isn't a factor in sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same reliability problem with the Daily Mail - just corrected another one Nathan Aké where the DM got the year wrong per every other source. The sports carveout for the Sun and DM is fundamentally an error and should be amended, 'cos they're as trash-tier for sports reporting as they are for every other subject - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused by this since it says: "Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended." You've been removing reviews of shows from reception sections and I'd feel that would fit into this category.--WillC20:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see the RFC mentioned in passing "sports score-lines" and "sports results" - that doesn't mean "it's vaguely related to sports, I have an excuse to use the bad source!" - and both the people saying those note that that basic numerical information can always be found in better sources. I'd call the summary in WP:RSP excessively generous, and anyone trying to use it as an excuse to use the bad source hasn't read the RFC. The Sun is a deprecated source, it's generally prohibited, and it shouldn't be used for anything except in remarkable circumstances - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least allow The Sun to remain as source for old articles like SummerSlam (2009). At that time it was very reliable, and it had been considered that way for 10 years. It has been cited unreliable in recent time so it should not be used for recent articles. But removing all the information from the older articles destroys the quality of the articles and some of the articles you removed the Sun as a source from had broken links, you do not do any thing about broken links. Are administrators supposed to start calling sources unreliable anytime they want? Just saying, I respect your decision, but please take into account the quality of the older articles which are affected by removing the Sun as source and their recent unreliability is not associated with the Sun being considered an extremely reliable source back in 2009, and the contents were the 2009 contents of the Sun not the present day "unreliable Sun's" contents. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a dead link you furiously defended there. The Sun was literally never an "extremely reliable source". If you want it considered such, the place to argue it is not my talk page, but WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I defended Sun, not the dead link, I removed the dead link slam.canoe.ca/ and replaced it with bleacher report, but I respect your judgement, I wasn't aware that you were admin, I thought it was a vandal removing sourced information. I have also discussed the matter here Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and I leave the final decision to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again this [2] link is (although broken) is simply a film review from that newspaper, it's not lying, or making claims, your comment when removing it, makes no sense to what the link was suppose to go to. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given it's a generally prohibited source, why would we mention its opinion?
(If its opinion is noteworthy, the opinion will be noted in an RS.)
It's getting to the stage where I feel like I need a cut'n'paste macro for this - but if you want to rehabilitate The Sun's status, my talk page is absolutely not going to shift the needle on that, and you need to start the discussion at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the RS, it's your edit summary that annoys me, just put down deprecated, the extra bits you wrote "should not be used or trusted for any claim". It's a source pointing to a film review! Trusted or claim??? I hate it when admins are not precise, that really annoys me a lot. Not to mention people calling a family member of mine not to be trusted, calling them a liar, wikipedia is full of unfounded accusations against a whole paper calling everyone person that works for them liars. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your point would be stronger if The Sun was not a paper that had been deprecated for in fact being completely untrustworthy liars over several decades, which is why they're generally prohibited as a source. Your family members presumably are not that class of liar - but The Sun absolutely is, and it turns out that's why the paper's been deprecated as a source. I urge you to read the many, many discussion on this point, 'cos they're how this consensus was reached - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean compare family to it I don't understand your English sometimes, Anyway, I am related to David Haldane. Calling everyone that has done stuff for the Sun is a liar just really annoys me!! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, nobody is calling everyone who has contributed to The Sun a liar (well, no serious Wikipedian - I know some Scousers who have a view). What we are saying is that The Sun has a defective or nonexistent mechanism for distinguishing lies from facts. We can't trust a word it says. Guy (help!) 14:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On this subject and referring to an edit including Mark Rocco - the Deaths in 2020 page (and all similar archived pages in the project) operates a strict policy of "no reliable source, no entry". By consensus, there is currently no way {{citation needed}} (or {{cn}}) can be allowed as an inline tag. If there is no reliable source, the entry needs to be removed. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)13:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone on Talk seems very determined that we remove a sourced word because it doesn't include the definition he absolutely for sure personally knows to be true, but doesn't have a source for. I'm right out of fucks to give. Guy (help!) 23:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested that he doesn't get it, which he clearly doesn't. I hope reading of the policies and guidelines will help this enthusiastic fresh editor in their Wikipedia journey - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will you cut the garbage and adhere to the consensus? I'm not sure what you get out of trying to act like a bully to enforce your incorrect version of the consensus. Removing sources just because you don't like them is no different from other vandalism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you are removing information cited to The Sun and Daily Mail because of the discussions that have taken place. You appear to be going around multiple articles at a fast pace just removing information. In some instances alternative sources can be found and I have replaced a couple. Some of the sources you have removed were just used for critical analysis of fictional subjects, which does not really detract. But they are still a source and were not making any claims about a living person or saying something that was not true. The troubling cases are those where you have removed sourced information leaving holes in paragraphs and disrupting the general flow. In one article the other day, you removed a citation and did not replace with a CN template.. It seems as though you are working to some deadline when there is not one on Wikipedia. It also seems to be disruptive now and I know that was not the intention you originally began this mass clean up task with.Rainthe 122:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
critical analysis of fictional subjects, which does not really detract? There is literally no reason to print "critical" analysis of fictional subjects from a deprecated source, especially when what we're actually talking about here is someone at the Daily Mail saying that if a soap opera character "started charging for sex – they'd never worry about money again. It would be a busman's holiday for them. They could even make it a family business – slappersRus.com". I submit that I'm hard pressed to think of any circumstance in which this is an addition to the sum of human knowledge. I'm really, really not going to spend time looking for some other commenter in an RS who I can cite calling fictional characters "slappersRus" to.
The trouble with deprecated sources is that the information is effectively not sourced. Worse than that, it's deceptively sourced - readers see a little blue number there, but it leads to sources that are liars that consensus has ruled literally cannot be trusted. (Twice, in the case of the WP:DAILYMAIL1.) Deprecated sources don't count as sources, and, per WP:BURDEN - which is policy - "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (bold in original.) A "reliable source" means "not a deprecated source", and not one of the limited permissible uses for a deprecated source. Deprecated sources are presumed bad.
This is only "disruption" if you think these sources are usable - and if you do, you are incorrect.
If you want an exception for soap opera coverage, the message board to achieve new consensus is WP:RSN.
If you want to dispute the concept of deprecation of sources, or discuss how or why these sources should be protected from removal - again, WP:RSN is 100% the place to go, as my talk page is 0% that place.
I'll note that - surprisingly to me - Digital Spy is well regarded as a TV fiction source, in fact it's green-rated as an RS for it! I've substituted it for the Sun and Mail previously, including today. I wouldn't use it for science, politics, medicine or even BLP content on celebrities, but it doesn't seem to exaggerate or lie about fiction, so ... good?
I do every edit by hand, and check before. I probably make mistakes - and I click "thanks" when people fix these - but I'm pretty sure I get a much lower reversion rate on removing deprecated sources than I do on any other editing - and quite a few "thanks" clicks for it.
There's no deadline, I want to remove frankly terrible and unusable nonsense sources from Wikipedia, that are absolutely not things that should ever have been used as sources. This improves the encyclopedia, and makes the world a better-informed place.
That makes it really clear thank you for a really detailed response. I do not want either source made an exception for soap opera coverage. I would always cite a more reliable source and skip past the DM when looking for sources since the consensus was reached. I did mean that the removal of reception does not really detract too much from a notable subject with plenty of reception already available from better sources. I was just worried by how fast it was being removed. I guess if it is really important it will be added back citing a different source at a later date. Like we both said, no deadline here. I think looking over the sources I noticed being removed, the biggest "loss" was the interviews with actors. I understand that editors on here would not put it past them to conjure up a fake quote. Say they hosted a video interview, that could possibly be used?Rainthe 100:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your warnings because I saw no reason to keep them, except for two of them. It honestly doesn't seem like pro-Deneen propaganda, it's just a summarization of his views, like a lot of other bio pages. If you really hate him, and I assume you do because of your user page, you can easily add a criticism section of him, there are a few online of him. Does that resolve things? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there!
The Cointelegraph page has been deleted due to «Please note that you are required to cite reliable sources when adding content in this area. Cryptocurrency enthusiast sites, such as CoinTelegraph, are not reliable sources. MER-C 16:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)», but it is.
1) It is a media company that works as a US mass media.
2) Resources such as CoinDesk are similar and publish news, but they are published in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artillar 1 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First i see you in the cryptosphere and love you and then i find out that you are the top guy of rationalwiki? I suddenly feel that someone is trolling me...Anyways, now that i may have your attention. Are there any good websites/forums like RW or Buttcoin? Maybe a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.191.230 (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My book was substantially written on the SomethingAwful buttcoin thread, which was where buttcoin first gathered. Though /r/buttcoin is more active these days - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to take a look at the Loose Women article and trim sources accordingly? I would do it myself but there are a lot of deprecated and unreliable sources such as The Sun, IMDb, Daily Mail and the Mirror. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh gawd, that thing's in my little list of "articles so saturated with bad sources I don't even know where to start". There's always the option of tagging every bad source, noting on the talk page that if we can't find replacements in a week it gets a serious RS cull, then proceeding a week later - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bold edit, but I'm gonna go through the article and remove all unsourced/IMDb-sourced information. I'll leave the items of info that are sourced with non-RSes, as users can willingly improve those. There is a lot of info on the article which is overly detailed and it bugs me. Like who cares that Stacey Soloman took a maternity break for a few months, really? – DarkGlow (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article and removed roughly 8k bytes of pure tripe. That should make it easier for yourself and other editors to improve the article. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mirror I can live with, just ... they're not quite the level of synthesist that the Sun or Mail are. I've been concentrating on zapping the most deserving. Doing the Sun, will start on Mail after it. But yeah, I'll look over those.
Yeah, Digital Spy is great. I primarily edit on soap and television articles, and their articles are reliable and a lifesaver for sourcing information. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! What is considered a "reliable independent source" for the crypto industry? There are no guidelines on the sanction page and the only reference I see is that CoinTelegraph is not considered as one, although it is one of the most reliable industry publications. Is CoinDesk also not considered notable? God knows the mainstream media publications are not reliable at all especially when it comes to a highly technical field that they do not understand. Please provide some clarity on how to navigate this area for new editors who work in this industry and would like to contribute correct information? Thank you! Also, sorry if I'm not using the talk page correctly, trying to figure out how to navigate all of this. Econlady (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no financial interest in her citation. She wants a more accurate up-to-date version, provided to me what she wanted and cited source material. If you can't accept her edits, they're not mine, please contact her at skswm@aol.com to arrange what you find acceptable. She has not been a candidate since 2014. There are numerous flaws in what you keep restoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQGore (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably tell I am not a Wikipedia veteran but if official USA Gymnastics have put up a vid with Claudia using Pigbag in 2015 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSBCY15GY18 ) - added to the previous 2016 link I showed, isn't there some way of constructing this 2015-2016 / Olympics evidence back into an official ref. I only mention this because of what's out there to see / hear... — Preceding unsigned comment added by C21bohemia (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a magazine using Medium for hosting. Or maybe a blog, I don't know the minutiae of our music sourcing well enough to be confident (though it would probably be good if I did) ... anyone reading my talk page who does? - David Gerard (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just the search - [3] - note that about the top 20 or so there have plausibly reasonable cause, and would need very careful attention to be properly replaced - David Gerard (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said "1:38 pm, Today (UTC−8) — AndewNguyen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic." Maybe that's how you do it correctly. Seems funny since if I didn't see your edit, I would have no idea who said that.[4] Also, I look at their edit history, and it doesn't seem clearly justified. Special:Contributions/AndewNguyen What is up? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I note your use of the general policy not to rely for news on papers like The Sun to remove a chunk from Yoga pants. In this case I don't doubt I can find a different fashion editor to say the same thing, but I really don't consider it a sensible application of a policy meant to prevent the use of gossip-news when all that's being discussed is the course of fashion, and the paper's fashion editor has certainly told the truth, too. Perhaps the policy itself is at fault, but I think this is an over-zealous application of the rule. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well, it was making a claim about a whole continent, which is pretty large to attribute to The Sun, especially as opinion. Surely there's absolutely anything better ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a run-of-the-mill edit conflict bug. Sometimes the automatic detection/warning function fails and deletes large swaths of the page for some reason. –dlthewave☎23:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Under this edit [5] with the summary (rm deprecated source the Daily Mail WP:DAILYMAIL1 (should not be used or trusted for any claim)) in addition to remove sources, two of which were marked cc (I prefer the better source needed) there was also removal of a further source there was also the unexplained removal of content associated with a further source. I am perhaps to WP:AGF this was a mistake. In which case you need to rethink and recheck your work. Or if it was deliberate unexplained removal of content under another pretext of another banner that is another and more serious matter. If you feel the content associated with the reference should be removed then explain why in the summary. Just because the Daily Mail has said it it doesn't have to be false. I regard the weather predictions useful as seemingly consistently over-the-top and puzzles seem accurate. Indeed it is well assumed on Wikipedia I am a Daily Mail reader User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2018 1#Car user and Daily Mail only reader?. Anyway can you please explain the content removal on The Biggest Little Railway in the World thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:DAILYMAIL1, which I linked in the summary? The Daily Mail has been so deeply untrustworthy a source previously that it literally can't be trusted for basic factual claims. There have been two broad RFCs to this effect, in 2017 and again in 2019, that no claim cited only to the Daily Mail can - or should - be trusted. So I removed the claims cited only to the Mail, because it is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia.
Certainly if there are good cites for the claim, then nothing stops it being re-added. However, it would need to be cited to a reliable source, per WP:V - which is policy. And the Daily Mail has been found in not one, but two, RFCs, to be such an unreliable source that its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited ... nor should it be used as a source in articles.
You may be a fan of the DM as a source, and "generally prohibited" is not the same as forbidden - but then the WP:BURDEN is on the person adding the DM as a source - or re-adding it - to justify it in the face of strong consensus at two RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant what you say here .... you are removing content when your summary says you are removing sources. You are being somewhere between deceptive and lying. Certainly disruptive. Think about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly partially revert this edit please? In addition to removing The Scum you also removed this reference to the Irish Independent which does appear to adequately reference the text. I can't revert it myself due to the 1RR restriction. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I appreciate your removal of material referenced to the Daily Mail in this edit (and other such edits), when will you be replacing the deleted source with an alternative reference? If you are systematically replacing the sources, why not do the removal and replacement at the same time? If you are not replacing the sources than all you are accomplishing is replacing a questionable source with none and making the encyclopedia worse, just in a different way. Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's making it better - instead of having a little blue number leading to a known-bad source, we admit then that we don't have a reliable source. We should not be falsely putting forth the Daily Mail as a reliable source in this manner, when it just isn't - that's a disservice to the reader.
With that particular edit, I judged as an editor that the claim could well be the case, so I left it there - but we shouldn't be leaving a little blue number there, implying it's properly sourced. Because the DM isn't a proper source - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David, wanted to bring a new article to your attention: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/BitAIrt. Should we classify such articles under the crypto sanctions (I ask since this is seemingly about art, but it's a token on Ethereum)? If so, I think this article should be deleted for lack of reliable sources. What do you think? --Molochmeditates (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in Draft:NewYorkCoin. I noticed the article when it was created, and then found it interesting that NYC Coin's twitter account tweeted about their inclusion on Wikipedia within an hour of the page being created. Now an IP and an SPA seem to be fighting over the draft... so it might be worth a look. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a lot to G11 a draft, but Twitter promotion within half an hour of an article sourced to pay-for-play sites reaches the bar I think. Thanks for flagging it :-) - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider reverting this edit? I realise the Daily Mail is a deprecated source and so it is considered generally unreliable and citing is generally prohibited (the keyword being 'generally'). Given I'm not relying on it here to support a claim but rather directly quoting the opinion of the paper's art critic (and it seems highly unlikely they would fabricate a quote from their own art critic), citing it in this particular instance seemed reasonable to me. Northernartfan (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the DM, it's not from a source that's worth putting in, in the usual case. Surely the article doesn't need it? The artist is clearly noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A question of clarification. Over on the Yudkowsky entry I'd suggested that making fun of subjects through tongue-in-cheek statements was an inappropriate tone for a WP:BLP entry. You responded saying that's a completely made-up interpretation of WP:BLP. I think you misunderstood me and took me to be saying one couldn't cite a derogatory article (which is not my view), but I'm not certain. If you did understand me correctly, can you explain why a mocking or tongue-in-cheek tone is appropriate for a biography (and why thinking otherwise is outside the scope of WP:BLP)? Thanks. 77.164.155.115 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how the Mark Macias page is up for deletion?
I removed some of the dead links in the edit source of my references page.
Jondavis349 (talk)
Hi,
I made some edits to this page to make it sound less promotional.
Does this help fit the criteria or are more edits that need to be done?
Jondavis349 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David: I realize that it's a bit unfair to think of you as Wikipedia's resident expert that all crypto questions come to but I was wondering about this one. I rejected an edit request to List of cryptocurrencies because it was ineligible and the sources seemed dodgy. I see today you've undone an attempt to just plain add it to the article and called it "cardano spam". The cardano draft article was rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I just saw another of a long line of flash-in-the-pan crypto bandwagoneers but these comments alert me to there being something else going on. Is this like OneCoin or something? Is it something I should keep my eye on? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)20:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. These pop up in weird places so I generally only notice them when they get to the heavily-used pages and trigger first protection and then edit requests. Aside from the video, then, normal reject-on-sight stuff. Thanks again. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)20:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the newbie help. To date, the only crapto-currency I own, is via Brave web-browser. Almost 2 US Dollars! However, I doubt I will ever bother converting it to spend. I looked at Ethereum way back (C/C++ Programmer is one of my 'hats'), and decided too much effort. Equally, I am not sold on Cardano based on Haskell, whilst it does not support For-Next loop etc. I keep a critical open mind on which crapto-currencies will win out. I might propose some projects on this or that. Especially against the SendX-GetX*Y scammers, using OpenCV to monitor YouTube etc. However, I cannot afford $30K+ 2 Bitcoin required to completely live crypto off-grid. I currently work in disproving software / systems in Pharma / Medical-Devices. My degree is in Physics, my career in PLC/SCADA control systems, and I've kicked the tyres on a few important systems in a few industries (some $100bn+). comment added by -User:BillCaxton (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2020 (GMT)
Can you please restore at least some of the edits? I improved the sources compared to what was available, including a Reuters source that you removed. You also removed some edits on the mining algorithm and supply, etc. to make them less accurate. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Monero_(cryptocurrency)&oldid=945096145
I saw a post from Charles hoskinson claiming wikipedia is censoring Cardano. I edited the Cardano draft page adding some content but to show a positive side of being strict about wikipedia policy I'm working on User:Spada2/sandbox7 Charles Hoskinson that assert more notability due his involvement on Ethereum. I carefully added a few reliable sources. the admin who deleted the page before is not avaiable anymore. What do you think about it? Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've been removing DM links, but please keep in mind that as long as we're talking a staff writer for DM and its use is for RSOPINION, as the case here [6], then it is a valid use. It would be a problem if the person's opinion wasn't a DM staffer, we'd not be assured of the legitimacy of their statement. --Masem (t) 00:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but it's an opinion from a non-notable individual in a deprecated source - there appears to be absolutely nothing worth noting about it. Even from a notable individual, it's no better than e.g. a blog post from them at absolute best.
WP:DAILYMAIL1 doesn't make an exception for attributed opinions. In any case, WP:WEIGHT requires us to cover all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, so we should either attribute it to a reliable source or not include it at all. –dlthewave☎01:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave Looks like Masem doesn't get that, because he put in a link to the DM claiming it met RSOPINION, even though it's a non-notable person writing in a deprecated source. I must admit I cannot fathom the thinking here; should he persist, it will definitely be a matter for RSN to start with - David Gerard (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the DM RFC nor the fact that Daily Mail is deprecated required the outright removal of all Daily Mail links without question, nor does it address the issue about RSOPINION. It only talks about facts. Remember the close of the RFC said "should not be used", not "must not be used", there's a significant difference. The case in Face the Raven is one I think didn't meet the statement in the DM RFC closure and one of those covered by RSOPINION, at least, it needs further disussion to see if its an essential opinion that needs to be kept or if can be replaced. I restored the removal, and then it was reverted again, so I started the RSN as stated in the edit comment. "Can the DM be used for RSOPINION" is a 100% fair question. Whether it can be used in the case of Face the Raven, I don't know, that specific case needs more discussion once the first question is answered. --Masem (t) 03:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. And Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. Your addition of the deprecated sauce was not reasonably supportable by WP:RSOPINION, and was blatantly WP:POINTy editing - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Birulik (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see in your talkpage, you have already been questioned about this multiple times.
I understand that you don't consider the DM to be a reliable source, but deleting content the way you are doing may cause a great, unnecessary and unjustifiable loss of information. It is better to just tag it [better source needed] and let editors look for better sources. Editors won't be encouraged to look for better sources if the content is missing and buried in the history pages. And, in most cases, a simple google search is enough to find better sources covering the claims.
Also note that: "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." Daveout (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So in practice, most of the complaints above are from people who want to defend an actively bad, deprecated source, and/or who really just don't understand that actively bad, deprecated sources are effectively anti-references, and leaving them in place decieves readers into thinking sources are well-supported, when they're not.
And you'll be glad to hear that I'm reviewing every edit! So your concern is misplaced.
If you think I'm not - then you'll need to show that, not just blankly assert it, if you're going to make that sort of claim about another editor. There's been a few blank assertions of this claim, and zero so far have proceeded to substantiate it. I've struck your heading as misleading, as what you claim is literally not happening.
If you think that actively bad, deprecated sources should not be removed from Wikipedia - then you are incorrect, per policy (WP:V), strong guidelines (WP:RS) and strong general RFCs (the deprecations of the sources), and the venue for you to argue that point is WP:RSN.
When I look to my thanks and my reversion rate, the first is much higher and the second much lower for removal of actively bad, deprecated sources than in usual editing.
I'm not at all defending the use of deprecated or unreliable sources. I am concerned about the valid content that is being lost by your revisions. I know that the burden to provide source to info is on th writers, but The DM was just recently declared a deprecated source, until then it as used like any other source by other editors who didn't bother to look for more than one source. This doesn't mean that the content is invalid and should be immediately deleted. Until now, I've only checked two edits of yours, and was very easy to find sources to the content you deleted. I wouldn't be surprised if ALL the content you are deleting could be backed-up with a simple google search for other sources. Please, reconsider your highly destructive actions. Daveout (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Content cited only to the DM is effectively uncited. It was always a bad source, and that's been formalised. Your claim that it was ever a good source is incorrect - what's being "destroyed" is uncited claims from a source that literally can't be trusted.
You seem to be advancing a notion of grandfathering bad cites and content if they're old. Nothing in Wikipedia has ever worked like that - indeed, WP:V and WP:RS notably contain no such provision. Where did you get the idea that keeping dubious content because it had been there a long time was a thing that actually applied?
(Possibly you should answer that at WP:RSN - since you seem to be trying to debate the entire concept of a deprecated source, and my talk page is a 0% effective venue for doing so.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition - please stop adding links to the WP:DAILYMAIL1 that clearly fail WP:BURDEN - which is policy. The DM is not "perfectly valid", it's a source deprecated twice by strong consensus at RFC. That you're a Daily Mail advocate doesn't make your actions any less a violation of WP:V - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it was ever a good source. Stop twisting my words. As I said, all the content, cited by the DM, that I've checked so far turned out to be accurate and supported by other sources. Daveout (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content was valid (and proven valid), even though the originally provided source wasn't.
Also note that the DM RFC states that: "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case."
And there goes your claim that all the content covered by that source must be removed (that is just your personal opinion). So stop trying to justify your revisions based on a consensus that clearly states the opposite of what you claim. Daveout (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for excuses. If you want the Daily Mail not regarded as a deprecated source, I strongly suggest yet again that you try your arguments at WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was very clear, and it was not a complete ban. If you really want a total ban maybe you should try discussing at WP:RSN. Till then, what you're doing is against what was deliberated in consensus. Daveout (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're not someone's sockpuppet, in which case you've made less edits in your entire Wikipedia history than I make in a day. So I'm reasonably confident of my interpretation compared to yours, and of what constitutes a clear consensus - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also know better than deleting content that i didn't even read. The claim about "a living person" is that he received a standing ovation (which is true, corroborated by more than one source.) grow up. and respect the consensus. Daveout (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, use the other sources. The consensus, per WP:DAILYMAIL1, says that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited and that the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. So stop putting it into articles - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know but there is a YouTube video of him receiving a standing ovation (which makes the claim uncontroversial). There is no other "news source" reporting it. (at this moment i couldn't find any). please respect the consensus. Daveout (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting you have no sources other than a deprecated source and a primary source that per WP:RSP is generally unreliable is not a reason to use the deprecated source. I urge you to review WP:RS.
Then remove just the citations that you dislike so much and leave the content that may be (and most likely will be) corroborated by other sources. It is not that hard. Also, the consensus in the RFC is crystal clear: if DM is the only source of an uncontroversial statement, DO NOT DELETE IT. Daveout (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the RFC LITERALLY states that: "Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case." Daveout (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V requires the use of reliable sources, as defined in WP:RS. The Daily Mail isn't one. Extracting a line from an RFC can't be used as a justification for violating policy - RFCs don't do that. In particular, I really urge you to reread the paragraph at WP:BURDEN.
Your claim works out to being that WP:IAR lets you ignore one of Wikipedia's core policies. I'm pretty sure that would take quite a lot of broad convincing.
The RfC consensus is that the use of the DM is acceptable in certain cases. This total ban of the DM only exists in your mind. Do you think you can define what is a reliable source all by yourself? This wiki is democratic. Respect what was decided by the majority. Daveout (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I use WP:RS, which allows reliable sources and not deprecated ones. Also, you probably really want to review WP:3RR at this point - for someone who says he isn't a DM advocate, you're sure behaving like one - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, his arguments in favour of, and edits replacing, the DM are going to go over 10% of his entire Wikipedia contribution history. Pretty good for someone who is totally not just a DM fan - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't break the 3RR and I don't intend to. Again, I dont care about the DM, I care about the valid content that you are deleting. Remove only the reference and tag it [better source needed] so others can have time to replace the deprecated source while preserving the information. Daveout (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to delete content backed by unreliable sources, and that is generally a good thing.
But most contents that you are deleting could simply have their references replaced (the "Last Tango in Paris" article is good example of that. A lot of important information could have been lost by your purge-style revision).
If you don't have time to look for other sources, please delete only the deprecated reference and tag it "source needed" so others can look for references, and if no reference can be found, I'm sure the content will eventually be deleted.
I don't have time, energy or will to continue discussing this. All I'm asking is for you to be a little reasonable and fair on your revisions. Daveout (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn to format your posts. Not doing so is incredibly rude. I sincerely hope that David will continue his great work removing unreliable sources, plus the unreliably sourced accompanying content. Your instructions to David in the post above are arrogant in the extreme, and well worth ignoring. Just sayin. -Roxy, the PROD. .wooF14:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I was checking your revisions and most of them are far from being careless as I previously stated. So here is my proper retraction and apology for being rude and disruptive. Daveout (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David! Your name keeps appearing in my watchlist with all the DM removals you've been doing. Thanks for your work combating the problem! :) Acalamari09:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re this one: I have no problem, generally, making a dead letter out of the Mail (certainly one of the indisputably better things about living in the US over the UK is that you don't see it poking from any newsstands) on Wikipedia.
But ... in this case I think there's a possibility of an exception (one that proves the rule, actually). Ms. Jones, who IIRC does not normally write for the Fail, wrote a first-person piece about her independently-verifiable experience as a fashion magazine editor and the perspective it gave her on the film. That's not the sort of objective "reporting" we have come to distrust the Fail on. (I am also unaware of her having claimed later that the piece was embellished or anything like that).
I think way back when this whole thing was under discussion originally (early 2017, was it?) I raised exactly this point as a possible exception, pointing to this in particular, and someone else agreed that this wasn't the sort of thing we were blacklisting the newspaper over and that maybe it didn't count (And haven't we also decided that the Mail's sports coverage is exempt from the ban?) I can't find the diff right now (I'm going to be going out and making a food delivery to someone soon) but I might be able to later.
If you'd prefer to discuss this at RSN or something like that, I have no problem. Just let me know if and when you do.
(In the long term, I have vague plans of getting this article to FA in the hopes of having it on the Main Page next June 30, the 15th anniversary of the film's release. So obviously I'd like this resolved sooner rather than later). Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You performed a referencectomy on Billy Evans (hotelier) with the edit summary "rm deprecated source the Daily Mail WP:DAILYMAIL1 (should not be used or trusted for any claim)".
However, the reference you excised was to a completely different publication, Business Insider.
A consensus was reached to deprecate The Daily Mail, because, in theory, the community concluded that there were so many instances when the editors at The Daily Mail failed to behave professionally, and published articles that were reliable.
This does not mean every article published by The Daily Mail is unreliable. On the contrary, long before they started publishing tabloid non-sense, they published reliable material. And, even today, when they are known for publishing tabloid non-sense, they have a whole other set of reporters who publish highly reliable material. I have hundreds of google news alerts, that send me an email when a topic I am interested gets an article published about it. About once a month one of the emails shows me that The Daily Mail's hard-hitting professional reliable journalists are still working hard.
So, not every article published by The Daily Mail is tabloid crap, and, when another publication arranges to re-publish an article first published by The Daily Mail that article goes through the review process of that other publication's professional editors. I suggest that, when an article first published in a deprecated publication, like the The Daily Mail, is subsequently republished in another publication, it is judgement of the second set of editors that counts.
Therefore I am going revert your referencectomy. If you think that Business Insider should also be deprecated, and you initiate a discussion to do so, at RSN, or elsewhere, please give me a heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a dangerous move. One of the major problems with the Daily Mail that's been pointed out repeatedly at WP:RSN and was part of its deprecation (JzG has a few examples) is those times when the Mail runs something, it promptly spreads to a zillion other publications - because it's interesting, and colourful! - and the orjginal story was made-up Daily Mail BS.
If you check WP:RSP, it notes specifically re: Business Insider that syndicated content should be checked per the original publisher. That would be the DM, so your action here is likely incorrect.
I would really strongly urge you to find an independent source.
Business Insider says Katie Warren wrote the article in question. I don't see anywhere in the article that says it was originally published in The Daily Mail, so I googled "elizabeth holmes" "billy evans" "katie warren". None of the ghits point to The Daily Mail. Hmmm. Can you share how you determined it was a republication of a Daily Mail article? Geo Swan (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I misread your message! I thought you were talking about BI reprinting DM.
Yeah, if I accidentally excised BI, that was a mistake on my part and thanks for reverting. Uh, I'll have a look in an hour or so, it's early here ... - David Gerard (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or, maybe I'll look right now. Wow, yes. Sorry, the long thing above got the situation completely wrong. I made a mistake and you caught it, and thank you very much - David Gerard (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are at it again, I see. Do please consider actually reading an article before censoring it. I see you spent up to one whole minute looking at your latest purge. Tim riley talk22:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you censor an article without reading it your opinion is negligible. The article in question is an FA, has been through PR and FAC with numerous inputs from respected editors, but, no - you sail in and overrule everyone else's considered judgement. Just calm down and read articles before barging in. Tim riley talk22:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Sorry you didn't like the edit, but a FA with a deprecated source means it needs reviewing at the least, not that it's suddenly bulletproof. You're not coming off balanced here - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In one minute? Gosh! You're a quick reader. I detest the Daily Mail with all my heart, but it is idiotic to imagine its arts coverage is a wicked Tory plot. Tim riley talk23:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, not a wicked Tory plot, just unreliable. That's the consensus. Rather than challenging people who are following the consensus, you need to go and change the consensus first.
Tim - Featured Article Criteria 1(c) is "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". I'm pretty sure that having a deprecated source would be an immediate hard fail at FAC - of the "didn't even do their homework" variety.
Grounds for removal at Featured Article Review do routinely include having let the sources rot. A deprecated source would be grounds for removal as a FA.
It may have "been through PR and FAC with numerous inputs from respected editors" - but the existence of FAR shows that is very much not in any way the final word, and an article's quality is up for reconsideration at any time.
Could you please clarify - where did you get the idea that it would have been a final word on the sources themselves?
Not sure where you get wicked Tory plot from. Anyway, the actual claims in the article text seem fully covered by the Guardian site, which is a Reliable Source and not deprecated. So I've restored the text. The cite to the deprecated source seems to have been completely superfluous - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...has been the topic of a lengthy discussion at Teahouse. My contribution was that based on the flawed and weak references for one small part of what B wanted to add, the entire massive addition was suspect, and rightfully reverted by you. Also pointed out to B that paid editing is supposed to be via proposing content changes at Talk, and not directly to the article. Lastly, I trimmed the existing article by 20%, as it had existing weaknesses. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to cede notable, but a six year old company with venture funding around $50 million and 60 employees does not warrant a long article. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In your haste to waste the DM. Diff removal of "Sotloff fasted secretly". A google search of "Sotloff fasted secretly" brings up numerous reliable sources, including The Telegraph and others. This is reckless removal of content, even a fact tag would do. -- GreenC00:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Been watching for those, yes. (And the Oxford Mail, and the Hull Daily Mail, and the Sunday Mail, and the Courier-Mail, and ...) If I inadvertently hit any, please undo - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi – following a discussion on the talk page of WP:RECORDCHARTS, we are wondering why you added australian-charts.com to the "websites to avoid" with this edit. It's especially confusing because the same website is listed immediately below at WP:GOODCHARTS, and indeed is used along with all the other Hung Medien charts to log chart placings. It's true that it can only be used for ARIA charts from 1988 onwards, but this is already noted at WP:GOODCHARTS. Could we therefore remove this from the list of websites to avoid, as currently it's confusing information? Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just wanted to check with you... I think "use with caution" would be appropriate. I'll remove it from the "avoid" list then – thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I originally worried about it because someone wanted to delete Rain (Dragon song) because they couldn't find evidence of it even having charted ... because Hung Medien hadn't licensed David Kent's data (showing it went to No. 2 and was in the charts for six months), and Kent's charts were the accepted Australian charts for years. But the current note is clear enough I think. Just added a note explaining why 1988 - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
a rich-text visual editing option, and
other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.
You've probably got your reasons for deleting the DM as a source - I don't particularly feel that strongly about it - but I trust you'll be replacing the DM source for a more reliable one and not just lazily tagging it expecting someone else to find it for you? CassiantoTalk20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, you're not replacing them and you are tagging them, only. Well, thanks for your collaborative attitude. I'd dig you out a barn star, only none are worthy enough. You certainly have to question someone's motives when they consider a piece of sourced information to be less reliable than something that is unsourced completely. Anyway, I'll leave you to continue with your enabling of Wikipedia's weird, gooey-eyed obsession with the left wing media. Keep up the fantastic work, you're doing a wonderful job in creating more work for others. CassiantoTalk06:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's some sort of left-wing conspiracy, you need to ask yourself why The Times and the Daily Telegraph are not similarly ill-regarded, despite having similar politics. Also, reverting random edits WP:POINTily is unlikely to work out well - David Gerard (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the bloody tagging! It is lazy and not collaborative. If you insist on removing DM sources, remove the entire lot, including the text, if you can't be bothered to replace it. Do not leave unsourced information in WP articles, particularly BLPs. I see that you're an administrator...the mind boggles. CassiantoTalk06:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The precise course of action to take with DM cites is a vexed topic that has been long discussed. If you're actually interested in discussion of it, probably the place to achieve any is WP:RSN. Or you could keep going here, if you just feel like posting - David Gerard (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less; just stop tagging unsourced information and leaving it in situ and expecting others to fix it for you. Being an administrator, you'll be aware of WP:BLP? You'll be even more aware of WP:CITE? You should be. Your contributions, which I've pipe-linked above, are just too much for me to waste time going through and reverting, but I would if I had more time, make no mistake about that. Thankfully, for you, your many years of being thoroughly unhelpful will go in your favour on this occasion. CassiantoTalk06:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. It took me two minutes to find an alternative citation to the one you removed on Farndon, Cheshire, and there was nothing much wrong with the DM citation in the first place. Much as I share your distaste for the Mail, I don't think deleting DM cites and replacing them with "citation needed" is a useful use of your (or my) time and it's actively making Wikipedia worse. A DM cite is better than no citation at all. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's actively worse - there's a blue number there, it looks to the casual reader like a well-cited claim when it's literally the opposite - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just here to add this to the list of sloppy edits. The DM was already commented out and the edit ended up removing all the the categories from the page. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CassiantoTalk06:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not an "advocate of the Daily Mail" (that's italicised, by the way), and I'd request that you keep it civil. I hate the paper, but unsourced information is not better than sourced information. If you don't like the DM as a source, delete it and its supporting text, if you can't be bothered to do any hard graft. CassiantoTalk06:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above. If you want to discuss the vexed topic of the correct course of action for DM cites, WP:RSN is definitely the place. If you're more interested in just posting, by all means feel free - David Gerard (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to discuss the merits of what is and isn't a Wikipedia-approved source...frankly, I'd sooner scoop my eyes out with a rusty spoon and play football with them down Wigan high street. I'll continue posting all the time that you continue to breach our policies. And the level of "thanks" I'm receiving in my notifications is a telling sign that I am right and you are wrong. CassiantoTalk06:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're expressly refusing to discuss the correct application of the policies you claim I'm breaching, in the precise venue for doing so, and instead will continue to offer helpful advice here instead? Also, the lurkers support you in email? ok - David Gerard (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The lurkers"? "In email"? What are you wittering on about? Would you care to provide "a source" for that "conspiracy theory"? I'd accept the DM, btw. Or maybe just tag it and expect someone else to find out? CassiantoTalk07:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyway, I'll leave you to continue with your enabling of Wikipedia's weird, gooey-eyed obsession with the left wing media." Again, ask yourself why the DM is deprecated but the Times and Tele aren't. Or don't, if you don't like asking yourself things - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it is because The Times and The Telegraph are not vociferous enough in their disliking of left-wing agendas, unlike The Sun, Express, and the DM. I'm sure that time will come. You could also argue that it is a class thing; The Sun, which prides itself on being the mouthpiece for the working-class white-van-man, and the DM, its posher (in my view) equivalent, are both written with those types of people in mind. CassiantoTalk07:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Times and Tele are too left-wing, got it - nothing conspiratorial about that sort of claim. You'll excuse me if I don't put much store by your opinions on sourcing given this, however. If you do ever feel like attempting to convince anyone else that your ideas aren't conspiratorial, WP:RSN is there for the discussion. In the meantime, I'll be continuing to remove the source that was deprecated twice by broad consensus as generally prohibited and that should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. (I'll leave it to you to discuss whether a broad general Wikipedia consensus constitutes left-wing bias.) Please don't put deprecated links into Wikipedia articles (restoring deprecated links counts), unless you can clearly meet the WP:BURDEN (a policy) of doing so in each and every case - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to decipher anything remotely coherent from this load of textual diarrhoea, but I'm glad, at last you seem to have got my message. CassiantoTalk08:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a Daily Mail reader's grasp of "civility", but anyway. I was quoting the conclusion of WP:DAILYMAIL1. I thought it was pretty clear, but it's surprising how much ambiguity some can find in terms like generally prohibited - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so there is a left wing conspiracy...the fact you've now shown your colours inasmuch that you don't like the DM. Very telling. CassiantoTalk11:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, well now. I have a lot of experience with this same type of editing, and what I find is this:
Tagging as {{sps}}, {{dubious}}, {{better source}}, etc. almost never results in the source being replaced.
Removing the source and tagging {{cn}} very often does result in a new source being added, or, if none exists, the content removed as unsupportable from RS.
The aim here is to improve the encyclopaedia. In our case, by removing crap. I don't care - and I don't suppose David does either - whether some superficially uncontentious material remains unsourced for a while before being nuked, but leaving a crap source gives the spurious impression that this content is factual, even if the source is tagged as dubious, whereas {{cn}} prompts people to check the content not the source, and that's what's actually needed.
Of course, some people (not you, I think) demand that we jump through hoops to "preserve content" but this fails to understand WP:ONUS. This is Wikipedia, there is a bar to inclusion, the bar is reliable sourcing, and it is on the editors seeking to include the content, to clear the bar. Guy (help!) 12:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto Sorry for meddling in here, but I don't think that immediately deleting all the content referenced by the DM is the best move. That would result in a great and unnecessary loss of valid information. Because, statistically, claims made by the DM have a high probability of being supported by other sources (that being the case, a simple replacement of references is enough in order to keep the information in the article). And I believe that we should try to preserve as much information as possible during this DM removal process. As pointed out by JzG (guy), tagging it "source needed" encourages and gives editors some time to look for sources before deleting info. It's really upsetting to see content being deleted without ppl even checking if the claims are backed by other sources. But I can see that, in some cases, David is looking for replacement sources before deleting content (the right way to go). If the editor doesn't have time for that, the second better choice is to tag the text and let others do the job (because this wiki is based on collaborative work). But it's a terrible idea to delete content backed by a only-recently deprecated source without checking for better sources first. Daveout (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, let's add all manner of shit to our articles then. What's the point of WP:CITE, WP:RS, or indeed any of the sourcing guidelines if we are saying that it's a free for all? I'll tell you what, I'll pop along to add a conspiracy theory to the Elvis Presley page in a minute, to say that in my opinion he was abducted by burger-munching aliens from the Planet Zoz, unreferenced of course. I trust you'll leave it alone and not revert me if I did? CassiantoTalk15:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto, Cool down your head a little. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: It is ok to delete content backed by a deprecated source, but if there's any chance that the content may be backed by another source, it is worth checking that out BEFORE DELETING IT. Daveout (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then direct your comment to David Gerard, who's left it sourceless. It is completely brain dead to suggest that a newspaper which is 150 years old and the second highest selling newspaper in the UK, is less reliable than some IP who nobody knows who adds something that is unsourced. Tell me: What is the difference in deleting unsourced material on sight (which we should all be doing, especially on BLPs), and deleting it several months, or years in some cases, later? CassiantoTalk17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If only you could read policy discussions without wanting to scoop your eyes out, then you could research the many, many answers to your concerns, and why not one, but two broad general RFCs hold that your claim there is nonsense, and why. Possible worlds, eh. Good to see you're still posting here, rather than, e.g., anywhere that might change any of your concerns - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, for those inspired by this to help with clearing down the backlogs of deprecated sources - here's an RSN section I posted a coupla months ago. In that time, the DM is down from 21,768 to 16,198 article-space uses as I write this. Plenty of source review to be done during the lockdown! - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know Daily Mail is "generally unreliable", however, it also states in the summary column at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that, "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." Seeing as Eddie Hearn is the author of the article (it says at the top "by Eddie Hearn for the Daily Mail") that was referenced, and the accompanying quote used in Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina was attributed to Eddie Hearn, does that not count as one of the rare "about-self fashion" instances? – 2.O.Boxing12:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion piece in a deprecated source - what makes this a vital inclusion? It's not clear it actually adds anything of substance - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the author, Eddie Hearn, is Anthony Joshua's promoter/matchmaker, not some random journalist giving an opinion. He's listing the potential opponents he has in mind for Joshua's next fight. The 'Background' section in boxing event articles details a general timeline of potential opponents, the decision making process and negotiations. – 2.O.Boxing13:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of the WP:RSN, it was helpful. Just to note, using the Daily Mail was a one off, I figured the circumstances would permit it, you won't catch me adding to your already overwhelmed workload in the future lol – 2.O.Boxing19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to this edit: the link you removed was not being used as a reference. (There is probably a question to be asked about whether it is sensible to have a listing of op-eds written by the article subject on the topic for which he is a proponent of fringe views, but that's a different matter ....) --JBL (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the Daily Mail that you removed were to two articles that I wrote under my byline. There was therefore no question about authenticity. If material from articles and books under an author's byline is to be removed, we would have little content in Wikipedia. I was one of the few journalists to predict in a published article that Trump would win the presidency even before he was nominated, and that is certainly noteworthy. With respect for your diligence, please reconsider and add back the reference!KesslerRonald (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Ronald Kessler[reply]
Please note that I am not a proponent of "fringe views." I am a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter whose op-eds appear in the Washington Post, Time, and the Wall Street Journal. As noted in the Wikipedia bio, I have written articles praising President Obama and denouncing Sen. Joe McCarthy. FactCheck.org said my Secret Service book has favorable and unfavorable items about presidents of both parties. My Trump book, while overall favorable, has dozens of negative items about him. My website lists these quotes from respected journalists and publications:
"Ron Kessler...has enjoyed a reputation for solid reporting over the past four decades."--Lloyd Grove, The Daily Beast.
"Kessler's such a skilled storyteller, you almost forget this is dead-serious nonfiction..."--Newsweek.
"[Ronald Kessler] is the man who broke the story about the [Secret Service prostitution] episode in Cartagena...."--New York Times.
"His [Kessler's] book quotes both flattering and unflattering observations about presidents of both parties."--FactCheck.org.
"[Kessler has] done groundbreaking work over the years, [producing] major scoops."--Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo! News.
"[Ronald Kessler] is one of the nation's top investigative journalists."--Fox & Friends.
"Ron Kessler appears to get everything first." Slate. KesslerRonald (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Ronald Kessler[reply]
Please note that I am not a proponent of "fringe views." Yes well since my post has nothing whatsoever to do with you, what’s the problem? Incidentally, David Gerard is correct to point out that Wikipedia articles are not CVs and long lists of the subject’s published works are generally inappropriate. —JBL (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are not long lists of the subject's published works but only citations of those that are newsworthy or have been picked up by major newspapers like the Washington Post. If that is not relevant Wikipedia material, I don't know what is. They have been on my Wikipedia bio for years and have not raised any objections by Wikipedia editors who have repeatedly reviewed and approved them.KesslerRonald (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Ronald Kessler[reply]
Thank you for forcing better citations in this article. I was unaware of WP:DAILYMAIL1, though I knew the source was mostly to be avoided (I recall specifically searching for whether there was a siteban and coming up empty). In this case, I felt at the time that the individual page cited was acceptable since, despite a fair bit of gushing, it was a relatively straightforward recap of a television broadcast. —ATS (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you explain why you have removed mine as well as some other comments on this diff? I am assuming it is some kind of mistake, if so would you please re-instate the removals. Tayi ArajakateTalk07:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to ask the same thing, as I was pinged in one of the messages that you removed and was confused about why I couldn't find the response on the page. I'm assuming it was an accident, but just wanted to check that I didn't miss something you think needs redacting? GirthSummit (blether)07:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Ambler 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. Jlevi (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hm - a few tabloids and primary sources (Apple Music), but nothing that really makes me go "WHAT ON EARTH". Slightly puffed, but not more than is typical for actors. Was there anything that struck you as dodgy in the sources? - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not after all that work, no. The 'tabloids' are there largely for familial citation and critical reception—the latter being subjective by nature—and the primary sources are pretty much the only confirmation for music releases. It was mostly an issue of whether I was being more true to an encyclopedia than a résumé, which it frankly was to start.
That said, the reliably of a 'tabloid' and/or the author of a specific piece, in terms of how it is used in an article, is something with which I have struggled at times. 😁 —ATS (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In your studied opinion, does a shot-but-unaired TV pilot (Cutthroat, Career > Film and television > graf 1) satisfy WHOCARES? —ATS (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we'd have to fall back on WP:GNG for an article on that one. If it's got a cite to an RS, no problem mentioning it in e.g. a bio if it's relevant - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw you deleted my contributions and the entirety of the page. Could you possibly suggest more information on the reasoning. If you could possibly suggest any recommendations on how to better the writing of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLvovich (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Gerard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vernon François, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: accepted AFC submission means that an experienced editor (in this case admin) thinks this subject is notable enough for inclusion and meets all requirements, thus speedy deletion cannot possibly be uncontroversial. Thank you. SoWhy07:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
About the article about Dean Schneider. In case you haven't noticed, there's a haters ' war going on against Dean. They are making edits based on partial excerpts of the articles.--Бутывский Дмитрий (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I didn't know that these were unreliable sources. But then all the links of Dean's critics are just as unreliable. So thank you for your help. I also ask you to remove the deletion dispute from the article about Dean Schneider. You can not delete the article, it is significant and does not contain any advertising for money, no more than General information, no photos at all, I was not able to contact Dean and ask for his photo for the article, he does not respond. So I don't get any money for my actions, I'm a volunteer, a volunteer, I'm a Russian wiki user. Enough information?--Бутывский Дмитрий (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't remove the AFD notice while the deletion discussion is in progress - but the discussion appears to be progressing to keeping the article, because there's coverage of him in WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RoboCop (2014 film); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I did read WP:Daily Mail and as you said it is only "generally prohibited." That means there are circumstances to allow it. That Daily Mail article was written by Kurdo Baski, a friend of the novels' author who is mentioned in the Wiki article, thus it has firsthand knowledge about the creation of the series that can not be found elsewhere. If this isn't one of the special circumstances to allow Daily Mail then provide an example of what is. Xfansd (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only in the DM, it's almost certainly not a usable source. (I'm somewhat perplexed by the logic "There might technically be an exception, therefore my favourite example might be that exception, prove me wrong.") I would think surely that if an article is basically based on content from the Daily Mail - as you're saying - then that's not at all usable sourcing for the article, and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. We could start a discussion on WP:RSN, given that WP:DAILYMAIL1 was a broad general consensus that was ratified twice on that board - it would definitely be the place to discuss it, and avoid claims of any sort of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - David Gerard (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see any others. I've been blacklisting crypto spam domains when multiple users/IPs spam them. (Perhaps an excess of caution.) In this account's case, they appear to have been the new account of a previous indef-blocked spammer, flummoxed by MediaWiki keeping track of blocked users' IPs internally - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the history for some bizarre false-sourced claim I removed from the adam back article I see the it was restored by an apparent revert war against you. You might want to check if User:Zvikorn is an alternative account of MisesPieces and was switching accounts to avoid an appearance of a revert war and/or avoid the semi-protect. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That article's a problem. It's not clear he's even "notable" in Wikipedia jargon - having trouble finding the RS coverage we'd expect for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, David Gerard. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have reverted you there, for two reasons the info that the Daily Mail is simply sourcing the name of his wife and that she was on the TV show it states. It is a non controversial addition and as such that source is appropriate. If it was citing anything more heavy or controversial then that I would agree wholeheartedly. Unbroken Chain (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the Daily Mail being used on BLP material such as this is still utterly unacceptable. As such, I've removed the DM. Is there literally no other cite for this? - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB, and possib;y [[7]]. Per that ruling it does actually state.."The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead...There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." BLP is more about controversial statements and making sure things are sourced correctly, this simply says John Franzese Jr has an Ex Wife, her name is this and she was featured on "I married a Mobster" There is nothing negative, defamatory or controversial in sourcing that one edit to daily mail. I think and believe it actually is in spirit of what Yunshui wrote in the excerpts above. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you literally noted right there: "if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead". Per WP:BURDEN - which is policy - do you have an RS for this? - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also forgot the part "Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases." It allows us to use common sense when making the removal decision or not. I think you are making a mountain out of a very small, minute even molehill. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Common sense" says to me that, given (per recent WP:RSN discoveries) that the Daily Mail is so untrustworthy that we literally can't trust dailymail.co.uk as an accurate guide to the contents of the Daily Mail, that using it for any fact whatsoever is an obvious and blatant failure, and that "generally prohibited" means it should be avoided in pretty much all circumstances. To repeat my question, which you didn't answer: Per WP:BURDEN - which is policy - do you have an RS for the claim? - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue I'll bring it up on the BLP bard and get a consensus, it's clear you aren't even coming close to discussing or looking at the issue circumstantially. If others feel that way too fine but I think it's petty. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense also predicts the result of saying on BLPN "hey, I want to use the Daily Mail on this BLP!", but don't let me hold you up. Be sure to link back here - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pretty nice and respectful about this, I even state I'm willing to let it go with a consensus. Don't know why you are throwing attitude but it isn't needed. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disp[ute resolution usually entails trying other avenues first, I am going to start here [[8]]. There is nothing super urgent about resolving this right now and a proper consensus may still be obtained on the talk page. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding this comment because I'm following the most recent. I've seen citations from the Daily Mail in the past and have always taken them with a grain of salt. However, I just noticed that you'd removed the citation from the Alek Skarlatos article. When the 2015 Thalys train attack incident occurred that made the subject notable, there were many stories written about it in the next few days, sometimes contradictory ones, attributable perhaps to the "fog of war." In trying to determine what actually happened, I read a great many original articles and in doing so, came across two contemporaneous Daily Mail articles about it. I was stunned to find five rather obvious serious errors of fact in those two. Thanks for the efforts you've made to remove it as a persistently unreliable source. Activist (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cheers :-) yeah, one of the worst things about the DM is they just don't care. The facts don't matter, they just pump out copy as fast as possible. Then get upset when people don't treat them as a newspaper of record. It's amazing - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that my replacement of the DM ref with one from the ES is acceptable. This is something you could have done. Took me all of five minutes to find. The delay in adding it is because I am a carer, and the person I care for takes priority over editing Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the overhaul at 5 May (diff[9]) there has been increased activity.
It looks a little directionless, there are a couple of examples of edit conflicts, and then also an Rfc.
The talk-page is lenghty, but the article is not so long, and worth reading. I hope you'll find time to read the one or the other and perhaps to participate in one of the open discussions. Sechinsic (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cheers :-) I guess the main thing is participants in the discussion at this stage, which has only just started. At least nothing is actively on fire yet ;-)
Anyone else reading my user talk page, who wants to have a look? It's a pretty important topic - David Gerard (talk)
Apparently characters from her show keep making news. Anyway, I did my latest check and my total number of viewers from Wednesday night of the 2012 Republican National Convention was missing. At the time I added that, I knew nothing about The Daily Mail not being considered reputable. I asked for help the last time I checked on this and a Google search turned up nothing. The Daily Mail got it from somewhere but wherever that is, it's nowhere to be found, at least online.
My concern is an urban legend that Here Comes Honey Boo Boo had more viewers that night than the convention. I added enough information to the article to show why that's not true, but it would be helpful to have some evidence that yes, the convention's total number of viewers was higher than Honey Boo Boo. It's still a milestone for the series.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I'm super-cautious about Mail claims of audience numbers - like every other area of "gosh, isn't that interesting" content they run, you can't tell what's made up and what isn't ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: The Daily Mail had the truth, if in fact it was the truth. The urban legend was not created by them, but rather the fact that if each network's coverage is considered a separate program, Honey Boo Boo was the number one show in that slot with that audience. And that's the story that got out.
The way the article stands now, there's no evidence the convention had more viewers. I could find all the networks that aired it and add up their numbers, if I could even find that now. And it would still be WP:OR.
The best I can do from the reliable sources is a statement with wording similar to "obviously, more people than that watched the convention", which isn't useful. I wish someone could help with this. You'd think such information would be out there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you made an edit - maybe in a general crusade against "deprecated sources", but maybe out of care for this particular topic, I don't know. If the latter: maybe you want to take a look at this. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I see now. I inadvertently and inappropriately reinstated another Daily Mail reference you had removed when I was trying to restore the legitimate text you had inappropriately removed. Okay, apologies for that. —Epipelagic (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your contributions, I see you are on a zealot's mission of indiscriminately removing any content, however appropriate, if it was solely sourced to the Daily Mail. It is only in recent years that the Daily Mail has become unacceptable as a source on Wikipedia, so many of those entries were originally made in good faith and the associated text may well be entirely valid. I cannot see that indiscriminately removing all such text, without making the slightest effort to see if it is valid and can be readily cited with a reliable source, is anything like an optimal way to contribute to Wikipedia. —Epipelagic (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that "It is only in recent years that the Daily Mail has become unacceptable as a source on Wikipedia". It has always been an unacceptable source. It just took us a while to realize this. Being an unacceptable source isn't something that magically starts when Wikipedia decides that the source is unacceptable. Being an unacceptable source is an innate attribute. There are unacceptable sources that we haven't identified and unacceptable sources that we have identified.
Now it is true that before we identify an unreliable source nobody is going to get in trouble for using it back before there was a rule saying not to, but that doesn't, as you claim, imply that "the associated text may well be entirely valid". We cannot trust anything that came from The Daily Mail. The only time the text can be retained is if there is another source for it. No other source? Nuke it. The alternative is to allow unsourced material, which violates WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, David is on a "zealot's mission" to remove sources that, by wide consensus, are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Every Wikipedian should be on the same mission. Guy (help!) 09:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the Daily Mail was ever, ever, a reasonable source to use for scientific statements, it's hard to know what to say - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really. Amongst the flurry of righteous virtue signalling, there's not the slightest attempt anywhere here to read what I actually said and address the actual point I was making. Which was to have some respect for whether the disputed text itself was actually scientifically valid, and whether it could be easily cited with a reliable source. But I accept the point is wasted here. — Epipelagic (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First we have [10], where David Gerard removed a claim referenced to The Daily Mail. (Source)
As is usual with The Daily Mail they lifted the information from another site, in this case [11] or possibly [12], added a few completely fabricated details ("discovered the previously unknown creature, speckled in red and black, sitting on a leaf" -- the source doesn't say that, and the actual frog is found in tropical wet-forest leaf litter) and published it as the work of "Tamara Cohen for the Daily Mail" (usually credited as "Tamara Cohen, Political Correspondent For The Daily Mail") as if she wrote it.
Later, Epipelagic restored the claim with a proper citation.[13]
So we now have a question of Wikipedia policy. We don't need any further opinions; we need a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy or guideline. The question is:
Is David Gerard REQUIRED to look for a source to replace the citation to The Daily Mail?
#Deprecated sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources don't address the above question directly, but they do address removing the citation, as opposed to the claim. The citation should be removed, either with the claim or leaving an unsourced claim.
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"
"Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
When you're cleaning up cites from the Mail, don't replace them with {{fact}} tags, just get rid of it. If the material is not verifiable to another source and easily replaceable, it shouldn't be in there, full stop. There's an old rant from Jimbo somewhere about this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YMMV. I'm applying editorial judgement as I go - if it's plausible, seems likely true and isn't too terrible, I'll often leave it with a {{cn}}. But not anywhere near every case.
(More generally: there is literally no approach to this that will please everyone, except doing nothing, which leaves a lotta trash that really needed clearing up ...)
I've been doing various subcategory lists like that - beating the crap out of the Wikipedia search functionality, PetScan, etc ... current total DM: 10,700 - well on the way to four figures!! - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Keith Moon quotes, I left them because he's super-well-studied, and I figured if it was good then someone particularly expert would do something with them. OTOH, just yesterday I had an experienced editor annoyed that I had in fact removed BLP details cited to the DM ... And then of course there were the two (not one, two) who literally claimed that removing bad sources under WP sourcing rules was censorship, contradicting WP:NOTCENSORED. I suggested they not take this argument to WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Gerard, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Hi Gerard, I notice that you keep deleting media appearance. While I completely appreciate your help in editing Wikipedia, I really disagree with your edits. We can have a discussion on whether media appearances are a good fit for Wikipedia articles (they have been there for ages) however I don't think that the argument that these are "primary sources" therefore not reliable or "promotional edits" is a valid one. There is, in fact, nothing promotional about stating some of the most noticeable media appearances for one of the world main expert on a field that will shape the future of humanity. These are source that anyone can consult to better understand his ideas.
Therefore unless you don't provide with solid arguments to support your thesis, I will ask you to stop this editing war and revert back to the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermind-Punk (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be a single-topic promotional editor. Please stop using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and do not edit past a request for COI declaration - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is most defenetely not promotional editing. Without me, Wikipedia was missing Ben goetzel's primary occupation therefore was highly inaccuate thanks to some editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermind-Punk (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just to clarify a recent edit made to the page Bruce Ritchie that included a Daily Mail reference. You asked if another source has covered it: the update concerns a charitable donation to a charity established by the Daily Mail, and as such no other source has picked up the story. Would it be possible to reassess the edit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotWells (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation for lack of coverage doesn't make sense. There are thousands of reliable sources in the world. Very few of them are British newspapers. If this is noteworthy, someone will cover it. Give it time.
soundhealthandlastingwealth.com is simply one of many unreliable sources that copy word for word from The Daily Mail. Here is another:[14] And another:[15]Most DM content gets copied by various sites looking for clicks. Such copies do not show that something is noteworthy. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearing down backlogs of deprecated sources: call for help
Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box.
Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They need review, with a view to removal.
As I write this, the notorious WP:DAILYMAIL1 is below 10,000 uses in main article space!
If you're reading this, and would like to improve Wikipedia sourcing - here is a list of articles that cite the Daily Mail. Almost all of them shouldn't. Can you resolve five of these?
Perhaps the cite needs removal and replacement with a {{cn}}; perhaps the claim needs removal too; perhaps the DM cite can be replaced with a cite to an RS. This requires human editorial judgement - though in my experience, it's usually pretty obvious.
Your prod rationale at Cadbury Cocoa House, No evidence this ever happened is a bit dumb. Clearly it did happen, there is a picture of the Bluewater outlet in the article. This reviewer actually visisted it and her article includes a picture of the place crowded with customers. If I were the sort of person to make a WP:POINT I might have removed the prod notice, but actually, I think you right, it does need deleting as nn. SpinningSpark23:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, well done for your removal of unreliable sources. I notice though that this often leaves parts of an article totally unreferenced. I wondered if you had considered putting the {{cn}} template in such places just to flag it up? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frequently I do - it depends. Is it reasonably cited to other stuff in the article (e.g. to the next cite or other cites in the article), can it be presumed from the fact there's an article on the topic? (e.g. List of hobbies) If so I'll leave it without an additional {{cn}}. Is it prrrrrrrobably true in my editorial guesstimate? Put a {{cn}} on it. Is it just a claim that isn't a noteworthy fact, or looks like something the DM might have ginned up, or similar? Remove it. I don't at all claim perfect judgement, and expect others might want to deal with them other ways - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You reverted my edit at Brendan Eich, citing "no RS coverage".
The material added by me was "Eich is a member of the advisory board for Sonobi, a company active in online advertising." I cited Sonobi's website as a source.
Assuming by RS you meant 'Reliable Source', please tell me what would be a more reliable source for the composition of a company's advisory board than that company itself, in your opinion?
In terms of the claim that I made on Winstanley Estate using an article from the Sun, "Prominent national news organisations have also linked the estates to a wave of violent crime and gang activity, associated with "drill rap gangs" that has swept across South London", what is wrong with that? I'm not saying that their claim is true, merely pointing out that they are a national news organisation and they have publicly linked the estates to violent drill rap gang crime. [1]
The Sun can't be used as evidence of notability either. The RFC closing phrases it: References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject. That is - that the Sun or Mail say something isn't noteworthy in itself, unless an RS said so, and if so then you could just use that. So if you wanted to make this claim, you'd need an WP:RS that did a rundown backing that up, or at least the multiple RSes - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Please be more careful with your reverts and check that a non-deprecated source has replaced the DM before reverting. Thank you. 11:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:BURDEN and don't re-add claims without having an actual WP:RS for them. If you really don't have a non-DM source, the claim should not be there. WP:BURDEN is policy - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. So please don't re-add the DM-cited stuff unless and until you have an RS cite for the claims - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please look at what you are doing rather than just knee-jerk reverting. Read what has changed. I have added an non-DM source for the typosquatting claims. There is nothing sourced to the DM left in that article. Please take more care. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you probably just hadn't had enough coffee that morning, but with this edit you removed the bad source, but it was the only source for that fairly major BLP privacy content. I don't think a tag for cn is sufficient. —valereee (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply tool: This is available as a Beta Feature at the four partner wikis (Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian Wikipedias). The Beta Feature will get new features soon. The new features include writing comments in a new visual editing mode and pinging other users by typing @. You can test the new features on the Beta Cluster. Some other wikis will have a chance to try the Beta Feature in the coming months.
New requirements for user signatures: Soon, users will not be able to save invalid custom signatures in Special:Preferences. This will reduce signature spoofing, prevent page corruption, and make new talk page tools more reliable. Most editors will not be affected.
Research on the use of talk pages: The Editing team worked with the Wikimedia research team to study how talk pages help editors improve articles. We learned that new editors who use talk pages make more edits to the main namespace than new editors who don't use talk pages.
You are being messaged because there was a bug in UTRS that made it look like you had access to no appeals in the system. This has now since been patched and will be tested more before fully implemented again. You can track the progress if you wish here. I appreciate your patience and wanted to stop by to say try again, and let me know if anything else is wrong. Please also ping me if you reply here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of -- Amanda(aka DQ)05:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FinMkt, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eddie891TalkWork14:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thank you for looking at the article, I have taken note of this edit and reworded my writing here. I would appreciate your feedback. Also thank you for removing the Daily Mail link, I did not notice their articles not usable. BJGwiki7 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, you’re not using any judgement, you’re just operating like a bot. Nobody could describe an important change to the listing of a range of Lutyens’ structures, in an article about Lutyens, as “redundant”, if they were using judgement. I get you don’t like the Mail. Neither do I, although I think the decision to blacklist it was ill judged. But please don’t just cut a swathe through multiple articles wiping out anything cited to the Mail without any reflection on the quality/importance/significance of what you’re removing. I really don’t think that approach is improving the encyclopaedia for readers - it’s pandering to the animus of a number of editors who just hate the Mail. KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, it turns out in practice that another editor concurs with me. Have you considered working with the two strong general consensus opinions on the topic of the Daily Mail, rather than lashing out?
If you are actually serious about discussing the quality of the Daily Mail as a Wikipedia source, and appropriate strategies for dealing with this backlog of awful sourcing, then the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is 100% the place for that.
If you aren't actually serious about discussing the quality of the Daily Mail as a Wikipedia source, then this page seems to be the place for that - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if you were serious about making Wikipedia more useful, you'd find alternative references instead of casually deleting wholly uncontroversial material from articles and either leaving the article less informative than it was or giving someone else the chore of finding an alternative cite (which, in the two cases I've tidied up after your involvement, involved minimal effort). Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to keep removing content cited to the Daily Mail, could you please at least make a modicum of effort to find an alternative source, as I just did for Ingvar Kamprad having had 4 children. Edwardx (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daemonickangaroo2018, your beef is with the person who added the content, not with David. Nobody is under any obligation to do the work necessary to support someone else's edit when they used a crappy source.
Hear hear. This is a useful piece of information about a place and not remotely controversial, yet out it went like the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I'm off to find an alternative source to support it, since that's obviously too much trouble for Mr Gerard. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted WP:RS in removing links. However, this only allows for removing of content that is likely to be contested. These sources are valuable in order to find their replacements, and their existence is not actively terrible anyway. As such, I believe you have unreasonably removed content, and shall be readding it. Please quote appropriate sources before removing again, as there is no clear reason why this content needs to be removed.
Guy I don't think "contested" should be understood to include reverting. I appreciate that I am not an experienced editor, but I legitimately think removing these sources without any discussion or argument was unjustified. It would have been appropriate to have placed something in the discussion page, but removing content should never be a first resort (unless it is a clear case of vandalism). FacileEditor (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's contesting it. You're insistently adding content from a deprecated source, as some of your very first edits on Wikipedia. Please don't do that - David Gerard (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cheers :-) It's actually been my go-to for procrastination from writing, and I managed another few hundred words today instead, so ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not going to fight to defend a Daily Mail accusation, BUT, the most notable thing about Moazzam Begg is that he has been the target of several long periods of wrongful imprisonment and countless wrong - or at least never substantiated - accusations, inc. from US State dept, British Intelligence and just about every right-of-centre US and UK news source. The balance of people happy to accuse Mr Begg about this particular incident inc. several generally RS, US and UK publications, so DM was never more than an extra "nail in the coffin", of either Begg's or their credibility, depending on how one sees it. However, I still fail to see how Daily Mail can possibly be an unreliable source for accusations it is ITSELF making against someone. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have been in 2008, but I'd say that being a Wikipedia administrator, RationalWiki administrator, and now especially, noted cryptocurrency expert via your book Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain have tipped the scales. I volunteer to write your article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!12:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's basically no RS biographical sources on me. The book may or may not be notable - it's self-published, but got some press coverage - but of course, that's not up to me to say - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the book was the only reason I was really considering this. Perhaps that's the better route to go. Let me figure out how much press it got...if I write something I'll tell you. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!15:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
mostly it's crypto pubs, not RSes ;-) If I were to look at that about someone else, I'd consider it marginal ... but I could be wrong :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 March 2020, the 50 millionth edit was made using the visual editor on desktop.
Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:
The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode. You can enable it in your preferences.
In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.
You had posted a comment about whether the Patrick Deneen page <ref>https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Patrick_Deneen_(author)</ref> had any substantial WP:RS coverage of Deneen. I found some from the Hungarian public broadcaster. See the Patrick Deneed talk page<ref>https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Patrick_Deneen_(author)</ref> for more info. But there may be a challenge, so any help would be appreciated in defending the edit. Prauls901 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert of my SputnikNews edit understood and accepted but with that revert you also reverted other meaningful edits, which were legitimate, creating work for me. A note on talk page of my article or my talk page would have sufficed. AshLin (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed any till you mentioned just now. Now that you mention it, I now notice it in the contribs. At that time, I was busy searching out references. However, your mode of edit was disruptive and lazy. A simple excision of the reference would have sufficed. AshLin (talk)
Edit warring and Wikipedia's new embrace of gatekeeping
You recently removed my citation to the Daily Mail on Tim Murphy (American politician) saying the reference was redundant because there was another one. That's not exactly the case here, and the situation may be more complicated than you originally thought. The other citation that's there, which I also added, only verifies a part of the statement on the article page (he has a daughter named Bevin). Knowing full well that the WP:Daily Mail source is less than ideal, I still found the Daily Mail source to be the only verifiable source on the FULL topic of Tim Murphy's personal life. It verified the article's facts that he's still married to Nanette Missig and he only has one daughter, Bevin, despite an anonymous user's false claim that he has two daughters. That anonymous user was most likely taking a pot shot at this politician, since Tim Murphy asked his "mistress" to have an abortion despite his strict anti-abortion position. I took the time to research this simple factoid, and I found the Daily Mail source to be only one to verify these personal facts. In this special case, would you consider adding this source, despite the consensus that it's generally unreliable, if we are talking about a specific fact like his personal status? Thanks for taking a moment to share your thoughts on the situation. Some of everything (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Some of everything, if I can butt in for a moment--I frequently see David's "rm WP:DAILYMAIL1" go by, and I support that strongly. Here is a thing to consider: if no other source than the Daily Mail, which we know is problematic especially for biographies of living people, verify a specific bit of information, than maybe that information shouldn't be in our article. In other words, maybe the "FULL topic" of his life is outside of our scope. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for sharing your thoughts. I sincerely appreciate them. And I appreciate your major commitment & contribution to WP too. I do believe, however, that it is relevant to mention that he's married and has a daughter (along with a source), since his controversy surrounds an extramarital affair and a request for an abortion despite his anti-abortion stance. Is there ever an appropriate time to cite a questionable source like the Daily Mail, which I 100% agree is not a reputable source. In this case and based on my research to find a verifiable source, I believe this particular factoid is accurate. I thought there is room on WP for editors to use their discretion & wisdom, depending on the circumstance. In this case, wouldn't having a citation be better than not having one at all? Please know that I'm not trying to argue...Hearing your opinion on the matter is very valuable / educational. Some of everything (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, sorry to bother you. You seem to be well clued in on reliable sourcing. I have concerns about an Irish "news" site, http://gript.ie, which set up fairly recently and seems to be unashamedly partisan. I'd be interested in putting up an RfC on this on WP:RSNP, but there's not been much actually written about gript. Is an RfC a sensible course of action or would I be better waiting until a removal of it as a source is challenged? Any advice appreciated. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wwell there's a DM link to deal with ;-) Not to mention the literal press releases. Um, plausibly notable, but that's a very promotionally-toned article ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we're very harsh about "Reliable Sources" on Wikipedia crypto articles - no crypto news sites, strong mainstream RSes only. This has particularly applied to anything to do with the IOTA article, which has a fraught history as you'll see from the talk page (and I counted them up, and I think it was deleted 18 times previously in various incarnations). Sorry, it's a bit of a minefield :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. I work for BitFlyer, the largest cryptocurrency company in Japan. You seemed very active on crypto topics and I was wondering if you could take a look at the content I shared/proposed on the bitFlyer Talk page. Thank you! Sebastien0693 (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the Daily Mail as much as the next man, but edits like this one are not helpful. WP:DAILYMAIL1 suggests finding alternative citations, not deleting useful, uncontroversial information. Please be more constructive. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like tourist promotional guff, and it was from the Daily Mail. It's nice you've found a non-Mail source, but given the claim was sourced solely to the Daily Mail it's really not at all clear that I somehow had an obligation to second-source tourist promotional guff - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's a feeble excuse. The Castleton Garland Parade has its own Wikipedia article, fully referenced, and there was a wikilink to it right there in in the section you removed from the Castleton article, so its validity and notability are trivial to verify with minimum care. It's a long-established event and significant to the place, as anyone familiar with Castleton would know. You chose this crusade – the onus is on you to do no harm. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice you've found a non-Mail source, but given the claim was sourced solely to the Daily Mail it's really not at all clear that I somehow had an obligation to second-source tourist promotional guff - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote one of our few hard policies - the actual onus - WP:V: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. That describes precisely the process that ensued - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're at it again. No, there probably isn't another source (other than the Sun newspaper) that mentions a silly competition run by the Sun newspaper. Of course, the existence of this competition is not that important, which is why there was only one sentence about it (not put there by me, incidentally). Who knows – certainly not you – but somebody might remember the Sun's Turnip Prize competition and look it up, but they won't find anything about it on Wikipedia now, thanks to your little crusade. I haven't the energy to argue with you, but this is really rather petty. I'll accept your WP:UNDUE (even though that policy is intended to be about neutrality, and really doesn't apply here) and return a WP:POINT. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dave.Dunford, OK, so a silly competition run by the Sun and sourced only to the Sun, deserves inclusion because?...
The whole article is fairly trivial. The identically named competitions run by Edinburgh College of Art and by St Paul's Gallery are also silly. The Sun competition is an example of the "Many independent Turnip Prize competitions" mentioned at the start of the section. We're talking about one sentence. If Mr Gerard was concerned with WP:TRIVIA he could have deleted the whole section and I wouldn't have said a word. But he ignored WP:ABOUTSELF to make a WP:POINT. I have nothing but contempt for the Sun and the Mail but, for goodness' sake, let's have a bit of nuance in the application of WP:RS. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I've been bold and resurrected the reference to the Sun's version of the Turnip Prize, sourced from the above-linked article in the Independent. I've retained the Sun citation (for which I will try to find an archiveurl, but the Internet Archive currently isn't working for me at the moment) purely to confirm the year 2001, though the Independent source places it "over a decade ago" in 2013. My rationale is that since this article is about a named parody of the Turner Prize, the fact that the Sun used the same name for the same purpose seems relevant. This does not represent an endorsement of the Sun newspaper or disagreement with WP:RS on my part. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the 2001 claim is already cited in the source following - and I assume you checked the source following - this usage of a deprecated source is redundant. At this point, your editing is functionally indistinguishable from being WP:POINTy. Stop putting deprecated sources into Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you not assume good faithjust once? The Independent reference does not explicitly state that the Sun's Turnip Prize was in 2001, and I thought that if I left the year in, you would start arguing about WP:SYN. I explained why I'd left it there in my edit summary a comment within the reference. I'm quite happy to take the Sun citation out (in fact I'll go and do it now), but that means that the date of 2001 is uncited. [Update: I see you've already removed it. No complaint from me.] Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was incorrect to say I'd mentioned my justification for retaining the Sun citation in my edit summary. If you check my edit, I actually put it in a comment within the citation (I inserted <!--reference retained purely for verification of the date-->). I thought that was preferable, as that way – unlike an edit summary – others would see it. What were you saying about checking things? Anyway, if you're happy that the Independent citation verifies the date (even though it doesn't explicitly) I have no objection to the removal of the Sun citation. Hopefully that's the end of the matter. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work in removing unreliable sources, but please make sure to not just remove these citations but also the information they supported (or at least replace them with "citation needed"). In this footnote amputation, your scalpel seems to have slipped a bit in that regard. (I just fixed it myself, but not before encountering some confusion.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out, if you remove the source you really should remove the name as well. Also, I think a lot of the other sources should really be reviewed, I don't trust half the posts, cites there. Govvy (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and @Nikkimaria:, for the heads up. When I was starting the article I got a vague warning about a source but didn’t specifically tell me which one, maybe the filter should do that in the edit warning.
huh, that's annoying. It should do. and I'd love if it triggered in Draft space too, would save a lot of bad sourcing.
yeah, that filter used to be just a DM warning - but now it does all the deprecated sources, including links to Wikipedia itself.
It'd be good to have the notice name the source it was warning about, or maybe run a different filter for some sources? I dunno. I'd definitely like that!
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bedfordshire on Sunday. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
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. Your failure to talk the issue to the talk page as suggested may result in further action being taken against you for unconstructive editing without regard to the context of the references you are removing.Shritwod (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, you're trying to repeatedly spam a Daily Mail mention in, and you responded to me invoking WP:BURDEN with a spurious talk page notice. No, the fact of a Daily Mail headline doesn't rate an article mention - the DM does not confer notability. Did an RS note it? If so, use that RS, If not, the claim shouldn't be in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the insertion is not to "spam a mention in" (aside – WP:CIVIL) but that an incident reported by this local paper was picked up and run in national newspapers - that's newspapers, plural. One of those newspapers was the Times; another was the Daily Mail. To prove that the Daily Mail ran a story, it's entirely reasonable to include a citation pointing to the relevant article in the Daily Mail. This situation is exactly what WP:ABOUTSELF is for, which policy you persistently ignore. Whether the story is true or not, whether the Daily Mail reported it accurately, or indeed whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source in this or any case, is not the point. The point is that this local newspaper published trashy tabloid stories of the sort favoured by the Daily Mail, as verified by quoting an example of the Daily Mail running a story originally run by this local newspaper. If you consider the material irrelevant or trivial, the relevant policy is WP:TRIVIA, not WP:RS. Your dogmatic, zero-tolerance application of WP:DAILYMAIL, and your high-handed responses and refusal to engage when people repeatedly object, is indeed verging on disruptive. @Shritwod:, if you raise a dispute over this, I will support you in it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't support using this cite. The source is the Daily Mail, and this isn't an article about the Daily Mail: in articles about themselves or their activities It also requires it does not involve claims about third parties and it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source - both of which it's being used for here: to cite the claim that the Daily Mail ran the story from Bedfordshire On Sunday as headline news.
But if you look at the DM link, it doesn't support the claim - it fails verification. Is "Bedfordshire On Sunday" mentioned? No, it is not. You and Shritwod can claim the story was cribbed from BoS - but that's blatant WP:OR. You haven't provided evidence, and the evidence you have provided doesn't support the claim.
And the same for the claim that The Times cribbed the story - that's a dead link. Please bring verifiable evidence.
The "national newspaper" argument doesn't swing it either - as determined in both the Daily Mail RFCs. It was brought up in both RFCs, and rejected.
So what the two of you are arguing is that a deprecated source should be used to support your original research claim about Bedfordshire on Sunday.
Dave.Dunford, I've engaged with you repeatedly on use of deprecated sources, so your claim's clearly false just from looking up this talk page. But by "engage" you seem to mean that I should agree the Sun and the Daily Mail are good sources to use in Wikipedia. And we've had a broad general RFC on the Sun to say that isn't the case, and two broad general RFCs on the Daily Mail to say that isn't the case.
So if you have a source that states "the material was copied by the DM and Times from Bedfordshire on Sunday", then I'm still waiting for it - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm not going to escalate this but there are a few points I like to make.
Firstly, I have no dispute with WP:RS, nor am I a defender of the Mail in particular or the tabloid press in general, so your allegation that I think that "the Sun and the Daily Mail are good sources to use in Wikipedia." is incorrect. I've never said that, I don't think it, and I rather resent the implication. My problem is not with the policy, but with your hardline application of it.
"The source is the Daily Mail, and this isn't an article about the Daily Mail"
That's a rather narrow and pedantic reading of WP:ABOUTSELF. The principle can surely apply to statements about the Daily Mail within articles on other (related) subjects. The point requiring a source here was that the Daily Mail published a "health and safety gone mad" story that originated in Bedfordshire on Sunday. OK, I acknowledge that the citation doesn't explicitly establish the line of origin, but it does show that the story appeared, and it's hardly a stretch (let alone "blatant WP:OR") to conclude that they got it from this local rag.
"The "national newspaper" argument doesn't swing it either"
The point at issue was that stories from this local paper were sometimes used by national newspapers. The Daily Mail, dreadful though it is, is very definitely a national newspaper. I don't think the reference in the RFC is relevant : it was (presumably) to dismiss any defence of the Mail as a reliable source because of its large circulation or its status as a national. I agree that this line of argument is wrong, but nobody here has deployed it.
"your original research claim"
I've never edited this article, I don't know anything about the subject, and neither Shritwod or I added the material in question, so it's not "our research claim".
The principles I'm trying to defend (as opposed to the straw men you're building, and the detailed rights and wrongs of the individual cases) are twofold:
Firstly, the intention of WP:RS is not, never has been, and should not be, that material that is sourced to an unreliable source should be casually deleted without checking its validity or seeking a better source.
Secondly, that the Daily Mail is a valid source to establish the actions of the Daily Mail (which is why I continually direct you to WP:ABOUTSELF). If an article claimed that "the moon is made of cheese" and cited the Daily Mail as a source, than yes, of course, both the material and the citation should go. If the article stated that "the Daily Mailclaims that the moon is made of cheese" and cited a Daily Mail article headlined "Moon is made of cheese", then WP:ABOUTSELF applies.
In descending order of usefulness, it seems to me that the approach to a piece of information supported only by an unreliable source should be:
if the information is incorrect or trivial, remove it (and the unreliable citation) on the grounds of WP:PATENT or WP:TRIVIA, rather than WP:RS
if the information is relevant and uncontroversial (as I consider to be the case in all the instances where I've commented), find a better source and replace the unreliable one
if you don't have the time or inclination to do that, leave the content and citation but tag the source as unreliable
if that sticks in your craw, remove the unreliable source and add "citation needed" or "dubious"
last, and least usefully, remove the whole lot, source and all, and cite WP:RS
Your default approach seems to be the last; I'm grateful that you've compromised on the third. I don't have any knowledge of (or any great interest in) Bedfordshire on Sunday, but it did strike me as useful to know that it was tabloid in approach and sometimes a source of Mail churnalism. That seems to me neither pointless nor controversial information. The Mail cite establishes that the story did appear (although I concede not that it originated with the local paper). Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want to be taken as defending the claim, then probably you shouldn't have spent so many words defending it.
If you don't want to be taken as defending deprecated sources, you sure do spend a lot of words defending them.
If the other guy didn't want to be taken as making the claim, he probably shouldn't have kept edit-warring in a deprecated source that literally didn't back up the claim it was cited for.
Your objections to how I handle deprecated sources have been replied to at length above, by multiple people - summary: there are lots of people who are absolutely sure how deprecated source removal should be handled, and their opinions are mutually exclusive, so further objections need handling case by case; but I'm working on the assumption that these are deprecated sources, they have pretty much no place in Wikipedia, should ideally be removed from Wikipedia, by hand, and working through this particular backlog is something I do when I'm procrastinating from other things - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too am baffled by this defense of content cited to a source that's not only unreliable but also doesn't support the statement being made. I searched for any source that could be used to support it and came up empty. Maybe we should ask Charliegarth who added the claim. ––dlthewave☎19:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness' sake, how many times are you going to ignore the point or respond with an ad hom or a new straw man? I have said over and over again that it's not the validity of the individual claims I'm interested in, but your pedantic and rigid application of WP:RS. By the way, I've just replaced another of your lazy deletions (Otford, if you're interested) – not because I'm following you around, but because it's on my watchlist and yet again you've removed notable, verifiable information because of your obsession with the Daily Mail. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the reason I used "so many words" was because I though it courteous to address your (equally lengthy) arguments individually. I would do the same again, but evidently it's a waste of time, as numerous others have found before me. I'm normally a mild-mannered wikignome; I'll leave to you your crusade and go back to improving Wikipedia constructively and applying its policies according to their spirit rather than their letter. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
your pedantic and rigid application of WP:RS - that is to say, a strongly supported guideline that is included by direct reference in hard policy WP:V? I would say that you can expect me to keep applying strongly supported guidelines that are included by reference in hard policy - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that it's a great deal easier to argue a different point to the one I'm making, but please could you stop, calm down, and try to understand my grievance? I'll try again. I don't disagree with WP:V or WP:RS. I never have. I don't remember ever using the Daily Mail for a reference, and I certainly wouldn't now. What I do disagree with is your application of these policies. You appear to be searching out DM citations, and then applying the following rationale: "this content is referenced only by the DM, so I'll delete the content as well as the reference". Nowhere in WP:V or WP:RS does it say to do this.
If I'm honest, I'm also annoyed by your attitude to criticism. That's probably my problem, not yours, but does it not trouble you that your talk page is full of different people saying, in effect, "I agree with the policy, but please could you apply it a bit more sensitively"? Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your SNOW close. In the politics section, four users besides me had opined that more caution is needed when using the source. I posted links to other outlets covering inaccuracies and bias by MSNBC. What's the point of SNOW closing after the RfC has been advertized at WP:CENT and the can of worms is already open - why not let it run its course so there can be no second guesses like my message here? --Pudeo (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the demands for a SNOW close, this particular RFC is one where the RFC was created as a direct reaction to Fox News being RFCed, against previous discussion and direct advice of others. It was never going to be a good RFC, it was way too culture-war-ish, and I'm pretty sure it would never have resolved issues to anyone's lasting satisfaction.
I appreciate there may be an issue for discussion - I suggest going back and having a non-RFC discussion first, where issues with MSNBC can be raised, and hopefully without that culture-war air to it ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David, I noticed this discussion being archived by an involved editor [[18]]. Is this kosher? I would assume the correct procedure would be request an uninvolved editor close the discussion then let the system archive it. I considered restoring with that type of comment but decided I would ask an admin instead. Note that I have no opinion on the specific topic. Springee (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to but I wanted to know if my concern was legit first. If the editor was following reasonable talk page procedures then I don't want to look like a jerk for raising the issue. Springee (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, that discussion was about a specific use of Al-Jazeera, for a statement that was claimed to be "ZOMG! FAKE NEWS!!!" but turned out to be a trivial error, if it was even an error at all.
If you want to start an RfC on Al-Jazeera, which that thread was not, then I suggest you do so. Bacondrum was not the best person to archive it, but archiving was appropriate as the original question had been comprehensively answered and the discussion was no longer focused on anything actionable. The next step is an RfC if the interested parties want one. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I think you are giving me the answer I was looking for. I have no opinion on the topic, it just seemed like an abrupt closing by an involved editor. Recently I noticed a similar case and asked about it.[[19]] I figured it was worth asking this time as well. Springee (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you violate WP:BLPCOI with regard to Slate Star Codex. You yourself disclosed your conflict of interest and questioned your own objectivity when you discussed the kerfuffle with regard to Slate Star Codex and the NYT, on your own website: "I must note that Alexander and I know each other a bit, and don’t have a high opinion of each other — so read this post with a dash of salt."
Also, in your blog post, you note that you are a source for the NYT story, which indicates that you have a special relationship to Slate Star Codex, in the eyes of the reporter and which injects you into the controversy on which you have been commenting on the talk page and about which you have been making edits.
If you yourself consider your judgment questionable and consider it necessary to warn others about your potential bias, then it seems that you should at minimum disclose this WP:BLPCOI on the talk page for Slate Star Codex. However, I would prefer to see you abstain from directly editing the main page on Slate Star Codex as well. You are the most active editor on the page, where none of these are minor edits. This seems inappropriate for a person so connected to Slate Star Codex.
Aapjes (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a serious stretch. We've met once in 2011 (at a LessWrong meetup) and have a low opinion of each other's work.
Given you seem to share a name with a SSC regular, it would be reasonable to conclude your advocacy was undue.
You apparently didn't consider it a stretch when you wrote your blog post, 1.5 months ago. I'm not applying my own standard here, but yours, so your speculation on my identity, my bias, my motives, etc seems fairly irrelevant to the question of whether you have a WP:BLPCOI. You decided that your WP:BLPCOI was serious enough to note it on your blog, suggesting that readers might "read this post with a dash of salt." If this is true for a blog post discussing Slate Star Codex and the NYT kerfuffle, then why would it not apply to your Wikipedia contributions, which include edits on the NYT kerfuffle? I would suggest that you address my arguments, rather than engage in ad hominem attacks.
I'm quite willing to admit that I may be biased or at least have a stake in a certain outcome with regard to the NYT kerfuffle and that is why I choose not to edit Slate Star Codex. However, I don't see why that would prevent me from arguing and providing evidence for the claim that other editors have an undisclosed WP:BLPCOI and suggesting that they take or abstain from certain actions. In a civil court case, it is perfectly fine for known or knowingly biased advocates or witnesses to be involved in the court case, including to question the credibility of others involved in the process, as long as the judgment is made/written by an impartial judge/jury and conflicts of interests are disclosed to the judge/jury. In fact, most legal systems intentionally involve at least one person who is tasked with being biased (and who is often called an 'advocate'), to ensure that the interests of one or more parties are maximally argued for.
If we regard the main Slate Star Codex page as the judgment of Wikipedia on what is relevant, factual, etc with regard to Slate Star Codex, then it seems to me that we should similarly strive to have the page itself be edited by impartial people, while biased people may provide input. AFAIK, this is the intent behind WP:BLPCOI, which suggests that biased editors may suggest changes on the talk page, rather than edit the page themselves. IMO, your level of involvement with the page, having made the most edits to the page, seems to be rather inappropriate. You yourself admit to a mutually antagonistic relationship ("a low opinion of each other's work"), I have seen you reveal Scott's real identity on a social media platform, which violates the norms applied to the Slate Star Codex page. I have seen you generalize actions by a few to an entire (out)group, whom you seem to identify with Slate Star Codex ("the Rationalists are at it again"). On multiple occasions, you have linked Slate Star Codex to Naziism. It comes across to me as more than just a mild antagonism. Aapjes (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the policy is rather stronger : Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. You're making a claim here that that's what my editing on or around the Slate Star Codex article is for the purpose of, and that's really quite a strong allegation, which you really haven't supported.
Again, I suggest you focus on content, rather than attempting to impeach your opponents in a culture war. You've directly admitted that you may be biased or at least have a stake in a certain outcome with regard to the NYT kerfuffle, and that would surely include carrying on said culture war in Wikipedia venues other than the literal text of the article itself.
As it happens, I spoke to the NYT not as a participant in any particular SSC-related conflict - but as an expert on the subject of the LessWrong rationalist subculture. WP:EXTERNALREL explicitly states: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. Being consulted by the media as an expert off-Wikipedia does not in itself constitute COI on Wikipedia.
This is very similar to the claims of cryptocurrency editors that having strong opinions that their subject area is incompetent rubbish constitutes a COI. It does not. And thinking SSC is bad, thinking Scott Alexander's writing is bad, and noting that the author of SSC's real name has literally never been secret and that he actively used it in academic work linked to SSC is not a COI either - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are part of the exact dispute that you have been editing the page on: the NYT/doxing kerfuffle. You have published Scott's real last name on social media. You are also doing anti-SSC advocacy, accusing SSC people of naziism, as well as contributing to a forum set up specifically to sarcastically debate alleged misbehaviors on SSC related forums. This seems like a dispute to me. And again, you yourself considered your COI to be sufficient to note it on your blog, when discussing this issue. You seem to have a rather abrasive modus operandi, which a bunch of editors have been complaining about recently regarding your Daily Mail crusade, so your apparent obsession with going after SSC may not register as a significant dispute in your life, but to me it definitely seems to be a significant dispute. I definitely would not regard myself to be an objective subject-matter expert for those that I'm accusing of being Nazis, unless they themselves tend to agree that they are Nazis.
BTW, your assertion that the NYT kerfuffle is about fully hiding Scott's last name from the world is a red herring. It is not what the dispute is about in the eyes of Scott, as he had written clearly on his blog, on multiple occasions, including his open letter to the NYT that you surely must have read. A lot of people have a more nuanced view on the issue (including, as far as I'm aware, many privacy laws and legal precedents) and see anonymity more as a spectrum, rather than as a black/white issue. In that view, scope matters. For example, there may be a right for events that happened in the past to be erased from search engines or employers may be banned from asking about criminal behavior in the past, so a person can start over and/or not be forever linked to something that happened in the past. Similarly, the scope may be limited by permanence, the extent to which something is made public, etc. For example, in my country it is legal to look out your window and note that your neighbor is leaving his house, but not to point a camera at his house and record his comings and goings.
This inability to recognize what your opponents are actually arguing is a trait that I've noticed in you on many occasions. Like when you argue that I'm fighting the culture war or that I'm arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to edit the article because you have strong opinions. Both of these are things I've never said, but that you are imagining that I'm saying. In my native language we have a saying akin to: the innkeeper trusts his guests to behave like he would. Aapjes (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point perfectly well: you are convinced that having an opinion in a dispute constitutes a Wikipedia conflict of interest, especially when it's one that disagrees with you. You are incorrect - this is not what WP:COI says or means, and none of what you've listed there meets it - all you're doing is arguing your opinion and how I differ from you in it.
In addition, you are thoroughly failing to substantiate the serious claims of conflict you are making in invoking WP:BLPCOI.
If you want to pursue this, the place is WP:COIN. I assure you, they will definitely want on-wiki diffs cited, with evidence of how the edits violate WP:COI - the cryptocurrency fans making arguments of the same form as yours have consistently failed in this regard - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely would not regard myself to be an objective subject-matter expert for those that I'm accusing of being Nazis, unless they themselves tend to agree that they are Nazis lol, just noticed that bit, that's amazing epistemology there (particularly about words I'm pretty sure I haven't said) - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand my point perfectly well, since my issue is not about you having an opinion. I am also not complaining about specific edits, but about your lack of disclosure. This seems rather pointless, when you "perfectly well" understand things I've never argued. Aapjes (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a substantive complaint to make, that'll be the place to make it, and that's the format they'll expect. If you don't in fact have a substantive complaint to make, I expect you could keep posting here - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edit removing long-standing text, stating The Daily Mail is deprecated; per WP:DAILYMAIL, deprecation is often misinterpreted as a total ban. The text you removed isn't stating as fact that these things are true, but rather that this man claims, in an interview speaking directly to the source, such things to be true about himself. This would seem to meet the "rare exceptions" clause. He's a colourful character (probably an understatement of the obvious for someone who's incorporated the words "butt naked" into his common name), well known for his theatrics. The article wasn't using Wikipedia's voice to assert exceptional claims to be truths. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
long-standing text There's this curious view that bad content cited to bad sources should stay if it's old. The trouble is, this text fails on multiple counts - the Daily Mail literally makes stuff up because it sounds cool and interesting (it has literally made up entire interviews), and even if every word is what Blahyi said, it's unduly self-aggrandising content. "Colourful character" is a way of saying it's possibly-made-up nonsense even if every word came out of his mouth. This usage would have been precisely to assert non-encyclopedic cool-sounding detail - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that view. I think "curious" is too kind a word for it, and it's certainly not a view that I hold. Most serious-thinking people consider just about every word that comes out of this man's mouth to be "unduly self-aggrandising" nonsense. It's precisely what makes him notable. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I see you are systematically culling content which is sourced from the Daily Mail. Could I suggest that before you delete article content, that you check to see if it can be verified from an alternate source. The content was generally added in good faith, either before the 'deprecation' of the Mail, or in ignorance of it, and it's a shame to lose good content unnecessarily. I checked this one, and easily found cover for it on BBC News, and so put it back. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in the same paragraph in WP:V there is also: When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Like I said, it's a shame to lose good content unnecessarily. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a tricky one - I'm certainly systemically removing the DM, in the manner of any editor clearing a large backlog (I even have a search on usages open at all times), but I'm not systemically removing the content; that has to be assessed in every case. In this case, it didn't look like load-bearing content at a glance, and I'm always sceptical of claims sourced only to the DM of public upswellings of sentiment. But thank you for adding a good ref for it - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, welcome to iteration 15,361,904 of "Telling David Gerard how to do the thing that nobody else can be arsed to do". Anything sourced to an unreliable source may be removed, without discussion or preamble. If you want to reintroduce content based on reliable sources, you're welcome to do so. If you want to "preserve content" (remembering of course that content sourced to an invalid source is itself presumptively invalid) then please see dailymail.co.uk and start work. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: why delete good content just because it was originally sourced (most likely in good faith) to the DM? Surely a quick check for other sources should be done first, or at least flag non potentially libellous stuff as {{cn}}, and leave it a couple of weeks for watchers to fix. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, As Roxy said, content sourced to a deprecated source is presumptively not "good content". But you are most welcome to review the list of citations to the Daily Mail at dailymail.co.uk and replace the sourcing on any content which, in your view, is worth keeping. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto:, you're banging your head against a brick wall. @David Gerard:, if I'd reached "iteration 15,361,904" of people telling me I was doing something wrong, I hope I might have the humility to consider that, just maybe, I was doing something wrong, rather than assuming that I was right and 15,361,904 other people were wrong. But YMMV. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dave.Dunford, except that every time it's been discussed, the consensus has been exactly in line with David's statements above.
Bureaucratic objections to removing a bad source, stand in the way of good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. If you want to improve Wikipedia in a different way, nobody is stopping you. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG:, content sourced to a deprecated source is presumptively not "good content". That simply doesn't follow logically, as a a straightforward example will show. Castleton Garland Day is a significant aspect of life in Castleton, Derbyshire. The existence and significance of this long-standing event is easily verified – it has its own Wikipedia article with numerous reliable sources. Until I replaced the content with a reliable source (following DG's casual removal of the whole lot), it was only referenced to the Daily Mail. There was and is nothing wrong with the content. Bad sourcing doesn't automatically mean the content is bad. I don't know how many times this has to be said, and I've run out of ways of saying it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dave.Dunford, let me say that again slowly. Content sourced to a deprecated source is presumptively not good content. That is:
Content that is based on a citation to a source sufficiently unreliable to be deprecated is tainted by the source and may therefore be treated as unreliable simply because it is based on a source that has such a history of deception that we have deprecated it.
That does not mean that all content sourced to deprecated sources is bad - even the Daily Mail is right some of the time - but it means we cannot trust that the content is accurate, so it is presumptively not "good content". As always, a presumption may be overridden by evidence that indeed it is good content, and ion those cases the evidence will come in the form of a reliable source - which will then, of course, be substituted for the unreliable one.
So: bad sourcing does not may the content automatically bad, but it makes it presumptively bad.
You can solve in excess of 99% of this drama: instead of berating David for fixing the problem the "wrong" way, you can use dailymail.co.uk and fix it yourself the right way. But David's doing it his way because, and I cannot stress this enough, pretty much none of the people endlessly bitching about him doing so, have lifted a finger to fix the problem - and some repudiate the very idea that it even is a problem. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's sure is that you would reply with an ad hominem. As usual.
For the record, JzG (and no thanks for joining in with the patronising), it's not actually me that's causing the "drama". I'm not the one holding the frankly perverse belief that the fact that a small Derbyshire town has a notable annual parade is some sort of outrageous and sensationalist claim that must be struck from the record because the Daily Mail once mentioned it, and because some other editor (who I know to be diligent and well-intentioned, but apparently lacked access to the time machine that would have allowed them, in 2007, to comply with a policy that wouldn't exist until a decade in the future) didn't bother to scroll past the first Google hit when they innocently decided to add a citation to a completely uncontentious piece of information that had been in the article from the start. And I'm not the one responding arrogantly and aggressively when questioned in good faith, by multiple experienced editors, about my behaviour.
So no, for the record I won't be joining your crusade, because I consider it a waste of everybody's time (especially yours) when there a million more useful things to be getting on with that don't actively make Wikipedia worse. It's pointless trying to engage with such cultish certainty, so I'm out. Have fun making Wikipedia a little bit less useful and a less appealing place to be a volunteer. Over and out. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're one of these people who takes criticism of your actual words and actions as "bad faith" and "ad hominem", so I'd be surprised if this was in fact Over and out - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about this continued disruptive editing from this user. As you can see from this talk page, many editors have made exactly the same complaint and the response has always been that it is more important to remove the DM links than it is to preserve factual content of the article. Sure, sometimes the claims supported by the DM links are not verifiable elsewhere or those claims are trivial, and sometimes the DM link is redundant because there are other better references, but there is a continued removal of small but important pieces of information which I believe are damaging to the encyclopaedia as a whole. Many other editors seem to agree. But honestly there's no point trying to argue with him since he doesn't listen and continues his disruptive editing. Perhaps you would like to add to the discussion at ANI about this behaviour? Shritwod (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And at the discussion, it's mostly the actual admins (who the noticeboard is for notifying of incidents in progress) telling Shritwod that he should learn to read, and a few perennial DM fans coming up with elaborate excuses to keep DM links - David Gerard (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thanks for your efforts in removing deprecated sources. I have been trying to do my bit as well and have removed and replaced a bunch of Daily Mail and Epoch Times references. Just now I was surprised to see the Daily Mail count increase by one. Is there a way to find out where this recent addition happened? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People are always adding new DM references, maybe one or two a day? This search gives the most recently-edited DM-bearing articles - though that's just that the article has been edited at all, and usually not specifically the addition of the DM. And this filter gives all edits adding any of a list of bad sources - though most aren't the DM - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you reverted my addition to the Indian Foreign Service because the Daily Mail is not considered a good source but I want to point out 2 things in this case.
1. The use of the Daily Mail in this case is not drawing on journalism from the Daily Mail but quoting an opinion article written by the person being accused of sexual harassment defending himself. I don't think there is another opinion article or interview where the person being accused goes into such detail defending against the charges. It is necessary to present the viewpoint of the accused person so for that reason the part should be restored. And again I think the Daily Mail is discouraged because it's bad journalism. But in this instance the accused person is issuing a statement through the Daily Mail as a platform.
2. The opinion article is published through Daily Mail India, which is a different organisation from Daily Mail UK and US. Based on the articles I have seen on Daily Mail India, I think it's clearly a more serious publication than the US and UK franchises. I don't think there should be the same automatic label for all Daily Mail organisations. If Daily Mail India is also dubious quality it should first be debated and demonstrated before automatically deleting content.
Did he literally say this in no other source? If this is the only source, then there isn't an WP:RS for it. Note that the Daily Mail has literally published entirely made-up interviews with made-up quotes in the past. This is one of the reasons why it's a deprecated source, that should not be used - we absolutely can't trust a word in it. Daily Mail India is the Daily Mail, so there's no reason to assume it isn't covered by the deprecation; if you think it should be exempted, the place to argue that is WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any other source where he defends himself by calculating rent as part of the maid's salary. The article is not an interview or a report with a quote. It is an opinion article written by the accused person. It is unreasonable to raise the possibility that the opinion article is written by an impostor because it is too much of a stretch. It is highly improbable that a high volume traffic website could carry an article written by an impostor for years without action taken by a diplomat. As a separate organisation, Daily Mail India should have a separate finding but I won't be the one to initiate it because the bureaucratic process for reliable sources is not interesting to me. Clearairm (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me to be valid under WP:SELFSOURCE as the person in question appears to be writing about themselves. But if you re-add it, I'm afraid you'll just end up in an edit war with certain editors. There's an article in India Today that I found which seems to cover the same topic, but it's not exactly the same. Would that do as a replacement? Shritwod (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David, I sadly discovered that you proposed a Speedy deletion nomination of Pirate Chain page due to lack of notability.
In these special times, I decided to bring a contribution as a Wikipedian and started to research the fascinating world of cryptocurrency. I learned that there is a lack of information in this respect, thus why I did a tremendous work studying what article creation is or what reliable and independent sources are.
The Pirate Chain page was created analysing all the possible sources of information I could find, although the scarcity of information on cryptocurrencies was a headache. Of course, I could not add as reference comprehensive studies like the recently 72 pages of the Crypto Vigilante (independent crypto&financial analysts), as only subscribers have access to it.
I even made a comparison with other pages, such as PotCoin, Zcash or Litecoin in order to respect all Wikipedia requirements and have the same standard content.
I strongly disagree that the page is an unambiguous advertising as I definitely do not promote any company nor product and all the data are in line with Wikipedia's content policies. Unfortunately, I cannot prove that in here.
Is it possible that some of the wording to be rephrased or even deleted, but not the entire page? Any help would be appreciated, as I hate seeing my entire work turned to dust.
Thank you for the answer. ”Not crypto sites” when it is all about crypto is a bit strange. Especially when there are already a couple of pages related to that.
More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[21]
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.
Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Thank you for removing an unreliable source from the Allan Kournikova article. I have always disliked the Daily Mail being used as a Wikipedia reference and was happy to learn, however tardy, that Wikipedia has deemed it unreliable. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, David Gerard. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Please try to understand that although the wretched Daily Mail is not a reliable source for fact, it is entirely legitimate to say what a theatre or literary critic has said in its columns. That is purely a matter of critical opinion. Best wishes. Tim riley talk22:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to me to wifully misinterpret the discussion. Pray show me anywhere in that (very wise) decision that says the opinions of famous critics such as Levin and Tinker cannot be reported verbatim in theatre articles. Tim riley talk23:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited seems pretty clear - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CassiantoTalk15:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a criticism of your other admin actions, but respectfully I don't feel your judgement was right in this particular case or how it was handled. I appreciate your response and consideration of my request, but feel it's best to let the community decide on the protection. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. How can I use a source with was conducted by Bizarre and published in The Sun which was direct with the group themselves? — Calvin99907:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to edit the page. It's sourcing is inadequate. The list of references need proper formatting. The article does not even make good use of the RS it cites. It requires expansion.
Multiple admins have noted - on the talk page, on RFPP, and on ANI - that the first step is suggesting particular edits on the talk page. I suggest that you posit some well-formatted edit suggestions and note those in the present ANI discussion - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. I see that on the reliable source noticeboard at the request for comment on the Mail on Sunday a single purpose account is being used for apparent harassment of a female editor. The account Iesbian has a name that mimics the appearance of Lesbian, however, instead uses the capital letter "i" for the "L". Also, you should note the account has only made three minor edits in the past before they commented on the request for comment. I see the placement of the word "lesbian" in red below a female editor as rude and a form of harassment. With you being an administrator, it would be appreciated if you could look into handling the situation. Thanks --Guest2625 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. That's you. Thank you for finally doing so, despite your first option being an edit war, followed by a violation of WP:AGF - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. Your repeated unconstructive editing is not your fault but everyone else's somehow? I really don't understand why you usually find a replacement source if there is one, but sometimes just decide not to and remove a pertinent part of the entry, such as this edit. You are capable of better editing that this, yet when you are called out you refuse to acknowledge that perhaps you did something wrong. Shritwod (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only case where your behaviour has fallen well short of the standards we'd expect of an admin, is it? Your heavy-handed and frankly bizarre handling of the Susie Boniface issue is another one. People might think you were rude, arrogant and interpreted guidelines in a unique way that is not compatible with the aims of the encyclopaedia. Shritwod (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every now and then I check on articles I started that have questionable notability. I couldn't find one of the articles by typing the name, though if had been deleted I would have been notified. I went to South State Bank to click on a link that should have been there, only it wasn't. I don't suppose I should blame you for removing nearly the entire article without justification. But it was 2601:143:8003:75f0:641a:c22a:e916:c2bb who turned the article into a complete mess that not only removed important information but also cited most of what was left to press releases. That was a complete no-no and what we were left with was an article that almost failed to demonstrate notability. I have restored my work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Dear David Gerard, I suggest that you may have misapplied WP:G4 due to the fact that the new article is not substantially identical to the deleted version, and the reason for the deletion no longer applies. All crypto-related and interview-based references were removed, and more importantly the subject was recently substantially and independently covered in a large Wall Street Journal article, which with the Bloomberg, Fox, Royal Gazette and other coverage surely achieves WP:GNG. I ask that you revert the deletion, and subject the article to a consensus based RfD. Thank you.
Nixie9✉13:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article was substantially the same as the version deleted at AFD for being based on interviews. You recreated it based on a new reference from WSJ! ... which was another interview. That is, the precise sort of reference the article was deleted for. If you did not realise the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview, you may not be assessing sources suitably.
I recall from the AFD that you simply failed to understand how everyone else was judging sources.
""If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."" The WSJ article quotes 5-6 people, and one quote from the company. Please show me how that does not meet every criteria for WP:GNG. Thank you. Nixie9✉13:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you create it through AFC, and not base any of the sources on interviews.
Look, you've created this same article repeatedly, and it was deleted three times before today by multiple admins. Today was the fourth, and that's why I salted it against recreation. Please consider that perhaps you're doing this wrong - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the same logic, if there is any debate regarding the deletion, please consider that perhaps you're doing this wrong. This is a community. You do not own the unilateral approval rights over this article.Nixie9✉13:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've been the only person to recreate it repeatedly, and multiple admins have deleted it. You previously claimed that admins were conspiring against you to delete the article - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The blockchain-related term Decentralized finance gets some legitimate results on Google Scholar, but all those that use the term according to the given definition are from the last year[23]. Do you think it is notable for Wikipedia? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe00:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... barely? Reuters and Financial Times have covered the idea in depth. Beyond that, nobody outside the crypto bubble seems to care. It's a super-hot topic of conversation inside the bubble, of course. Having a look - David Gerard (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David, just wanted to stop by to say thank you for reviewing my proposed page for the cryptocurrency exchange Xcoins. I think your assessment is good and fair, I was having naggings feelings as I was writing it that it may not be notable enough. It's a disappointment of course, but I totally understand and appreciate you taking the time. Hope you're safe and well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talfuin (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of "Boris Johnson reveals plan to bring back pounds and ounces"
The Daily Mail is a deprecated source, and has historically fabricated entire interviews. Perhaps this one isn't fabricated! But even if we were absolutely assured those were his words, it would still be WP:UNDUE as being solely in a deprecated (and therefore utterly unreliable) source; it would at best have the weight of a personal blog post, or something he idly said in passing. Did he say any of this in a less low-tier source?
First of all, I would like to thank you for responding so quickly. The other day, I sent in a request for a map to be edited on the map request page, but still nobody has gotten back to me. Second of all, I would like to thank you for trying to keep wikipedia as reliable as possible and not being biased, unlike many other wikipedia editors. I respect your reasoning of why you still don't think my section on Boris should be on the Metrication page and I will rest my case indefinitely, as I was unable to find any audio transcripts or any other substantial evidence from the Daily Mail interview. Have a good one mate Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cheers :-) Metrication also strikes me as a really big subject. One Boris Johnson interview may not be significant unless something comes of it. Reading the article, it looks like an idle claim to placate both sides of the issue - and even the Mail describes it as one - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that I currently had time to develop this into a proper article. Since I do not, I am requesting your support in garnering additional collaboration, so that we can begin to provide credible information on this topic via wikipedia.
If you like, please invite your friends/colleagues/associates to help our wikipedia community to improve the article.
thanks! That reference list is basically every article on DeFi in the mainstream press - I think there was one in Bloomberg that didn't have anything very useful. Not sure if there are academic sources worth talking about yet - the paper that was in there before wasn't peer-reviewed. I expect more usable sources to come up, though - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. It's already been explained to JzG, this certainly is not Wikinger, behaviourally, technically, or in any other way. This is actually Wikinger, doing a copypasta joe-job. Wikinger couldn't string a cohesive original English parapgraph together if he tried. -- zzuuzz(talk)08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You removed two sentences from David Morris (Conservative politician), saying "(rm claims sourced entirely to deprecated source WP:DAILYMAIL)". One statement was sourced to the Lancaster Guardian, while the statement sourced to the DM's "This is Money" was uncontroversial and easily sourced from many other sites. A removal of the DM source and addition of {{cn}} would have been better treatment for the second sentence. Removing the first was presumably sheer carelessness. Please take more care. Thanks. PamD14:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you deleted an article for being "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" but the page in question isn't the same, it has been amended substantially. Would you reconsider? Chickabiddybex
Hiya, sorry to bother you. I just wanted to ask what's the best course of action for when an article has multiple sections that have no RS/needing citation? I haven't dealt with such case before and I usually would just tag the specific statement, or remove unsourced/trivial information, but this one has about 90% of its statements needing citations. It doesn't help that there might have been some form of COI on its creation. Thanks in advance for your guidance. --Infogapp1 (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh wow, that one's amazing. So it looks promotional as hell - but if you took out the promotional sources, would there be enough to base an article on? I guess the question is whether he's actually notable in Wikipedia terms or if this should just be PRODed - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your response. I didn't flag for PROD because there could be a recent increase in interest in the subject because of this affiliation, but it certainly needs clean-up because there's just way too much puffery. I was also considering the possibility that some of the sources could potentially be in foreign languages. --Infogapp1 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ah, wasn't aware of that! Yeah, definitely needs a cleanup though, this seems to have been flagged on talk in the past too. Time to hit the Google Translate hard %-D - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David, I've made an add to Apache OpenOffice page at Wikipedia and you deleted it, first you said it lacked citations, so then I made another one with citations and you deleted again. Why? I think I added very useful information for people trying to know more about the office suite they can choose to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desgua (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you could remove just that citation and keep the rest of the text? Or perhaps add the information on how people can do the benchmark themselves? You are just deleting good information instead of fixing what you think should change. That is very frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desgua (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr. Gerard. Do you think it is possible to put any information about Bitcoin Manipulation Abatement or its lawsuits on Wikipedia? I am having a hard time finding good sources. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's actually made the proper finance press, I wouldn't think so. I've barely seen them mentioned by name as such even in the crypto press ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved an article Sridhar vembu into main space and was in the process of fixing the capitalization of the second word i.e. Sridhar Vembu and ran into a page protection error. It was then that I realized that there was an AfD in 2016 for this article which seems to have been deleted because it was afoul of WP:PROMO amongst other charges including perhaps an editor close to the subject. I dont have way to look at the sources that were used and the actual content itself. But, I would want to have the opportunity to give this article a shot. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing the Daily Mail source from the Patric Walker article. Your username claims you're an admin - it might be worth actually reading an article to see why a source is used. The article is about a former Daily Mail columnist and is used to confirm that they were superseeded in their Daily Mail column by another Daily Mail columnist per WP:ABOUTSELF. You might also want to consider not just removing sources from an article without contacting the editor/s, posting on the article's talk page and fixing refs that you've broken Cavie78 (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, it's literally and actually superfluous and fully covered by the other cites. You're stretching for an excuse to include a redundant deprecated source on a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it - which other cite/s state that he left the Mail on Sunday in 1992? Also, as you would know having carefully read the article during the removal of the cite, this is not a BLP as Walker died in 1995 Cavie78 (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK the only time Rosa Betts gave an interview was to the Alan Luck, who writes for multiple newspapers including the Guardian, the Mail, the Times, the Mail on Sunday. In general, she has maintained a dignified silence whilst her former husband made some rather unpleasant accusations against her. The Mail on Sunday has not yet been deprecated as a source, it was incorrectly stated as the DM but I had corrected that. And you've still reverted.
Literally your only source for the clain is an unreliable tabloid, and you're saying yourself that you have literally no other source for the claim than an unreliable tabloid. Why does this claim belong in Wikipedia? - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a deprecated source and your language is emotive, which indicates you are not considering the source on merit but rather acting because you have a deep and abiding hatred of the Daily Mail. As I stated above, it's not the Daily Mail, its the Mail On Sunday, which is not yet a deprecated source. And whilst it isn't the only source, you have nonetheless removed details anyway, it is the only source of an interview with the lady herself. Straight forward question, are you refusing to self-revert and using your status as an admin to back your removal of information? WCMemail12:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the MoS is deprecated or not, it is a tabloid of seriously questionable reliability.
It's not a deprecated source and you have no right to simply remove content because you don't like the source. It's been a long standing consensus and per WP:BRD when challenged it is up to you to build consensus in talk rather than edit warring your changes into the article. I'm not responding to your strawman again, I've already told you it's not the only source. I am now going to put the material back into the article. WCMemail12:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Alejandro Betts shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. WCMemail12:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You blind-reverted, I stated a reason. I suggest you find an RS for the claim you insist belongs there, not a disreputable tabloid with an extensively documented history of fabrication. Spurious talk page notices aren't a substitute for bothering to provide the good sourcing for this claim you so want in the article, that you're repeatedly refusing to provide - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did give you a reason, I gave you a reason on your talk page. In return all I got was a diatribe about your personal view of a newspaper. It's clear to me that you have a blind hatred of the paper, I would presume for ideological reasons and are conducting a one man crusade to expunge it from wikipedia. It's totally illogical, you have an author who when their story is published in the Mail you'll remove it, the same author when published by the Grauniad you'd happily see it's use. To be honest I find it all a little pathetic, you really should grow up and get a sense of perspective. WCMemail18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered using a source that isn't a tabloid with an extensive history of fabrication, rather than making personal attacks on me for questioning your bad source?
Or you could find a solidly reliable source - which the Mail on Sunday really isn't - that contains your claim.
Have you considered dropping the condescending attitude? I am commenting on your bad attitude. There is no basis in policy for what you're doing, I note you avoided answering my question. How can the reliability of an author depend on who publishes the story? WCMemail16:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it goes through editors, who at DM/MoS are known to rewrite substantially and arbitrarily. I've seen some amazing changes in what were purported to be literal quotes from a subject, between a DM/MoS story and an eventual book by the same reporter.
Unreliable tabloids can't be trusted. If you don't understand this, you probably don't understand sourcing.
I notice you haven't given any other source for the claim you really, really want to include from the MoS. Did no reputable publication want to run with it?
"You also need to stop the personal attacks, it's not a convincing argument method" - and yet you seem to do this all the time yourself, don't you? But the crux of the argument is that the MoS is not a deprecated source, but your personal opinion seems to be that it should be. It's been argued to death at WP:RSN, but that is the correct forum rather than doing it piecemeal on individual articles. Shritwod (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This edit [24] is to be frank ridiculous, you're removing his kids names because you can't bear using the Mail on Sunday for citation. You are so very sad indeed. WCMemail02:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're back to personal attacks again, I see. The sourcing on that article is highly questionable - you seem to be leaning very hard on tabloid gossip, a single Sunday Mirror article (which you've mislabeled "The Free Library" and not the actual source) and so on. It needs going through and quite a lot of it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder if you'd retaliate, so now you're threatening to gut the article out of spite. I didn't mislabel "The Free Library" that was a previous editor and it's one of the things on my to do list to fix. If you'd actually read the article, it's a reasonably objective piece of journalism about the three Betts brothers. That's the thing, editors should evaluate their sources, which you mischaracterise as "leaning very hard on tabloid gossip" but complain when some responds to your persistent personal attacks. WCMemail09:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're not only resorting to personal attacks (in violation of the WP:NPA policy), but assuming bad faith (in violation of WP:AGF). I don't question your dedication to your task, but I do very much question the way you're approaching it. The Mirror is a tabloid, and the best thing you can say about it is that it doesn't lie like the Mail or Sun - but it's absolutely not an RS. If you apply sourcing in a particular way, and I think you're not applying it correctly, then saying "this article is badly sourced" is not a personal attack - unless you're violating WP:OWN, which also happens to be policy. It's not "your" article, not at all, not in any way - but you're lashing out as if it is. This is a serious error on your part, and you should stop - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started this conversation very reasonably, pointing out there was no basis in policy for what you're doing and all you've done since is attack me personally about the quality of the work I am doing and to rant about the Daily Mail (which is not the source I am using). You have not assumed good faith and it's a common theme on your talk page, you presume people are acting in bad faith and you reply to them in an appallingly condescending manner. You presumed I added the "FreeLibrary" source, I didn't. So if you wish me to respond to you in a reasonable manner, you can start by speaking to me in a reasonable manner. Just stop being so condescending, just stop period.
I have in fact been improving the article adding additional references from published works, using newspapers where I cannot find details elsewhere and generally tidying it up. As regards the Mirror [25] you seem to have a double standard there. I looked at the article, as I said it's a reasonable piece of journalism, ie I judged the source on it's merits. WCMemail10:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "double standard" is that I ... expressed the same opinion of the Mirror? This suggests, in the best of faith, that you're not good at evaluating text, if you think saying the same opinion again is a double standard. "No U" isn't a very good argument.
I suggest you start using good sources, and stop using questionable ones. This is a completely standard requirement of Wikipedia editing, and if you claim it's "condescending" as a reason to ignore it and keep right on going the way you're going - repeated personal attacks, WP:OWNership of articles and all - then there's little I can do to help you - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you have contributed some sizeable balanced edits to the Telegram (Messenger) page in the past and was wondering if you might wanna join forces and bring the page to a reasonable state, it's not in a good state right now. I see you mostly did ICO stuff but you seem to be a huge force for good on Wiki so maybe you'd be willing to help. Here's a link to the original suggestion for clean-up: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Telegram_(software)#Messy_state_of_the_articleASpacemanFalls (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, yes, yes, you are acting like a bot the line says generally, it also says there is NO consensus, this isn't the UK doing the talk, it's an AU jorurnalist doing a weather report. Dave Rave (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Gerard, you've just removed references to the Sun and the Daily Star from an article (Noémie Happart) where they were explicitly used as examples of tabloid reporting about the subject, not as sources for facts (which are already sourced). Surely this falls under the self-reference exemption for deprecated sources? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the RfC on the Sun that you linked to, I see that the proposal that was approved contains the rider "note that this does not prevent The Sun from being used as a source. Users are merely warned when trying to use it as a source, but nothing prevents it from being added to an article." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're being used as evidence that this is worth noting, and they can't be used that way - they would prima facie be WP:UNDUE. Does any RS care about the tabloid coverage? If no, it's not worth noting. If yes, use that. Tabloids fundamentally don't belong in Wikipedia articles, and especially not on a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really seem to go beyond you not liking it. You haven't cited a policy that actually applies and glancing up this talkpage reveals a number of messages indicating that there is no consensus regarding your totalising understanding of the RfCs you reference. Nevertheless, I will defer to your fears of contagion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please help me understand why you keep removing information about The Bootstrap Project from the article ZCash? The Bootstrap Project exists in real life and is true information. The current citation is from the company's blog... NantucketHistory (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's nevertheless a primary source. What's the evidence the fact in question is noteworthy? It would need mention in an RS. This is not complicated - stuff that's only in a primary source and in a crypto site is extremely unlikely to be worth noting.
We're pretty stringent on sourcing for cryptocurrency-related articles - please think for a monent about the sort of editing conditions that would lead to the unanimous adoption of WP:GS/Crypto.
The citation used is a primary source, but after discussion on #wikipedia-en-help, I am making the argument that this primary source, which is the actual company behind Zcash, be allowed since Wikipedia forbids that I use Coindesk or other sites of that nature as they're not "reliable sources". The company is telling the world what they're doing. I'm not sure how else you would recommend we capture true and correct information here.NantucketHistory (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that you are paying attention to context
You absolutely cannot trust the DM not to mangle what it claims are book excerpts. I've seen them mess with way too many of them. You need to find the original book and the original text, and cite that. You cannot trust the DM, that's why it's deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, David Gerard, for your extraordinary efforts to keep articles free of unreliably sourced content. It takes much more time and energy to enforce consensus across the encyclopedia than to set consensus through noticeboard discussion. Your maintenance work has significantly improved content quality on many articles, and recognition is long overdue. — Newslingertalk19:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gerard, why was my modifications to Ouroboros (protocol) reverted (you have not provided justification), when in fact as opposed to the current version which claims that Cardano was using permissionless Ouroboros (Classic) consensus algorithm till 2020 when it was "upgraded" to Ouroboros Praos permission-less consensus algorithm, when in fact I have reliably established that that is false and Cardano was in fact using PERMISSIONED version Ouroboros BFT?
This is a major difference for anybody with understanding decentralized consensus in distributed systems. The article as you published it now, is promotional and misleading.
Because it was cited to cryptocurrency sites and self-published sources. Wikipedia requires independent third-party Reliable Sources. Academic coverage should be actually peer reviewed, etc.
What's there at present is what's left of a very promotional article - have a look in the article history. I'm pretty sure the best thing to do with it is make it a short part of the main Cardano article - David Gerard (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
I see that you PRODed it and then removed the PROD because it'd already had an AfD, but it seems that discussion was about a completely different article (it was closed as delete, and the rationales suggest it was about an athlete). The AfD is running now, so the concern is largely moot, but this does raise a question for me: is it required to start an AfD rather than a PROD if literally any page has previously existed at a title? jp×g11:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing a fair few of these in 2016, and there were a few people who felt anything at the title meant it should be AFDed. AFDing will never be wrong, but sure, maybe it's an excess of caution. Though really the warning notice came up, and rather than argue the point I thought "ok, fine, have an AFD" - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasonable decision not to cite The Daily Mail as a reliable source of fact seems to me a rather different question than whether its columnists can be cited as historical examples of opinion. Banning their historical entertainment reviews from mention seems dangerously close to declaring that those opinions are inherently "incorrect" and should not be acknowledged. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated sources are prima facie WP:UNDUE. This isn't an excuse either. And WP:DAILYMAIL1 says "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles" without the special carve-out you claim - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DM is a reliable source for what it itself said in the cited article. See bullet #2 of the close, noted with emphasis by one of the closers. Review opinions would appear to fall into that category. Jheald (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This still fails WP:UNDUE and would not be suitable as a WP:SELFSOURCE - the article is not about the Daily Mail. You'll see discussion about this on this very talk page, which was followed by an WP:RSN discussion which wasn't an RFC, but failed to lead to a new carveout.
I appreciate that Daily Mail advocates will use any excuse, including excuses that have been rejected by the community already, but if you really want to push it you could bring it up at WP:RSN yet again and see if you can get yourself a carveout in the pretty clear and unambiguous phrase from the RFC: "nor should it be used as a source in articles" - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for the correction! After your revision I checked Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and found the source to be unreliable. I'm sorry for that and thanks for your keen eye. Happy editing. Apollogone (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't received a dime from anyone. But you may have been bought: you deny the facts too much, why do you need it? This is not vandalism, but an accusation that you are not impartial.Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Questions include are YOU a holder of cryptocurrencies? And I have a suspicion that you are because you deny the facts. I even gave you a video from a Samsung conference. You deny reality. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. All of your edits are promoting TRON, and linking cryptocurrency sites and promotional press releases. You edit as if you were a marketer. I note again you have not denied being a holder of TRON, or of tokens on TRON. Are you? - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove you don't own cryptocurrency? Will you continue to accuse me off-topic, or will you start looking for a refutation of my words about Tron and Samsung? If you were more attentive to the articles, and not just read the headlines, you would have noticed that I was editing the article about the cartoon.
By the way, I'm not happy with your speculations based on the yellow press: you accuse Tron of the Ponzi scheme, but absolutely
you forget that Tron is an operating system. Justin Sun created Tron, Bill Gates created Windows. Do you think Bill Gays is guilty of other people's malware installed on Windows?
I just wanted to say that I support you in this discussion - Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines. The funny thing is that it started because some guy made 3 edits-removals of Sputnik and RT sources. In one of this cases I just found 2 better sources instead of RT/Sputnik. And the other two removals also look quite reasonable. One was adding Sputnik words into BLP article and there is no other sources that support that, so I doubt that this information was true since we need high quality sources for BLP articles and the last one is just some random information with no impact. Cheers, --Renat (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, In regards to the Daily Mail - Is there anything that says Scottish Daily Mail's also disallowed here?, I was under the impression it was purely DM and I also don't see why it cannot be used for the Ashley Lilley article ?, Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Gerard, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing,
~ El D. (talk to me) 16:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since last weekend, User:.karellian-24 and I have been discussing the fight record of world famous kickboxer [Badr Hari]. Every time we try to make edits to the page, the edits get reverted by the same two users (User:Atlaslion1912 and User:31.21.157.14), as you can see here [26]. When I first made the edits to the page and the other two users started reverting them, User:.karellian-24 posted on my talk page saying that I was right in making the edits ([27]), but the other users wuld just revert them and "threaten" to get me banned. After the second reversion, I posted an explanation on the talk page of Badr Hari, called 'The curious case of Badr Hari's record': [28]. The discussion there and on my own talk page didn't go anywhere as you can see: the other users just resort to insults.
"If you think that all the organisations he fought with, were using a fake record, you are dumber than your name." - Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.21.157.14 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
"But you don’t know this because you are not aware of the situation and or how this sport works." - 31.21.157.14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
"Funny to see a Dutch guy(Rico fan) and a Romanian guy (Adegbuyi fan) speculate on something they think they have evidence for, and think they know better than the great Glory. Spend your time arguing and playing internet detectives other than someone who has a more successful career than you. The record stays and again i advice you to open a forum together and express your emotions." - Atlaslion1912 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
As you can see, there's no discussion to be had, because the other users (or user, as Atlaslion1912 seems to refer to a post made by the user with IP address 31.21.157.14 in the last response) immediately dismiss the evidence I've brought forward and isntead resort to insults. I'm new to this whole process and thought it might be wiser to approach an admin before starting the wrong dispute resolution procedure. Any help you can provide would be amazing.
Hi, David! :))))))))))))))) Kipjes is right about this delusional fanboy. Badr Hari continues to lose and the Moroccan writes "Badr is still the best in the world". Or he turned the "KO" announced by the promotion Glory into "TKO" (and also other results) =)))) It's a shame losing by KO, hahaha! Actually he doesn't know in some situations TKO can be really vicious. It's Christmas so please be indulgent, but I recommend page protection for about minimum 2 weeks. The user can get away with a warning, maybe he will start reading the Wikipedia rules. We thank you! Really funny guy, and Kipjes should finish his job on that page by correcting any wrong record with his evidences. .karellian-24 (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completly nonsense. User Kipjes (a die hard Verhoeven fan(rival of Badr Hari) really thinks he found evidence that Hari’s record is fake. As we know the organisation he fights for (Glory) uses his known record (106-15-1) and the former organisations he fought for (GFC) used his known record aswell. Organisations dont use just a record, according to the rules they must to their research about it, and they did. User Kipjes' “proofs” consist of record bars from old fights, not the official numbers of the organizations. He also says that many fights are missing, but as Hari himself said at the press conference against Verhoeven, he fought at a time when there was no internet and many fights were not recorded on Youtube, which is why some fights are not on the internet. user Kipjes uses the fact that these fights are not on youtube as his "proof" that his record is fake. As with many other fighters of the past, games, which is normal given the time difference, are not on the internet. also the legend Peter Aerts, he also misses 13 fights that are not on the internet, but as is known this is because there was no internet at that time. but we hear nothing about him from user Kipjes, perhaps because he is a pro Dutchman, as we already saw in his "defenses" for Verhoeven's page. as I said before, the organizations use this record, the world uses this record and all other linguistic wiki pages use this record. If he wants to be an internet detective, let him file a complaint with Glory, if they change his record, we will too.
Atlaslion1912 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David, unfortunately Atlaslion1912's response is exactly an example of the behaviour I was referring to earlier. Atlaslion1912 is now just making up things to try and win this argument. First, as per the Kickboxing task force's 'Guidelines for articles about kickboxers', subsection 'Kickboxing record' [31], "Because there is no central database that keeps record of all kickboxers, it is not expected that the kickboxing record in the heading matches the bouts recorded in the table. However, it is expected that said record is referenced in at least one reliable source." This whole story about how a kickboxing promotion like Glory, which is a business organising events and not a governing organisation, must do its research into a kickboxer's fight record is entirely made up.
The allegation that I am a 'die hard Rico Verhoeven supporter' and that I'm therefore editing with bias is not based on anything. I don't know where Atlaslion1912' allegation that I'm editing with bias "because he is a pro Dutchman, as we already saw in his "defenses" for Verhoeven's page" comes from, because I have never actually edited anything that has to do with Verhoeven and have never mentioned him anywhere as far as I can remember [32].
Why Atlaslion1912 has to resort to whataboutisms about Peter Aerts, whose wikipedia page I've never edited either, is anyone's guess.
In contrast to Atlaslion1912's accusations of nationalism-biased editing at my and .karellian-24's address, Atlaslion1912 does actually have a history of what seems to be Moroccan-biased editing. As you can see on his talk page, Atlaslion1912 has been called out on his editing of people that he deemed of Moroccan ethinicity but that aren't according to Wikipedia policies [33]. Looking at his contributions, you can see that Atlaslion1912 is in all actuality the one with the bias, (almost) solely focusing on pages with a link to Morocco [34]
Why, when you remove deprecated sources, are you also removing material from WP, rather than just adding a 'citation needed' template? An example is today's removal of material from Dolours Price. It took literally a couple of minutes to find a better alternate source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the many, many discussions alreaady on this page with people 100% sure of their contradictory recommendations on how to handle deprecated sources, rather than cut'n'paste text already written repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: There's no point in trying to engage with this particular editor on this or get him to change his ways. Just go ahead and do the constructive thing: resurrect the (uncontroversial) content, replace the deprecated citation and move on. Life's too short. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: That only works a) if it's a page on my watch list; and b) I spot the edit. @David Gerard: so sorry for troubling you. But I've looked (not through archives, admittedly), and while some people have suggested you replace deprecated sources with "citation needed" templates, I'm not seeing anywhere where you've responded directly to that particular suggestion, rather than defending the deprecation or referring them to the RSN over other issues. Personally, I've no problem with the removal of DM sources. I do have a problem when you remove material without anyone having a chance to reasonably spot that and restore it with a decent citation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!21:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention is about a recently deceased person, so it would be covered by WP:BLP. 'Citation needed' tags are rarely acted on, and often remain for months, which is not ideal when it comes to a court case covered by BLP. I notice that when you found a different cite, you also found that the date was wrong. This just reinforces the low quality of text sourced to deprecated sources. 192.184.132.180 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pattern of disruptive editing by David Gerard in I believe was originally a good faith attempt to remove deprecated sources. This editor also fails to engage properly with other editors when asked specific questions, and often acts as a self-appointed guardian to the project's policies. I think if you were to raise a formal complaint and request sanctions then you would find that other editors would back you up, unfortunately admins tend to close ranks when one of them is challenged in this way. Shritwod (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean is that you brought a complaint, were told you were misusing the sources and they didn't back up what you said, and were told to stop adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia. If you don't understand that "I brought a complaint and everyone with experience told me I was wrong" might mean you were wrong, there's not much to be done for you - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you're bending the truth and pretending that your methods are uncontroversial and explicitly sanctioned. Neither Shritwood nor I have any wish to "add deprecated sources to Wikipedia". We're just objecting to your hardline and nuance-free application of WP:DAILYMAIL − resulting in the removal of uncontroversial and relevant content purely on the grounds of its sourcing – and your aggressive reaction to anyone that questions you. @Bastun:: I did warn you. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You recently reverted an edit to The Psycho Ex-Wife stating "deliberately re-adding deprecated sources."
Please assume Good Faith. Also identifying the resource in question would help.
I researched the deprecated list and your post history and I am guessing/assuming you are referring The Daily Mail. Alternatives for that exact quote are:
NBC https://www.today.com/money/dad-behind-psycho-ex-wife-blog-protests-its-shutdown-1C8368403
She’s on the precipice of 40 and probably looks all 50-years of it. Imagine if you will, Jabba The Hut, with less personality. She spends her time ... drinking her days away bemoaning her victim status, when she isn’t stuffing the children with fast food, buying them toys, or pushing them towards the TV or computer.
I removed all references to the Daily Mail from the edit and substituted these references to resolve this edit controversy. If you want to discuss it further, I am open to that.
I don't understand this reversion because the sources absolutely were reliable and the documentary, which is a major release, was not mentioned before on the page. This makes no sense sir! Thanks a lot.
See WP:RSP - neither Amazon nor IMDB are usable as sole sources for claims in Wikipedia, and SXSW itself is a primary source. In general, please review the reliable sources guideline. You need third-party reliable sources for something like this to even be worth noting in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GitR0n1n (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RoboCop (2014 film); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Perhaps that's the better route to go. Let me figure out how much press it got...if I write something I'll tell you. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bedfordshire on Sunday. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shritwod (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
and start work. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Template:Template:Puppet has been nominated for merging with Template:Sockpuppet. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
