This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard . |
Past talk: 2004 2005a 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.
|
FYI, the 200th London Meetup is happening tomorrow, Sunday 14 January. You may be interested as you were present at the very first one (pictured)! Note that it is now at Penderel's Oak on High Holborn by the Great Turnstile. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dave. I found out that Metro is a tabloid newspaper per WP:RSPSOURCES. Would you remove it? Regards. 2001:D08:2947:5B3:17AC:5EBD:F8D5:CA71 ( talk) 13:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at South Park (Not Suitable for Children), you may be blocked from editing. You have repeatedly tried to revert/remove the opinion statement from Daily Caller when it has been shown to you repeatedly that WP:RSOPINION allows for clearly defined editorials to be permitted even if they are from a deprecated source. Please either take this up with an admin. Continuing to remove this will result in a report. SanAnMan ( talk) 22:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at South Park (Not Suitable for Children) 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; read about 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. SanAnMan ( talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I want to acknowledge your role as an admin on Wikipedia and express my serious concerns about the recent changes made to the ERC-721 page. While I respect your dedication to maintaining article quality, I must address some issues that have arisen during your review.
Your assertion that the article is primarily sourced from "unreliable crypto blogs" is, unfounded, easily disproven, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever in the talk page. The majority of the articles cited originate from reputable mainstream outlets and scholarly journals, providing substantial credibility to the content. Other editors have viewed the page and have not apparently come to the same drastic conclusions as you meriting removal of entire sections and subsections. Moreover, the subject's notability has been thoroughly contextualized in the talk page, which appears to have been overlooked as you proceeded to flag its notability anyway without even acknowledging or addressing it.
I respectfully insist that you engage with the community on the talk page and provide specific examples of sources you find unreliable before proceeding with further substantive edits or reversions. This collaborative approach will enable us to address any concerns effectively and improve the article while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Proceeding to continue making these substantive edits without providing evidence, examples or engaging in any discussion of your claims in the talk page may constitute disruptive editing.
As an admin, your actions carry significant weight within the Wikipedia community, and I hope we can work together to maintain a fair, respectful, and principled approach to content editing. I urge you to reconsider your approach, ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines, to set a positive example for others in the community.
If these issues persist without a constructive resolution, we may need to consider escalating the matter to formal resolution procedures within Wikipedia for further review. Codeconjurer777 ( talk) 07:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I did mention one to Jagged Hamster in Wired magazine regarding use of the word NFT that didn't include ERC-721 that seemed to fit with other sources over a certain point, and the "crypto sources" about using block explorers to verify some of the projects involving ERC-721 that don't specify it explicitly, but that was for clarification purposes and was removed in the prior edit. Besides that, I believe the rest of the sources cited involve ERC-721 projects or the ERC-721 document itself. To say that there is such an extensive use of such sources that it constitutes a redundant fork demands evidence, which you have not provided. Not everything you say is false, but much of what you say you have not or cannot back it up with proof.
@ Codeconjurer777, in the light of your answer above, I wonder whether you could point to me the sources of the following information that you included in this revision:
Can you also clarify why in your early draft you referred to Entriker by his first name "William" and "Will"? Thank you. — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Good afternoon, can you clarify why you counted the version as spam and rolled back to the previous one? | Dash (cryptocurrency)
Yes, the article has been heavily revised, but it clearly describes the current state of Dash. And at the same time, in my opinion, it did not violate the rules of Wikipedia. Everything is written in a neutral style, there are sources everywhere. Vonnu ( talk) 12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! You removed a quote from Ronnie O'Sullivan on 2024 Masters (snooker) citing that GB News is generally unreliable. But I don't see it in the list of sources on that page. I live in the US and am not very familiar with British news sources, can you elaborate a bit on GB News? I'll also try to find an alternative source for the quote. Thank you! AmethystZhou ( talk) 13:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
Awarded for your continual efforts in making sure reliable and reputable sources are used for articles. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=2022%E2%80%932024_Southern_Africa_cholera_outbreak&diff=1206230970&oldid=1206173900&title=2022%E2%80%932024_Southern_Africa_cholera_outbreak&diffonly=1 Hello @ David Gerard. Please may you explain why the countries mentioned are deemed not worth of reliabilty in being affected? Is it simply because they are African? Reading the article, it is obvious the information is reliable because it reports common knowledge in those countries. Or is this indicative of bias, because it is well known African-related topics experience bias on Wikipedia for various reasons. Ear-phone ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Deprecated by whom.WP:CGTN - they are given to fabrication. Any true information should be considered an accident. A source given to fabrication is really not usable for any sort of medical claim - David Gerard ( talk) 09:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
When you moved this article back to drafts (thanks for that), might it not have been a good idea to restore the prior AFC decline templates and comments, for future reviewers to have access to? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Motif (widget toolkit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14 § Motif (widget toolkit until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The New York Daily News is not a deprecated source. i recall looking it up when I was editing those articles. This is also not an article where facts are in question. I object to you removing those citations. For reference, see Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 00:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Re this: I would think that this comes under RSOPINION, since that's what was the intent in citing it. I certainly wasn't using it to establish a fact beyond that opinion. A publication by a leading think tank associated with a political ideology should certainly be considered reliable in expressing representative opinion of adherents of that ideology with respect to actions of other adherents of that ideology, one would think. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For sticking around to help to build a workable Calendargate article after expressing so many doubts about the sourcing. Exactly what one would expect from a longtime Wikipedian. — Daniel Case ( talk) 22:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
Also, in the wake of the talk page discussion we had, I will be opening an RS/N discussion on Fox Business specifically (I would agree that we probably shouldn't use any science or politically-themed content, anything clearly recycled from Fox News, and certainly nothing from post-2016 Maria Bartiromo or (now a former FBN personality) Lou Dobbs) ... but nothing in the archives I looked through really addressed FBN as a whole. Just so we have clarity on it. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you serious tagging the article for speedy deletion? You claim you have written a book on cryptocurrencies and now you don't acknowledge that FDUSD is just behind Tether as the second most traded stablecoin in circulation? Half a million google search results, tracked by all major exchanges, $3+ billion in daily trading volume. Isn't that enough for notability? You tagged the article for being written as an advertisement, and your user page is just and advertisement for your book, urging people to buy it? Lol what a joke. Itemirus (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS. Crypto blogs don't count - David Gerard ( talk) 11:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
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. Itemirus (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey if you're really all sincere and actually care about making good articles, here's a stub I just created.
Blockchain and NFT pioneer Dieter Shirley. I left a bunch of RSs and brief treatment on his accomplishments that should establish notability though the citations could be organized better, it's not hard to piece together how. No crypto sources. No bundled list citations (yet).
I wanted to make a nice comprehensive treatment for this subject, but I don't even think it's worth the effort for me at this point if you're just going to make excuses to disruptively edit and hate on my contributions, so I left it pretty foundational. You can do the heavy-lifting.
Edit away. Have fun.
Codeconjurer777 ( talk) 11:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you were the administrator who placed the protection for the mainspace article. Was wondering if you would be able to unprotect it so I can move it.
Please feel free to review the sourcing/wording and all, I tried my best to steer away from non reliable sources and promotional material, which was a driving topic behind the past AfDs. Thanks. TLA tlak 02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I never said WP:GUNREL needs to be updated, and posting passive-agressive notices at all of the talk pages is not a WP:GOODFAITH approach to discussion. The wording at WP:NYPOST specifically calls it generally unreliable for reporting on New York City politics, so I don't think that justifies blanket removal of film reviews from multiple articles without discussion. WP:GUNREL does already include exceptions for subject-matter experts, which the authors are in these three cases. Publishing their reviews in an unreliable newspaper doesn't mean their film opinions are somehow "unreliable". - adamstom97 ( talk) 16:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. - adamstom97 ( talk) 11:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
On 17 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Calendargate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that online social and " Barstool conservatives" spent their Christmas holidays arguing about whether a beer promotional calendar was "demonic"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Calendargate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Calendargate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 16,798 views (699.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi David, Appreciate your input related to my draft of the Pulsechain blockchain. What you mean with mainstream "RSes" exactly? Couldn't find any clue. Do you have an example or reference? Happy to meet the WP quality requirements and change it accordingly. Mgloor ( talk) 10:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
On the page First Digital USD once again you removed a reliable source - an assessment from S&P global, one of the most reputable financial institutions in the world - claiming it was an unreliable crypto website; maybe you're too cocky to notice, but you keep wasting a lot of people's time with your dumb, unsolicited editing; who the **** you think you are? why don't you take a break from WP where you just have fun ruining other's people work? Itemirus (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious ( talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Good afternooon.
Can you give one advice for complete the article. GEORGEB1989 ( talk) 13:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ David Gerard
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna ( talk) 18:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, in 2021 you salted the page Coulrophilia. I have written a well-sourced draft ( Draft:Coulrophilia) about the subject that I think passes the general notability guidelines. Would you mind removing the salt so that the draft can be moved to mainspace? Thanks. Di (they-them) ( talk) 20:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
If you find this page on any site other than the English Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard . |
Past talk: 2004 2005a 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it.
|
FYI, the 200th London Meetup is happening tomorrow, Sunday 14 January. You may be interested as you were present at the very first one (pictured)! Note that it is now at Penderel's Oak on High Holborn by the Great Turnstile. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Dave. I found out that Metro is a tabloid newspaper per WP:RSPSOURCES. Would you remove it? Regards. 2001:D08:2947:5B3:17AC:5EBD:F8D5:CA71 ( talk) 13:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at South Park (Not Suitable for Children), you may be blocked from editing. You have repeatedly tried to revert/remove the opinion statement from Daily Caller when it has been shown to you repeatedly that WP:RSOPINION allows for clearly defined editorials to be permitted even if they are from a deprecated source. Please either take this up with an admin. Continuing to remove this will result in a report. SanAnMan ( talk) 22:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at South Park (Not Suitable for Children) 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; read about 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. SanAnMan ( talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I want to acknowledge your role as an admin on Wikipedia and express my serious concerns about the recent changes made to the ERC-721 page. While I respect your dedication to maintaining article quality, I must address some issues that have arisen during your review.
Your assertion that the article is primarily sourced from "unreliable crypto blogs" is, unfounded, easily disproven, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever in the talk page. The majority of the articles cited originate from reputable mainstream outlets and scholarly journals, providing substantial credibility to the content. Other editors have viewed the page and have not apparently come to the same drastic conclusions as you meriting removal of entire sections and subsections. Moreover, the subject's notability has been thoroughly contextualized in the talk page, which appears to have been overlooked as you proceeded to flag its notability anyway without even acknowledging or addressing it.
I respectfully insist that you engage with the community on the talk page and provide specific examples of sources you find unreliable before proceeding with further substantive edits or reversions. This collaborative approach will enable us to address any concerns effectively and improve the article while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Proceeding to continue making these substantive edits without providing evidence, examples or engaging in any discussion of your claims in the talk page may constitute disruptive editing.
As an admin, your actions carry significant weight within the Wikipedia community, and I hope we can work together to maintain a fair, respectful, and principled approach to content editing. I urge you to reconsider your approach, ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines, to set a positive example for others in the community.
If these issues persist without a constructive resolution, we may need to consider escalating the matter to formal resolution procedures within Wikipedia for further review. Codeconjurer777 ( talk) 07:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I did mention one to Jagged Hamster in Wired magazine regarding use of the word NFT that didn't include ERC-721 that seemed to fit with other sources over a certain point, and the "crypto sources" about using block explorers to verify some of the projects involving ERC-721 that don't specify it explicitly, but that was for clarification purposes and was removed in the prior edit. Besides that, I believe the rest of the sources cited involve ERC-721 projects or the ERC-721 document itself. To say that there is such an extensive use of such sources that it constitutes a redundant fork demands evidence, which you have not provided. Not everything you say is false, but much of what you say you have not or cannot back it up with proof.
@ Codeconjurer777, in the light of your answer above, I wonder whether you could point to me the sources of the following information that you included in this revision:
Can you also clarify why in your early draft you referred to Entriker by his first name "William" and "Will"? Thank you. — kashmīrī TALK 20:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Good afternoon, can you clarify why you counted the version as spam and rolled back to the previous one? | Dash (cryptocurrency)
Yes, the article has been heavily revised, but it clearly describes the current state of Dash. And at the same time, in my opinion, it did not violate the rules of Wikipedia. Everything is written in a neutral style, there are sources everywhere. Vonnu ( talk) 12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! You removed a quote from Ronnie O'Sullivan on 2024 Masters (snooker) citing that GB News is generally unreliable. But I don't see it in the list of sources on that page. I live in the US and am not very familiar with British news sources, can you elaborate a bit on GB News? I'll also try to find an alternative source for the quote. Thank you! AmethystZhou ( talk) 13:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
Awarded for your continual efforts in making sure reliable and reputable sources are used for articles. Awarded by Cdjp1 ( talk) 15:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC) |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=2022%E2%80%932024_Southern_Africa_cholera_outbreak&diff=1206230970&oldid=1206173900&title=2022%E2%80%932024_Southern_Africa_cholera_outbreak&diffonly=1 Hello @ David Gerard. Please may you explain why the countries mentioned are deemed not worth of reliabilty in being affected? Is it simply because they are African? Reading the article, it is obvious the information is reliable because it reports common knowledge in those countries. Or is this indicative of bias, because it is well known African-related topics experience bias on Wikipedia for various reasons. Ear-phone ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Deprecated by whom.WP:CGTN - they are given to fabrication. Any true information should be considered an accident. A source given to fabrication is really not usable for any sort of medical claim - David Gerard ( talk) 09:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
When you moved this article back to drafts (thanks for that), might it not have been a good idea to restore the prior AFC decline templates and comments, for future reviewers to have access to? WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Motif (widget toolkit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 14 § Motif (widget toolkit until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The New York Daily News is not a deprecated source. i recall looking it up when I was editing those articles. This is also not an article where facts are in question. I object to you removing those citations. For reference, see Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 00:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Re this: I would think that this comes under RSOPINION, since that's what was the intent in citing it. I certainly wasn't using it to establish a fact beyond that opinion. A publication by a leading think tank associated with a political ideology should certainly be considered reliable in expressing representative opinion of adherents of that ideology with respect to actions of other adherents of that ideology, one would think. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For sticking around to help to build a workable Calendargate article after expressing so many doubts about the sourcing. Exactly what one would expect from a longtime Wikipedian. — Daniel Case ( talk) 22:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
Also, in the wake of the talk page discussion we had, I will be opening an RS/N discussion on Fox Business specifically (I would agree that we probably shouldn't use any science or politically-themed content, anything clearly recycled from Fox News, and certainly nothing from post-2016 Maria Bartiromo or (now a former FBN personality) Lou Dobbs) ... but nothing in the archives I looked through really addressed FBN as a whole. Just so we have clarity on it. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you serious tagging the article for speedy deletion? You claim you have written a book on cryptocurrencies and now you don't acknowledge that FDUSD is just behind Tether as the second most traded stablecoin in circulation? Half a million google search results, tracked by all major exchanges, $3+ billion in daily trading volume. Isn't that enough for notability? You tagged the article for being written as an advertisement, and your user page is just and advertisement for your book, urging people to buy it? Lol what a joke. Itemirus (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS. Crypto blogs don't count - David Gerard ( talk) 11:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
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. Itemirus (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey if you're really all sincere and actually care about making good articles, here's a stub I just created.
Blockchain and NFT pioneer Dieter Shirley. I left a bunch of RSs and brief treatment on his accomplishments that should establish notability though the citations could be organized better, it's not hard to piece together how. No crypto sources. No bundled list citations (yet).
I wanted to make a nice comprehensive treatment for this subject, but I don't even think it's worth the effort for me at this point if you're just going to make excuses to disruptively edit and hate on my contributions, so I left it pretty foundational. You can do the heavy-lifting.
Edit away. Have fun.
Codeconjurer777 ( talk) 11:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you were the administrator who placed the protection for the mainspace article. Was wondering if you would be able to unprotect it so I can move it.
Please feel free to review the sourcing/wording and all, I tried my best to steer away from non reliable sources and promotional material, which was a driving topic behind the past AfDs. Thanks. TLA tlak 02:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I never said WP:GUNREL needs to be updated, and posting passive-agressive notices at all of the talk pages is not a WP:GOODFAITH approach to discussion. The wording at WP:NYPOST specifically calls it generally unreliable for reporting on New York City politics, so I don't think that justifies blanket removal of film reviews from multiple articles without discussion. WP:GUNREL does already include exceptions for subject-matter experts, which the authors are in these three cases. Publishing their reviews in an unreliable newspaper doesn't mean their film opinions are somehow "unreliable". - adamstom97 ( talk) 16:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. - adamstom97 ( talk) 11:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
On 17 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Calendargate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that online social and " Barstool conservatives" spent their Christmas holidays arguing about whether a beer promotional calendar was "demonic"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Calendargate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Calendargate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 ( talk) 00:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 16,798 views (699.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi David, Appreciate your input related to my draft of the Pulsechain blockchain. What you mean with mainstream "RSes" exactly? Couldn't find any clue. Do you have an example or reference? Happy to meet the WP quality requirements and change it accordingly. Mgloor ( talk) 10:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
On the page First Digital USD once again you removed a reliable source - an assessment from S&P global, one of the most reputable financial institutions in the world - claiming it was an unreliable crypto website; maybe you're too cocky to notice, but you keep wasting a lot of people's time with your dumb, unsolicited editing; who the **** you think you are? why don't you take a break from WP where you just have fun ruining other's people work? Itemirus (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious ( talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Good afternooon.
Can you give one advice for complete the article. GEORGEB1989 ( talk) 13:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ David Gerard
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna ( talk) 18:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, in 2021 you salted the page Coulrophilia. I have written a well-sourced draft ( Draft:Coulrophilia) about the subject that I think passes the general notability guidelines. Would you mind removing the salt so that the draft can be moved to mainspace? Thanks. Di (they-them) ( talk) 20:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)