Content deleted Content added
→A fox for you!: Reply |
|||
Line 1:
{{bots}}
{| width="80%" align="center" style="text-align:center; border:1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:#FFFFF3;"
|- padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
Line 7 ⟶ 9:
|}
Past talk: [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 1|2004]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 2|2005a]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 3|2005b]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 4|2006]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 5|2007]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 6|2008]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 7|2009]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 8|2010]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 9|2011]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 10|2012]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 11|2013]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 12|2014]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 13|2015]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 14|2016]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 15|2017]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 16|2018]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 17|2019]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 18|2020]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 19|2021]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 20|2022]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 21|2023]] [[User talk:David Gerard/archive 22|2024]]
Please put new stuff at the bottom, where I'll see it
----
{{Boxboxtop|}}
{{User MAW 400}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}
== Warning messages ==
Hi David. I don't know who to ask about this, but thought you might know. There are a few sources that have come to RSN that aren't really in need of full deprecation, but that are wasting editors time by being reused and readded. Take for instance [[WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide]], a source that was both UGC and circular but was needing continuous clean up by the editors of the astronomic objects project. Ultimately deprecation was used so a warning appeared if you try to add it, stopping it from being a timesink. But really it didn't need the other aspects of deprecation. I was looking to find out how we got to the current deprecation process, and how editors went about getting it setup, as part of thinking about a slightly different solution for these sources. A different setup with a warning about UGC, self published, circular sources etc, rather than the deprecation one. I'm waffling on. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 01:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:so the history is the looooong RFC on the Daily Mail, which then opened a process for ruling other sources such obvious wastes of time that they could be similarly classed as almost never to be used - I would go through the deprecation RFCs in rough historical order to get an idea of how it developed as an idea.
:UGC is its own class of thing, and you can see the reasoning behind deprecation: that some editors are so persistent in wanting to use known bad sources that you eventually have to make a rule that says "no." Even as all new rules are bad - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 14:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
==Happy First Edit Day!==
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
{| style="width: 80%; margin: 4px auto; padding: .2em; border: 1px solid #CC9999; background-color: Yellow;"
|style="text-align:center"|[[File:Nuvola apps cookie.svg|50px]]
|style="text-align:left" width="100%"|Happy First Edit Day, '''David Gerard''', from the [[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|Wikipedia Birthday Committee]]! '''Have a great day!''' [[User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives|DaniloDaysOfOurLives]] ([[User talk:DaniloDaysOfOurLives|talk]]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
|}
==Disputed non-free use rationale for File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg==
[[File:Copyright-problem.svg|64px|left|alt=|link=]]
Thank you for uploading '''[[:File:King Trigger River 7'' Chrysalis 1982.jpg]]'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]]. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free|image copyright tag]]; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F7|section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice --> — Ирука<sup>[[user:Iruka13|13]]</sup> 19:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Funny bumping into you here ==
Hey David, I knew you were active on RationalWiki but I didn't know you were on wikipedia too. Great seeing you around. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ==
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations|Recent Deletions of Astana Platform Articles and UPE Allegations]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 🦘 09:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== You've got mail ==
{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=[[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 18:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)}}
== Akintunde Sawyerr ==
@[[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] I've reverted your banners as the person is notable and not UPE. [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:52E1:5800:8D21:1988:655A:2A8D|2600:4041:52E1:5800:8D21:1988:655A:2A8D]] ([[User talk:2600:4041:52E1:5800:8D21:1988:655A:2A8D|talk]]) 10:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] [[Akintunde Sawyerr]] I'm talking about this article [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:52E1:5800:8D21:1988:655A:2A8D|2600:4041:52E1:5800:8D21:1988:655A:2A8D]] ([[User talk:2600:4041:52E1:5800:8D21:1988:655A:2A8D|talk]]) 10:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
:While he may be notable, it's also got a whole pile of likely UPE editing and needs a serious cleanup - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 10:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
== OC&C Strategy Consultants ==
Hi David. I saw [[OC&C Strategy Consultants]] has been salted since the guys back then refused to learn their lesson. I think I can create an article on it now with enough sources. If I can produce a sufficient draft, can you please remove the protection?
Edit: I got a [[Draft:OC&C Strategy Consultants|draft]] now. Would it be ok to take down the creation block?
[[User:Imcdc|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#40E0D0"> Imcdc</b>]] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">[[User talk:Imcdc|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Contact'''</span>]]</span> 01:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:
::Thanks David. [[User:Imcdc|<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#40E0D0"> Imcdc</b>]] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">[[User talk:Imcdc|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Contact'''</span>]]</span> 14:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
== Aave ==
Hi David, hope all is well. I wanted to respond to Jeraxmoira on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave|the AfD]] and add more academic coverage but AfD was closed by you as delete. I disagree with the outome as it was heavily manipulated by bad-faith actors (including nom who is still inactive and is just focused on destroying Wikipedia content via AfDs) and IPs are just proxies without any editing history, so should be discounted (like [https://spur.us/context/91.222.32.118]).
Source analysis done by Jeraxmoira was very selective and doesn't cover or challenge other sources such as Wiley book coverage or academic journal article I and Newatlascamels added. The AfD outcome is just based on Jeraxmoira and Xrimonciam (they might reconsider as I found better coverage later on). I request to please relist the AfD and let us discuss it further and add more coverage. Thank you. [[User:Veldsenk|Veldsenk]] ([[User talk:Veldsenk|talk]]) 13:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
:I would say the first thing to do is to write a good draft with solid mainstream and peer-reviewed RSes and put it to AFC as answering the objections in the AFD. [[WP:NCORP]] is harsh, but mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic coverage have done the job for crypto-related stuff in the past. If you keep solidly to those and nothing else then that's the way to go - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 17:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
::Could you please change the consensus to "no consensus" and draftification please? Because that would help me volunteer sometime and rewrite the draft (note that I didn't write this article but I'm very well aware of Wikipedia requirements related to crypto topics and have deleted/removed crypto spam in the past). Otherwise, admins would consider further article creations/submissions as [[WP:G4]] so it would be waste of my time. Or at least put in a note in the closure that you deleted it per [[WP:TNT]] and a resubmission is allowed? Thank you and I appreciate your work. [[User:Veldsenk|Veldsenk]] ([[User talk:Veldsenk|talk]]) 18:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Here's the draft [[Draft:Aave]]. If it passes AFC it should be safe from G4 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 21:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
== Question about reverting my edits ==
Hi David, I saw that you reverted my edits to the article on Bruce Lahn. My edited version is extensively researched and referenced, and adds a lot of information with more sources on the subject. If you see issues with the article, can you please offer advice for me to correct and improve upon the issues rather than reverting it, because if you just revert it, I would not know what the issues are that resulted in your reverting it. Look forward to your advice. [[User:Bofrosh1|Bofrosh1]] ([[User talk:Bofrosh1|talk]]) 18:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:Your tone is promotional and you used deprecated sources - which means you deliberately edited past a deprecation warning. This is your very first edit - a long and detailed text. Have you edited previously, and are you associated with Bruch Lahn in any way? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 18:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
:When editing please make changes in smaller chunks so other editors can properly review the changes. Don't use deprecated sources. [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 20:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
::Hi David, Many thanks for the quick reply. I have not edited before and this is my first project. I do plan to make more edits on molecular biology technologies and notable people in the field, including creating new articles. I know Bruce but not in a conflict of interest way, and I did try to write the article in an objective way per Wikipedia's guidelines. But given that this my first time, I may not know the best way to do it. It is appreciated if you could give me a few examples of promotional language so I cam revise accordingly. Regarding deprecated sources, I recall getting a warning about some particular source when trying to publish my edits (I don't remember the details), but I wasn't sure what it was about, so I changed a few things and the warning went away so I thought it was taken care of. Can you point out which source(s) is still offending? Regarding changing in smaller chunks, I wonder if you could make an exception given that the previous article is quite outdated compared to this one that I have done extensive research on. [[User:Bofrosh1|Bofrosh1]] ([[User talk:Bofrosh1|talk]]) 03:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
::As a follow-up on my last message: I just checked Wikipedia's deprecated source list and noticed Crunchbase is on it (didn't realize they are not reliable). I can certain remove it. Let me know if there are other offending sources, and look forward to whatever advice you may have to offer. [[User:Bofrosh1|Bofrosh1]] ([[User talk:Bofrosh1|talk]]) 06:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
::Hi Robby, Thank you for your previous advice. I did another round of edit where I focused on using neutral descriptive language and double-checked all sources to ensure that they don't belong to Wiki's deprecated list. If you see further issues with it, please let me know and I will be happy to make further adjustments. Thanks again! [[User:Bofrosh1|Bofrosh1]] ([[User talk:Bofrosh1|talk]]) 04:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
== Question about reliability of a source that was published in an unreliable outlet but was written by a reputable journalist ==
Hello! I saw that a source that I added ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230330145708/https://nftevening.com/voiceverse-nft-stole-work-days-after-being-endorsed-by-troy-baker/]) was removed recently, but I did some more digging and found that while the source that the article was written is considered generally unreliable, the author of the article itself (Janelle Borg) is a reputable writer who is also a Staff Writer on ''[[Guitar World]]''. It turned out she was a freelance author for the unreliable source, and the source has since deleted the article because it was ''critical'' of NFTs, not supportive of it. In cases like this, would this fall under the "Even in cases where the source may be valid," clause of [[WP:GUNREL]]? Thank you! [[User:GregariousMadness|GregariousMadness]] ([[User talk:GregariousMadness|talk to me!]]) 21:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:The usual way RSN handles this is: why weren't they writing it in a reputable source instead of a disreputable one? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 09:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::From her LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/in/janelle-borg-679520138/], that was her only occupation at the time of writing the article (January 2022). She appears to be unbiased and experienced in the world of crypto and NFTs. For example, she has also written this article about NFTs and the music industry during her time at Amplify several months prior to her tenure at NFTEvening: [https://amplifyyou.amplify.link/2021/05/a-guide-to-nfts-in-the-music-industry/] [[User:GregariousMadness|GregariousMadness]] ([[User talk:GregariousMadness|talk to me!]]) 14:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:::At best it would have the status of an SPS and I'm not seeing a reason to regard her as particularly an expert. For comparison, I've written about crypto, an area I'm a public expert on, in RSes, non-RSes and blog posts. My RS posts might be usable as Wikipedia sources were someone of a mind to put them in, but I'm not convinced my non-RS/blog post articles would be found to be without a good reason. (In one example, one of my non-RS articles was post-edited a year later to put in a pile of stuff about DeFi for no good reason - there's a reason non-RSes aren't RSes.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 15:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
==
You have on numerous occasions removed legitimate sources as AI blogs when they were not and stated crypto sources weren't allowed for BLP of which you made up as there is no actual rule. I request you stop. Making things up thanks! [[User:Muckraker2018|Muckraker2018]] ([[User talk:Muckraker2018|talk]]) 23:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:Crypto sources and AI spam sites are not RSes. Non-RSes are not usable for claims about living persons in the general case. Please stop repeatedly putting non-RSes into Wikipedia articles - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 09:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:and I see you've been indefinitely blocked for abusive editing. Editors might want to keep an eye on [[Jeremy Ryan]] and [[Lil Pump]] in case the crypto promotion continues - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 09:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
==
Hey David,
I'm approaching you from a position of ignorance. During [[The Daily Signal|Daily Signal]]'s time under the [[The Heritage Foundation|Heritage Foundation]], is their material generally considered unusable as a source for reference or citation purposes? There's obvious right-leaning bias, but does that discredit all of their reporting?
Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/2601:8C0:480:CCC0:5406:4637:95D8:4914|2601:8C0:480:CCC0:5406:4637:95D8:4914]] ([[User talk:2601:8C0:480:CCC0:5406:4637:95D8:4914|talk]]) 14:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:Sorry, I meant to reply as me. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. [[User:LexiconLynx3234|LexiconLynx3234]] ([[User talk:LexiconLynx3234|talk]]) 14:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::There is no reason to regard DS as a reliable source. (Frankly I don't see a reason to regard them as one now.) Anything from Heritage was found to be unreliable at the very least, I don't think the deprecation question was resolved. And it was clearly a Heritage site up to June 2024, so covered by that - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 15:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Got it. Thanks David! [[User:LexiconLynx3234|LexiconLynx3234]] ([[User talk:LexiconLynx3234|talk]]) 15:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd quite like the DS reliability post-June-2024 question resolved at some point, but I expect that would await a real editorial issue - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::The [https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/11/exclusive-pew-backs-crackdown-payday-loans-conservative-groups-reports/ article] I cited seemed fairly innocuous and credible, but there's nothing that you and I can do with regard to the generally accepted reliability right now... [[User:LexiconLynx3234|LexiconLynx3234]] ([[User talk:LexiconLynx3234|talk]]) 15:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::I dunno. It reads to me like SPPI claiming a result (per their [https://southwestpolicy.com/pew-charitable-trust-scraps-consumer-finance-project-after-sppi-debunks-pews-findings/ press release]) but no verification outside their say-so that they had anything to do with it. Brenner from SPPI got an [https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/need-a-200-loan-thanks-to-rate-caps-youre-mostly-out-of-luck op-ed in American Banker] (reprinted in [https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-200-loan-youre-mostly-030300845.html Albuquerque Journal]), but again that's not third-party verification that SPPI swung it. It reads to me like Pew did stuff and SPPI is trying to claim credit somehow - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 15:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
== Philip S. Hess ==
Hi David. A few moments ago you removed a deprecated and a primary from this article while I was taking a look at it. at NPP. This is the second time that article has appeared in the feed recently. There's more to this than meets the eye but I'm used to doing deep article forensics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Philip_S._Hess This is what it looks like]. But there's more to this story.
* 17:20, March 4, 2025 Significa liberdade talk contribs deleted page Draft:Philip S. Hess (G8: Redirect to deleted page Draft:Writing text) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
* 17:08, March 4, 2025 Rarely I burden myself with thinking talk contribs moved page Draft:Philip S. Hess to Draft:Writing text (thank)
* 17:20, March 4, 2025 Significa liberdade talk contribs deleted page Draft:Writing text (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
and then today recreated:
* 17:42, March 4, 2025 Rarely I burden myself with thinking talk contribs 8,960 bytes +8,960 major edit thank Tags: use of deprecated (unreliable) source Visual edit.
What does this tell you? Because theoretically an article may not be moved to draft twice, what do you think our next move should be? I've been around on Wikipedia as long as you have and I was an admin for 9 years, but I'm scratching my head on this one. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 13:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:Ha. I have redraftified and left a suspected UPE note on the uncommunicative editor's talk page - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
::Well done! Thanks for taking a look. Please don't think I was just passing the buck but sometimes two heads are better than one. Cheers, [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:::oh no absolutely, this is me concurring - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 15:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Be Music]]==
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read [[WP:Your first article|the guide to writing your first article]].</p><p>You may want to consider using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on [[:Be Music]], requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|criteria for speedy deletion]], by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
* It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See [[WP:CSD#G11|section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion]].) Please read [[Wikipedia:Spam|the guidelines on spam]] and [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations]] for more information.
*It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, ''etc.''), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See [[WP:CSD#A7|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]].) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Notability|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable]].
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:Be Music|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Be+Music|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request [[WP:RFUD|here]]. [[User:Vinegarymass911|Vinegarymass911]] ([[User talk:Vinegarymass911|talk]]) 19:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
:wild stuff - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 20:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
== William Green (writer) ==
Hi David. Can I ask your expert opinion again? I've come across another BLP that has all the hallmarks of UPE: plethora of sources , most of them primary, articles the subject has written himself as a journalist, his own website, etc. I would like a second opinion please. Move to draft and place a UPE warning on the creator's talk? A better idea? Regards, Chris. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 03:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
:The subject is plausibly notable, with a few solid sources, but it does reek of PR. I'd put a UPE tag on the page ask the author about COI - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 10:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you again for your insight. I probably won't need to bother you again. Being practically the 'grandather' of the entire NPP system, plus an earlier, 9-year stint as an admin I feel silly having to ask for help, but so much has changed in my 2 year absence that I'm having to play catch up! [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
== Invitation to participate in research ==
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this '''[https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bwKum9LHQGL5bWS survey]''', which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its [[wmf:Legal:Task Prioritization Privacy Statement|privacy statement]] here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, [[User:Samwalton9 (WMF)|Sam Walton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9 (WMF)|talk]]) 16:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwalton9_(WMF)/TPMM&oldid=28369315 -->
== Snaky Cat ==
Hello, thanks for your edits.
Can you please explain to me why ''[[Decrypt (website)|Decrypt]] '' is not a valid source? I've looked into it before using as a source and it is, before everything, a news outlet, and it is recognized as such. For example, the website is recognized as a news outlet by [https://www.forbesindia.com/article/crypto-made-easy/crypto-publication-decrypt-raises-10-million-at-50-million-valuation/75955/1 Forbes], [https://www.adweek.com/media/crypto-publisher-decrypt-launches-token-cryptocurrency-for-nfts/ Adweek], [https://www.axios.com/2023/12/10/decrypt-rug-radio-merge-crypto Axios] and [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220609005706/en/Decrypt-Studios-Announces-Inaugural-Cryptie-Awards-and-the-2022-Industry-Achievement-Recipients Business Wire]. I don't think its use should be banned on Wikipedia. About my article, ''Decrypt'' only states the fact that the game has cryptocurrency. [[User:Notsonotoriousbig|Notsonotoriousbig]] ([[User talk:Notsonotoriousbig|talk]]) 23:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
:Consensus on [[WP:RSN]] has consistently been that crypto sites are functionally promotional advocacy press, not specialist technical press. Given the mainstream financial press covers crypto extensively, anything that doesn't make it to mainstream sources and is only found in the marketing sources is quite unlikely to be worth noting. This is especially motivated by the perennial spam problem that crypto has been for many years. You could argue it there afresh, but I would recommend reading past discussions on the crypto sites and make sure you can overcome all objections. [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_357#Crypto-focused_news_sources_that_are_considered_reliable|This discussion]] is from 2021, but it would have to be quite an argument that they've improved since then - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 23:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you very much, I'll take a look :) [[User:Notsonotoriousbig|Notsonotoriousbig]] ([[User talk:Notsonotoriousbig|talk]]) 23:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
== Please refer to the [[Pony_(programming_language)|Pony Programming Language]] Talk about your Reference Removal ==
Alex Lashkov is a journalist, not blogger. Submissions to site go under editorial review. HackerNoon is a company, not personal website.[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
:It is a User Generated Content site - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 21:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
::I've found and read the old debate at [[WP:RSN]], referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_272#Hacker_Noon_(hackernoon.com)_and_InfoSec_Handbook_(infosec-handbook.eu)_for_/e/_(operating_system) HackerNoon], though it is quite muddled, as is also referring to multiple other topics and another site at the same time. Your statement was clearly against its usage. Though perhaps it should be noted that HackerNoon is not or no longer primarily a crypto/blockchain site. I'm not going to engage in any kind of edit war about it, and just putting it on talk, for opinions.[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 22:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
:::It is literally a [[WP:UGC|user generated content site]] and so would be treated as a user generated content site. I appreciate you really want to use it, but also it's a user generated content site - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 23:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Was looking at from the [[Subject_matter_expert|SME]] angle, but upon further review, concede that would be a weak argument.[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 00:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
==Primary sources on the [[Blueeyedboy]] article ==
Hello [[User:David Gerard]], I see that you have added a Primary Sources template on this article, along with a mention of "gratuitous primary sources" on the edit summary. It's true that I have used primary-sourced information from interviews, but I don't think these dominate the article. Would you mind please clarifying what you meant? I was under the impression that using well-sourced and relevant information from national newspapers, etc. was encouraged in articles like this one. Any insight you can offer as to what you thought was "gratuitous" would be appreciated. [[User:ArthurTheGardener|ArthurTheGardener]] ([[User talk:ArthurTheGardener|talk]]) 10:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
== Elbridge Colby ==
Hi David, I have noticed your edit-war with the IP editor on the [[Elbridge Colby]] article. I believe a semi-protection request could be in order since this person seems committed to disrupt. [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 06:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:And it's a listed contentious topic, and it's a BLP, and those two mean ECP is in order, and the IP is systemically removing the subject's own official twitter ... if you (as a third party) put in a [[WP:RFPP]] I would be most grateful - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 08:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Done, page is semi-protected now. [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 07:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
== Request for your adminisrative eyes ==
I am making this request of you as a Wikipedia administrator in order to get some objective views about the article on Landmark Worldwide. More to the point, on the extensive arguments on the talk page. As someone who worked for the company I have never edited the article, but have participated in those discussions and been open about my history. That may bias my opinions so I am out to invite the views of others.
A number of users feel the current article as posted doesn't fit with Wikipedia's standards about organizations, and object to edits made that over-emphasize complaints dating back before Landmark Worldwide was incorporated. Reading through the cited articles, many do not pass the test of WP:NPOV. None object to items critical of the company but all (myself included) suggest they need verification and a different ___location in the article.
I am making this request of you as a Wikipedia administrator in order to get some objective views about the article on Landmark Worldwide. More to the point, on the extensive arguments on the talk page. As someone who worked for the company I have never edited the article, but have participated in those discussions and been open about my history. That may bias my opinions so I am out to invite the views of others.
I am reaching out to you in your capacity as a Wikipedia administrator and asking that you expend a little time and help us all sort this out. Thank you in advance [[User:Ndeavour|Ndeavour]] ([[User talk:Ndeavour|talk]]) 15:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:This was posted on the talkpages of 7 different administrators, of which 3 have already responded. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 21:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
== Music? ==
Buried deep in a folder of an archived hard drive from several years ago, I found a bunch of songs credited to "David Gerard" - with titles like "Analogue Waveform" and "Pelagic". Is that you, or simply a coincidental namesake? [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 19:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:Nope! Looks like [https://sonichits.com/artist/David_Gerard this guy]. I have a pile of tracks up [https://soundcloud.com/diva-rose here] (and I use a couple as theme tunes on my [https://www.youtube.com/@PivotToAI exciting new youtube channel]) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 20:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::This is pretty good stuff. I tend to listen in my car, do you have audio only feeds for podcast listeners? The thing I love about the car is that I can stop and start at any time and don’t have to keep track of where I am. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I have precisely that thing! https://pivottoai.libsyn.com - usually same as the youtube audio, except e.g. yesterday's - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 19:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Wow, you have made my day. I'm about to go on a long drive and this will hit the spot. If you're still online, can you recommend your so-called best episode to get me started? Otherwise, I will just go for the new one. One last thing before I leave: do you have any plans for cross-promoting, such as appearing on ''The Nerd Reich'', ''Dystopia Now'', or ''Gaslit Nation''? I would love to see a kind of network emerge from all these different hosts attacking the problem from different angles. One of the ways I get turned on to new guests, podcasts, and shows is when these guests do cross-promotion. Thanks again for doing this work. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 21:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I would say just download a pile :-) They're ''real short'', most episodes are about 4-5 minutes. Just wget all the mp3's from the [https://pivottoai.libsyn.com/rss RSS] and play as you will.
:::::I do go on other podcasts from time to time, feel free to ping 'em suggesting me ;-) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 21:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::Will do. Are you familiar with [[Gil Duran]]? You would both get along famously. Maybe invite him on to your show? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I actually do not have a setup for interviews and I really really should construct one! (Get Riverside or something) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 22:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::His site says he interviewed [[Molly White (writer)|Molly White]] last week, but it isn't clear if it was for a new podcast episode on crypto or just an article. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Update. They published the podcast last week and you were mentioned by another guest. Also, Gil Duran received major exposure on Reddit this last week. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
== unsalting Progress WhatsUp Gold NMS ==
This popular NMS is salted as being not notable, while some less known ones are allowed. I think we should have a small article on it as well.
I prepared a draft for a new page, including references for notability, here:
[[User:Mihaiam/WhatsUp Gold]] [[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 12:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
[[User:
:It still reads a bit press-release to me, but at least the refs are better. I'd put it through [[WP:AFC]] and see what happens. If you can make it sound less press-release-like, that'd likely help a lot - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 13:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
== Park Systems Page – Request for Consideration ==
Hello David,
This editor would like to disclose a conflict of interest as I am affiliated with Park Systems. I understand that the article has been deleted and is currently under protection, and that you were involved in protecting the page.
With full respect for Wikipedia policies, I have prepared a new draft written in a neutral tone and supported by independent, reliable sources. My intention is not to promote but to contribute factually and transparently.
If you would be willing to review the draft or provide guidance on whether there is any viable path forward for a non-promotional article on Park Systems, I would sincerely appreciate it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Park_Systems
Thank you for your time.
[[User:Infotrack10|Infotrack10]] ([[User talk:Infotrack10|talk]]) [[User:Infotrack10|Infotrack10]] ([[User talk:Infotrack10|talk]]) 06:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
== RSP colors ==
Hey, before I jump into making [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Color "additional considerations apply" as purple and "no consensus" as yellow at RSP]] a VPR, I'd like to hear your opposing perspective on this if you'd like to detail it. Thanks in advance! [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 12:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
==
Seems like your fix is not working. [[Special:Contributions/2601:586:4600:4A90:11FF:636B:2DDB:DC97|2601:586:4600:4A90:11FF:636B:2DDB:DC97]] ([[User talk:2601:586:4600:4A90:11FF:636B:2DDB:DC97|talk]]) 16:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
==
Which sites are these? Is https://Pymnts.com a crypto site? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:A good rule of thumb is that press release fluff sites with a heading "Crypto", like Pymnts has, counts. The issue with sites like this is that they're the sort of promotional fluff that doesn't pass [[WP:NCORP]] and is likely useless as sources for us, and aren't up to e.g., [[WP:NCORP]].
:But that's generalities, and particular cases depend on facts and circumstances. What was the particular case you were thinking of? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 17:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
== Requesting unprotection of [[Park Systems]] ==
I would like to accept the draft at [[Draft:Park Systems]] but the title [[Park System]] was salted by you. I understand the salting was due to poor quality recreations and UPE, but it seems like they crossed all the Ts and dotted the Is this time. Judging by the AfD nomination, this draft is much better than what came before. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 05:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:I've unprotected it now - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 13:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 13:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
== Draftification of Functional Decision Theory ==
Hello,
I see that you draftified [[Draft:Functional Decision Theory|this article]], saying it needs to go through AfC at minimum. However, I couldn't find any policy that states this. This doesn't qualify as a "deletion with minor changes" since the article is almost entirely rewritten, with new sources (including one news article published after the AfD discussion), therefore addressing the causes of the original AfD discussion (which focused on lack of notability and unsourced material).
My understanding of the process was that since it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, it's allowed to recreate it, and then it would need to go through AfD again if somebody opposes the creation. Could you share the policy that indicates it requires going through AfC? I'm generally not a fan of the AfC process as it is extremely slow due to the backlog, so I would want to avoid this unless a specific policy requires it.
Thanks a lot! [[User:7804j|7804j]] ([[User talk:7804j|talk]]) 08:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:The policy is that it was a recreation of an AFDed article so it was eminently deletable. I'm being helpful enough to move it to draft for you as well. AFC is a suggestion. But you really can't just recreate it basically as is or it will be deleted and the article topic salted - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 08:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
::According to [[WP:G4]], speedy deletion "applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies".
::The page I created is by far not substantially identical to the deleted version, so this criteria doesn't seem like it would be applicable. Is there another policy? I'm not familiar with recreation processes, so I'm trying to make sure I use the right channel [[User:7804j|7804j]] ([[User talk:7804j|talk]]) 15:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:::You still have the critical problem that the recreated page is substantially the same as previous versions and - a key point - has the same bad referencing: the sources about the topic are primary sources, and the reliable sources aren't actually about FDT.
:::Your FDT article is not ready for Wikipedia mainspace. You need reliable sources that are actually about FDT in depth to convincingly demonstrate its noteworthiness.
:::That is not any sort of impossibly high bar for a theory of substance. If FDT is really noteworthy, it should be easy for you - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 23:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Deleted again and salted. Do not do this - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 20:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::You said in your previous message that the article was having insufficient non-primary sources. Therefore, in good faith, I added several new ones before moving the article back to mainspace. You then deleted the article without even any rationale for why it doesn't meet notability criteria. Clearly this deletion doesn't meet WP:G4, so either there is another rule I'm not aware of, or the deletion you have made doesn't follow wikipedia policy. In either case, I was doing this in good faith so I find the way you treat this interaction very petty. It's not like I'm a spammy editor or whatsoever -- I am an active editor of Wikipedia for a long time, trying to do the right thing, and you seem very intent on chasing me away. [[User:7804j|7804j]] ([[User talk:7804j|talk]]) 05:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::As an active editor, you would therefore be expected to be aware of the rule about always alerting another editor when you start a discussion involving them - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
== Deletion review for [[:Functional Decision Theory]] ==
An editor has asked for [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Functional Decision Theory|'''a deletion review''']] of [[:Functional Decision Theory]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice -->
== Deletion misconduct ==
Per my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2025_July_1&diff=1298388745&oldid=1298386019 here], I believe your multiple and apparently willful violations of INVOLVED and deletion policy are sufficient to consider initiating administrator recall. You are welcome to respond appropriately in that venue or suggest another where these issues should be considered by the community. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
:I see that you're editing again without addressing this issue. You have arguably failed to {{tq|respond promptly and civilly}} to what I believe to be a desysop-worthy set of administrator actions. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 09:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
::I've been staying out of the deletion discussion past my initial comments and leaving others to form their opinions. Others have pointed out that you brought your proposal to an inappropriate venue - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 22:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
:::So, you're using that as an excuse to avoid acknowledging your tool misuse? I mean, if you want a formal venue, we can do that, but we're here at your talk page because a formal administrator conduct complaint is not the first stop. I don't think taking a week to acknowledge you were wrong and apologizing to {{U|7804j}} is consistent with [[WP:ADMINACCT]], especially when I linked to the critique here. So... ball's in your court, take the next steps to resolve the issue with all appropriate due care. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 20:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
::::While I don't mean to seem confrontative, it's relevant to note here that you quit your own admin bit {{tq|under a cloud}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=586295230#Jclemens:_Arbitrators'_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_%3C1/7/0/1%3E] when it was about to be taken away in an arbitration proceeding over your actions implementing frankly bizarre ideas concerning a deletion dispute. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#Active_DRV_short-circuited_by_an_apparent_super-vote][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=586295230][https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=6745361][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_29#Jclemens] This suggests that you are the one particular editor who should not be trying to intimidate others with threats of desysopping over a deletion dispute. Particularly as the current deletion dispute itself seems to be coming to a workable resolution for all parties. I don't mean to say that your ire is not serious, but I'd like to see a version that comes across as less bizarre, particularly with the context of your own history with deletion disputes and losing your admin bit - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 20:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::TBH, 2013 is a very long time. I joined in 2021 and I’ve made mistakes and I’ve learned from them within a space of 4 years. I’m just trying to put the years into perspective and bringing an issue that happened 12 years ago that when—if I read correctly—he’s now just asking you to acknowledge that you were INVOLVED in the deletion and apologise to 7804j is a bit too far. I don’t know if this makes sense to you. Best, [[User talk:Reading Beans|<span style="color:#333">'''Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia'''</span>]] 21:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
:David, I'm another participant in the DRV who was...surprised....by your actions here. As were several others. Now that the DRV is closed (to a conclusion which I hope is satisfactory to all), what if anything would you propose to (and hopefully commit to) doing differently in such a situation in the future? Opinions may vary here, and I don't doubt your good faith. But from my perspective as an observer, your behaviour seemed to go off the rails somewhere between where you moved the page to draft right after A.B. rejected the G4 tag (rather than taking to AFDx2), and where you then warred with 7804j, using admin tools to delete (without a valid SD reason specified, presumably since you had seen the G4 rejected) and salt. It felt like a "my way or the highway" attitude had crept in, especially reading it in conjunction with the tone of your response to 7804j's querying of your actions two sections above. While I'm not trying to relitigate the distant past, the pattern feels similar to some other instances in your history, where you received feedback from the community. What's your perspective? I'm not after blood based on one event, but I want to avoid deja vu all over again (Yogi Berra). [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk:Martinp|talk]]) 11:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
::Oh sure, that's a fair opinion and I'm quite willing to take it on board. I shall undertake to think further based on this in deletion matters going forward. (That seems nonspecific, but it's all facts and circumstances, and I hear your concerns.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 14:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you have any reflections now, as a post-mortem? You've stated above you deliberately didn't return to participate further the DRV, which is an understandable position. But presumably you will have had some reflections during the week it ran, seeing a number of participants (not all) were uncomfortable with the approach you took. Undertaking to think further in deletion matters going forward is helpful, but there's a reversion to past behaviour we all fall prey to, especially in situations where we feel strongly our judgment is right (which I think is the case in situations like this one, and others you've had over the years). I don't doubt your good intentions, but sum total of a) not answering the substance of 7804j's concerns 2 sections above (just remarking that he should have notified you), b) responding to Jclemens' (admittedly strident) concerns above only by challenging their own wiki-history, c) not (yet) answering Reading Beans above, d) answering my open-ended question just with an "I'll bear it in mind", doesn't reassure those who fear your main reflection might be "Wikipedia has become hopelessly bureaucratic. Let me just continue doing what I feel is best, and when there's noise about it, just wait for it to abate". [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk:Martinp|talk]]) 20:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
::::No, I feel that editors feel I ran roughshod over procedure and I'm not actually here to fight great wars or piss people off, life is too short. So I will consciously be avoiding doing that. So the opposite of your last hypothetical. As I noted, that feels annoyingly nonspecific as I write it, but anything more is facts and circumstances - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 21:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::"I'm not here to [...] piss people off [...] so I will consciously be avoiding doing that" is a great aspiration for many of us, myself included. My own personal approach to post-morteming when I've mis-stepped a bity would try to be more concrete, but I can't force that on to anyone. As my mother-in-law actually says, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating.". Happy editing. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk:Martinp|talk]]) 22:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::I admit the nonspecifity. I'll be using more TLAs for a start - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 23:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
==
Hi David, I noticed you've reverted an edit last month here, where the contents of the actual edit are now hidden https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aella_(writer)&oldid=1294941700. I think I caught the contents of that edit before it was hidden. And more recently, I think there was a similar edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aella_(writer)&oldid=1299679529 made here that was ultimately reverted just now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aella_(writer)&oldid=1299752692. However, in comparison with the edit you reverted a bit ago, the contents of this more recent edit are still visible.
So I wanted to bring it to your attention because I think you may have some editing access to process edits accordingly as you did before. Thanks for taking the time to read this and hope this is a correct flagging of an edit for you. Thanks! [[User:Erictleung|Erictleung]] ([[User talk:Erictleung|talk]]) 20:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:I don't have [[Wikipedia:Oversight]] powers, which is what this would require, so I've emailed the revision to them suggesting that suppression may be appropriate - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 21:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
::Oversight confirmed they've suppressed it - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 23:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Great, thanks! Also TIL about oversight powers [[User:Erictleung|Erictleung]] ([[User talk:Erictleung|talk]]) 02:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
== Recall notice ==
{{ivmbox
|1= There is currently a petition at '''[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/David Gerard]]''' for you to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA).
You can provide a statement by editing the page's code and removing the comment markup around the ''Response'' section above the ''Discussion'' section. Should the petition reach 25 extended confirmed signatories within 30 days, you may initiate an RRfA during the next 30 days, and if you do not initiate an RRfA within a reasonable time frame, bureaucrats will have the discretion to remove your administrator privileges.
An RRfA has a threshold of 60% for an automatic reconfirmation and 50% for a bureaucrat discussion. Before the RRfA begins, you may opt to run in an [[WP:ADE|administrator election]] with a 55% threshold if one is occurring within 30 days. For further information, please consult the '''[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall|administrator recall process page]]'''.
|2=File:Information icon4.svg
|imagesize=40px
}}<!--Template: Admin recall notice--> [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 00:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
== A fox for you! ==
[[File:Foxes (4848876670).jpg|left|150px]]
I've appreciated your boldness in editing and encyclopedic knowledge of policy, especially relating to sourcing. Kudos to you for not wanting to go through the tedious process of recall - I hope to still see you around editing!
<span style="color:green">[[User:ThadeusOfNazereth|ThadeusOfNazereth]](he/him)<sup>[[User talk:ThadeusOfNazereth|Talk to Me!]]</sup></span> 18:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
*I'll also thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia over the years and commend you for resigning at this time as that seems like the right move. Best wishes. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 18:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:I really shoulda quit the bit a couple of years ago - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard#top|talk]]) 21:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
::At least people remember your name. I intended to wikilink an article titled "Peter Todd questions OpenTimestamps Wikipedia page removal attempt" in that comment, but WP thinks linking tradersunion.com is a bad idea. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Gerard is somewhat famous and well known in the states. I hear his name mentioned by other people at least once a week. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
::I will still see you on the butterfly site, mate. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 17:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
== Matthew Brown (Morven) ==
Hello David. I hope you are well. I am not that active these days but saw your name pop up recently. I wonder if you saw the sad news at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-07-18/Obituary]] about Matthew Brown (Morven)? He apparently died last year (not that old). I really need to look at the list of early arbitrators to see who would have known him best (having now looked at the chart at the bottom of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History]] I see it is a fair number over the three years after you left the committee)? Do you know who knew him when he was more active? Not all of them will read ''The Signpost'' and I think they might want to know so they can leave (belated) condolences. I will post at one of the arbitration talk pages and try and let some of those who served with him know. Best wishes (and sorry to be the bearer of bad tiding if you were unaware). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 09:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:Oh no! I think my mother-in-law may have taught him at Henley. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 17:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||