User talk:David Gerard

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

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

---

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

Ann Nocenti

Hi. In your recent edit summary, "no cause for dep in ELs, however", what is "dep"? Thanks, and Happy New Year. Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr Eat (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The Sun as a depreciated source

Hi, with regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan_Army_Sunshine_Appeal, I did explain my choice to use The Sun in the talk page. Please note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Sun that for sports reporting (which is what this is) it can be considered reliable. With that in mind, would you agree to revert the edit? CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

PS Actually the same content is covered in sources that are not the sun, so maybe it better to have it removed....maybe just ignore this request. CT55555 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's always better to use another source :-) In the actual RFC, it did not find a general open-slather permission for sports - that was something an editor added to RSP later and resisted the removal of, and not the finding of the RFC. I think that note at RSP is misleading and open to hazards like this, but oh well - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, one less link to The Sun in the world is a good thing. :-) Have a good one. CT55555 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands?

I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands? where I have asked you a question about where a consensus to redirect was formed after you reverted to a redirect with the edit summary "Please keep to consensus". Cunard (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated this for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 4#Yat Siu. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Following the suggestion of two editors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 4#Yat Siu that the use of rollback should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrative action review, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#David Gerard's use of rollback at Yat Siu. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, David Gerard. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! SoyokoAnis - talk 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis - talk 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, David Gerard, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 20:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of CounterPunch RFC

Hi David,

As the closer of the CounterPunch RFC, I just wanted to bring this discussion to your attention, as it appears that the RFC will need to be reclosed with the !votes of the non-ECP voters ignored after that clarification request is closed. I'm not sure how the current CounterPunch RFC will affect this, and whether it is best to close it separately or with the initial RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably run the RFC again if it came to that - though the arbitrator discussion does not appear to be going in a direction as yet. I'd say that the closure would hold on policy grounds - the multiple examples provided of misleading, fringe, or downright false statements published on the site, per both closers. Many contributors considered Mhawk10's analysis hit the nail on the head. Getting some contributions struck isn't going to get over that problem - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(I should note that I was barely aware of CounterPunch before going through and closing, and concurring fully with the previous closer's assessment of the discussion as it stood. But in cleaning up the backlog of deprecated source usages in Wikipedia, Mhawk10's analysis of the problems did seem to me to hold in practice. It's really not a good source and I'm now more confident it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, not less.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; even if it only a formality, I do think that a discussion that went from 9 !votes against and 24 !votes in favour to 13 !votes in favour (assuming ArbCom does conclude the ECR applies to such discussions) needs to be reclosed, just to ensure that the close is still correct. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction; 28 to 18, discounting the six socks and the four non-ECP editors (Crystalfile, Estnot, Kathy262, AllOtherNamesWereTaken) BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure you start with 26, including the two votes that were for 3 or 4, and end up with 14-16 depending on how you apply the 3 or 4 votes. nableezy - 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked again; 28. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

who am i missing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mhawk 10 - 4 Crossroads - 4 Dr. Swag Lord - 4 Shrike - 4 Inf-in MD - 4 (sock of NoCal100) Generalrelative - 4 NoonIcarus - 4 GretLomborg - 4 BobFromBrockley - 3+ My very best wishes - 3+ or 4 11Fox11 - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Nableezy - 2 Horse Eye's Back - 4 Grayfell - 4 Georgethedragonslayer - 4 Neutrality - 4 Huldra - 2 Alaexis - 4 or 3 Rosguill - 2 Nishidani - 2 NSH001 - 2 BilledMammal - 4 Free1Soul - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Davide King - 2 or 3 Nyx86 - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Estnot - 4 (non-ec) Qiushufang - 2 RFZYNSPY - 4 Crystalfile - 4 (non-ec) Kathy262 - 4 (non-ec) Amigao - 4 AllOtherNamesWereTaken - 4 (non-ec) Droid I am - 4 (sock of Icewhiz) Zero - 2 Selfstudier - 2 Hippeus - 4 (sock of Icewhiz)

nableezy - 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, but we're just counting votes at this point. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, ty, but then I guess we were both wrong, 27 then, down to 15-17. And yes that is counting, which is not the only thing, but it is something, and when 28% of the support in a discussion were banned users and more than one in three was ineligible to participate, making a project wide consensus on that basis seems untenable. I dont really expect David to change his mind here, but will wait to see what he says before proceeding with any other CLOSECHALLENGE steps. nableezy - 21:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

David, as per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am challenging your close of the CounterPunch RFC on the basis of substantial participation by ineligible accounts and the recently closed Arbitration clarification that the EC requirement does apply to RSN threads related to restricted topic areas. 5 of the deprecate !votes were Icewhiz (11Fox11, Free1Soul, Nyx86, Droid I am, Hippeus), another was NoCal100 (Inf-in MD), and a further three were not eligible to participate due to being non extended confirmed. Additionally, two of the votes in favor of deprecation were soft, both saying option 3 or 4 (or 3+ or 4), while the arguments about CP also hosting subject matter experts were not addressed at all. Finally, I question the very idea that 13 1415 editors may restrict the usage of a source across Wikipedia entirely, and suggest that further RFCs with such limited participation not be used as a basis for project-wide decisions, especially in the absence of any policy that supports such wide-ranging changes across the encyclopedia. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE I am asking you here to reverse your close to no consensus. If you would prefer I ask WP:AN please let me know. Thank you. nableezy - 18:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Its clear that RSN discussions regarding the conflict are covered by ECP but who said that is a Counterpunch case. Many arguments were not about the conflict at all. If someone thinks that the topic is covered by DS they should go to WP:AN or to WP:AE to enforce the restriction. --Shrike (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats why the non-EC accounts dont have a history of editing in ARBPIA topics. Wait, no. And actually, pretty sure one of the non-EC accounts will be blocked as an additional Icewhiz sock as well. nableezy - 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The first account is from 2012 icewhiz was not active back then or you think its master account? Shrike (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I said one of the accounts. Not all of them. And no, not either of those. One of the other non-EC accounts I am fairly certain is IW, but still gathering material for an SPI. Regardless, this was very obviously ARBPIA related, and the fact that there are 6 ARBPIA sockpuppets of two banned editors active in it should make that obvious to anybody looking at it objectively. You think IW would use 5 accounts in one RFC if it wasnt about the topics he cared about? nableezy - 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As someone who thinks CP is trash, I find these arguments persuasive that we should look again. I've suggested at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rerun_Counterpunch_RFC? I think we shouldn't relaunch the RFC without discussion for a bit first, but the socking was bad enough to re-examine it - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

also, fuck Icewhiz - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. nableezy - 01:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

David, if you agree the RFC is invalid, then the source is not deprecated. You cant continue claiming that there is a consensus for deprecation while also agreeing the RFC that gives that consensus is invalid. Whether or not a new RFC makes it deprecated is besides the point, it cannot be called deprecated now. nableezy - 18:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't solely declare it, as much as you would like me to. It's deprecated until it's un-deprecated. I suggest you formulate a neutral RFC and bring your best arguments. But you might want the RFC I'm about to file to go through first - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

But you actually can, as WP:CLOSECHALLENGE explicitly allows you to modify the close due to new information that materially impacts the discussion that was not known at the time, eg Icewhiz running 5 (or more likely 6) socks through that discussion. That is exactly why I came to your talk page first to challenge the close. If you felt that the RFC no longer demonstrates a consensus to deprecate then you absolutely can modify your close. You can still feel that CP is trash. You can still feel that it should be deprecated. And we can argue about that in the new RFC. But it is unfair to continue to enforce a consensus that you yourself say is hollow. Believe me, I am totally prepared for an RFC on CP. I even welcome it. But it is unfair to require a new consensus to overturn what you admit is not a valid consensus. nableezy - 20:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion already has divergent viewpoints on this, suggesting that me not taking such a drastic action, and instead starting a discussion, was in fact the correct move - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Shocking development, people who argue CP should be deprecated dont want the RFC overturned. But let me ask you a simple question. Where is there a consensus for CP to be deprecated? nableezy - 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It certainly looked that way at the time. But there are reasons to question this, so I put it to RSN to discuss what to do next. I see you've participated in that discussion, so you're aware of it - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it looked that way at the time. Thats why I did not challenge the close until now. But now, where does there exist a consensus for deprecating CP? Because if you say that RFC cannot be relied on then I am unaware of any such consensus anywhere. Is there one? nableezy - 21:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not your mother. Please continue discussion at the more central RSN discussion that is already open - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The answer of a man with a winning argument. Toodles. nableezy - 21:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Byline Times (Robert Tombs)

Have you changed your mind about Byline Times? To be fair, I did not even use this source for the Brexit claims about Robert Tombs and History Reclaimed, which I personally think are warranted because they claim to be non-partisan when they are clearly not, but I used it mainly as secondary coverage for the website's own description. Anyway, this has been totally removed. It is true one is a university blog (Lester) but it is explicitly cited by Solares, and I do not know if you think North East Bylines is a good source but it is not a blog or self-published (this was the main argument against it) and is written by an expert. Since Lester and Solares seem to present a mainstream view, while Tombs and History Reclaimed have promoted revisionism, especially in regards to colonialism, I think this fact makes their scholarly criticism due. Davide King (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SLEEPER crypto spammer?

Hi! I don't know whose account Special:Contributions/Bigelephants is, but maybe you might have an idea? Other than Draft:Cashaa, the rest of their edits inserted commas to random places (which for some reason have not been reverted); I am assuming they were WP:GAMING for WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

well, we are required to WP:AGF, despite the quacking and waddling. Doesn't resemble any past editor who springs to mind. They're clearly interested in the area, and we have more than 0 decent editors in the cryptocurrency area who are themselves hodlers ... perhaps they'll become another one! But in practice, spammy crypto editors who don't learn to cool it get topic-restricted, blocked or both in pretty short order - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Folding Ideas mention

I'm back! Looks like Folding Ideas is a fan of your work (time stamp). That's high praise. El_C 23:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Metameme

• Metameme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would you mind looking at the recent edit to this article. It added a bunch of excited commentary about "The Squirrel Token" which I assume is another crypto promotion, but it's over my head. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

yeh, just spam - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Eternity (1990 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eternity (1990 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternity (1990 film) 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.

The Film Creator (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RS and Economy of Marshall Islands article

Hi, regarding your edit here, is there a statement somewhere that Cointelegraph and the other sources you removed don't meet WP:RS. Cointelegraph, Benzinga, and Decrypt aren't listed on WP:RSP as being barred, and there's only a passing mention of Cointelegraph and Decrypt in the Reliable Sources talk archives. I see a statement in the archives of WikiProject Cryptocurrency that there's a consensus that crypto-related trades are considered unreliable, but is that documented anywhere? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not how RSP works. Crypto sites in general are boosterist media with no heed for massive conflicts of interest. What you're after will be indicative in the discussion of CoinDesk linked from RSP. You could take the publications to RSN if you want a firm verdict, but I predict that "generally unreliable" will be the best outcome - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually edit on crypto-related topics (Pacific islands is one of my beats, ergo the crossover in this case), so I haven't encountered this blanket ban on a class of publications before. WP:RSP is the go-to for indications about sources that might be questionable; it's not comprehensive, but if a site is blacklisted I would hope it would be added there. Cointelegraph in particular appears on a basic WP:RS check to pass the sniff test (editorial board, not self-published, news articles appear evenhanded and not hype). Looking at the CoinDesk conversation, I don't see a definitive consensus around a total ban on those sites, but this is an area you clearly spend more time on than me. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

All the crypto sites are basically bad. They're boosterism and advertorial pretending to be trade press. They're really not usable sources in Wikipedia. Look at the material I removed - it was boosterism that fails to note details like the project's failure, because they try to only talk about good news for crypto, and tend to ignore when projects fail a bit later - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did look at them and they didn't raise a red flag for me. In this case, they seemed mostly straightforward reporting on the development of the SOV, including the IMF's criticism and concerns (which was hardly boosterism or good news). The project is still active, so it's hard to talk about it's failure yet. I've re-added information about the IMF's criticism (tied to a primary source, the IMF's report) along with reporting on the project's ongoing nature from Bloomberg and Global Finance. I also added a RNZ report on the failure of the no confidence vote you added mention of. Hopefully that all passes muster to provide a more current picture of the project. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why you have removed article and redirected?

Article : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Siminoff&redirect=no

I checked the articles and the statements and source looks verifiable. Religiousmyth (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

100% of his notability was actually about Ring, not about him outside of Ring - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have undone your redirect to the article because it looks good for me because article do not get created in day. If you keep the article than other contributor may improve it with more valuable source (time to time). If you still consider redirect is only solution, you can add redirect to the article back. I am not experienced wikipedia editor, so i believe you may know better what good and what bad for wikipedia. Religiousmyth (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It was created in 2019 and has never had anything more substantial in three years. If you can find anything, this would be a good time to add it - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you and i have moved the page in draft. Ones it improve than it can be move back to main-space. Religiousmyth (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

odd interpretation of various wikipedia policies

Hi David, although I just emailed you, I thought perhaps I'd write to your wall, as I'm all for transparency and open forums. I've been encountering some very odd interpretations (from admins and editors) of wikipedia policy lately, and I'm asking you, as a fellow Aserpergan, what you make of it! (I'm assuming you have Asperger's at least). So, firstly, people have been stating in articles as fact what people have claimed, without proof. This to be seems POV, and to use a persons words as proof, is surely not conducive to writing a good encyclopaedia. I reverted these edits, explaining they did not have adequate sources (the only source being a PRIMARY source, which according to Wikipedia policy isn't an adequate source), but each time my edits got reverted. Each time I reverted the edits, careful to observe the 3RR, even though technically (accoriding to the "Edit warring" policy) my reverts can't count as part of an edit war, given that it is explicitly mentioned as an exemption in the "edit warring" policy, number 7, removing unsourced material from a BLP (bio of a living person). Nevertheless, an admin blocked me, on the basis of "Edit warring" and "disrupting wikipedia". (This second basis seems highly dubious and over-used. it seems very vague as to when it applies, and seems to be applied in any situation of a dispute). I requested to be unblocked on the basis that I was not edit warring given the explicit exemption. Another admin rejected my unblock request, without even addressing the basis on which I was requesting to be unblocked. I then spoke to them on their talk page pointing out they had failed to respond to the basis of my unblock request, and twice more they continued to ignore my unblock request, instead choosing to focus on my "threats" to them (which was that I would have to escalate things if they did not address the basis of my unblock request - I only felt it fair to let them know this is where it would go if they didn't do their job). Given they continued to neglect their admin duties, I then posted on ANI to ask for feedback/assistance with this curious behaviour (I was not aware of a more suitable place to seek assistance than ANI) - and then another admin, within minutes, deleted my ANI request, also saying that they agreed with the rejection of my unblock request, and also without addressing the basis of my unblock request. They also said that if I didn't effectively shut up, that I was asking for a site-wide ban (without elaborating on how I was doing this). Sorry for the long message..! Can you help me to understand what's going on here please? (Other than perhaps Wikipedia being run by the egos of admins with little care or attention to actual policy)? Rebroad (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Not aspergic myself, just have lots of friends who are! Do you have links to the specific edits? (This sort of thing is always heavily dependent on facts and circumstances.) In the case of apparent edit-warring on a BLP, I'd always advise posting to BLPN for outside opinions and then stop and leave it to others - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Note the OP has been blocked for edit warring, disruptive editing, IDHT and failure to drop the stick. So you can just ignore the above. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"André Konsbruck" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect André Konsbruck and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#André Konsbruck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[1]] regarding continued deletion of the entire history section. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[2]]".The discussion is about the topic CryptoPunks.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

"Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaetr (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Contributions on pages

Hello David, I have noticed we happen to contribute to mutual topics. Thank you for your contributions, I appreciate it. However, I would like to know what do you think is not 'non WP:N' or 'non WP:RS' in the Dangiuz page. Just like you, I am very meticulous when it comes to Crypto/NFT related articles, and I only cite actually reliable websites when contributing to these articles. For this reason, I want you to notice that in the aforementioned article there is no sign of a single Crypto website, in any of those 37 references, thus tagging it as a 'non WP:N' when the art shows and references are clear for all to see seems a bit out of place. And, I haven't done any WP:RM at all; I simply followed the Template rules, if you check the article's Talk page. I contribute to many articles about artists, specifically those who are into NFTs/Digital Art. If there's anything you think I could have done better about WP:CE, please feel free to edit and contribute. But the references are undoubtedly reliable and no different from any other artist I contribute to. Thanks! JohnnyCoal (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the references to crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Nijinsky

Hello David, Can I ask for your advice, as an Admin.? Certain anonymous editors keep insisting on reverting my edits to tone done claims that the horse was the greatest ever. As it happens, I agree with them! But thatz irrelevant. My experience is that Wiki frowns on such claims, even if referenced. The main problem is that the sources cited cannot easily be checked, and the text states that 'some experts' say: what about other experts that disagree? My 'one of the greatest...' edits are not going down well, clearly. Thanks, Bill Billsmith60 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I found the actual link for the Daily Telegraph, and the title does not appear to be what was originally in the text - perhaps it is that in the original print version? Anyway, tricky one. We would I think basically need sources that are expert and say precisely that, yeah - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll go ahead in a bit on that basis Billsmith60 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"Magical Britain" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Magical Britain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Magical Britain until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

1rr

You have violated the 1RR at Palestinian right of return, kindly self-revert or be reported at WP:AE. nableezy - 00:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Erm, no I haven't. Please list diffs.

Also, you might think hard about reflexively reinserting a weird fringe white nationalist blog as a source in Wikipedia, even if it's an article by someone you like - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont actually agree with Morris, it isn't somebody I like, but he is an excellent source. As far as diffs 1, 2, with you having previously made this exact same removal here in an earlier editing rampage. And reverted by another editor then. Kindly self-revert or be reported to AE. You do not get to enforce your positions through reverts anymore than anybody else on this website. And calling Benny Morris extremist or fringe borders on a BLP violation. Maybe think hard about your reckless editing in which you do not even examine what it is you are removing beyond its url. nableezy - 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

1rr is per 24 hours, not ever in the history of Wikipedia. But feel free to report if you disagree. Also, you really shouldn't be adding the white nationalist blog to Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and you did 2 reverts within 24 hours, in under 2 hours. nableezy - 14:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#David_Gerard nableezy - 14:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope you've learnt more about how 1rr works - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

lol, good one. Good luck on your next crusade, I have some more CP links to restore. nableezy - 22:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)