Talk:David L. Jones (video blogger)/Archive 1

Why not interviews?
added a notability - biography tag, with comment "BIO not met with interviews alone".

I don't see why not.

The editors of Circuit Cellar magazine (a 25-plus-year-old, well respected magazine in the embedded electronics field), decided to devote the regular "Q&A" column of one of their issues on Dave Jones. And the author of a book from a major publisher in the computer field, whose goal was to "introduce you to people at the forefront of [the Maker] movement" (that's from the book's Introduction), elected to devote a chapter to him. I don't see why that doesn't count for notability. And I see absolutely nothing in WP:BIO to support the notion that it doesn't. WP:BASIC (part of WP:BIO says:


 * "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"

These sources are reliable, and they are independent of each other. One might claim that, being interviews, they are not "independent of the subject", but the note [6] clarifies:


 * "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability."

There is no problem here; neither CC nor the book chapter are entries in biographical dictionaries, and it was the magazine editor and book author who considered the subject notable and published their non-trivial works, not the subject himself.

I will also point out that one of the "delete" voters at the deletion discussion changed his vote after these references were added, saying that they were sufficient to prove notability, and the other "delete" voter has agreed that the CC article qualifies.

WP:BASIC also notes that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Well, the latter proviso is unimportant as we already have substantial depth in two RSs, but we do also have a number of independent sources each with a non-substantial, yet significant, import. These should not be ignored; although not sufficient to meet WP:N on their own, they do give support to the two major references.

In light of these points I would like to ask Ronz to reconsider this tag... or else point out exactly where in policy or guidelines he finds clear support for his claim that "BIO not met with interviews alone".

Oh, and one other thing: Ronz's full edit comment was "BIO not met with interviews alone - his blog seems more notable than him". This is very strange, following as it did Ronz's deletion of ELs both to Dave's eevblog web site and to his YouTube channel (which could be argued to be his main blog). If the blog is notable, but clearly we can't include all of its content in the article, why can't we link to it? He cites WP:NOTLINK, but that says "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article." Since David's reputation is as a video blogger, it is pretty hard to argue that his web site and his YouTube channel are not content-relevant. So there must be some other problem. What is it? Jeh (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit - added: Or, maybe Ronz should simply join in the deletion discussion and explain to the group at large why interviews aren't enough to establish notability, despite Wikimandia's changing his previous "Delete" vote on the basis of these refs. DreamFocus could use the support since at the moment he's the only one the "Delete" side and even he has admitted that the CC interview qualifies; he's just been quibbling over the RS-ness of the book. Jeh (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop with your personal attacks and focus on the issue. Once I determined the interview was by an actual staff member, and the website not just a WP:USERGENERATED content farm, I said the CC interview qualified.  I do not however believe a book published by an unknown writer, containing nothing but interviews he did with 21 people, makes everyone he choose to interview notable.  Not every single book a for profit company publishes confers notability to someone.   D r e a m Focus  13:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no personal attack there, only a description of the situation. If you think I have misrepresented the situation, say so. If you still think there is a PA, please let me know exactly what you are construing as a PA. Re the actual issue, if you will raise that specific objection at the deletion discussion I will respond there; the discussion should not be split. Which was the point of my last paragraph above. Jeh (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I honestly think you should take this up at the deletion discussion. The discussion should not be split. Jeh (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Already did. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability and primary sources
Coming from the AfD, I don't think anyone identified any sources that meet WP:N, so by definition the notability is unclear and even in doubt.

Wikipedia articles should be sourced mostly from secondary or tertiary sources. If we cannot find them, the article should be deleted or stubbed. Since we just had an AfD, stubbing seems appropriate, unless better sources can be found. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One, sources do not themselves have to be notable. (again and again and again... )
 * Two, from WP:PEOPLE: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are two sources that meet those criteria, the interview in Circuit Cellar and the book chapter. There was no consensus that these did not establish notability. Yes, there were a few arguments that they did not, but that's not the same thing. Also, please see WP:DEADHORSE. Jeh (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither source demonstrates significant coverage. This has been explained in detail.
 * As for DEADHORSE, how about addressing my attempts to move on: Stub or find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that an entire book chapter is significant coverage, and selection as the subject of a monthly feature in a regularly published specialty magazine in a relevant field is significant coverage. What you have "explained in detail" is, likewise, certainly your opinion. Please do not mistake your opinion for a final binding judgment. I will not, no matter how many times you repeat it. Jeh (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you aren't interested in moving on? --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious strawman. Jeh (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So if I go ahead and start stubbing the article, what will be your policy-based response? --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stubbing the article would be going backward. Why do you want to go backward? Jeh (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but can you provide any policy or guideline to base those statements upon? --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are obviously trying to delete this article by littles because deleting it all at once failed. In the deletion discussion your theory was that the interviews are not primary sources. Had you convinced the closing admin of that, the article would have been deleted. But that wasn't the result. Your theory has therefore been found wanting, and it was wrong of you to restore the templates. It would also be wrong of you to delete material simply because you think the references are to primary sources; there is no consensus for that view. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So the answer is no. --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I hold that the basic requirements of WP:BIO, as quoted several times in these discussions already, have been met: Significant coverage in multiple non-self-published sources. There are multiple sources and they were not published by the subject, so they're not self-published. In fact they were published in a well-respected magazine and in a book from a long-established publisher. QED. I accept that you refuse to acknowledge my reasoning, even to the extent of refusing to reply to it, but I do not accept that you get to define the criteria here. The closing admin apparently did not find your "notability not established" argument compelling, so what you think you will accomplish by bringing that argument up again here, I do not know. But in any case, you don't get to stub the article simply because you are not satisfied with it. Jeh (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC. You've no consensus that WP:BIO has been met. Let's pretend it has. What is Jones notable for? Please quote from the WP:BIO sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. WP:BASIC (part of WP:BIO) says:


 * "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"


 * That's it. If that is met, then there is no need to cite any other evidence of notability. So if you're pretending that WP:BIO has been met (I certainly am not pretending; I claim that it has), we're done here. Jeh (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you able to answer the question or not? What is he notable for? Please quote from WP:BIO sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as WP:BASIC (part of WP:BIO) is met the subject is, and I quote for about the sixth time, "presumed notable", so an answer to your question is not required. Jeh (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So there's no policy-based argument against stubbing the article, as we're unable to establish how Jones is notable and then write an article around that notability? --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think you can ignore the "presumed notable" wording of WP:BIO? Why do you think that, once notability is "presumed" by having met WP:BASIC, any or all other article content must also be "notable"? It doesn't. WP:Notability requirements are for the existence of articles, not content. WP:N is very clear on this point. Jeh (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that have to do with stubbing? --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. You're the one who keeps going on about finding sources that meet WP:N. Jeh (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. I'm asking to quote from WP:BIO sources what it is he is notable for. I'm trying to find if there is indeed any notability that we can build an article around. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are not enough sources to meet notability standards. I would support deletion of the article, in fact, but at the very least there is a lot of material that should go. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion above is almost four months old. Would you like to continue this below? And when you do, could you specify exactly which material should go, and in each case, why? Jeh (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Part one
Ronz has once again decided, despite consensus, to remove much of this article, leaving only a stub, with only the reason "BLP". This is tendentious and disruptive. Ronz needs to define exactly how each removed point violates BLP. Just saying "it's a BLP violation" is not enough. Jeh (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ronz also added a "neutrality" template without specifying how the article is non-neutral, a "not-notable" complaint even though several well-referenced points in the article establish notability, and an "advertising" template even though the product's price is not mentioned, nor is information on how to buy it, and all of the subject section is referenced to sources that are not advertising; the section is merely descriptive, and the text favorably comparing it to an expensive commercial product is referenced to a RS.

Furthermore, although each of these templates have a "discuss on talk page" link, he has started no discussion. He just deleted the stuff he didn't like.

An IP has now restored the article. Per WP:BRD, Ronz (or other interested parties) should discuss each of his specific complaints and the changes he wants to make here, not stubify the article again. Jeh (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Many of the the referenced sources/links are either referencing his website (e.g. eevblog) and thus directly or indirectly promotes his own product (e.g. eevblog/uCurrent). Notability remains an issue with the added references from local news site. 4.26.51.74 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The subject is notable for starting and running what is described (by the referenced sources) as the first electronic engineering YouTube channel and making it successful enough to make a living at it. So of course much of the coverage is going to reference eevblog. Objecting to this as "promotion" is like saying that the article about Bill Gates can't mention Microsoft. The sources referenced are not particularly promotional of eevblog or the uCurrent product, merely descriptive, other than in being complimentary. (If you can find negative mentions, by all means let's have them.) Re the uCurrent product the article does not give prices, there is no link for ordering the product, etc. One of the links there is to a product sales site - not operated by Jones - but again, it is used in a descriptive rather than promotional manner.


 * "Notability remains an issue with the added references..." No, it doesn't. WP:N applies to article topics, not individual points within an article. From WP:N:


 * The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.


 * i.e. you can't say that something shouldn't be in an article because it, in and of itself, isn't notable. It doesn't have to be. Jeh (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The main issue is that his own site isn't a suitable reference. His site is a primary source. We need reputable secondary sources. Your argument about notability is incoherent, what matters is if reputable sources consider him notable or not. A single report in a local newspaper does not meet the standard. A product sales page is not a reputable source either. If his site were notable, there would be better references available. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The italicized text is right out of WP:N. I simply paraphrased. "Notability" applies to article subjects, not the content of an article. Specific items of content are being objected to here because they are claimed to be not notable. But WP:N says they do not, individually, have to be. Jeh (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeh, please review WP:TALK and WP:FOC concerning your approach here on his talk page.
 * As for consensus, there's none.
 * As for BLP, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has been stable in its current state for three months with no objections. That's implicit consensus. Consensus does not require explicit statements of "ok, I agree".
 * I'm aware of what BLP says. You still haven't said exactly what the problem is with the various material you're trying to delete. What, if any, of it is contentious? What is being "challenged or likely to be challenged"? What sources do you consider unreliable or non-published? Jeh (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The implicit consensus is no more. Sorry that I missed the revert that led to it.
 * Did you read WP:FOC yet? --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus. Editors come and go. Three months is a trivial amount of time and completely irrelevant. I agree with Ronz, if better sources cannot be found immediately then the material needs to be removed without delay. That's not a consensus issue, it's policy. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Ronz (whether he is a bit heavy handed or not, but that's not what this place is for). We can find countless "successful" living persons and possibly many "sources" writing about them. But a Bio for a living person must be truly notable. And if you use Wikipedia's guide line (newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images), you can hardly find anything that is extraordinary). Hack, just because he is "visible" because his provocative style does not warrant a Wiki page. I can think of many much more notable people that deserve a Wiki Bio page if we follow Jeh's logic. Does making a living through a electronics engineering video blog make him Notable? No. Does uCurrent warrant mentioning? (by the way, it is not like a Segway, there's no originality to it, anyone could build such a device) No. Sorry, if we have a Bio for these reasons, we might as well have a Bio page for every single one of the professors as I am sure through their publications they meet the Notability criteria a lot more. 32.213.188.105 (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Special indent because I'm replying late, here...
 * One, that there are other people who deserve a Wiki Bio page and don't have one should not be held against this page. Go write those pages.
 * Two: I think that having the first EE video blog on YouTube, and two years later, enough videos, subscribers, and views to make a living at it, does make him notable. There are darn few people who can say "making YouTube videos" is their full-time job. For Jones to do this in a specialized field like EE, rather than as an entertainer already known to the general public, is, I believe, very notable. There are many, many with more views but they tend to be celebrities of at least some level who appeal to the general public, have a publicity machine outside of YouTube, etc.
 * Three: "Extraordinary" is not required by BLP, only "notable". Per WP:NOTEBLP,
 * "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject."
 * This is covered by the book chapter and the Circuit Cellar article.
 * Four: Is uCurrent worth mentioning? The invention is, as you say, unremarkable. But a Kickstarter that raises ten times the asked-for amount, for such a specialty project, is remarkable.
 * Fifth: If your professors have "received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject", let's have 'em. Again, the fact that no one has written those articles should not be held against this article. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is as invalid an argument as "other stuff exists". Jeh (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let us first decide what can stay in the article, then we can decide whether the whole is sufficient to establish notability. Jeh (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's backwards. An article should be written around the areas of notability, identifying those areas in the introduction of the article, then expanding upon them in the article body as is due. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, except that you seem to want to delete as BLP violations (without further justification; so far you've simply cited "BLP") many things that I think provide notability. Then you can just say "well, see, nothing here shows the subject is notable" and nominate for deletion. So it seems to me that the content must be determined first. Is there some harm in that approach? Jeh (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are focusing on other editors as justification to ignore how to properly write an article? --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to focus on content: I have asked you several times to detail specifically which requirements in "BLP" are fallen afoul of by each item you want to remove (as evidenced by your previous stubbing-without-discussion). I believe that many of these items will help to establish notability but we can't talk about that if they're not in the article at all. You're the one objecting to the content - please be specific as to why. You can't just wave "BLP" as if it was a magic wand. Jeh (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not discussing notability yet. How about we try? --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Primary sources" tag
This article has been tagged for "relies too much on primary sources". Let's see. Using the reference numbers as of this moment:

1. Circuit Cellar magazine. Not primary (not written by Jones). 2. YouTube statistics site. Not primary (not written by Jones).
 * YouTube stats are raw data, not a suitable source. Using them is original research. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OR, no, quoting raw data as raw data is not OR. Drawing conclusions from it would be. The article draws no conclusions, merely cites the figures. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the use of the stats to justify notability. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

3. "The Amp Hour". Primary: Podcast is authored by Jones and its page is maintained by Jones, so, claim that he originated the podcast is self-published. 4. "Hackaday Prize Judges". Not primary (not written by Jones).
 * His participation in this event is not notable unless you can demonstrate another reliable source mentioning it. Since HAD is organizing the prize and Mr. Jones is a judge, it is a primary reference for his participation and not a reputable source for any other claims. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, but again, no conclusion is being drawn. Only the fact of his participation is mentioned, no other claims are made. So this is not OR. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with OR, it's just not a suitable source for his participation. You can't just mention every random thing a person did because you have a primary source for it, there has to be a reliable and notable source to support it or it's not notable enough to be included. Also, the source itself is not enough to substantiate this claim, even thought it is not controversial. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

5. _Makers at Work_ book. Not primary (not written by Jones). 6. EETimes article. Not primary (not written by Jones). 7. Video posted by Incite 2010. Not primary (video was taken by and posted by the Incite organization, not Jones). 8. Extech press release. Not primary (not written by Jones). 9. EEVblog video #39. Primary, but the only claim in the article is that the video exists; the video content is not being used to source any claims in the article. This reference is merely there to establish context for the next one: 10. Microchip response to PICkit 3 review. Not primary. Video created and posted by Microchip. Claim in the title that it is a response to Jone's video #39 was written by Microchip. This in turn provides a secondary source that backs up reference 9.
 * These two (9 and 10) constitute original research. Both are primary sources for the event in question. You really need to try to understand what "primary" means. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll grant the "primary source" but not the OR. The article draws no conclusions, makes no analysis. It simply says that Microchip posted a video response to one of Jones' videos. A primary source for that event is authoritative for the occurrence of the event. That's what WP:OR says. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the use of the reference to justify notability, and the high percentage of primary sources. Having lots of primary sources is generally a pretty good indicator that something isn't notable, otherwise there would be lots of secondary sources. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

11. Kickstarter for uCurrent product. Not primary - claims in the article are sourced to the Kickstarter organization, not to Jones.
 * Primary for the Kickstarter campaign. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But again, not OR. No conclusions are drawn from the data. The data is merely quoted. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

12. uCurrent review in German Make magazine. Not primary (not written by Jones). 13. uCurrent review at blog site of adafruit. Not primary (not written by Jones).
 * Blog posts tend not to be considered reputable sources though. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are blogs and blogs. A blog at a commercial company's site can be presumed to have the approval of the company; certainly it is not a SPS. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Adafruit blog does not meet the standards. It's a commercial, promotional blog and the author is friends with the subject of the article. It's not reviewed or edited. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

14. Article in Sydney Morning Herald. Not primary (not written by Jones). 15. Link to eevblog video. Primary: the video is authored by Jones. However, the only claim in the article is that the video exists and that it has a particular subject (which is in the title). We are not claiming that Jones' conclusions are correct or anything else that requires a secondary source. 16. Article in Electronics Austraila. Not primary (publication was by an independent general-circulation magazine, and no claims are being sourced to the article content).
 * Hasn't Mr. Jones written for this magazine before? That would reduce the usefulness of that source considerable. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the only claim is that the magazine articles exist. I don't see why several or a dozen articles (out of hundreds published by the magazine over the years) would "reduce the usefulness". It's still not a SPS. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That's 13 clearly not-primary out of 16. This does not seem to me to qualify as "relies too much on primary sources".
 * Ignoring the number that are actually primary, many of them are of very poor quality or unusable. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that use of a primary source is always disallowed. It isn't. See WP:ABOUTSELF, or WP:PSTS, which says:
 * "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * That is how the primary sources are used in each case here. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't show notability though, and the high proportion of primary sources is problematic. Articles that are just a list of referenced facts from primary sources tend to be deleted quickly. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And note that of the remaining three, two are not used to support statements made _by_ Jones in those publications, only that the videos, etc., that are claimed to exist, do exist. A claim that "Author X wrote book Y on subject Z" does not require any source beyond the existence of the book, even if it's self-published. Jeh (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a claim absolutely does require a reference. If it doesn't have one then it can only be verified by the primary source and may well not be notable. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it didn't require a reference. Wouldn't appearance in e.g. a publisher's catalog, or a retailer's catalog, qualify? Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The quality of most of the references is so low and we are so far from establishing notability, I'd move for speedy deletion on this one. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

4.26.51.74 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Agreed. Even the sources presented as non-primary are not significant or reliable (for example, adafruit and Jones have some collaborations and the source would, in my opinion be considered biased. So are some other sources referenced as secondaries). The bottom line is, I am not doubting the accomplishment by Mr. Jones, but do not meet the criteria to be on a Wikipedia Bio page.


 * Primary doesn't mean created by the subject of the article. That would be "independent" of the subject. What we want are sources that are reliable, secondary, and independent of whatever subject matter we want to include. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have addressed above, with ample reference to WP policy pages, primary sources are acceptable depending on how they are used. I do not believe they are misused here. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it appears you don't understand what a primary source is. The breakdown you have given is simply incorrect. If we cannot agree upon what a primary source is, we cannot discuss how many there are nor when/if they are appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeh's misunderstanding is not so much what a primary source is, it's what the significance of creating an article that is mostly primary sources is. Unless someone can come up with some major improvements and justification for notability, I'll request deletion. This article falls far, far short in too many areas and it's supporters don't even try to justify its existence. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say that on re-reading of WP:N, etc., I find much of .234's arguments compelling. (On the other hand, much of Ronz's commentary is awfully personal, especially for someone who keeps bleating "FOC".)
 * Even if more of the sources were secondary a lot of them are just weak. I have a LOT on my plate at the moment, so please give me a day or so before proposing the article for deletion. There is no reason to quickly delete the content (I don't think any of it is controversial or likely to be challenged factually, and certainly none is libelous, etc.). I'm looking for more content and/or avenues for preservation. Jeh (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that yes, I'm being a bit personal in that I identified a fundamental misunderstanding that might be the cause of the concerns here. When editors misunderstand our policies, and are unable to see that that misunderstanding, it has to be called out.
 * Of the sixteen sources only three are secondary. Of the two that I didn't include in my preferred version of the article, one is new - The Sydney Morning Herald reference is a rather embarrassing bit of he said/she said reporting which is being used in a manner that appears to violate both OR and NPOV. The other is the German review, which briefly mentions Jones, but might be included if done in a neutral, non-promotional fashion. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can't PROD it as it's been through AFD already. You'll have to AFD it. Jeh (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this has been done to death now. Unless there are compelling objections I'll call for deletion on Wednesday. The article has had plenty of time to improve, but contributors just keep adding more weak material to it. ゼーロ (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted it back to the stub, so we continue to work on it. I've no objections to an AfD. --Ronz (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Integrating the two secondary sources to the stub
Identified in the discussion immediately above, those sources are:

Anyone have suggestions on what we could use them for? --Ronz (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with how they were used before? And why can't we include the YouTube stats? It's not as if there is an absolute prohibition on use of primary sources. Jeh (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Heise one isn't worth much... They cover a lot of hobby and other non-notable stuff, and the article only seems to be regurgitating the contents of the Kickstarter page. Articles that are basically just press releases tend not to carry much weight on WP.
 * The SMH article doesn't really help because it's about the Batterizer, and Jones is only described as a blogger who chimed in. Lots of article mention information posted on blogs, it doesn't make the blog notable. It could be used as evidence of criticism of the Batterizer, and if Jones were notable enough for inclusion in WP it could be used to mention that he got into a somewhat public spat with Batterizer. It doesn't help with the central issue of notability though. ゼーロ (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it does. Not everything in an article has to contribute to notability, or even be notable on its own. Jeh (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, but if the events mentioned in the articles are not notable, they aren't worth mentioning and can't be used for anything. WP isn't a collection of fan trivia, and neither of these events seem worth mentioning. ゼーロ (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not what WP:N says. See WP:NNC:


 * "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."


 * Jeh (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these sources don't meet WP:BIO.
 * The notability guidelines most definitely apply to content in many ways. Some have already been discussed on this page.
 * WP:N basically identifies content that is WP:DUE (with exceptions from WP:BLP and WP:NOT). When we have not met WP:N but can still justify an article, then we have to find other means to determine if anything is WP:DUE at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The principle of due weight (WP:DUE) applies to neutrality - not giving undue weight to minority or fringe opinions vs. mainstream. There are no opposing opinions being cited in this article so that is not applicable here. And I ask again why the youtube stats can't be included. Although articles should be based largely on secondary sources, there is nothing that says that no primary sources can be used at all, if they are only being quoted verbatim and not interpreted by an editor. Jeh (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As with the interpretation of primary sources that started this discussion, I think this perspective on NPOV is inaccurate, and grossly so when NOT and BLP are taken into consideration. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still conflating notability of subject with notability of content. And this isn't a perspective on NPOV. It's a direct reading - not a "perspective" - on NOR:
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
 * So, primary sources aren't excluded completely. And a simple quote of stat is not precluded by the latter sentence. A bit later:
 * "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. "
 * You claim the YouTube stats site is primary. Ok, I get it: it does not present "an author's own thinking based on primary sources." But simply quoting the stats from the primary source is still ok as no "interpretation" is being done. As for BLP, there is no special case in WP:PRIMARY that is more restrictive where BLP is involved except advice to "use extra caution" as detailed at WP:BLPPRIMARY, but nothing proscribed there is at issue here either. It seems to me that to hear you tell it we'd need a secondary source to say that there are 36 inches in a yard. Jeh (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it appears you want to discuss policies and guidelines ignoring the context here completely. This talk page is for discussions on the improvement of the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. I think adding the YouTube stats and the SMH reference will improve the article. And I find nothing in policies and guidelines that precludes either. You are quite happy to armwave "BLP" in support of your mass deletion, but if I show specific P&Gs that allow the content you want to remove, and ask you to provide specific P&G that support your removal, I get nothing except another vague claim: "I'm ignoring the context." Exactly what "context" am I "ignoring," and exactly what in policies and guidelines means that that context precludes the inclusion of these items? Jeh (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all kind of irrelevant as the article is likely to be deleted unless someone can show notability. If you want to "save" the article you should concentrate on the notability aspect. ゼーロ (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means if you feel the article is unsaveable, take it to AFD. Personally I agree that the existing references do not demonstrate notability per the terms of the WP:PEOPLE guideline and no additional qualifying references (secondary, significant, etc.) are likely forthcoming in any the short term. I'm tired of this. Jeh (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've requested Jeh excuse himself from this article give his lack of understanding of what are primary sources. When editors cannot understand something so fundamental, there's no way we can follow any policy that requires an understanding of such sources: BLP, NPOV, OR, etc. BLP requires we get the article right. When someone has no idea what a secondary source is, there's no way to get the article right. --Ronz (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of personal comments for someone who keeps bleating FOC. Nothing I can find says that no primary sources can ever be used. Now, what about including the YouTube stats? Jeh (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. We can't follow policy if editors aren't interested in understanding policy. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll give it one last try. The stats could be included, but only if it can be shown that the YouTube channel is notable. Otherwise it's just trivia. Jeh, I think the key thing here is that you need to establish notability first, otherwise everything else is academic or ruled out by not being notable anyway. ゼーロ (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I admire your patience with the issue. I agree it's trivia as sourced. The solution is a secondary source noting the blog stats, not just the blog itself; or meeting WP:WEB for the blog, having an article for it, and including some stats in that article. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiki related activity on Mr. Jones' forum
Some supporters of Mr. Jones, with encouragement from himself, are discussing this article here: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/dave-needs-help-to-stay-on-wiki-a-general-call-for-help/60/

When evaluating new material and editors we should keep an eye on this site. The rules about editing your own biographical entry, or encouraging others to do it for you, are quite clear. ゼーロ (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Fans of eevblog want to see Mr. Jones' entry on Wikipedia kept" - imagine my surprise. I see no evidence that Mr. Jones has edited his own entry or even participated in this discussion. The closest he's come is "hey, here's something you missed," but that's nowhere near asking for specific text to be included. Or are you possibly suggesting that we can't include a particular reference just because the article subject found it? Nonsense. Heck, article subjects commonly point out such things on their own articles' talk pages here. I would also caution you to beware WP:OUTING. Jeh (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is disruptive to make warnings in anticipation of possible problems that editors might cause. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am merely highlighting it as a parallel discussion, which seems to have little concept of WP policy. If any other editors are members of that forum it might be an idea to direct people to this discussion page rather than debating changes there. ゼーロ (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability
WP:BIO documents how we meet notability requirements. While a WP:STUB is an option, it is always a risk of deletion.

Primary sources are no help in establishing notability (nor of any help in determining if something is WP:DUE, and no help alone in determining if something is encyclopedic).

What we need, but do not have, are secondary sources that cover Jones in depth. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hence my restoring the Notability tag. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review
The recent failure to delete the article is now being reviewed. Please add your comments to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#David_L._Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by ゼーロ (talk • contribs) 09:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy closed due to new AfD nomination. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review the 2nd review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_October_12#David_L._Jones ゼーロ (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of references
Ronz's edits summary "trim - linkspam and bit about being a judge for prize sourced only with primary source
 * 1) Please explain where is link spam. If you mean links to websites of Jones - they are perfectly legal links in an article about a person who operates these websites. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect about the links. See WP:LINKSPAM, WP:REFSPAM, WP:EL. If you're concerned about verifying the information, it was already sourced, but I've changed it to make it explicit for the short term to point out how. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the inline link to the web site could be interpreted as linkspam, but we do have the template for a reason. I've employed it. Jeh (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are perfectly OK to reconfirm info from secondary sources. In fact, this is a recommended usage of WP:PRIMARY. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's not the case here. Too bad we seem unable to apply it overall. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Judge for prize - there is no WP:SYNTH in this claim that he was Judge from the place where he was judge. Satisfies WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said there was a SYN problem. Primary sources can be abused in a number of ways - SOAP problems are common. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they are (you haven't proven that), but you haven't shown that there's a SOAP problem either. Or any other problem. There is no absolute ban on primary sources, even in WP:BLP. That Jones is a judge for the Hackaday prize is a simple claim of fact; all the article is doing is citing that fact; the Hackaday web site is a perfectly reliable third-party source for it (I ask you: who would know better? Why would a secondary source know any better?), the article is making no judgment therefrom, and no judgment or evaluation is required. Re WP:SOAP, I have read the five points there and do not see how this simple claim of fact violates any of them. Citing "BLP!" with no specifics is not sufficient justification to delete material. If you are going to insist on the tag, then I insist on a specific description of how you think BLP or other inviolate policy dictates that this point requires a secondary source. That's fair, isn't it? Jeh (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't like it. Seems you want to take this personally rather than make a case for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are admissible for neural, verifiable information about themselves. 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything approaching a WP:SOAP problem in sourcing the names of judges on a panel, from the organization that created the panel. Furthermore, unless there is reason to believe that the Hackaday site is unreliable for this information (perhaps by falsely listing judges, or by shoddy writing and proofing errors), that source would seem the most accurate for this information. I don't get the impression of inaccuracy from the Hackaday site.


 * We are looking for the best available sources, and we have to apply common sense, as policies and guidelines repeatedly remind us: in this case, the chances of a secondary source, such as a newspaper, making an error in reporting on the primary source, are eliminated by going to that source itself, unless we have an expectation that the reporter of a news story listing the Hackaday judges has contacted those judges to verify their participation, or performed some other extraordinary factchecking process, over and above the most likely avenue of obtaining that information from a Hackaday press release or web listing. Do we have that expectation (I don't)? In this case, while there is nothing wrong with citing a secondary source, the primary source seems at least equally valid. --Tsavage (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We've a secondary source now. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability tag
AfD discussions are specifically introduced to establish article notablility. In the AfD for this article the notability was confirmed by broader community and most likely will be reconfirmed during deletion review. Therefore IMO putting the notability tag on the article immediately after the AfD is beating the dead horse by people dissatisfied by the outcome of the vote. This kind of actions are discouraged in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur. It makes no practical sense, and in fact goes against the normal editorial process, to retain a tag questioning notability, that points to merge, redirection or deletion as the likely remedy, immediately after an AfD that, by closing as Keep, has found consensus for notability. The only reason to retain this tag would seem to be to express disagreement with the AfD results. That is not a valid reason, and in fact is likely to be unhelpfully disruptive (as this section suggests). --Tsavage (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to use BLP sources tag, if someone thinks that more references is needed for whatever reason, or to prevent the addition of contentious (including promo) text. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is still under discussion in the deletion review process. Also, it still needs to be established in the article. The notice encourages editors to help establish notability. ゼーロ (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Did someone get the additional sources identified in the AfD into the article? If so, I think they are enough. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Keep" decision at the AfD establishes a consensus of notability, so I replaced the notability tag with a BLP sources tag. SageGreenRider (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly which claims in the article do you think lack adequate sources per BLP? Jeh (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAICT none of the refs support the sentence "The creator of the product has denied involvement." hth SageGreenRider (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But that isn't a controversial, etc., statement about the article subject. So BLP does not apply there. Jeh (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all every claim in every article should have a reliable source. In addition, I assume the product creator mentioned is a living person. There are legal issues around statements about (different) living person. "The creator of the product has denied involvement." is controversial. Therefore it urgently needs a source. Whoever wrote the sentence must have had some basis. Why can't that basis be added? SageGreenRider (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the controversial claim was added by which disturbs me given their opposition to the article and therefore the subject. I'm removing the claim and my tag. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You might want to read these policy pages with regarding this issue: WP:ARTN and in particular WP:NEXIST The policy says (in part) The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Cheers! SageGreenRider (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. All I want is to follow BLP by getting the proper sources actually into the article. There used to be a more suitable tag. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting an inappropriate tag on is't helping anything. Once again notability is a property of the subject of the article and not of the article itself. Notability of the subject has been established by consensus. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP trumps N. There's no confusion there. I wonder what happened to the template that identified that notability was unclear within the article? I'll use a custom one in the future if it was deleted. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Why do you say notability is unclear when a clear consensus has already been reached? SageGreenRider (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please focus on what I actually wrote. The concern was that the sources in article didn't make the notability clear. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If what you mean is "not all the sources out there have been added yet" then maybe what you are looking for is Or you could just add them back since you were the one who removed a lot of them. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

EEVblog April Fool jokes
What would you think about adding the following section into the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

EEVblog April Fool pranks taken seriously
Fluke Corporation posted a respectful disclaimer on their Facebook page that the alleged  114 DIY kit Fluke from EEVblog #597 "was developed by Dave Jones from scratch, for fun, as an April Fool’s joke" and noticed that it had driven a considerable traffic.

Tektronix Inc. described a history of eevBLAB #8 "New Tektronix AGO3000 Oscilloscope" which eliminates the effects of gravity on precision measurements. While the effect do exist, they are mostly negligible, and their exaggerated description produced a good April Fool’s prank.


 * I'd add it. (See WP:BOLD) I was about to do something like that but you've already done the wordsmithing. Jeh (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'd add that the Tektronix prank was done in consultation with Tektronix, based on (from the Tektronix source):
 * The AGO3000 prank came about when Jones approached Tektronix about a phenomenon he discusses in the eevBLAB #8 video where gravity can have an effect on reference crystal oscillators, or as he terms it, the 2G tip-over effect. While the effect is very slight and not enough to impact measurement results, Jones thought it would be funny to blow this up for his annual April Fools video. We agreed and hope you do to."
 * --Tsavage (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this level of detail is important here. Anyone who is interested, may readily read all detail in the reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal, but I disagree. I agree that the Jones is notable, and am therefore all for building up the article with non-trivial information. The fact that a couple of fake product reviews were mistaken for real is not surprising, what is more interesting (to me, at least) and speaks to the highly technical nature of the prank, is the fact that Tektronix was in on the discussion. In my opinion, this sort of detail makes content about specialized, niche and subculture topics more accessible to the general reader. --Tsavage (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you misunderstood me. I don't think that the reviews were taken for real. "Taken seriously" I meant in the sense that they were treated more than just occasional lulz. Of course not like turboencabulator (which is described quite a straight-facedly in wikipedia), but you get the idea: they were notable enough to respond. And my text reflects this notability. Any addition would be boring fluff spoiling the fun, so to say. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all just OR based on primary sources. It doesn't seem like it was taken serious to me either. This definitely needs a secondary source. ゼーロ (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh? Exactly how is the article interpreting, drawing a conclusion, etc., from the primary source? Please be specific. Jeh (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. The point is that it's a couple of Facebook posts by Tektronics. To include it in the article you need to establish that it's worth including and get some secondary sources. At the moment it just looks like some self-promotion by Tek, who decided to join in and get some free publicity. It's extremely low quality. ゼーロ (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Secondary sources are only required if we want to publish interpretation, analysis, synthesis, etc., of something said in a primary source. There's no such thing happening here.
 * Your claim of needing a secondary source "to establish that it's worth including" - you didn't use the word, but you're talking about establishing notability. WP:N does not apply to items of article content, only to article subjects. Allow me to quote yet again from WP:N:

The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles


 * Incidentally, Tek's blog post is a secondary source about Jones' video. (It's a primary source about Tek's reaction to Jones' video, but wrt Jones' video, it is secondary.) So now you're claiming we need a second secondary source to write about the first secondary source, before we can use the latter? Where does it end? Don't be ridiculous.
 * btw this is not a "Facebook post", it's on Tek's official blog on their web site. The fact that Tektronix (note correct spelling)—one of the oldest and most respected test equipment manufacturers in the world—gave considerable coverage to Jones is an indication of Jones' stature. (Consider that their blog post would have been meaningless if Jones was not at least moderately known and respected in the industry. In other words, if you or I had made an April Fool's video about some fictitious forthcoming Tek product, it's highly unlikely Tek would have taken any public notice, as people reading it would react "Yeah? So?")
 * This bit is furthermore one of the points raised in the AFD, which resulted in the AFD closer concluding that notability had been established.
 * Finally, your evaluation of "extremely low quality" is your purely subjective judgment. I disagree. That's my purely subjective judgment, the point being that neither gets to override the other. Jeh (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more like something covered by WP:HTRIVIA. That's why I didn't use the word "notable", as you seem to have noticed. Sometimes there is a need for clarification, it's better to ask than to assume. In any case, it happened, but so did a lot of other random things that don't really have any baring on the subject of the article. The inclusion of this event seems to be simply to establish Jones as some kind of important figure because Tek decided to join in with his little joke.
 * Also, please don't mock trivial spelling errors and the like. Without going in to the details mocking another editors disability is generally considered bad form. I'll ask again, please consider stepping away for a while, then come back to it fresh. ゼーロ (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't mocking and I have no idea here about any disability. I simply suggested the correct spelling.
 * Your suggestion about taking a step away for a while is noted.
 * Back on topic: It is not trivia. For one of the oldest and most respected test equipment makers to have published a comment about Jones' video takes the existence of that video solidly out of the "trivia" category. Perhaps you are not aware of Tektronix' stature in the field? That is the only explanation I can think of for your reaction. Jeh (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of who Tektronix are. If anything that makes it even less interesting - large corporations with long histories have done a lot of stuff, and have a lot of staff. Someone in the company making a blog post isn't very significant. It's likely just an attempt to grab a bit of free publicity by generating some news stories and a bit of "buzz". Did any reliable news sources consider it worth mentioning? It would really help if there were secondary sources. ゼーロ (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet again: There is no blanket prohibition on use of primary sources. And re. something Jones did, this IS a secondary source. Yours is a very strange notion, that the larger the company, the less significant its actions are. Can we conclude then that if it was a much smaller company you would find a blog entry from them to be considerably more significant? That seems very backwards. Jeh (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try one more time. Tek is a large company with staff in charge of social media. They have a blog for commercial reasons. Everything they post on it is done for commercial reasons. They pay staff to write those blog posts. Naturally, they will jump on anything that will get them some extra publicity with a few platitudes, because it drives traffic to their web site and increased brand awareness. They are not like a journalist writing for a reputable publication. You are essentially citing an advert for Tek, which is designed to make them money rather than give a genuine appraisal of Jones' work. The mere fact that they "noticed" him is meaningless - they respond to many bloggers and Twitter users, because it advertises their brand and products. If the text were really accurate and neutral, it would need to read something like "Jones was used as a marketing tool by Tektronix", and it would need to be pointed out that he does receive quite a bit of free stuff from them (e.g. expensive oscilloscopes) which he then gets to keep and which he does videos around to generate revenue.


 * This is a general problem with much of the removed content of this article. Remember that Jones is a commercial blogger. His income is all directly or indirectly from the blog, via YouTube ads, Patreon and sales drive by being featured on the blog. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for Jones, and when adding content we must carefully consider if we are just making the article read like an advert. I appreciate that Jones' fans see this all as evidence of his greatness, but he is doing it to make money and so are Tek. 109.176.80.234 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:SOAP: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". If no independent sources are available, then we need to be sure the content has encyclopedic value rather than promotional value. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, one of the things that differentiates Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedia is that we don't automatically shy away from material about, e.g., commercial products. Your arguments would be fine if we were editing Encyclopedia Britannica, but here, they could be used to justify removal of nearly everything on Wikipedia that mentions any commercial firm in anything but a negative light as well as every reference to anything on every for-profit company's web site: It's all written to promote their company, right? To put it another way, the mere fact that Tektronix is a for-profit organization should not be used to imply that some higher standard of referencing is required for anything they say. WP:SOAP is about overt promotion. Overt promotion would, for example, mention of specific products for sale: "Of course, the gravity-compensated scope doesn't exist, but if you're considering a new scope, look at our new xyz4000 series!" The fact that Tek called attention to Jones' April 1 video is not overtly promotional for Tek or for Jones. Jeh (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not the mere fact that it is commercial that is the problem, it's the fact that the inclusion appears to be simply to make Jones look important. It's just advertising, trivia brought up to make him look good and like he is someone with influence. It reads like a press release blurb. ゼーロ (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So on the one hand it is claimed that there are not enough sources here to show notability, but multiple sources that show that others think he's notable and worthy of being responded to are derided for "making Jones look important". Your position is self-contradictory. I do not agree that such sources are "just advertising" or that there is a significant SOAP problem here. Jeh (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY quote
A convenience quote:
 * Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them ( Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources). Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Now, unless one clearly indicates how any primary source cited here violates this policy, their arguments are to be discounted without further notice. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with most of the primary sources is that they are open to interpretation, are self promotion or the article text draws conclusions from them. The ones that are simple factual statements have remained, such as the YouTube stats. Please review the previous discussions before making proclamations, otherwise your arguments are likely to be discounted without further notice. ゼーロ (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "previous discussions" were dominated by "argument by vigorous assertion", combined with complete lack of willingness to compromise and wholesale "discounting" of opposing arguments, by your side. Since the AFD result we may conclude that the deletionists' prior arguments, even though declared as ~"settled" by you and Ronz, may be ignored or at least severely discounted. (Even you seem to be agreement re one point here: the YouTube stats were previously decried, even though they were used in the exact same manner as they are now.) In each individual case you need to be specific as to how you think the article text interprets the primary source, or draws conclusions from it, or uses it in a promotional manner, or otherwise violates WP policy. If yuo don't do that your arguments are going to be a) called out for imprecision, b) taken to some form of arbitration if necessary, and c) likely ignored. Simply saying "BLP" or "PRIMARY", or fretting that a use of a source "might" be problematic, is arm-waving and rock-throwing and is not sufficient. Please also see WP:OWN—you're not the final arbiter. Jeh (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, you are not the final arbiter, so please don't say things like "their arguments are to be discounted without further notice." I suggest you take a step back from this, and try to assume good faith when you return. ゼーロ (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It might be best to just close this discussion outright. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No need for umbrella tags on such a short article
I removed the umbrella "more citations" tag that replaced the "notability" tag. As explained in the edit summary, use of umbrella tags on the article as it is now - four paragraphs, eight sentences, seven cited sources - is only confusing. What needs (additional) verification? Which sources need improvement? The array of inline tags available for this sort of thing can accurately pinpoint the perceived problems - an umbrella tag does not.

Since this article survived a second recent AfD (and AfD review) with a clear Keep, it has a few weeks at least before it can be reasonably nominated again, so we should just try and improve it. If indeed after whatever attempt and period of time, someone still wants to AfD it, so be it, it will be a fair third try.

(FWIW, I randomly dropped in on the AfD and voted Keep, because the available sources are not triple-A solid, but I do believe that David Jones and EEVBlog are noteworthy (not "just another vblogger directly or indirectly trying to use Wikipedia for promo" or anything like that), and likely to be further covered in future.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Content improvement suggestion
One thing that has not been done is to use primary source material from EEVBlog's archives to illustrate some of the stuff that he's covered and has been covered by the sources. This is in the same way as we currently do Plot sections in film articles, with straightforward description of the primary source. From what I gather, Jones is known/notable for his convention-breaking (as to short-is-better) superlong videos, at times going to over an hour on a review or other topic, and his enthusiastically stated opinions - covering this to supplement some of the sourced coverage seems like a good use of primary sources to fairly develop this subject. --Tsavage (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

About self
WP:SELFPUBLISH says in part Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Also WP:ABOUTSELF says in part Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field... so I'm removing the tags. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, BLP applies here. Content should be removed per BLP until the dispute is settled. Tags should not be removed until the dispute is settled. WP:BLPSELFPUB is what applies here, as well as WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Boy, you like your badges of shame, don't you ;-) I don't see the issue BLPSELFPUB says: ''Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:


 * 1) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.''

The cites seems fine to me. What is your issue? SageGreenRider (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They are self-serving. Unduly, perhaps.
 * They definitely involve claims about third parties.
 * The paragraph is based entirely upon primary sources.
 * Shall we follow BLP now and remove it while it is contested? --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am following BLP. You seem to presume I am not for some reason. I don't see the material as self-serving at all. Self-serving means "Showing interest only in oneself." The guy reviewed a product that he bought. The company responded. He had a telephone call in which he was a party and talked about it. In addition, the article is not based primarily on such sources. BLPSELFPUB doesn't say anything about tests around individual paragraphs. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at Party_and_person. This case is the one in the top left cell of the table. Dave is reporting his direct experience with the product and with the CEO's call. hth SageGreenRider (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you agree to "They definitely involve claims about third parties"? --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point SageGreenRider (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality tag on article: what is the specific problem?
You've placed (another) article-level tag, but it's not clear exactly what you're referring to, namely, per template instructions: "identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies."

I see a series of additions of short paragraphs, with a number of citations, and I'm not sure what the specific, actionable problems are. I've read the "About self" section immediately above, so I can guess that you have a problem with self-serving content, third party claims, and misuse of primary sources, per WP:BLP, but again, it's not clear to what exactly you are referring: for example, which text is self-serving and how/why?

As I mentioned above, inline tags in a brief article like this are much more helpful, like the  tag.

The Neutrality template instructions indicate that the umbrella tag can be removed if: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given."

I'd like to help edit, but it is hard to when things are contentious and unclear. Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You must mean besides not following BLP outright, including poor sources and poorly sourced content. I think that's enough. --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that specific, actionable issue involves every sentence and every citation in the article? That you would literally put inline tags on everything? I'm not being argumentative here, the key word is "actionable" - what exactly do you see as needing to be changed/removed/whatever, and according to which conditions of BLP? That's a straightforward, policy-based question. --Tsavage (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but nothing I wrote even begins to suggest such a thing. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Ronz was referring to one of my contributions. I've since reverted that one myself so all is well in wikiland. Sweet dreams... SageGreenRider (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, well, all's well that ends well. And that's just how confusing umbrella tags can be - at least it was mildly amusing (to me) to speculate on how far it went. --Tsavage (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the blanket tag was a bit heavy handed. A slap on the face with a wet trout would have woken me up more effectively. ;-) SageGreenRider (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The specific problem is that poorly sourced information, of questionable encyclopedic value while being highly promotional, keeps being added to the article. Let's get the article to some level of stability, identify the bulk of the problems (rather than remove them from the article per BLP which editors refuse to follow), then start a BLPN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Cohen and Kingsley-Jones cites.
(Copy-pasted from my talk page)SageGreenRider (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed it as it didn't add significant information about the subject of this article, only promotional material. I would support including it if the book was particularly influential (and therefore notable) - that would be similar to a notable award - but I could find no evidence that it is. Peter James (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You can't use criteria from GNG to delete content from an article. The policy explicitly states the you may not do this: WP:NNC says in part The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. Cheers! SageGreenRider (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it there because Cohen's opinion is important, or just because it's an excuse to add promotional material to the article? Peter James (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it's not promotional material, it's a positive review. Promotional material would be "Buy my product." A positive review in a reliable source should be given "due weight." See WP:DUE which says in part Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. One sentence and one citation is about the minimum atomic weight any source can get. Cohen's review point is Another great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones' EEVBlog.
 * Books published by O'Reilly are reliable sources. See WP:SOURCES which says in part Books published by respected publishing houses . I assume you would agree that O'Reilly is respected. There is no criterion that a source should be "notable" or "influential."
 * If you can find a negative review in a reliable source you should add that too. I think I saw one somewhere where the Batteroo folk were saying he's unqualified but I don't know if a reliable source picked it up or not.
 * Cheers! SageGreenRider (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I found it. I'll add it for balance.SageGreenRider (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have concerns about this material as well. Can you please follow WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE? --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that policy before and I don't understand it. In particular it says in part wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Who is the admin? Also the article hasn't been deleted. I'm confused. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE again and it looks fubar to me. Probably two ideas got comingled together at some point. In any case it doesn't apply here because neither deletion edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Jones&oldid=687249591 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Jones&oldid=687267255 indicated "bona fide BLP concerns". Neither was policy-based at all. One was Some of this text reads like advertising and trivia. and the other was application of GNG criteria (Not significant coverage or a notable book)that are not irrelevant, as discussed above. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, content deleted from an article because of BLP concerns shouldn't be restored until there is consensus to do so. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. It's water under the bridge now. Let's now focus on arriving at a consensus regarding the Cohen and Kingsley-Jones cites.SageGreenRider (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This material is basically trivia, and the only purpose of including it seems to be to talk Jones up. The goal here is not to collect a bunch of random articles where Jones was mentioned, and the tip about warranty sticker removal is particularly trivial. There are many, many such videos on YouTube, and Jones doesn't even claim to have invented this method, it's just a quick tech tip video. We have been over this before. ゼーロ (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: The goal here is not to collect a bunch of random articles where Jones was mentioned - Well, in fact, minus the "random," that is kinda the goal here. As long as each source is reliable, if it provides content that is directly relevant to the article, then inclusion should be fine. What is the difference between including 10 items taken from, for example, an in-depth New York Times profile of the subject, and the same 10 items taken from 10 different reliable sources?


 * This material is basically trivia Not sure what policy or guideline that opinion is based on. Yes, Wikipedia does not create articles that are indiscriminate collections of items. Instead, we rely on reliable secondary sources to tell us what is relevant and noteworthy for a particular article. With Kingsley-Jones, a reliable source, ZDNet, publishes a how-to piece - 'How to remove "Warranty Void If Removed" stickers without voiding your warranty' - that features Jones' method (in text and by embedding the relevant EEVBlog episode), so we have two sources (ZDNet, EEVBlog) to establish that removing those stickers is noteworthy in the electronics field, and a reliable source (ZDNet) indicating that Jones' (version of a) removal method is noteworthy (selected above all other available sources of similar info, if such exist). The item is reliably source, and directly relevant to the subject of the article (Jones and his editorial coverage of EE topics), which meets our essential inclusion criteria. --Tsavage (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @ゼーロ - I understand that that's your opinion, but the journalist at ZDNet obviously differs or he wouldn't have written the article. We shouldn't follow our opinions. We should give due weight to reliable sources using neutral language. SageGreenRider (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

is the content under dispute. I've removed it per BLP while we attempt to get consensus for its inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed a wrong one. The Tek is not under dispute. It's the Kingsley-Jones that is. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It's the same type of trivia, with no independent sources.
 * Likewise the bit about the audience for his chat . --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is Cohen, why do we care about his opinions, and why do we feel they are worth mention in this article? --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because his book is a reliable source (see WP:SOURCES book published by respected publisher) which should therefore get due weight using neutral language. Whether you yourself know him or care about him is, with all due respect, irrelevant. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So we care about it because of the publisher only? Seems a stretch. What do other think of trimming it to 'EEVblog has been identified as "Another great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones' EEVBlog...".' --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't use criteria from GNG to delete content from an article. The policy explicitly states that you may not do this: WP:NNC says in part The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The criteria for inclusion are 1) WP:SOURCES and, yes, as you'll read there the publisher alone is sufficient. 2) Due weight WP:DUE One sentence per reliable source cannot be described as undue weight. Use of passive voice to redact the author's name is just ludicrous. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what we are doing, so let's not waste time. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please tell me a bone fide reason why your proposal to include Cohen with passive voicedEEVblog has been identified as "Another great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones' EEVBlog is within policy and yet including same with active voice In his book Prototype to Product Alan Cohen observes EEVblog is "Another great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones' EEVBlog.. is not? SageGreenRider (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Ronz: First of all, it seems you're misusing WP:BLP, which is about making sure we don't misrepresent or unduly infringe upon a living person's privacy, reputation, and so forth (and don't expose Wikipedia to legal problems in so doing), and not about deciding if "we care about the opinions" of a certain author, or "feel they are worth mentioning" - if content is non-controversial, not at all likely to cause damage to the subject, proper sourcing and relevance to the article should be all that matter.


 * And I don't see the problem with this item:


 * It is reliably sourced to a book published by a reputable (highly regarded) publisher of technology titles.
 * It is noteworthy, squarely within the scope of the article, by commenting on the central subject, Jones' and his media work on EE, finding that Jones's material on EE design and development - main subject of EEVblog - is of high quality.


 * I don't understand what other criteria you'd like to apply, other than RS and noteworthiness. This is how we included content. The only other thing I can think of is, as I mentioned above, that you believe a source must contain a minimum overall quantity of material on a topic, in order for us to use even the smallest portion of that material. Is that what you mean? --Tsavage (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read BLP to apply much more broadly, and I think the policy is pretty clear that it is much broader. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again: Ronz needs to identify what specific points of BLP he claims are violated by the material he removed. So far Ronz has identified none, simply weilding "BLP" as a hammer. Jeh (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your repeated need to focus on editors, and assuming they are acting in bad faith, is disruptive to our consensus building. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming you're acting in bad faith. I'm assuming you're wrong to interpret BLP so very broadly that you can just write "BLP" in an edit comment and that that is all the justification you need for deleting (referenced!) material. But I gather from your response that no specifics will be forthcoming? Jeh (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting our time and harassing others. I've been discussing specifics. I cannot force editors to participate in those discussions. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide specific reasons for your deletions. "blp vio" is not a sufficient nor bone fide reason.SageGreenRider (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please follow BLP and get consensus for inclusion. It would help to refer to my specific concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to two candidate sentences to go with the Cohen cite, you have not in fact given your specific concern. I posed the question here and you have not responded yet. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . See also the comments in   The problem has not been resolved. I believe it's been stated clearly in all the repetition. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Where are we with Cohen?
It was removed then immediately restored. I've removed it per BLP while we try to work out where the consensus is.

The best argument that I see in the discussions so far is that because the book's publisher is reputable, we should include it. I was hoping to find more recommendations like Cohen's, so we weren't resting on the one source (and highlighting it), but only found one that was considerably worse: http://www.pannam.com/blog/best-resources-for-electrical-engineers/ --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking further there's http://blog.initialstate.com/resources-firmware-engineers/, http://www.electronic-products-design.com/geek-area/electronics/audio/microphones/elect-microphones , and http://www.engineersdream.com/10-free-websites-tools-learn-electronics-tutorials/. There are more of similar quality. Anyone think any of these could be used to help support this content? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC) "The book Prototype to Product states EEVblog is 'Another great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones' EEVBlog...'."

Archive of citations that various editors have deleted from this article
Here is a partial list of citations that have been added to this article at some point by a contributor and at some other point deleted.
 * 1) His chat 'Trends in Hardware Innovation' with BlueChilli CEO Sebastien Eckersley-Maslin at that 2014 Sydney Maker Faire drew a large audience.
 * 2) Writing for ZDNet, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes notes that Jones' method to remove a "Warranty Void If Removed" sticker "takes some patience but it does work."
 * 3) In his book Prototype to Product Alan Cohen observes "Another great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information is David Jones' EEVBlog...".
 * 4) Primary sources used in support of the Microchip Technology cite.

You may draw whatever conclusion you like from this list. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

undue
Discuss what undue weight problems there are in the article. Someone tagged a bunch of statements with their reasoning in the edit summary (which isn't very helpful to future editors). I copied what I could into the reason= parameter of the undue weight tag, but further discussion can't hurt. I'm not sure mentioning the name of a source when quoting that source is that big of a deal, but one statement—Jones and his status as a full-time video blogger were featured in an interview in the April 2012 issue of Circuit Cellar magazine, and were the subject of a chapter in the 2013 book Makers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time by Steven Osborn—seems to be in the article simply to say "look, someone mentioned Jones or his blog". It's not useful to the reader to know that someone wrote about the subject. What was said in that interview or that book? It's like saying "Donald Trump was the subject of an article in The New York Times." Okay, great. That doesn't tell me anything useful. The statement currently in the article could certainly be expanded on this basis. clpo13(talk) 00:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help.
 * I agree with your comments. We're padding the article with information about the sources rather than adding encyclopedic information from those sources about Jones and EEVblog.
 * I've restored the tag on the metrics blurb, "The web metrics company Easy Counter ranked EEVBlog as high as 42,399 on a worldwide basis". It has the padding-with-reference-information problem, but there's also the question of why this statistic was chosen. I'm not familiar with what the most relevant analytics are to a site like EEVBlog, but I'd guess it would be from a notable company if not a notable analytics company. There's also the question of why are we presenting it's highest ranking rather than just a recent one? --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The way in which a couple of editors have been approaching keeping this "article" in line with WP:PAG has been less than helpful Continually deleting stuff right after its posted and citing (questionably interpreted) rules as justification isn't constructive.


 * The article for better or for worse was determined "Keep" in the recent AfD, and that obviously involved approval of certain sources, so if anyone is working on this article, they should be attempting to write the most encyclopedic entry possible from those sources, and not just deleting other editors' contributions, as if to say, "Nope, go and try again." We are supposed to be editing collaboratively, not deleting unilaterally.


 * A few days ago, I offered a list of items I believe we can include from the sources we have. I will repost it in a new section, below. --Tsavage (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: The current version seems much better, as far as presenting what we have to work with! --Tsavage (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We're making progress, though slowly. Ignoring BLP is no solution though. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the Batteriser controversy, it may take a day or two because there's quite a bit of background info to go through. This article aside, it's an interesting story, a classic grassroots debunk that came out right as mainstream media all over the world - PCWord, CNN, tech media, multiple languages - were featuring it as a breakthrough. Now, Batteriser/Batteroo has significantly changed its claims, but is continuing, and last month closed with $400,000 in crowdfunding, over 10x overfunded, on Indiegogo. The product works, it just doesn't do what people are expecting it to: significantly extend battery life in everyday battery-powered devices. So it every much sounds like a marketing scam, and Dave and EEEblog are quoted and cited through the growing negative coverage as the original and reference debunker. It's interesting, and - back to the article - does seem to establish Dave squarely in his field: commenting on EE, outspoken and knoweledgeable, with real-world impact. --Tsavage (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of opinion there, Tsavage. That's the problem with past versions of the Batteriser section. I think unless you can come up with some previously unknown sources we are going to struggle to improve it. ゼーロ (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Content that we should be able to write encyclopedically from the sources we have
IMO, we have reliable sourcing sufficient at the least to include the following:
 * 1) who Jones is - electronics engineer and problogger from Australia
 * 2) description of his vehicles, EEVBlog and Amp Hour - blog and podcast, founded when, co-host, type of content
 * 3) stats for his products: archives, subscribers, views, etc - sources include stats tracking services, YouTube
 * 4) general breakdown of his content, e.g. example episode titles and content summaries to illustrate types of content (reviews, instructional, etc, as mentioned by sources and determined by categories on the product web sites);
 * 5) description of his style (outspoken, in-depth, at-length...) and his transition to full-time blogger (we can carefully include his quotes in this, per WP:SELFPUB)
 * 6) industry reaction to his work (we have various sources, like Microchip, Tektronix, etc that could form an "Industry reaction" segment)
 * 7) a controversial situation with Batteriser (beyond being a single incident, it speaks to his overall outspoken style and willingness to critique and offer negative views, i.e. it's not padding) - with the follow-up developments and media coverage, this is a good example of his effect as an outspoken grassroots media voice

To be sure, some of the content so far has been terribly written, but from what I can see, it's not primarily a sourcing problem, it's been battling to keep content and sources in. Content left for a while can then be further refined - I would have by now done at least some of the above if material wasn't disappearing, as it's a lot easier to rewrite than to start from scratch, reposting citations and so forth.. Simply writing in a proper encyclopedic manner should result in a brief, informative article. --Tsavage (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We still have primary source problems, but most are now in the "Other impact" trivia section. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 (Stats): As I mentioned earlier, the current stat is suspect. I've been searching for more relevant stats, but I'm not sure where to look. Perhaps in similar WP:GA articles about blogs and bloggers. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to SocialBlade, it seems fine, Google News it and you will see it used in Business Insider, New York Daily News, Washington Post, Huffington Post, etc. All web stats are arguable on various levels, but all else being equal, SocialBlade seems fine for this purpose. There is also YouTube itself, where we can find stuff like number of episodes, and views per episode, which gives an indication of reach as well. --Tsavage (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stats only merit inclusion if they add some value, and are not just advertising or an attempt to show notability. It would really help if there were secondary sources to demonstrate that the stats have some merit and are considered somewhat accurate by reputable sources. ゼーロ (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not clear on your concerns. SocialBlade? It's used by what we consider reliable secondary news sources (Washington Post, etc, see above), and the stats they provide are basic web metrics. This info is no different than including a newspaper's circulation, or noting a band's album chart position, or a movie's box office gross. That is not advertising, and "attempt to show notability" isn't anything actionable, it's conjecture as to the editor's motivation. --Tsavage (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm referrring what is tagged in the article and identified above, the Easy Counter maximum stat.
 * I agree it would help to have secondary sources. Finding GA articles that address (near-)identical concerns would give us guidance on how to address them here. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy Counter I don't know, for the web site's ranking, Alexa should be fine. As for "identical concerns," it's still not clear what those are, beyond the tracking service. A web sit ranking, total views for a YouTube channel or post, a newspaper's circulation, a TV show's ratings, a song or book's chart position, and so forth, it's all the same basic stats we use to define and describe media properties. --Tsavage (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to Alexa's most recent ranking. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 4 (Content breakdown): I'm unfamiliar with GA articles that do this. Given what few sources we have to work from, we're going to be limited, especially when taking WP:OR into account. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In service of providing basic information, we can note from primary source something like, "Episode categories include..." This can be put into context by using, for example, the Prototype to Product information: 'EEVblog has been recognized as "great resource for 'hardcore' EE design/development information." Shows include reviews, advice, interviews and tutorials.' Something along those lines should be fine. --Tsavage (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just blatant advertising. ゼーロ (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5 (Style): There are some mentions of his style that we should include. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, like Makers at Work: "in-depth equipment reviews, crazy antics, and lack of political correctness" - that is a good summary of his work, and can be quoted or fairly paraphrased. --Tsavage (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine as long as we stick to what reputable sources say about him, and that includes any negative stuff. It's a one line thing though, and quotes are probably taking it too far. I mean, some of his catchphrases are racist and sexist, so trying to include them is going to open a whole can of worms. ゼーロ (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5 (Transition to full-time blogger): Let's give it a shot, trying to avoid BLPSELFPUB#1 "it is not unduly self-serving". --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In describing the vblog and hosting, we can say that Dave claimed/stated in interviews/something like that, that he went full-time, and there are interesting quotes about how he broke the cardinal rule of keeping it short - "never over seven minutes" etc - which directly speaks to his style and episodes that regularly go to 45 minutes, an hour, or more, on a single topic. This ties in with a fair and accurate description of what he does - irreverent, in-depth. How he earns is detailed on his blog: sales percentage on products like at Amazon, etc, nothing unusual, controversial or self-serving, so should be fine to succinctly noted from primary source. --Tsavage (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed about a sentence on his transition, but we don't need to cover his income. It's getting into advertising territory again, and it adds nothing of relevance to the article. ゼーロ (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in part. The transition I think warrants more than a sentence, I haven't watched and read everything about it, but from what I have gathered so far, as mentioned above, he explains his core approach to off-the-cuff, unscripted style with the comment about not observing what the problogger experts recommend as to keeping videos short, so a brief excerpt of that seems on-point. I agree, going into detail about his income sources does not add anything directly relevant to the Jones subject, but a brief summary would fill out the whole full-time thing, like, "income through percentages of sales," you'd have to see in context. --Tsavage (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 6 (Industry reaction): If it's just the primary, non-independent sources then I don't how it could begin to meet BLP, NOT, and NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An "Industry impact" section could be framed something like, "Jones irreverent, outspoken style, pranks, and in-depth coverage have garnered industry notice/recognition..." If that works, then most or all of that Other impact stuff should fit, where it is a primary source, we just take care not to interpret it, only to provide a straightforward description of what it is. We are not concerned with secondary sources to establish noteworthiness, as for this article, these are obviously noteworthy, they are about Jones and his work. This section can include Batteriser as a subsection. --Tsavage (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experience, we simply cannot do much within BLP, NPOV, and NOT without indendent, secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "in my experience" refers to, we go case by case, observing the highest level of consensus available, which in this case is policy, and the policy statement on this is clear: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." WP:PRIMARY --Tsavage (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY is what applies here, and has been brought up multiple times on this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As a general assertion against a bunch of things in the article, I believe you're interpreting WP:BLPPRIMARY in an overly restrictive and unintended way, in that the context is the prevention of contentious statements about living people, and not of across the board all but denying the use of primary sources in BLP situations.


 * WP:BLPSELFPUB in that same WP:BLP policy page section, restates WP:SELFPUB, and makes clear, with specific guidance, the exception for material clearly authored by the subject about the subject, so can reasonably be seen as verified.


 * Meanwhile, the industry sources are primary sources about themselves - e.g. contents of a blog post or a response video, also, their statements about Jones - and also secondary sources about Jones when comment about him, and using them in both capacities, primary and secondary, in this specific type of case, seems fine, as we are not creating or suggesting interpretation beyond what is clearly stated (primary), and they are reliable secondary sources, as reputable tech companies, for their comments about Jones that concern their products and the related electronics, much like a reputable film critic is a reliable source for certain statements about a film. So I think this is all fairly covered, depending of course on the exact wording of our text. If my reasoning is in error or does not make sense, I'm sure you'll let me know... --Tsavage (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We disagree on the interpretation and application of BLP. You think my interpretation is wrong. That appears as far as you want to discuss the matter despite my attempts to discuss our differences. My attempts to find other ways to address the content disputes have likewise been ignored. So it comes down to enforcing BLP enough that we actually have consensus for the inclusion of any poorly sourced information. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have to follow BLP. But we don't have to agree to follow your interpretation of BLP.
 * The fact remains that BLP, even BLPPRIMARY, has no blanket restriction on the use of primary sources. Therefore the dispute seems to be over what constitutes their "misuse". Would all the parties to this accept some form of dispute resolution? Perhaps WP:RFC or WP:BLPN? Jeh (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably good to wait for actual new content - I have a new version that's almost done, and I'll post it here tonight or tomorrow unless someone else gets there with another version first, and see what the reaction is. If that doesn't work out, BLPN?


 * Maybe I missed it in all the words, but I'm not sure what Ronz's interpretation of BLPPRIMARY is, exactly. I explained my view, as have others, elsewhere on this page. Ronz as far as I've seen just cites. Almost none of our policies and guidelines are just read-and-apply, they have to be interpreted for the situation. How exactly does BLPPRIMARY apply here, and to what, specifically? --Tsavage (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Maybe I missed it" Yes, that was my concern. --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no, now I looked for every occurrence of BLPPRIMARY on this page, and all I see is you citing it, but not explaining how it actually applies here, and to what. You can't just toss out PAG abbreviations and expect editors to come to attention. Wikipedia works case-by-case, taking common sense rules that are broadly stated, and applying them reasonably to specifics. Where is the BLPPRIMARY violation - if you can't specify it, it does not exist, and there is no problem? --Tsavage (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:David_L._Jones. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your work on the section, until we address the concerns, "If it's just the primary, non-independent sources then I don't how it could begin to meet BLP, NOT, and NPOV." I've moved it to the sub-section below so we can see it while it is under discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully addressed in my comment at 20:56, 30 October 2015. --Tsavage (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence that he has gained industry recognition. We have been over this in detail, but big companies have staff to handle social media and they respond to blog posts and random tweets all the time. It doesn't mean that the company really recognizes that person, they just used them as a tool to get some more exposure on social media via linking etc. For the most part the industry seems to ignore him - he doesn't get new equipment direct from manufacturers, he gets it from friends and contacts at suppliers by begging.
 * If anything, the only "recognition" he gets is occasional complaints and DMCA take-down notices from companies like Siglent who are pissed off that his forum is used as a place to develop hacks that unlock functionality people have no paid for on their products. He has acknowledged that on Twitter before, but I didn't consider it worthy of inclusion. Would you agree? ゼーロ (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with what I don't know about. If you have well-sourced material for inclusion, that's what we're here for, include it! As for what is there in terms of sources, I intend to have a write/rewrite at some point soon - you can judge from that. --Tsavage (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 7 (Batteriser): Needs a rewrite, emphasizing the most important aspects as they relate to Jones involvement. The bit about dislikes should be de-emphasized. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned this in the previous section, it's an interesting debunk story, with Jones as the first to cry foul. Other outlets followed over time, and generally referring back to Jones original episode. That came out within a couple of days of when stories hit CNN and newspapers around the world, with headlines like "How to make your 'dead' batteries last eight times longer" (CNNMoney). Batteriser slammed Dave in that Sydney Morning Herald piece and maybe elsewhere (I'm looking), and then there was the YouTube dislikes thing, but Batteriser began changing claims in its literature, and other media continued to question the product, often citing Jones. Gizmodo did their "Don't Buy The Bullshit This Indiegogo Campaign Is Selling" near the end of Sept (also citing Jones), and almost to that day, Indiegogo campaign closed with $400,000. So, interesting, controversial, and Jones at the center, science vs marketing. --Tsavage (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Batterizer section needs deleting. It's extremely low quality. A he-said she-said take of childish arguing. Jones appears to have revelled in the opportunity to make some cash from a series of debunking videos, and the only secondary source coverage doesn't shed any light or lend any weight to either side. Since it's an on-going event and controversial, and Jones makes considerable amounts of money from his videos on the subject, without better secondary sources it shouldn't be included for multiple reasons. ゼーロ (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already disagreed, and stated my reasons, and my intention to work on it. There is no need to delete during ongoing editing and discussion, based only on opinion of source quality - recommended is to make concerns clear and allow editing to proceed for a reasonable period. --Tsavage (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Industry reaction section
Per BLP (we are going to follow it now, I assume), I removed the disputed section as having only primary sources, no independent sources, self-published sources, and press releases. There is nothing that suggests any of this is more than SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers.


 * Microchip Technology responded to one of Jones' largely negative reviews with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof, responding to the design criticisms.
 * Tektronix collaborated with Jones on a April Fools prank video concerning a minor effect of gravity on the accuracy of one of their products.
 * Silicon Labs embedded the EEVBlog Tiny Gecko review episode on their web site, and recommended it as a good video guide to their product.
 * Extech Instruments responded to praise from Jones with a press release covering in detail the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison.
 * On their web site, Cypress Semiconductor noted that Jones' had unpackaged their PSoC 5LP product in an EEVBlog "Mailbag" segment, and encourage readers to request a product review.

Here is an alternative version, illustrating the range of reactions of industry to Jones' reviews and style, with the Cypress Semiconductor item omitted as probably insubstantial (although it does continue to show the range of reactions - covering the opening of a package and urging readers to request a review seems like an unusual one...). These are all prominent, reputable companies, and the items occur spaced over the 5-6 years of the blog, so I believe they do indicate that the industry has recognized and values Jones' work as accurate and uniquely presented in the field. Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers.

In "EEVblog #39 - Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer/Debugger Review" (9:54), Jones published a negative evaluation of the PICkit 3, commenting:
 * "I reckon management took over ... designed it by committee, how can we do it different ... these MBA management types, that's what they're trained to do. ... So they completely dropped support for the really cool external programmer software ... and I don't reckon we'll ever get it back. Why? Because some dickhead manager at Microchip ... will never admit they're wrong. That dickhead is probably going to get promoted, too. ... I tried to find something good about this compared to the PICkit 2 but I can't really, it's worse in almost every respect. It wins the EEVBlog Retarded Product of the Week Award."

Days later, Microchip Technology replied on YouTube with a spoof video, "Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39" (7:40), where a fictional newly-hired manager with an MBA, D. Head (identified later in the video as Dick), reduces product quality and forces consumers to pay for upgrades in order to increase profits; the design engineers fight back by improving the product, and Mr. Head is eventually fired. In a follow-up EEVblog episode, Jones gave Microchip his first Flying Pig Award, described receiving a phone call from Microchip CEO, Steve Sanghi ("thanking me for raising the issues"), and commented, "It really is incredible that a multi-billion dollar huge corporation like Microchip Technologies would actually care about what someone like me says in my blog."

Extech Instruments covered the results of "EEVblog #91 - $50 Multimeter Shootout - Extech EX330, Amprobe AM220, Elenco, Vichy VC99, GS Pro-50" in a product press release, commenting on Jones' "candor, humor" and "characteristically irreverent and off-the-cuff style," and the "exhaustive 54-minute episode." The release includes frame grabs from the episode, and quotes liberally from the review.

Silicon Labs embedded the "EEVblog #269 - Energy Micro Tiny Gecko" (29:54) review in a company blog post, "EFM32 Tiny Gecko meets EEVblog," with the caption, "Not sure where to start ... ? Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog ... an electronics engineering video blog showing how to test various electronics design products in a unique and enthusiastic way."

Tektronix supported Jones' concept for a 2015 April Fool's prank, resulting in "eevBLAB #8 - New Tektronix AGO3000 Oscilloscope" (8:24), an EEVBlog preview of an imaginary new product featuring a "mechanical, gravitational field sensor" intended to compensate for the effect of gravity on precise measurements (a real but non-problematic phenomenon), with Jones commenting, “Awesome, Tektronix leading the field yet again. Gravity compensation. Look out for gravity compensation."

Fantastic, right!?! Altogether, it illustrates that Jones' style has an industry impact - for example, a $2 billion annual revenue company putting together a video entirely based on a Jones' review is significant, and frames the section as far as noteworthiness.

I don't see a BLP issue here. The manufacturer quotes (with the slight exception of Tektronix) are all secondary source comments on Jones' work, and as reputable electronics companies, they're reliable sources for topics related to their industry, if not independent (which isn't an issue here either, as there is nothing controversial or self-serving or likely to be untrue). Tektronix is a primary source for its own involvement, but that reference is not controversial, self-serving (they agreed on the idea for a prank video), or likely to be untrue. The material sourced to Jones' is straightforward description with quotes. There is no synthesis - anything possibly implied in the lead, as to his style and antics, has been established earlier, with source, and each item makes specific reference to and illustrates Jones' style.--Tsavage (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the same and similar sources doesn't address the problems. They are reliable for their viewpoints, but we need independent sources that demonstrate these viewpoints have encyclopedic value rather than just being SOAP violations. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion: not self-promotion and not promotion of others (especially when the sources have a vested interest in such promotion). --Ronz (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be operating on a profoundly broad and vague interpretation of WP:SOAP. Saying "SOAP violations" means nothing without making clear what you see as the specific problem in this instance. You are repeatedly refusing to elaborate, and against several editors asking the same questions of you: please make clear what you are talking about. Which sentence(s) of which item are advertising or self-promotion, and why?


 * "we need independent sources that demonstrate these viewpoints have encyclopedic value" - In this context, we don't need an outside source to say that these items are noteworthy, because the scope of the article and the section make it clear that they are noteworthy: an article about Jones, who is notable for reviewing electronics products, and comments from established, reputable electronics companies concerning Jones' reviews of electronics products, is squarely within the scope of this article. --Tsavage (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While I don't think you are intentionally ignoring what I write, it's getting tiresome.
 * How about you make a case rather for your position by quoting policies and guidelines or similar WP:GA articles where similar problems have been discussed and the outcome supports your interpretation on how this should be addressed? --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ignoring what I write"?! I quote what you write, as I just did, to make it perfectly clear that I am replying to what you write.
 * How about you make a case rather for your position by quoting policies and guidelines That is what I have done throughout. A lot of our core guidance is simply the common sense of reasonable people, like determining what is noteworthy, and I choose not to stuff my comments with unnecessary abbreviations. If you think something I'm saying is against policy, let me know, that's what discussion is about. I do cite, and quote, policy when I think it is necessary to support a point. Meanwhile, you've been asked repeatedly to make clear specific policies and guidelines you're referring to, and only reply by pointing to entire pages and multi-point sections - you should do what you suggest I do. --Tsavage (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "we need independent sources that demonstrate these viewpoints have encyclopedic value" - Ronz, you're basically claiming that we need a source to back up the source. Where will it end? Agree with Tsavage: These are completely sufficient to demonstrate the claim that "Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers." That claim, if true, has encyclopedic value; it is not at all "pure SOAP" as you accused. The sources are there to show the truth of the claim. We don't need to recurse deeper than that. Jeh (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It begins and ends with our policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no BLP policy violation in the material you removed. Jeh (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus for that removal and, more generally, no consensus for your extremely narrow interpretation of BLP. Again: BLP has no blanket prohibition on the use of primary sources and you have not demonstrated that this material violates any of BLP's absolute requirements. Jeh (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP. You'll note that consensus is required for inclusion, not the reverse. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:BLP, you're pointing to an entire page. You repeatedly refuse to be specific, after several editors have asked multiple times. If you're citing policy, then the onus is on you to actually cite the specifically relevant policy statement, not point at pages (like WP:BLP) and sections of pages with several cases (like WP:SOAP). You can't expect meaningful discussion if you don't make sufficiently clear for others to understand what you are referring to. --Tsavage (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."
 * "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
 * "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."
 * That's just from the introduction to BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the material you removed violates any of that. The claim the article is making is simply "Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers.". This claim is followed by a number of point examples. In those I see no original research (pretty tough for you to claim OR when we're using direct quotes), I see nothing contentious, I see completely sufficient sourcing to back up the claim. Jeh (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jeh, nothing in this section violates anything you have cited, and there is nothing one might consider at all controversial. Furthermore, you've cherrypicked from broad introductory wording, which doesn't in fact make clear how you're specifically connecting material here to that policy. For example, you included "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material" but omitted the "burden" link, which leads to more policy, WP:VERIFY, and specifically, WP:BURDEN, which says:
 * All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. ... Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
 * WP:BURDEN further specifies:
 * Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people .
 * So looking at "burden" in full context, it refers to unsourced material, where all of the material here is sourced. And even if you are arguing poor sourcing in a BLP, the explicit standard for removal is if it might damage a person's reputation. Nothing here comes near to that.
 * Furthermore, while WP:BLP advises particular care with all aspects of BLP content, it is focused on preventing the publication of contentious, damaging material, and does not read as a license to police non-controversial content about a non-controversial subject, at the individual sentence level, as you have been doing. --Tsavage (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. There's nothing even approaching a BLP violation here. Jeh (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "poorly sourced material" is the concern here. "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This isn't just about libel and damaging a person's reputation, hence "negative, positive, neutral" rather than just "negative". --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence you just quoted is all about handling of "contentious material". There isn't anything contentious in the subject material, and anyway we disagree over your claim that it's "poorly sourced". Jeh (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: ′This isn't just about libel and damaging a person's reputation, hence "negative, positive, neutral" rather than just "negative".' Your interpretation again is overly literal and goes against a reasonable, common sense reading of policy. Contentious material can be positive, neutral, or negative.
 * Stating that Miss USA is the most beautiful one of all reflects positively on the subject, but is likely to be contentious (even when well-sourced).
 * Stating where a murder suspect lives, which happens to be near the victim, as is made clear by other info in the article, is neutral as far as a simple location, but in this context would obviously be seen as contentious. And so forth.
 * BLP contentiousness is a function of perception of the content, not generic nature of the statement, and yes, something damaging to reputation is not exclusively the source of contentiousness, only the most serious one, and probably most common, and the grounds singled out for BLP content removal per BURDEN, as noted above. And there is nothing contentious, by any policy standard, in this article.


 * In any case, the reasonable reading of the content in question is simply as an illustration of what these companies have said, which has no more accurate source than the primary one - IOW, we're not using the sources to say Jones is this way or that, we're just showing what these companies have said. So your problem with "poor sourcing" is answered.


 * You're back to arguing that we need a secondary source to confirm what the primary source said, which is not so. A secondary source in such cases is only used to establish the noteworthiness of the item, and here, there is no argument that the reaction of reputable companies to Jones' unique style is noteworthy in an article about Jones. This has already been addressed by more than one editor previously. --Tsavage (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"BLP contentiousness is" could clarify why you believe this by quoting from our policies and guidelines?

I'm arguing that primary sources provide no weight, hence the need to be far more caution when using them.

I believe these are poor sources. Because they are poor sources they should not be used without support from sources that are not so poor. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "I'm arguing that primary sources provide no weight". None? Not even for simple quotations where the source is only being used to confirm that the source said what we say it did? Nonsense! There is nothing I can find in P&G that even suggests such a thing, only that they must be used "with caution" or similar wording. Using a primary source in this fashion is completely within bounds. Jeh (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm sorry, but it appears you don't understand what a primary source is. The breakdown you have given is simply incorrect. If we cannot agree upon what a primary source is, we cannot discuss how many there are nor when/if they are appropriate."
 * We don't include quotes just to include quotes. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: I'm sorry, but this is beyond tedious. Secondary sources provide weight in the sense that a primary source is only used for straightforward description of itself ("Y according to X" - verify by reading X yourself, where it says Y). A secondary source comments on X and Y, and so indicates that a third-party has seen fit to take notice - if it is a reliable third-party, someone we can trust with suitable expertise, then that indicates a higher level of "weight" than a similar item with no such secondary coverage.


 * This is the general rule we use to establish notability and at times, noteworthiness, however, it only applies when there is a question as to how above or beneath our encyclopedic notice something should be. In this case, there is no question that reputable companies reacting to Jones' work is noteworthy, in this context, in this article, as we give examples of a specific type of reaction that takes into account Jones' signature style. We do not need additional sources to tell us this is noteworthy.


 * ""BLP contentiousness is" could clarify why you believe this by quoting from our policies and guidelines?" This is almost nonsensical. What I wrote was: "BLP contentiousness is a function of perception of the content, not generic nature of the statement" meaning, contentiousness is contextual and subjective. If I say, "You're a smart guy," that would generally be perceived as a positive statement, but if you had built a career on being the dumbest guy in the room, that would likely be a contentious statement to you and anyone familiar with you, and could have the potential to damage your reputation. As for that being in PAGs, you see "use common sense" at the top of just about every guideline. --Tsavage (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

See "Critical response" in film articles for wider consensus on source usage
Another way to look at this particular situation is to compare it to the "Critical response" standard section in film articles (per WP:MOSFILM), where the form is:
 * summary statement: e.g. "The film received mainly positive reviews."
 * evidence/example: Representative excerpts from reputable film critics
 * sourcing criteria: usually based on the stature of the publication in which the critic appears

This parallels the form here. We state that Jones' style and antics have been recognized by the electronics industry, as a summary of the examples of several comments by reputable members of the electronics industry.

You may wish to take issue with that film article convention, arguing against the MOSFILM guideline, or against how it is commonly used, and that is certainly possible as every PAG interpretation is arguable, and we do go case by case, not generally by "what's done over there," HOWEVER, we ultimately go by the widest consensus available, and as the film case is sufficiently similar, it is reasonable to agree that there is broad consensus for this sort of construction and use of sources. Therefore, drawing this out and tying up editors time becomes disruptive: editors here should present equally specific reasons why this is against policy and general consensus, or we should just move forward.

Regarding primary and secondary sources, to be thorough, the film critic and electronics industry material can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on context. In Wikipedia's definition, it is primary if used to illustrate the process and thinking of the film critic/electronics industry, and secondary if used for the analysis of its subject. The designation of the source doesn't really matter here, as primary and secondary sources are equally acceptable when used appropriately (see highlighted Policy paragraphs in WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY); that said, in this situation, the intent of the usage can be seen as both primary, as far as describing industry reaction, and secondary, in describing Jones' style. If you disagree, please state your counter-argument plainly. --Tsavage (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a film article. It's a BLP. Also, "usually based on the stature of the publication in which the critic appears" generally rules out self-published articles by involved parties. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An "involved party" here would be Jones himself, not someone commenting on him or on EEVblog. Just because someone is in the industry doesn't make them "involved" with EEVblog. Jeh (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This not a BLP issue. There is nothing contentious, there is no reason to doubt the sources, the content is easily verifiable from the sources. You continue to ignore requests to make your objections clear: repeatedly pointing to an entire page of policy is just obstructive.


 * Discussion seems hopelessly stalled. If any other editors wish to weigh in on this Talk section (Industry reaction section), I'm considering requesting a formal close. --Tsavage (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Ronz - Doing my own research into your vaguely stated objection, I believe this is the heart of it:
 * "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." WP:SELFPUBLISH
 * The only thing in "Industry reaction" (second version, above) that may fit that rule is Extech noting Jones' "candor, humor" and "characteristically irreverent and off-the-cuff style," and this is all supported by the secondary source citation in the introductory sentence, which notes the same characteristics (I just added the citation here, the same info was already sourced where it appeared earlier in the article, but why not add it again). All of the rest of the material is straightforward description. So again, I don't see your objections as based in policy. --Tsavage (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "this is all supported by the secondary source citation in the introductory sentence" This is the same line of reasoning that I mentioned with the Cohen ref. Still, the concern remains and some editors appear oblivious to it: the publications exist primarily for promotion. Using them would then appear to be a SOAP violation. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the microchip response merits a brief note, maybe one sentence. No need to go into detail. They did clearly put some effort into the response though, not just five minutes by someone in marketing. The rest is not even close IMHO. ゼーロ (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: We seem to be almost in agreement here. The remaining questions are, how detailed the Microchip mention, and whether to remove the other examples for not meeting the same level of reaction to Jones. My position is, from the AfD - formal consensus level - we've agreed the sources we have so far are thin and that the subject is notable, so we should try to do the best we can. All the items taken together, with the detailed Microchip mention, do fairly illustrate industry reaction to Jones' go-for-it style (and none of it presents anything in a favorable or promotional light, e.g. Microchip all but admitting to dickheaded design decisions). At the point where we have an in-depth Jones/EEVBlog profile article that notes this industry reaction, we can consider revising the section. Until then, this appears to add noteworthy, verifiable information in an encyclopedic style. --Tsavage (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the items "fairly illustrate industry reaction". That seems like OR to me. If you could find a good source to back up that assertion you might get somewhere. As it is all that the sources you have listed so far show is that those companies' marketing departments use social media and sometimes respond to bloggers with a quick post or two. The only one that seems to go beyond that is the Microchip one, but even that is borderline because it is a primary source and we seem to be drawing conclusions from it. It's a group of Microchip engineers, it doesn't seem to be an "official" response from the company IYSWIM. That's why we really need a good secondary source that has looked into this to determine if Jones really does have any influence. In fact I'd argue that there is evidence to the contrary, like the fact that big industry players ignore all the blatant copyright infringement and hacking of their products that goes on on his forum. ゼーロ (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: I understand your argument, and have in your previous comments, up to the point where you bring in your own analysis of the situation, as you do here, for example, by speculating that "big industry players ignore all the blatant copyright infringement and hacking of their products that goes on on his forum" - we should stick to sources. Here is support for the section in outline form:
 * "Industry reaction" proposition: describes Jones' signature style (i.e. off-the-cuff, humoroous, irreverent); supported by secondary source
 * Example 1: describes Microchip's 7-min skit video on YouTube, plotline taken directly from Jones' product review comments; sourced to the video
 * Example 2: describes Extech product release that notes Jones' signature style (humor, candor, in-depth), and extensively quotes from the Jones' review; supported by the release
 * Example 3: describes Silicon Labs posting Jones' review of one of its products in its entirety (by embedded video), and noting in the caption Jones' "unique and enthusiastic way"; supported by the post
 * Example 4: describes Tektronix participation with Jones in a prank video about an imaginary product under the Tektronix brand, with a video embed of the episode; sourced to the post
 * So we have four instances of reputable companies in that industry, going to clear and obvious lengths not to merely acknowledge yet another product review, but to actively recognize Jones' particular signature: humorous, irreverent, off-the-cuff, and in-depth. There is no question that the example sources are definitive sourcing for the content. The examples are also clearly industry reaction. The lead sentence does not synthesize a conclusion based on these examples, it simply makes a sourced statement and describes and counts the examples: "have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers." I really can't see this as anything different than a "Critical reaction" section quoting film critics - here, the noteworthy aspect is that these are highly reputable companies, by our standards each notable and with article, and not tiny, nearly unknown companies.


 * A reliable source with an in-depth feature profile on Jones' would be helpful; until such a time, since we do have reasonably broad consensus on notability (insofar as AfD is site-wide), we should do what we can with what we have. This is factual and verifiable information, based on the best available reliable sources, and adheres to policy. --Tsavage (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me try again. I was bringing my own analysis to show that you are doing the same thing, and that someone else might disagree with you. Unless the conclusion is made by a secondary source then it's just OR. You are also conflating two things here. Okay, there is Jones' style, but we already have a source for that and it isn't being contested. You could add these further sources if you really want to, it won't make much difference. But the issue of there being an industry reaction is separate, and my point (which I keep making, and you keep failing to address) is that the mere fact that these companies chose to write these blog posts is not reason to include them. You are assigning undue weight to them based on your own OR - you went out and found a number of them, and then used their number to make a conclusion (that "major and reputable" (in your opinion) companies recognize Jones' work.
 * The effort put in to the Microchip video, and the fact that you really really really want to include it, makes me think that we could mention it in a single sentence without drawing a conclusion about an "industry reaction", especially since it is just some engineers at Microchip and seemingly not an official response. That's pushing the boat out a bit, but I think other editors might accept it.
 * To answer your point about "critical reaction" sections, those are reactions from professional critics whose job is to review stuff. These are electronics/T&M companies who, like most, have a marketing/sales department that runs a blog and SNS accounts. Basic SNS use as a marketing tool means responding to mentions and work by others, to increase the number of networked users and exposure of marketing messages. It seems most likely that employees of these companies in the marketing departments reacted in the hope of getting some of Jones' viewers/followers to start following them too. In other words, they are not offering a critical opinion or making any kind of judgement, they are just jumping on the bandwagon. ゼーロ (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A great deal of the sources we use on WP are written by people who were paid to write the material; that isn't a valid criticism. Re "It seems most likely that...", that may seem "most likely" to you, but to me that reads like pure speculation on your part. That isn't a valid reason for exclusion either. And yes, it is a "judgment", namely that the authors thought Jones' videos were worthy of comment. Even if they did think they were "jumping on the bandwagon" (another point of pure OR by you), if that were demonstrably true, then I would comment that there would be no point in trying to get Jones' followers to look at their sites if they didn't think he had any, or if they thought Jones' followers were of low quality. Jeh (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the point... I'm not sure how else I can explain it, so I urge you to re-read what I wrote and try to see the bigger picture rather than concentrating on finding specific examples that you think fit your reasoning. For example, it's not the fact that people were paid to write something - obviously journalists don't work for free. It's their motivation in writing it. Journalists do at least, in theory, try to present some objective reporting and opinion on things, as that is supposed to be their value. I'm not going to discuss the nature of journalism here, but can you at least understand why reputable publications are not the same as what amounts to a press release put out by a marketing department? If not, then there is no point debating this further.
 * Also, once again, and please try to take this on-board this time, I'm not making assertions or doing OR here. I'm merely pointing out that the material is open to interpretation, and thus unuitable for use in this way. The interpretation needs to be done by reputable sources, not by editors, so your argument that these companies are reputable or industry leaders and that they "recognized" Jones is irrelevant. You need to find reputable 2nd sources that make those determinations, as they are not simple statements of fact about the primary sources (e.g. stats). I'm trying to point out that your interpretation is not the only possible one, and thus we need reputable 2nd sources. Can you see the issue now? ゼーロ (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing your point, I just think it's invalid. We're not trying to claim, in the article, anything other than that these sources said what they said. There's no "interpretation" happening. Jeh (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: In reply to your repeated assertions that you are not being understood: you are repeating your point over and over at length, and interpreting the fact that other editors don't agree with it as their failure to understand it.


 * You say, "It's their motivation in writing it." That's absolutely irrelevant, and we know their motivation, they are covering their media coverage for PR and promotional purposes, that's what company news posts, press releases, and the like are about. The section in question is "Industry reaction," which is just that, and none of the attributes of that reaction matter - motivation of the writers, content, quality - all that matters is that it is from reputable sources, which in this case means established companies. No claims are being extracted, no conclusions drawn, an "Industry reaction" section simply and as titled illustrates...industry reaction: this is what the industry said.
 * We have the actual reactions as primary sources, the best possible source for straightforward description.
 * We have noteworthiness established by the fact that the reaction is about Jones' work, and is from reputable companies in their industry.
 * We have an introductory sentence that points out an additional aspect of the reaction that we are covering, that the examples mention Jones' style.
 * That' all there is to it. We don't need a source to identify what is industry reaction, that is a straightforward description, all "reaction" means is "PR/publicity material and any other public utterances by significant entities in the electronics industry - reputable manufacturers - that have Jones' work as the central subject." --Tsavage (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Explain what sources you have to show that it is an "industry reaction", i.e. demonstrate that those companies reacted in some meaningful way. I contend that they didn't react in any meaningful sense, and that they are unsuitable as sources for Jones' style for the reasons outlined above. You need to address these points directly. To be absolutely clear I am saying that what you wrote above does not cover it, e.g. the marketing department's "reaction" to Jones' work does not establish noteworthiness. ゼーロ (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "reaction" is novel and interesting, but also somewhat tendentious: Would we include a "reaction" if it was stated at the source that "all media on this site is 100% computer-generated using promotional and media recognition algorithms"? Sure, if it originated from a reputable company, was publicly issued, and concerned the subject, it would qualify as normal "industry reaction." The noteworthiness standard is not particularly high, most of our rules concern notability at article level, and then, sourcing at in-article level. Here, the fact that reputable companies in his industry have published dedicated media announcements of one sort or another solely focused on Jones' work is sufficient to indicate noteworthiness as an indication that the industry acknowledges, recognizes, pays attention to Jones, aka reaction.


 * You can separate the reactions from the lead sentence, "have been the subject of reactions," and the reactions themselves still stand, for example: "Jones' work has been commented on by manufacturers in the electronics industry." So you're arguing against inclusion of the reactions using something that is not central to the inclusion of that material. --Tsavage (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just bizarre and nonsensical. There are thousands of article on Wikipedia about people who posted something on social media that might have been re-tweeted or liked or commented on or responded to by the marketing department of a large corporation. The fact that they "react", by your strange definition, to all sorts of random people and bots just makes the whole thing seem even less worthy of note. If you still disagree then I suggest you ask for an editor to come and adjudicate. ゼーロ (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPSPS says, "Never use self-published sources". --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What WP:BLPSPS says is: "Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person." We are not doing that. We are using the company sites as sources of description of their own published material, not about the LP Jones. And we are not extracting any claim, only describing. There is nothing remotely contentious in any of it. So, should not be a problem. --Tsavage (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry? It appears to me that they are being used to provide info about Jones. Do explain what they are being used for instead that is not about Jones. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They are providing info about themselves, we are using them for straightforward descriptions of their own press releases, videos, and whatnot. We are not using material from them to describe Jones or his work, and we are not inviting readers to interpret the clearly attributed content as anything more than what companies said in their media releases.


 * As far as BLP, if anything in the industry material reflected badly on Jones - was potentially damaging or otherwise contentious - then we would probably want backup from a secondary source to establish noteworthiness specifically for that contentious BLP material, like, NY Times noting that Company X said bad things about Jones in their press release (the chances of that in this case seem slim, stakeholders of a reputable electronics company are not likely to condone defamatory rants in the company name, opening them to lawsuits, bad publicity, ill will, and so forth). In any case, there is nothing contentious, and that all seems reasonable to me. --Tsavage (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to talk up people you like or list nice things about them. The article badly needs secondary sources. ゼーロ (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ Everything in Wikipedia editing comes down to interpretation - I believe you're taking that to a very fine-pointed extreme, but that's your prerogative. At this point, we need additional input. I'll continue to add material to the article. I'll pursue additional input when I have time (I've been trying to make things work strictly locally, rather than tie up editors on a wider level at noticeboards and whatnot). --Tsavage (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do that before adding this material back into the article. We want to avoid an edit war. ゼーロ (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "They are providing info about themselves" I'm finding it very difficult to understand how anyone could make such a statement. If we're going to pursue this, I think it would be helpful to focus on specifics: Pick a source from the bunch, quote the proposed content verified from the source, and quote the the material in the source being used for verification. Discuss it a bit then create a clear RfC if we cannot come to consensus on it.
 * "there is nothing contentious" Repeating this doesn't make it so. The need to repeat it seems to be evidence to the contrary. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: "They are providing info about themselves" I'm finding it very difficult to understand how anyone could make such a statement." - What's so hard to understand? The sources are the actual media reaction items we are covering, one YouTube video, and three company web site posts. We are using those as primary sources to describe them. The sources obviously contain information about Jones' and his work, but we are not using those sources to make claims about Jones. So, if we agree the info they contain is contentious, then there is a BLP problem. Otherwise, it's just things said attributed to the companies who said them, not things we are saying about Jones based on them.


 * "I think it would be helpful to focus on specifics: Pick a source from the bunch, quote the proposed content verified from the source, and quote the the material in the source being used for verification. Discuss it a bit ..." Whaaaa?! Policy says: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. - WP:PRIMARY. If any of those items fails that test, then you have a point. Otherwise, I see no problem with the sourcing.


 * "then create a clear RfC if we cannot come to consensus on it" No, you can do that if you want, much as I dislike the idea of wasting more editors' time, I'm considering taking it to the noticeboards, beginning, I think, with WP:BLPN to see if there are opinions on whether there's anything contentious in "Industry reaction." Then, I guess it would be, WP:RSN on the sourcing issues, which should handle any OR, SOAP, NPOV or other issues as well. I hope you and ゼーロ get some support, because otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. (For me, call it a learning exercise. :) --Tsavage (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

They are self-published sources that you want to use as sources for information related to Jones. I've never seen such sourcing allowed in a BLP article that is held to BLP, nor can I understand how anyone would think that they are appropriate. I've offered yet another, common strategy for resolving such disputes. Sorry that you've rejected it. --Ronz (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Searching for similar GA articles
None of the these five are GA: http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/top-youtube-vloggers/11285 --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Nor http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2656209/The-teen-phenomenon-thats-taking-Youtube.html --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

From WP:GA/ET's "Websites and the Internet" subsection: DeSmogBlog, Whedonesque.com. I searched all the GA listings for "blog" and couldn't find any other articles except for the "Websites and the Internet" subsection. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for Neutrality tag
Ronz: Several days ago, you added an NPOV tag, I am still not clear on your reasons, and you haven't stated them here on the Talk page in a way that passing editors (and I) can easily inform themselves - tags should lead to actionable specifics. Your edit summary says:
 * "BLP violations, SOAP violations - tagging with NPOV until we can get editors to follow BLP and either remove the content or get consensus for its inclusion"

The BLP violations and SOAP violations haven't been made clear, to me, and to other editors, and that discussion is spread out over several sections. Which content you're referring to is unclear. And the "get editors to follow BLP" implies some sort of debate involving specific editors, but I haven't seen anyone on this page not following BLP - if that is your opinion, it's up to you to make it clear who the BLP-transgressors are, since that is important enough to be worth your noting.

Also, the page has changed substantially since you tagged it, in good measure due to your own content deletions, so what the tag refers to now is additionally confusing.

Please make your reasons for tagging this article clear and up-to-date. Giving examples of SOAP and BLP violations taken from the text would be helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP: 1) "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."
 * And: 5) "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."
 * I think such problems are resolved by
 * 1) following BLPs "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"
 * 2) and following NPOV, especially WP:BESTSOURCES and noting that poorly sourced information may simply not be WP:DUE. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz: You quote rules, but fail to give a single example from the article that editors can use to assess and if necessary remedy the problems you find. Your argument now appears to be, "I think this article violates SOAP 1 and 5, by containing 'Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment' and 'Advertising, marketing or public relations,' so to avoid that, let's use only high quality sources, and I find the current sources are low quality." My question is, does every item in the article - the whole article - violate SOAP 1 and 5, and if not, which items do violate 1 and which violate 5. It is a simple request for you to make your claims specific and actionable, in order to support the NPOV tag you've placed on the article. --Tsavage (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE has frequently been mentioned. Ok, let's review WP:Neutrality:
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * I don't see a problem with the article in this regard. If anything, Ronz and others have been vigorously trying to find reasons to exclude "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", rather than the opposite. But let's continue:
 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
 * Do you see? This has to do with giving appropriate emphasis to various viewpoints in an article that presents several opposing ones. Or ignoring some viewpoints if they're the position of a "tiny minority". To correctly use WP:DUE to exclude sources here, they would have to present the viewpoints of a tiny minority, and for that to happen there would have to be a much larger majority with an opposing view. But there is no such opposing majority, certainly not one whose opinions are being ignored. There is simply no WP:DUE or WP:Neutrality issue here. (The fact that some editors think Jones does not deserve an article doesn't count.) Jeh (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: I entirely agree with Jeh's review of WP:DUE, which you cited as part of your reasoning for placing an NPOV tag on the article. To elaborate (as you really do not seem to be hearing what others are saying), you say:
 * "poorly sourced information may simply not be WP:DUE"
 * ...suggesting that poor sourcing may indicate that there is only a "tiny minority" holding the "view" in question. In fact, it is not a "view" we are talking about, it is statements by reputable companies about the substance and presentation of material that concerns them, i.e. their reaction to coverage of their products. That is made clear in the section title, "Industry reaction." They are the only parties who could present these statements. As Jeh explained, by definition there can be no "competing views," as these are not viewpoints, they are simple, unilateral statements, covered as such.


 * IOW... We are not saying, for example, "Jones displays candor and humor in his reviews," cited to company media, what the content says is what Company X stated, with quotations and clear attribution. This is how we're illustrating industry reaction. There is no better source for that - none more likely to be 100% accurate - than the company statement itself, and there is no reasonable likelihood of third-party sources holding a "different view" by claiming the company did not make this or that statement. I don't see how DUE applies here. Which possible other views about what may we be under-representing? --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "it is statements by reputable companies about the substance and presentation of material that concerns them" That's a view. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a view. That wasn't the question and that wasn't disputed. The question is whether or not there is any reasonable likelihood that there are other sources holding a "different view", sources we are ignoring or downplaying, which is the only way we could be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the sources we're using. Since there is no such likelihood there is no issue of UNDUE here.
 * You seem to be arguing that since you find the sources inadequate, they ipso facto must represent a view to which we're giving UNDUE weight, and that the only possible fix is to find what you consider "better sources". That's an absurd argument. There is no better source for these companies said than their own statements as published in their own online materials. Jeh (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad we agree it's a view.
 * Why do these companies' views deserve mention in an encyclopedia article about Jones? --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The material is sourced and solidly within the scope of the article, indicating reaction by reputable members of the industry to Jones' work - so the question is to you, why don't these companies' views deserve mention in this article? --Tsavage (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These are not viewpoints about a topic that may be represented in an imbalanced way, in terms of WP:UNDUE. There is no "agreeing it's a view" in that sense. If these statements contain anything contentious, then BLP could be considered, but there is no contentious content by any stretch in any of the material. Meanwhile, DUE is an entirely different consideration, and there is no setting for competing views about anything in "Industry reaction," other than the original statement in the lead sentence describing Jones' style, which is cited to a secondary source.


 * You are creating an endless circle of policy charges - SOAP, NPOV, verifiability - and trying to argue them by definition, and not responding to repeated requests for specific examples. Please cite a single example from the text, and explain how you find it violates any or all of SOAP, NPOV and/or verifiability.


 * Failure to be clear in content debate with other editors is a violation of editing policy: Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. - WP:UNRESPONSIVE. Repeatedly tagging an article, deleting sourced content, and reverting changes, over a period of days and weeks, during ongoing discussion where other editors are repeatedly objecting, is certainly some ways down the radical and controversial edit scale. --Tsavage (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronz Furthermore, since this would appear to be the relevant Talk discussion referred to in the NPOV tag you placed, we seem to have focused on the industry reaction section of the article, which was removed (by you) days ago, so I'm even less clear as to what the NPOV tag is referring to right now. Please clarify. --Tsavage (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tag removed. Using in-lines instead. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about inline-tagging
Ronz You continue to turn this article into some sort of battle, tagging under various policies - SOAP, verifiability, NPOV - and arguing broad rules, but repeatedly failing to provide specific examples. And you have not improved content by fixing it, only sought to delete and tag it, and occasionally undo your own tagging and deleting. Now you have have indicated specific content, by placed "non-primary source needed" tags on two citations of this:


 * cite book|last=Osborn|first=Steven|title=Makers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time|chapter=Dave Jones, Host, EEVBlog|date=17 September 2013|publisher=Apress|publication-date=17 September 2013|isbn=978-1430259923|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LXjiAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA229&dq=makers+at+work+dave+jones&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LiZPVeazJMbm8AX574DQAg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=makers%20at%20work%20dave%20jones&f=false

The material used is from the introduction to an interview, it does not draw on interview material. An interview is only a primary source when the actual interview is the source. Just because we call an article an "interview" doesn't mean every word in it is a primary source. We could have an "interview" that consists of an article-length introduction of many hundreds of words followed by a Q&A conversation, and all of the intro is secondary source attributable to the author and publication. The usage here is no different, regardless of the fact that the introductory text is brief. Please self-revert these latest tags. --Tsavage (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't like it. Could you please WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The focus on content, above, is asking you why you have placed primary source tags on secondary source citations. You have addressed the first two sentences, which repeat earlier concerns with editing policy, specifically, editing controversially while failing to make the reasons for your actions clear, which directly affects this article's content at the moment.


 * You have not answered the main question: Can you explain your primary source tags on a secondary source? --Tsavage (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking everything. Looks fine. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP: "self-taught"
I removed "self-taught" is in the lead sentence - "self-taught electronic engineer" - as I don't see support for it in the cited sources, and do see support in those sources for some degree of formal training. The citation notes a sentence by Jones from an interview:
 * "I started by taking stuff apart and trying to figure out how they worked."

That sentence in full context is:
 * "I started by taking stuff apart and trying to figure out how they worked. And then I got a Tandy/Radio Shack 50-in-1 Electronics Kit when I was about six or seven, and I never looked back."

In addition, in same cited sources, Jones says:
 * "the thing I found when I went to study electronics, because I had been doing it since I was a young kid"
 * "then I went to study it full time"
 * "there were few other people I ran into during my formal study that really seemed to care, that really had a passion for it"

So it would appear, if he is to be believed, that Jones engaged in formal electronics training, though what type, and whether he is credentialed in any way, is so far unclear.

There's nothing wrong with being "self-taught," but as applied in the article, it appears to state that Jones has no formal training, which is no doubt seen by some as a negative, and so should be well-sourced, not arrived at by interpreting a comment about childhood activity as applying to the entirety of Jones education to date.--Tsavage (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to figure it out as well, but I'm not finding any sources that make it clear. I think it is WP:SYN to include without better sources, but it does appear he's self-taught. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jones seems to kinda sidestep the question, usually going back to childhood, but that may be a hobbyist framing as well, the self-taught, since he was a kid thing. He does make that reference to studying electronics full-time, maybe he went to a trade/vocational school, it doesn't sound like he's an electrical engineer in a university degree sense. But that's all speculation, more definitive info will probably turn up sooner or later.


 * I did spend 10 minutes looking into engineering credentials (though not electrical specifically), and it seems like the term engineer is used quite loosely, and varies by country and state. There's certification that's apart from university that you need to legally work in certain situations in a lot of places, so just having a degree doesn't seem a huge thing in terms of employment, and there are apparently lots of engineering jobs where particular qualifications don't matter, like, if you're not working directly for the public, instead designing stuff internally within a company. Bottom line, seems like to be called an electronics engineer doesn't have specific requirements. That's my quick impression, and Jones is called an EE in just about every source. --Tsavage (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not followed how Wikipedia uses licensed job titles, and I'm unaware if such licensing applies in Australia for electronic engineers. It's well-sourced as a description for Jones, so I think we're fine. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for dispute resolution
Things seem to have broken down, so I have requested assistance to resolve the disputes over the content of this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DDavid_L._Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by ゼーロ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 November 2015‎

μWatch section
I agree it looks overly promotional. Let me look at the sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"In 2008, Jones released the μWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400. Engadget noted of the μWatch, 'Calculator watches, a staple of the average's geek wardrobe since before your grandmother was born, have been called out, as David Jones' own homegrown version totally trumps anything out there on the pre-fabricated market today.' bit-tech described it as 'a four-level HP-style reverse Polish notation stack,' 'crazily powerful' and 'just about the nerdiest thing you'll ever wear on your wrist.' The μWatch is built entirely from off-the-shelf parts, with a 16-bit Microchip processor and 64K of flash memory, with DIY instructions and firmware is open source software."

Murph is an extremely short announcement. While it is a secondary source, quoting 1/3 of the entire announcement seems undue. I don't see why it should be removed completely. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking closer Murph is a churn of http://www.ohgizmo.com/2008/04/16/diy-calculator-watch-will-make-you-king-of-the-nerds/ . It's a preview, as Jones was developing it at the time. I don't think we should be using preview sources when post-release sources are available. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to have two issues here, though it's not entirely clear, so please correct me if I'm wrong:
 * 1."Looking closer Murph is a churn" Churnalism is not exactly a precisely-defined thing - use of prefab content is a broad area, there are news agencies, press releases, various other sources where a good deal of the source is used in a new article - so I won't argue that. However, in problogs, it's been a common practice for larger publications like Engadget to pick up items from smaller and/or more specialized blogs, and give them read-on credit via a prominent link to the source. Done well, this only provides efficiency, creating a wider contributor network, with a similar effect to that of using newspaper stringers. The end publication generally adds its own editorial, which is what we are concerned with in the Engadget item - what you are calling a churn is actually Engadget just using a source.


 * 2."I don't think we should be using preview sources when post-release sources are available." In this case, I don't see how the idea of "preview" is relevant. The watch is primarily a DIY project - releasing plans is common in the electronics hobby world, see the reference in Make: to Jones having published projects in electronics magazines since he was 15 - and not a conventional, finished commercial product (it was only ever released as a build it yourself kit). Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable and normal to comment on the project based on the prototype, parts list and so forth, from that it is clear to someone with the expertise exactly what the item is. This is not at all the same case as applying a review of a concept version, say, of a next-year's-model car, to the eventual production model.


 * I hope this addresses your concerns. --Tsavage (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Halfacree is another announcement, but almost 3x the size of Murph. I'm unclear what "with DIY instructions" refers to or why it should be included. I don't know why Microchip needs mentioning. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What do others think of http://makezine.com/2008/08/25/made-on-earth-form-and-functions/ as a potential source? --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: Point by point...


 * "it looks overly promotional" - Your definition of promotional is not clear - how is including that reliable, independent secondary sources found something to be excellent, top of its category...promotional. What you characterize as "announcements" are articles covering new products, in reputable publications that exist to cover new products: as such, they are part news, part review. Neither of them are simple regurgitation of press releases, they include critical commentary, which was mostly what was quoted. Engadget is a major technology/consumer electronics news site. bit-tech is a prominent electronics/computer tech specialty site. Both found the uWatch to be exceptional, and this is what is noted in the article. There are other sources, I included what I thought the most representative, I didn't pile in every ref I could find because there is no reason to, and editing is ongoing.


 * "Murph is an extremely short announcement. While it is a secondary source, quoting 1/3 of the entire announcement seems undue." - It's an entire published piece, a brief one. On what basis, other than your opinion, are you asserting that we can only use a certain percentage of a source, based on its length? That seems absurd. If a high-quality source chooses to cover a subject in 300 words instead of 3,000, one would expect that 300 words to contain the essential information, therefore, 100% of it would be prime for inclusion.


 * "I'm unclear what 'with DIY instructions' refers to or why it should be included. I don't know why Microchip needs mentioning." At the risk of this sounding like a little lecture, writing for a general audience is more than just observing a bunch of fact-gathering rules, you need to take the nature of each subject into account. Are you familiar with electronic engineering, the electronic hobbyist world, the maker world? I am not, so when I write about it, I cam careful to look for details and nuances that would be important and meaningful to more knowledgeable readers for that subject area, while giving other general readers a more comprehensive view. You gain this quick insight into unfamiliar areas mostly by reading and listening. In this respect:
 * Do-it-yourself is central to electronics hobbyists and makers (obviously), and the fact that you can build the watch from off the shelf parts, with instructions provided, is a pertinent fact. The fact that schematics and how-to instructions are available could be made clearer, although that sentence, ending with, "with DIY instructions and open source software" is a statement that you can build it yourself that seems easily understood.
 * The Microchip reference is tentative. I debated including the part number as well. I'm not sure if Microchip is a particular brand that signifies something to those familiar with this subject area (if so, it would also increase comprehensiveness for all readers).
 * You didn't mention the Casio CFX-400 - I didn't include it just because it was mentioned in multiple sources, I figured it might have some particular referential value, as in the previous point, like, the standard, classic, old school calculator watch. I took a quick look, but there seem to be several vintage Casio calculator watches, so I'm still not sure of its relative relevance.


 * What do others think of http://makezine.com/2008/08/25/made-on-earth-form-and-functions/ as a potential source?  What others, editors who were trying to improve the article seem to have left, and why would they stick around in this editing environment? Yes, Make is a good source, and there's other relevant info in there, in addition to the μWatch. And there are other μWatch sources.


 * That's the thing about incremental editing vs your approach of challenging every little thing. Clearly, Jones is notable, and there are no glaring BLP issues, so the proper, editing policy thing to do is to allow collaborative, incremental editing to proceed (I point to the whole policy, because all of it, all four main sections, apply here, IMO). --Tsavage (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As usual, this new section is just an advert for Jones, promoting him without justification. I'll tag it in the morning. Tsavage, are you actually Jones? Your writing style is somewhat similar, and you seem hell bent on promoting him/yourself. ゼーロ (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm stunned by Tsavage's response. I hope it is an outlier in behavior and will not occur again. But to accuse Tsavage of being Jones only makes the situation worse.
 * I cannot verify "DIY instructions", hence my question about it.
 * I think everyone needs a break from this article. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: That's a pretty wild accusation. What happened to the dispute resolution thing you mentioned above?


 * Ronz:


 * "I'm stunned by Tsavage's response." Which part of my response are you stunned by? All of it? I really have absolutely no idea. I will try to address whatever stunned you, if you let me know what that is.


 * "I cannot verify "DIY instructions", hence my question about it." The Halfacres article title is, "The DIY calculator wristwatch," and it explains: "The best part of the project is that all the source code – written in the MPLAB C30 language – is available under the GPL v3 open-source license, along with full schematics should you want to roll your own." And the schematics, parts list, design background, and assembly instructions, are on the watch site, also cited. The watch site, which backs up the Halfacres source, says, "The uWatch is an RPN and Algebraic scientific calculator watch that you can build yourself."


 * "I think everyone needs a break from this article." I'm fine. I continue to engage in content discussion, still hoping not to have to go to noticeboards for wider input (as outlined previously). The secondary comments I have made about behavior I think are justified when you examine this page, and are not personal attacks, they are content-related, in light of editing policy. If I feel, as an editor, that editing of this article is being affected by such issues, then it's polite and constructive to let the other parties know. --Tsavage (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to see Ronz and ゼーロ each individually give an example of what they think would be appropriate coverage of the uWatch without it being what they consider "overly promotional". Frankly it seems so far that any coverage on anything about Jones, even if referenced by good quality secondary sources, that falls short of being actively negative is getting slammed as "overly promotional". Just like "BLP vio", this has been and is here a bogus charge which nevertheless costs editors' time to dispute. As for "Undue", I will once again point out that that is inapplicable. The whole of WP:UNDUE refers to situations where fringe or otherwise marginal viewpoints are being given "undue weight" vs. conventional views, e.g. it would be WP:UNDUE to cover "flat earth theory" in the article on Earth. There is no such situation here, so there is nothing in WP:UNDUE that argues for any sort of limit on how much of this source we use. (And just by the way, it's kind of tough to accuse this as being "promotional" when there is no available product to promote.) Jeh (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've kinda given up with Tsavage, and screwed up the dispute resolution request and can't be bothered to try again. If someone else want to please do. This is how the section should read, any more is just Tsavage kissing Jones' arse. It's mostly covered by BLP, e.g Tone and Balance state that articles about living people should be dispassionate and cautious. Quoting Bit-Tech's throwaway "crazy powerful" comment doesn't seem to fit, for example.


 * In 2008, Jones released the μWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400. bit-tech described it as "a four-level HP-style reverse Polish notation stack". The μWatch firmware is open source software.
 * This is not the Dave Jones Fan Club. ゼーロ (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: Replying to you point by point:


 * "This is how the section should read, any more is just Tsavage kissing Jones' arse. It's mostly covered by BLP, e.g Tone and Balance" Removing the material you call advertising would provide readers with a factually accurate but misleadingly less complete view of the watch (see next point). Your copy is fine, and is contained in the article, along with additional information, indicating the stature of the watch in terms of all other calculator watches. The quotes, from reliable, independent review sources, refer to the watch, not the living person Jones, so your application of "tone and balance" and "dispassionate and cautious" is off-point.
 * Do you even know what a fact is, and how it is different from an opinion and hyperbole? ゼーロ (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Quoting Bit-Tech's throwaway "crazy powerful" comment doesn't seem to fit" The source's phrase succinctly indicates that bit-tech finds the watch to be extraordinarily powerful, and our using that quote in this context indicates that we find it not outrageous. Consider, from another source:
 * "And the µWatch isn’t limited to being just a scientific calculator. Its programming port, universal I/O port, and optional infrared remote interface let you connect it to almost anything. “With the two-line LCD, full keypad, and 16-bit microprocessor, it’s really a powerful general-purpose computing and control platform,” Jones points out. ... If you want a µWatch that controls your TV, plays games, or commands other user-designed devices, just add some software."
 * IMO, it is fair to characterize what is essentially a fully functional tiny computer on your wrist, capable of remote control of devices, goes way beyond the usual calculator watch, and is indeed...crazy powerful. We could rewrite the section to paraphrase the quotes, but using them adds relevant context - illustrates how expert sources for this stuff actually refer to it - and also makes it more fun to read.
 * For the love of... Okay. "IMO" kind of sums up most of your problems here, but I'd also point out that a calculator with two line LCD, IR and programming port was what Casio, Canon and Texas were producing about two or three decades ago for use in schools. I had a better calculator than that for school, and that was the early 90s. It could run arbitrary software, including games I wrote for it. The Bit-tech bit is just fluff, something for the content mill.
 * Just stop and listen to yourself for a moment. You are constantly talking up Jones' work. It reads like you idolize him and everything he does. You are constantly looking not for reliable, factual information about him, but for ways to make him look good and praise his work. ゼーロ (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * But did your calculator come on a watchband so you could wear it on your wrist and use it as an IR remote control? And could you say you built it yourself? Are you talking about calculators, or those calculator watches they made for use in schools? In any case, you are supplying original research from your personal history with calculators, I'm directly referring sources. I say "in my opinion," because all of this Talk page is discussion largely of opinion, about characterization of content and interpretation of policy, and I think it is important to keep that clear.


 * Also, if you disagree with the sources that say "totally trumps anything out there on the pre-fabricated market today" and "crazily powerful" (both from 2008), you might want to contact Engadget and bit-tech, get them to retract those overblown reviews, thereby deleting your problem at the source, and then we would have no argument. --Tsavage (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier and probably more than once, continually finding issue with every detail as soon as it is posted - based on personal opinion - is not helpful or in the spirit of collaborative incremental editing. In this case, there is more information about the µWatch to add to this section, and it may end up meriting its own article (we have several quality sources, a lot of information, and a unique item), at which point briefer summary would suffice - meanwhile, tagging and deleting sourced, non-controversial material within minutes or hours of it being posted serves no constructive purpose. --Tsavage (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A few notes as I work on getting this to where we can have some consensus on it: Maker culture should be linked within the article, if not the μWatch section. I'm having a hard time figuring out the history of the project, which appears dead. http://calcwatch.com is the website for the μWatch - useful for description information. It appear Jones started the project around the time of the previews, April 2008, made a major release around the time of the early announcements, August 2008, and finished in early 2009. I'm guessing his blog documents the dates.

I added a source that verifies the 2008 release date, and trimmed the section further. I'm not sure how much expansion is actually due for a short project like this. Maybe some further description. If we can find some sources demonstrating enduring popularity, then we should expand based upon them. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * More edit-warring over it, without even responses to some of the problems identified. Oh well. At least we have improved the sourcing to verify previously unverified information. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: Your "trimming" removed most of the well-sourced content in that item, without addressing the reasoning behind it, given above. To restate from a few replies above:
 * Removing the material provides readers with a factually accurate but misleadingly less complete view of the watch (see next point). The additional info you removed indicates the stature of the watch in terms of all other calculator watches. The prominent, reputable cited sources say "totally trumps anything out there on the pre-fabricated market today" and "crazily powerful" (both from 2008). Other sources say much the same. Why would we deliberately exclude the relevant fact that it was seen as the most extreme of calculator watches, what is your reason?


 * "Edit-warring" begins with deletion - why are you deleting well-sourced, non-controversial content without discussion? The spirit and best practice of Wikipedia is not to delete things as the first action when you have a personal difference of opinion: when there is no perceived BLP or copyright violations, or anything else of that pressing nature, discussion (and well-considered tagging) are the first steps to collaboration.


 * Everything brought up previously I have addressed. I'll respong to the two new objections you included in your new inline tags in a moment. --Tsavage (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing most of the concerns. We disagree. You appear to be unable to respect that editors disagree with you: your interpretation of policies, sources, content, etc. I believe collaboration is based upon respect, hence my concerns about your behavior.
 * As I indicated, I don't believe a pre-release source is reliable for information on the released product. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "You appear to be unable to respect that editors disagree with you: your interpretation of policies, sources, content, etc. I believe collaboration is based upon respect, hence my concerns about your behavior." - I've just participated in over 25,000 words of civil discussion, concerning opposition by you and one other editor (who thinks I am Jones), to just about every single edit made to this article in the last month - how do you characterize that?


 * "As I indicated, I don't believe a pre-release source is reliable for information on the released product" But WHY? In order for a policy or guideline to apply, it has to make sense for the situation. Regarding best available sources, in this case, I have argued that there is no effective difference between what you are calling the "pre-release" version of the watch, and the "release" version, because this DIY product is essentially the blueprint for a watch, not a fixed final product, and that plan was available at the time of review. Furthermore, as it turns out, I can see no changes between the date of the Engadget review and...now, eight years later.


 * The essential question is: Is there anything in the quoted material that you feel held true at the time of the review, but did not at some later point?" Because our reliable source saw fit to review the product when it did, and we do go by sources. They comment broadly on the general features of a product, and those features have not changed.


 * As it stands now, we are devoting 15 quoted words to a sweeping review statement made by one of the very largest electronics review sites available. That seems like reasonable coverage of a noteworthy item. --Tsavage (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I've just participated in over 25,000 words of civil discussion, concerning opposition by you and one other editor (who thinks I am Jones), to just about every single edit made to this article in the last month - how do you characterize that?" Disrespectiful, and certainly not civil. WP:BATTLE certainly, more and more to full-fledged WP:OWN. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Disrespectiful, and certainly not civil. WP:BATTLE certainly, more and more to full-fledged WP:OWN." Yes, I broadly agree. And to whom do those apply? If we break up the mass of words by edit and claim, what does that show us? In seeking clarity and a resolution, the dispute may be usefully viewed in terms of inclusion versus deletion, where policies and guidelines are argued to support both intentions. There appears to be a pattern:
 * 1. Should the article be kept, or deleted because the subject is not notable (WP:AfD, WP:N > WP:GNG])?
 * 2. Should certain sources be used or not used (WP:V > WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR > WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOT > WP:SOAP, WP:BLP)?
 * 3. Should certain items of information be used or not used, given that the sources are reliable (WP:NPOV > WP:DUE, WP:NOR, WP:NOT > WP:SOAP, WP:BLP)?
 * The editing actions and arguments can be grouped according to these categories. The article survived two AfDs (1), several editors then attempted to improve it, using sources considered during the AfD, and these sources were repeatedly challenged (2), the reliability of sources was argued and new sources were found, and then information from the sources agreed to be reliable was challenged (3). Conclusions may be drawn from that, keeping in mind that the article seems to have been improved, through numerous deletions of content.


 * Meanwhile, with WP:FOC in mind, what is your reply concerning my reply to your repeated claim, " I don't believe a pre-release source is reliable for information on the released product"? --Tsavage (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Yes, I broadly agree. And to whom do those apply?" They apply to your comments, along with WP:IDHT as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please WP:FOC, and please reply to my question: 'What is your reply concerning my reply to your repeated claim, "I don't believe a pre-release source is reliable for information on the released product"?' To recap, I detailed why I find this not to be a preview source in this case - a point further illustrated by the photo in the Engadget article, which is identical to the photo currently on the µWatch home page, it's the same now, seven years later, as it was when Engadget reviewed it. --Tsavage (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by your comments, I don't believe we agree on what WP:FOC actually entails.
 * My position on the source and its use remains unchanged. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations
ゼーロ: With all the charges of BLP violation so far, your repeated edits are surprising:
 * changing "claimed" to "pointed out" about Jones not having engineering credentials turns it from covering a disparaging assertion made by a company CEO unhappy with Jones' review, to a statement in Wikipedia's voice that Jones has no such credentials, an assertion that is without support (see also the notes concerning removal of "self-taught" for the same reason (above).
 * deleting "Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in doubting the product claims." removes balance from coverage of the controversy article. The source sets up the controversy, describing Jones product "takedown," then giving air to the product CEO's numerous counterclaims, in terms like (from the article) "his first punch in that perceived fight was to discredit Jones for having no formal electrical engineering qualifications."' We cover three claims: no credentials, possibility of legal action, and working for Duracell. The article goes on to interview three experts in the field, and including a brief summary of their comments provides balance to the CEO's unsubstantiated attack claims that would undermine Jones proessional credibility (unsupported as in LinkedIn as only support for lack of credentials, Duracell denied connection, legal action so far not taken).

I would think this is pretty basic observation of care with content when it affects a living person, aka the spirit and provisions of WP:BLP. --Tsavage (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm on mobile now, but just two quick points. 1. It's not a claim, it's cited using Jones' own LinkedIn page. As it was done by a journalist who presumably did some checking we don't need to say "claimed". 2. The deleted bit is simply factually inaccurate. ゼーロ (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a claim, it's cited using Jones' own LinkedIn page. As it was done by a journalist who presumably did some checking we don't need to say "claimed". I can't see LinkIn profiles as being a reliable source for education details. My understanding is that users fill in their own profiles, and are free to include or exclude whatever they like. That certain credentials don't appear in a LinkedIn profile doesn't mean they don't exist. And in the article, the author doesn't state that Jones doesn't have those credentials, only that the CEO said that. The relevant passages from the article:
 * "his first punch in that perceived fight was to discredit Jones for having no formal electrical engineering qualifications, only a degree in performing arts from Australia's National Institute of Dramatic Arts ." (underscored linked to Jones' LinkedIn profile)


 * "In contrast to Jones' lack of expertise, Roohparvar is quick to highlight his position as a professor at California State University ..."


 * "Roohparvar also suggested Jones was being paid by battery maker Duracell ..."


 * Read in context, that whole section, with other claims, is simply covering what Roohparvar said. If you choose to argue that "In contrast to Jones' lack of expertise" in fact does indicate verified support, expertise is not synonymous with engineering credentials, and it is also unlikely that the Herald would be attacking Jones' electronics expertise, right after publishing several paragraphs detailing his technical criticism of the product, and confirming those views with independent experts. IMO, it's clear that the author is only recounting the CEO's charges. Particularly in a BLP situation where extra care is required with sources concerning the LP, I don't see this as adequate support for Wikipedia to state that Jones has no formal engineering training, especially in the context of a controversy where his credibility is being attacked.


 * A journalist from a reputable source has checked this out. I think we can presume that he asked Jones about his LinkedIn profile before linking to it, just to make sure it was legit and accurate. Jones does not appear to have contested this claim. It's reliable. Please try to understand, LinkedIn is not the source, the article is. ゼーロ (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロAs I pointed out below, the wording is not clear, making this a questionable source for statements about Jones' education.


 * I agree, in a reputable paper, claims would be checked out, not simply repeated. However, it comes down to what is actually stated in the article - what is easily verifiable - and here that is unclear.


 * I'm not saying the article's source is LinkedIn, the link seems to be used to illustrate the Arts degree, but LinkedIn wouldn't be a journalist's reliable source for the Arts degree, either, so its purpose is unclear, if not as something the CEO pointed out, and that it appears to show his lack of electronics credentials.


 * The statement, "In contrast to Jones' lack of expertise" is further confusing if that is the reporter's own statement, because "expertise" (unless there is some other usage in Australia) generally refers to skill or knowledge, not to having credentials, and the reporter would have ascertained that Jones is in fact skilled and knowledgeable, has expertise in his field. So is the Herald saying that Jones' has no electronics expertise, or is the CEO? If we are using the source the way you wish, then the former would be the case, and we would be able to say, "Jones has no electronics expertise," which is obviously not the reality.


 * Bottom line, we need a source to say, "Jones, who does not have formal electronics training," or, "Jones said about formal electronics training, 'I don't have any!'" - something clearly definitive, particularly as this is a BLP, in order for us to state that he is "self-taught" or "without formal training". And if we can't say that, we can't slip it in with a "pointed out." (In addition, Jones has referred in interviews to his formal studies, so maybe he dropped out of uni or trade school, or maybe he's lying, who knows - at this point, we do not.)


 * As much as you want to see me as trying to promote Jones, I'm simply going by sources and a reasonable application of RS and BLP policy. We do not want to rush to statements about a person's lack of qualifications or expertise, before we have an unambiguous source, which this one is not. --Tsavage (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Journalists generally don't repeat unfounded claims without checking them. That's why they contacted Duracell to check if Jones was working for them and published the denial. It is reasonable to assume that they checked the rest of it too, and asked Jones for a response to anything he disputed. ゼーロ (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See immediately above (same timestamp). --Tsavage (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "The deleted bit is simply factually inaccurate" The bit you deleted reads: Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in doubting the product claims. Four experts were interviewed, one declined to comment on record saying it was a marketing issue, and the other three said about the Batteriser claims of up to 8x battery life extension: "just ludicrous," "misleading" and "...if you used it on 1000 batteries you might get one or two that gave you that [eight times battery life result]." I can't see how that fails to fully support the content. I chose not to include the fourth expert, because he didn't say anything relevant, he basically declined to respond. --Tsavage (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are summarizing and the summary is not an accurate reflection of what they said. For example, "misleading" is not the same thing as "doubting the product's claims". The product could perform as advertised, just not in the way that consumers might expect, e.g. it would give 8x battery life for certain cells in certain devices. Jones actually appears to support that view in his videos, pointing out that if you could find a device that cuts off at the voltage Batteriser use in their claims you might actually get 8x the life with their product. His point was that such products are unusual and rare, and thus the claims could be described as misleading (since most people won't see that performance) but not necessarily doubtful (i.e. untrue or inaccurate).
 * Now we have cleared up your misunderstandings I will edit the section again. ゼーロ (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: "the summary is not an accurate reflection of what they said. For example, "misleading" is not the same thing as "doubting the product's claims"." There are no misunderstandings. Read the source, it goes into more detail than the words I excerpted, all of the experts doubted the product's primary claim to 8x battery life extension. I have no problem adjusting wording so long as the meaning is clear. Removing the sentence introduces imbalance, and does not properly represent the source. We are covering a controversy as reported in the Herald article, which means the views of all sides, which includes Jones, CEO, experts, and the source itself.


 * As to Jones supporting views, that is why the Herald included the fourth expert, who declined to comment, saying it is a marketing issue not a science issue. Everyone, including Jones, agrees, the product is not based on...pseudoscience, what it does is real, it is just that what it does does not deliver on what it claims it can do.


 * If you want to expand the whole section to make all that clear, I think it can be done, we just have to watch the line between making it more about Betteriser itself than the controversy - we can explain just enough to make the controversy clearer. I'll do that later if you don't. Discussion here first is preferable. --Tsavage (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: And yes, I think saying a product's claims are "misleading" is equivalent to "doubting the product's claims," however, I have changed the wording to be somewhat more literal to the source: I believe "misleading" summarizes "ludicrous" and "one in a thousand." And again, read the full source material, these are just excerpts. --Tsavage (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that the other reason for deleting this sentence is that it related to Batteriser, not Jones. The only purpose in including it is to try to make Jones look better in the face of criticism. Perhaps you might consider adding it to an article about Batteriser. ゼーロ (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "the other reason for deleting this sentence is that it related to Batteriser, not Jones. The only purpose in including it is to try to make Jones look better in the face of criticism" Not so, this is answered in my reply immediately above (15:40, 9 November 2015). To restate: we are describing a controversy as described in the Herald article, and we should include all sides - Jones, CEO, experts, source. The source went to lengths to report past the he said/she said part, Duracell was contacted, experts were consulted. This is all part of that coverage. Suppressing some of it changes the impression of the whole piece.


 * In this case, with a controversy (and taking particular care with a BLP controversy), we have to respect secondary sources when they cover the issue as a controversy as the Herald does, and take care not to cherrypick statements to construct our own version of the controversy, different from the one in the source. Reading your version of our coverage, and the source article, leaves two different impressions - removing the experts, as you have done, gives more weight to Jones perhaps being wrong, and the CEO right, the expert balance changes that, which is consistent with the source. --Tsavage (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The choice is you either reprint the entire article or cherry pick some parts of it to make reference to. I think it's reasonable to just include the response from the CEO, perhaps reduced a little since there is really no need to mention the threat of legal action. It adds nothing and was not followed through. ゼーロ (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ Your cherrypicking of material has created a version of the controversy that gives a different, and more negative impression of Jones part in it, than the source article, and also removes context. This has been repeatedly brought up here, yet you continue to revert to your version. You accuse others of promoting Jones, meanwhile, you appear to be actively presenting him in as negative a light as possible, which is counter to BLP. I believe you are edit warring now, by reverting over and over to the same edits that I have challenged as BLP violations. Please self-revert these edits, and visit BLPN if you can't agree on this here. --Tsavage (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tidied it up a bit by shortening the sentence about the response to Jones' video. If we just keep it minimal and to the key facts then the reader can check the original source for more detail. This way it remains balanced, not favouring either party or mis-characterising the article. The only alternative I can see is to just get rid of the section until more sources become available. This is the problem with relying on one or two for a controversial topic. Also, if you want to talk about casting Jones in a negative light, the sentence you added about the dislikes claim makes him look childish and petty. I note that you neglected to include the denial by Batteroo as well. ゼーロ (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors have tried to be reasonable, but you continue your unhelpful editing, edit warring, and refusing to deal with BLP challenges. Your latest edits have removed more well-sourced material, based only on your opinion. I think there has been a more than reasonable effort to discuss editing this article with you over the last five weeks. --Tsavage (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reversions to BLP-challenged version is not appropriate
ゼーロ Your latest reversion and additional removal of material in the "Batteriser controversy" section created even more unbalanced and misrepresentative coverage of both the issue and the source than your previous edits - it is potentially damaging to the subject, and as such, I consider it to be a BLP violation:

Your version is an arbitrary selection of a very few facts from the source, that creates a false impression of what was reported in the source:


 * On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. The article noted, "Without having the product physically on hand, presenter Dave Jones published a detailed 40-minute 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims." The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, refuted Jones' analysis and pointed out that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials (only an arts degree). 

I have restored the more balanced, comprehensive previous version:


 * On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. The article noted, "It all started with popular Australian YouTube channel Electronics Engineering Video Blog (EEVblog). Without having the product physically on hand, presenter Dave Jones published a detailed 40-minute 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims." The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading. 

Please be warned, your many reversions over the last few days to your preferred wording of this section I consider to be edit warring, and repeated violations of BLP. Discuss your issues, seek consensus for changes, and please do not unilaterally and repeatedly change and revert well-sourced, non-controversial content. --Tsavage (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage, you need to step back from this. Issuing warnings to other editors is not proper behaviour. More over, you have no restored all the problematic material that was contested and caused balance problems in the first place. Generally speaking with BLP articles it's better not to include contested material until it can be agreed upon, and despite all the opportunities we keep giving you to address this you just keep restoring it. Please stop, take a deep breath and try to appreciate that this is a collaborative effort, and you are not the "BLP violation" police. ゼーロ (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ Yes, warning other editors about BLP and edit warring is part of our process. The material under discussion here was not challenged for BLP violation in its full form, you made edits, and I challenged your edited version as a BLP problem, as they misrepresent the source by creating impressions of Jones' and Batteriser's participation that differ from the source, by only including certain details.
 * This is inaccurate. Scroll up a bit and you can see that I noted BLP issues in the version you have reverted to, and asked for them to be fixed. To be absolutely clear, the current version has multiple issues that were outlined above. ゼーロ (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've replied to every comment in this section, and in previous sections going back several weeks. I don't see the BLP violation challenges that you made, please specify with more precision than "scroll up a bit." --Tsavage (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You can't edit to create a BLP problem, and then try to have the material removed based on someone else's BLP challenge. You are edit warring, you have already made multiple reversions to your own edit over the course of three or four days, and essentially ignore BLP and edit warring warnings and discussion, in favor of continuing to revert to your BLP-challenged version.
 * Reverting to re-include disputed content multiple times is "edit warring". Please stop and instead make a case by addressing the issues that have been put again and again. Scroll up to view them. ゼーロ (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've re-examined the discussion around every occurrence of "Batteriser" on this page, none of them other than mine in this section appear to challenge BLP, and all of them have been addressed. Please indicate what you're referring to specifically, rather than saying "scroll up" on 25,000+ words of discussion. Objecting to well-sourced, non-controversial content that is well within an article's scope (i.e. noteworthy for that article), based only on personal editorial preference, is not grounds for removal. --Tsavage (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you were to take a stepped back look at Batteriser, you would be able to see that it is a quite a notable grassroots consumer watchdog story, where Jones led the way in criticizing a product that was being hyped by mainstream media, and went on to crowdfund $400,000. Your repeated disruption of editing is getting in the way of completing the coverage. You should consider helping to fill out the complete story, and then editors can look at it to see how whether it can be made more concise and readable. More policy: Wikipedia does not aim for perfection in one take, we edit incrementally and collaboratively, which is what I have been attempting to do. --Tsavage (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are doing OR again. ゼーロ (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no "OR" on Talk pages, that's what they're about, freely discussing material. It is the content that must be reliably sourced. Here, I am explaining the editorial narrative that I see from the sources. Did the Herald article come out of the blue on Sep 17? That was over three months after the original Jones debunk video (does the article tell us that?), and there were other significant events, including the dislike attacks, that happened in that three month period, which is probably why the Herald devoted a fully reported feature to the story. But none of that, except for the dislikes, is covered here.


 * This may not be important to you or even to most of the rest of the world, but within a David L. Jones article, this story is significant and the goal is to get it right: clearly, succinctly written, neutral, well-sourced and comprehensive. I'm trying to do that. --Tsavage (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I feel like you are being obtuse now and trolling me. Sorry if that isn't the case, but I'm not willing to endlessly repeat and explain everything when literally every statement I make is misunderstood. I believe I am communicating clearly, and you are just trying to frustrate and lawyer your way to getting what you want. Again, I'm sorry if I am mistaken here, but in that case you really need to try to understand the basics of Wikipedia editing. ゼーロ (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for Advertising section tag
Ronz: You've replaced an Advertising tag on the µWatch section, along with two inline tags that I assumr are the specific reasons for the umbrella tag (if not, please explain it).


 * 1. Engadget: "Source published before product release, so just speculation" I replied to this at some length (above, search "churn"). In short, this is essentially a DIY project plans release, there is no upcoming final finished product (only a build-it-yourself kit). There is the prototype, parts description, description of software and features, and so forth, quite enough for someone with expertise to understand all that, to comment on it, which is what Engadget chose to do. This is not the same case as, for example, trying to apply a review of a concept version of a new car, to the final production model, where large or small changes could have a significant effect on p--Tsavage (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)erception. IOW, it's not "just speculation," what the quoted review passage states applies to the general nature and attributes of the µWatch.


 * 2. bit-tech: "Source misrepresents facts. Puffery and hype" I have no idea what this refers to. The material we use includes a brief description of the watch features, and review comments: "crazy powerful" and "just about the nerdiest thing you'll ever wear on your wrist."

To test the encyclopedic value of these two quotes, apply the basic question: "How does the µWatch compare to other calculator watches?" The quotes illustrate two things: that the watch has powerful functions compared to other calculator watches, and that the watch is considered by reliable sources to have great appeal to those who appreciate such things (the geek factor). The same information can also be paraphrased, however, IMO, attributed quotes provide more useful context, including the tone of the actual reviews. --Tsavage (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From my understanding of the relevant policies and the consensus on similar situations, the material doesn't belong and the preview sources don't belong either.
 * Let's face it: Until we get the editing environment fixed here, your walls of text are difficult to interpret as anything but piling on to the problems rather than attempting to resolve anything. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "From my understanding of the relevant policies and the consensus on similar situations, the material doesn't belong and the preview sources don't belong either." Understood, you have made it abundantly clear to me that you have an opinion, and I believe it's based on something - specific policies and consensus - so can you please share what those specific policies and consensus are, so that all sides of the discussion can be operating on the same information?


 * "Let's face it: Until we get the editing environment fixed here, your walls of text are difficult to interpret as anything but piling on to the problems rather than attempting to resolve anything." What you face is up to you. Everything I, and other editors, have written in reply to you has gone largely unanswered, as you refuse to discuss anything in detail, make sweeping policy charges referring to entire pages and multi-part sections, like like "WP:BLP" and "WP:SOAP," and insist on largely one-sentence replies that do not explain further - it's all there on this page.


 * WP:DRN, perhaps, I don't know what that's like, but maybe worth a shot? --Tsavage (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone please try resolution. I attempted but failed, someone who knows how to do it please try. It's clear that Tsavage is so far from the rest of us and thinks about things in such fundamentally different terms that there is never going to be any agreement.
 * Tsavage, you are really contorting to make this stuff fit. Just read what you wrote above again. "It's a DIY project so there is no final product, therefore speculative sources that don't even appear to have tried the device and are just going by the spec are worthy of inclusion." Do you even have a source confirming that it does what it claims to do? Maybe the firmware doesn't actually work or implement those features, or has breaking bugs.
 * Also, if you don't understand what puffery and hype are then it explains a lot of the issues we are having. It is important to recognize such things, and it's clear from what you wrote above that you don't. Please, please go and learn about these things and get some advice from other editors, or even better get someone in to help moderate. ゼーロ (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not the only editor opposed to your and Ronz's various continued challenge of every edit, just the only one who has found the time to keep up actually discussing things with you. Everything you mention has been discussed. You are the one who failed to properly start WP:DRN, I'm ready to participate. And you can also go to the noticeboards for wider input; as I've said, I would rather do things locally, but it is really just three or four of us (if Jeh is still around). You have failed to answer discussion, so you are now attacking the editor.


 * What you call "contorting," I'd characterize as reasoning. Every notable topic doesn't have a book written about it, or an in-depth New York Times article, in a specialized area like electronics engineering and the electronics hobby world, it's normal that sources will be more specific, harder to find in a convenient review form, and contain content from a particular view (that of engineers and hobbyists), so we should be exercising judgement on source quality, content and so forth. You and Ronz, each in slightly different ways, are arguing without taking this into account.


 * The Engadget review is simply saying, "Look at this product, the general features and the crazy look make it the hands down most cool geeky calculator watch out there," that is the normal interpretation, and that is all I have been looking to record. "Pre-relaese" of design plans with a limited edition DIY kit is really stretching to make a point. Common sense. --Tsavage (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What you call "reasoning" is really rule lawyering at its worst. It's clearly not the intent of the guidelines. As you point out, the Engadget "review" is just fluff. I'll ask again, please request some external input. ゼーロ (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's well-sourced, and I am not the one challenging everything - you should seek external input for your extreme views. There is no fluff or hype, if multiple reviewers said, "that was the greatest car chase in movie history," we would report that and quotes would be fair content (not, even "a great car chase," but, "the greatest"). Well, in the more rarified circles of geek chic and people who actually may need tiny scientific calculatros on their wrist, prominent reputable sources are saying this watch leads the pack. In this subject area, it's not advertisement or puffery, it's just coverage of the status of this product.


 * "It's clearly not the intent of the guidelines." Which guidelines? Each discussion is clearly laid out - you can explain how you interpret the relevant guideline in each case - that's discussion. Don't forget: these are things you (and Ronz) have brought up in the first place. Making a sweeping statement here, with no specifics to actually consider, is just argumentative. --Tsavage (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Jeh might be possibly the David L. Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.240.17 (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN
"WP:DRN, perhaps, I don't know what that's like, but maybe worth a shot? " Yes, let's. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: Are you going to make the request, or should I? --Tsavage (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any progress on this? ゼーロ (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if someone else could get it started. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage: Please do it. ゼーロ (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems like a there's a blank page where the DR request form should be, and the last comment on the WP:DRN Talk page sounds kinda bleak. Are they out of business? --Tsavage (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I've started a DRN request here. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Industry reaction: new Microchip response source
Regarding the pending "Industry reaction" section (see Talk section above), here is a new, secondary source mentioning Microchip's response video:
 * DMM Current Measurements Could Be Affecting Your Circuit Operation Big Time - Engineering.com

The article is about the μCurrent device; the relevant Microchip material is:


 * "Engineers can follow David Jones who blogs on engineering topics on the mentioned sites. His posts are excellent, informative (unedited and sometimes lengthy), and he has quite a bit of energy.  I remember David taking Microchip to task on a blog entry for going backward on their PICkit3 design, the replacement of the PICkit2 programmer.   His input had an effect on the changeover and the Microchip engineers and management created a humorous video retort."

Comments on this source and material? --Tsavage (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to get the editing environment fixed. DRN would be a good step as I indicated above. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's up to you whether to comment, but it's not an either or situation, I don't think editing stops if we go for mediation. --Tsavage (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional references
Storing these here for possible future use - they were deleted from the article, where they'd been commented out (hidden) to preserve them:

Accusations of vote-stuffing from the EEVblog forum and of bad AFD decision
Over in the DRN case, wrote:

"The nomination for deletion was a debacle, with reasonable comments discounted and many editors prompted by discussion on the EEVBlog forum piling in to !vote 'keep' without having engaged in or read the discussion."

and

"I am deeply concerned that fans of Jones will pile in to the RfCs (a link will be posted on his forum), like they did with the AfD discussion, and that IP addresses will be discounted."

...as if vote-stuffing from EEVblog forum readers was an established fact and as if there was no good reason to discount the IP !votes (other than, as was stated by many experienced editors at the deletion review, than that that is normal practice).

Let's see if these claims are justified.

For reference, here is the archived nomination for deletion (AFD). See also the deletion review that followed.

Let's take the second point first, as it's shorter.

There is simply no evidence for "editors piling in from the EEVblog forum to vote keep".

Yes, there was certainly "help keep Dave on Wikipedia" discussion in a thread at the EEVblog forum, but if anything readers there were strongly asked (at least three times) to NOT show up here with "me too!" !votes. Rather, they were asked to try to help find additional sources, and if they did come to !vote, they were asked to do so with arguments based in WP P&G.

Moreover, every "keep" !voter at the AFD was a) a registered editor (not an IP) with b) extensive editing history at WP before and since their !vote. Four out of six of them had little or no prior interest in editing electronics topics, making them unlikely candidates for successful canvassing or for being EEVblog fans - how would they have been found? The complete list is under the hat. I looked at the last 500 edits of each "keep" !voter.

created the article, so no surprise that they turned up with a "keep" !vote.

, 20,000 edits in five years, has participated in a variety of AFD discussions on a wide variety of topics before and since. Based on past 500 edits I find no obvious evidence of prior interest in electronics-related topics so if they were "canvassed" it's tough imagine how anyone found them to ask them.

is an admin, has been here 11 years. Again, lots of participation in AFD, no obvious interest in electronics topics.

not as much prior activity at AFD (in their last 500 edits) as the previous two, but some, and lots of activity at WP:xxx in general. Again, no obvious prior interest in electronics topics - perhaps I've missed some.

me. I had considerable participation at talk:David L. Jones prior to this most recent AFD and also concerning the prior one, so if I was "canvassed" it must have started months ago.

And finally, : Longtime editor; in last 500 edits this is ONLY contribution to AFD; vast majority of edits concerned GMO, esp GM food. No obvious interest in electronics topics.

If there had been !vote-stuffing from the EEVblog forum we'd expect to see "keep" !voters who had little or no prior participation at WP. Probably at least some of them would be IPs. Where were they?

Fact is, there was not a single IP "keep" !voter. Not one. All of the "keep" !votes were from registered WP users with long edit histories.

Now, let's take a look at those "reasonable comments" that were "discounted".

The closing admin said the only !votes they "discounted" were from IPs. (From the top of the AFD page: "The very likely canvassed IP opinions are discounted.")

So, let's look closely at the four "delete" !votes by IPs (again, there were no "keep"s from IPs). For each I have listed the UTC date and time of the !vote, geolocation info, and a brief summary of the IP's other edit history.
 * 2015-10-05T01:44:08 !vote by 32.213.188.105 (Frontier Comm., Avon CT, USA) IP's prior history: Two edits to the DLJ talk page and one minor, unrelated edit. No subsequent edits.
 * 2015-10-05T12:47:36 !vote by 4.26.51.74 (Level 3 Comm., Hartford CT, USA) IP's prior history: a few edits to DLJ page and to talk page; one prior related edit (putting "dubious" tag on a statement that was ref'd to an EEVblog video), two unrelated edits in recent history. No subsequent edits.
 * 2015-10-05T15:15:40 diff 86.2.115.144 (Virgin Media, Portsmouth, UK) (IP had no prior or later edits, unless you count one from six years ago)
 * 2015-10-05T16:28:40 !vote by 2600:1000:b106:6cf1:0:17:9713:4a01 (Verizon Wireless, Cromwell CT, USA) (IP had no prior or later edits)

I think we can exclude the one from Portsmouth - the UK south coast - as being "not like the others".

But for the rest: First, obviously, they all happened within a single 15-hour period. And second, they're all from the state of Connecticut. Maybe not so obviously for those outside the US, Connecticut is a pretty small state - less than half the area of Belgium. But it gets worse: Avon and Cromwell are both small towns on the outskirts of Hartford. All three are easily within a ten mile radius. (Considerably closer than, say, Portsmouth UK to London UK.)

The notion that three different people who just happened to all live around the Hartford area, all of whom had either no or extremely minimal edits on Wikipedia prior to this dispute and in particular no prior involvement at AFD, all decided to chime in with "delete" !votes within the same 24-hour period, is absurd. Is "discounting" them reasonable? Sure seems so to me.

It's much more credible that this is one person, perhaps editing from home at about 9 PM local time (CT is in UTC-5) one evening, then the next day from work or school at about 8 AM and from a coffee shop at 11:30.

As for 86., as I said, not like the others. Except that this is an IP with absolutely no prior involvement at WP and none since. No evidence here for sockpuppetry, but as was stated in the deletion review, it is entirely customary to ignore !votes from IPs, particularly IPs with no prior edit history.

Anyway, remember: these aren't really "votes" (which is why it is WP custom to write "!vote", the ! referencing the C logical negation operator, hence "not-votes"); the outcome is not determined by how many people say the same thing. Which is all that most of the IPs did. So it really doesn't matter if what they wrote was "discounted". It had already been said by the nominator.

How many non-IP deletes were there? Just two. The nominator and one other, from.

I am tired of these accusations from ゼーロ and I hope that this evidence will be the end of them. Jeh (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be related to improving the content of the article in any manner, nor follow the guidance at DRN. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz: Speaking of DRN, you agreed to it, and you opened the case - why aren't you participating? --Tsavage (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's here because ゼーロ brought this up yet again, this time at DRN. Hence the issue (and the larger issue of general unwillingness to accept the AFD decision, particularly re the subject's notability, even after review) is impeding productive discussion. But following DRN we're not supposed to talk about such things there, so I answered here. Jeh (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussions on improving the article. The reasons for not making such comments at DRN are the same here as well. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So, every talk page that refers to e.g. WP:DEADHORSE is out of line? No, they're not. ゼーロ said, approximately, that s/he was doubtful about trusting the DRN RFC process because of the ballot-stuffing and unwarranted discounting of !votes s/he perceives happened at the AFD2. So unless addressed, that will impede the DRN process. When someone just won't put the stick down it is not unreasonable to try to show that the horse is well and thoroughly dead. Oh.. and when you reply in disagreement, please just assume that I've replied "I acknowledge that you have a differing opinion", okay? Jeh (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Batteriser controversy: discussion of changes
Staszek Lem: You made a bold edit to the Batteriser section, removing much material and changing the sense of the basic coverage. I've restored the previous version, largely because your version is less factually accurate. Please note that this article is currently under discussion at WP:DRN; respecting that process would be good. Also, since there are editors actively editing, you of course are free to make bold changes, but discussing first would be more collaborative.

One misleading point is that you changed the stated fact that Jones' review was the first to criticize the Batterizer, to a generalized statement. This goes against the cited source and other sources. Jones review came out at the beginning of June, 2015, the Herald story is two and half months later, with various other events in between. You speculate as the reason for that part of your edit: " jones was provably not the first to dig shit here" but you are wrong - please follow sources, or cite your differing, supporting sources.

The section is not complete, but editing has been held up by the editing disputes on this page. --Tsavage (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re:"less factually accurate". This article is about Jones, not about Batterizer or anything else. Therefore I trimmed it severely. YOu are very welcome to put your version into the "Batteriser" article.  Please explain which statements related to Jones in my version are incorrect.


 * re " jones was provably not the first to dig shit here" but you are wrong
 * No I am not. It was thorouhhly criticized at reddit at least since June 2. Here on June 3. And many more. Jones was on June 5. If the sources get facts wrong, we don't cite them. Otherwise wikipedia ill be full of bullshit. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I also want the section to be comprehensive. I should have qualified that by "first," I meant first media article, according to the Herald source, also Gizmodo, Hackaday, and other media that picked up the controversy and referred to Jones' piece. That is where the controversial exchange between Jones and Batteriser began, an it is to Jones that Batteriser responded. If you want to make a case for including additional information, like: "First picked up in various forums..." please do so, but that seems to me to be extraneous. We accurately quoted a source, saying that the controversy, defined by public statements back and forth, started with Jones' June 5 piece.


 * As I mentioned, the section is not complete, editing has been stalled because of disputes, and we're now at DRN.


 * As I see it, the verifiable facts that should be included in coverage are:
 * 1. Early June, Jones' publishes debunk episode, in the midst of a mainstream Batteriser publicity campaign (PC World, CNN, etc).
 * 2. Over the next days and weeks, this picked up by other sites (direct reference to Jones), at times with reference to the ongoing Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign.
 * 3. Batteroo responds in various ways, including with a Q&A sheet, monkey demo video (mid-July), etc. Jones is referred to.
 * 4. End of August, Jones' publishes a follow-up episode, challenging/debunking the monkey demo vid.
 * 5. Early September, Jones' monkey episode, and other Batteriser coverage elsewhere on YouTube are like-spammed.
 * 6. Mid-September, the Herald summarizes the controversy two and half months later with an investigative piece: Batteriser responds with significant allegations (working for Duracell, no credentials, considering legal action); independent experts support Jones' view.
 * 7. Late September, Batteriser crowd funds at $400k.


 * This can all be covered in a couple of well-written paragraphs. The coverage should be comprehensive, providing the general reader with a clear and straightforward description of the key points - current versions, the existing and your trimmed version, do not do this.


 * This may be a minor story in the whole wide world, but in a David L. Jones article, it appears to me to be a substantial event, and a fully defined controversy, with heated public dispute from all sides. The Herald story provides a relaible overview, meanwhile, there are numerous other sources as well.


 * Also, don't forget that "Batteriser controversy" here refers specifically to Jones and Batteriser, not Batteriser and all critical sources (which is not really a controversy).--Tsavage (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is being discussed at DRN, I think it best to keep the discussion there as much as possible: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem: You continue to edit the article, while also participating in DRN. You have removed reliably sourced material based on your own research, saying you can prove that the Sydney Morning Herald is wrong, by citing Reddit and another forum. The Herald quote is not inaccurate as you claim. In context, the Herald says:
 * "... electrical experts have slammed the company's claims of longer-lasting power as misleading. ... It all started with popular Australian YouTube channel Electronics Engineering Video Blog (EEVblog)."
 * The reference is to "electrical experts" and not to mentions by anyone at all, in various forums, and the statement does not claim that EEVBlog was the first ever to publish anything critical of Batteriser, only that the controversy it is reporting on began there. Claiming that the Herald has published a "provably false claim about who was first. YOu should not reproduce error from sources into wikipedia" (your edit summary) goes directly against core verifiability and original research policy - you are trying to correct a reliable source based on your own interpretation and research. Please self-revert. --Tsavage (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "the statement does not claim that EEVBlog was the first ever to "  - oh yes it does. How else you interpret "It all started with..." ??? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians routinely do research to establish reliability of sources. I established beyond reasonable doubt that electronic experts started slamming Batteriser (with lots of technical detail) in other blogs before Jones's blog. Therefore Herald is not a reliable source in this respect. Journalists routinely make factual mistakes; if we copy all of them into wikipedia, it will be full of bullshit already. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem: The Batteriser controversy in this article is about Jones/EEVBlog and Batteriser, and that is what the Herald article is covering. Their analysis is that the controversy centered around Jones' EEVBlog, started with an EEVBlog post. This view must be acknowledged for discussion to be possible. I have two problems with your argument:


 * 1. You are arguing that what the Herald means is that EEVBlog was the first commentary ever to criticize Batteriser, which is not what the article is claiming, they are simply saying, "Our story begins here," and that story is EEVBlog vs Batteriser;


 * 2. You claim to have "established beyond reasonable doubt that electronic experts started slamming Batteriser (with lots of technical detail) in other blogs before Jones's blog" - besides that being irrelevant here, your citations so far are to two public forum threads (Reddit and Badcaps Forums), which for our purposes are not reliable sources, the commentators cannot be deemed electronics experts, and they do not qualify as media coverage, which is what EEVBlog and the other sources we are citing provide? --Tsavage (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * re: No. 1. they are simply saying "Our story begins here". No. They are simply saying "It started with", and the immediately preceding sentence, which should be the base of the meaning of '"it"'', is: "electrical experts have slammed the company's claims of longer-lasting power as misleading.". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: No. 2. Since I am not citing these blogs in Wikipedia article, immaculate credentials of commentators are irrelevant. They speak like engineers, write engineering formulae, hence they are engineers ("quack like duck"). Therefore my statement that engineers were discussing the subject is correct and the authors of Herald did not do their homework. Herald did not say anything like "engineers with Wikipedia articles slammed Batterizer", did it?. Also I fail to see why eevblog is media and reddit is not. In terms of attention grabbing, reddit beats eevblog by orders of magnitude. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, It appears that we are bickering over the inclusion of the vague statement "It started with" . We disagree only over what is "it". The rest of your version basically intact, only rephrased from the direct quote. Is this really worth your time? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of original interpretation on the part of just one editor, as the basis for bold changes: deciding who is an expert based on your assessment of what they say in forums; deciding an RS daily newspaper is wrong based on your own research; deciding chat forums are equivalent to media that publish periodically in article format; deciding that you can discredit sources for use in content, using sources that don't quality for use in content. (And is it really worth your time - I believe you earlier calculated your hourly worth and decided it wasn't?)
 * My problem is with your overall heavy-handed editing: removing content from Batteriser, removing descriptive information from an image caption, removing review quotes from µWatch, and so forth, all undiscussed, while other editors are in active discussion. Here is a series of 11 edits where you remove content from various areas, followed by a revert to your version after it was challenged and brought up for discussion in Talk. In order to observe PAGs in this contetious editing situation, I now have to discuss each of your edits, of which this Batteriser conversation is the first - should we have an RfC for each point?! That is my issue. --Tsavage (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "lot of interpretation". I am contesting a single detail, which is readily verifiable without any interpretation from my side. ... Well, there is no more "heavy-handed editing" from my side, is there? I gave you 95% and you are not willing to give up 5%? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "removal of content" - it was explained in edit summaries:

10:21, 19 November 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎. . (9,027 bytes) (-490)‎. . (→‎μWatch: trim advertismus) (undo) 10:39, 19 November 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎. . (8,985 bytes) (-48)‎. . (→‎μWatch: already in the text) (undo) 10:16, 19 November 2015‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎. . (9,517 bytes) (-905)‎. . (→‎Batteriser controversy: trim. This article is about Jones, not batteriser) (undo)
 * You are welcome to disagree with my judgement, but you have to contest and discuss it. Your irony ( "should we have an RfC for each point?! ") is misjudged. We cannot have an RFC without prior discussion of yes of each point, separately, in article talk page. Don't you see the hopeless mess with the ongoing all-in-one RFC? 17:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As you're aware, this page is under current discussion for all of the content you've edited, so you should familiarize yourself with the recent discussions on each point, and first discuss your edits in light of them, that would be the courteous and collaborative thing to do.
 * μWatch: trim advertismus - What you call "advertisement," I call reliably sourced review excerpts, that specifically demonstrate that the watch was seen as having high geek/nerd status - you may find that trivial, but it is not advertising. This was already discussed.
 * I am following WP:PEACOCK rule of Wikipedia. The language "totally trumps anything" or "crazily powerful" is not what is added to wikipedia articles. If you find something similar is Wikipedia good articles, I am open to reconsider my opinion. BTW, in the same editing batch I fixed sloppy text as well (although I was severely tempted to replace 'DIY' with 'DUI' :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misapplying WP:PEACOCK, which says in its first sentence: "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." The guideline refers to using "peacock terms" unattributed and in Wikipedia's voice, which is quite the opposite of the situation here, where the items you contest are attributed quotes. We aren't in the business of re-editing sources: "can't quote this source, it suffers from puffery." Furthermore, I explained (directly above, and further above) why I chose these quotes, to demonstrate the geek/nerd subculture fetishistic approval that is an aspect of this product, as demonstrated by the reputable sources, and you seem to ignore this entirely as well. --Tsavage (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact, the WP:PEACOCK "Just the facts" example of proper usage - Dylan was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation"[ref] - illustrates exactly the way in which I used the quotes. I don't mean to be unkind, but you should make sure you understand a policy or guideline and that it applies to the case at hand before you cite it. --Tsavage (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * μWatch: already in the text - removing a few words of straightforward explanatory text from a photo caption is not an improvement, photos with should be reasonably self-contained, "already in text" is what you think, generally speaking, captions should only contain information also available in the article, in the same way that an article lead should summarize only what is in an article.
 * The article text was barely longer than the caption and it was right here, so I don't see it as degradation. On the contrary, it saves the reader from wasting their time on duplicated information. 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With the (deleted) review quotes in place in the article, one of which noted the watch's main features, the caption did serve as a summary of the related section, not a near-total duplication, as you suggest. And again, captions should be reasonably informative and self-contained, to save the reader from having to read the text to determine what is in the photo - your edit made the caption less transparent, and more cryptic. On its own, a minor point, but in context of the other content removals, in this particular article, it has an effect similar to stubbing. --Tsavage (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Batteriser controversy: trim. This article is about Jones, not batteriser - This section is about Jones AND Batteriser, it is an actual controversial interaction (unlike many things editors label as "controversies"), with a series of strong statements addressing one another from both sides, and more strong input from third-party sources concerning Jones reviews of Batteriser. The meaning of your edit not is therefore unclear, if you find certain items of information irrelevant here, please highlight them and indicate why. This has been discussed extensively, which you don't seem to have considered. --Tsavage (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we are already discussing this. The meaning of my edit was stated: trim verbosity. Unlike newspapers, I understand that encyclopedia is to learn more by reading less. For the moment I don't contest the your text with a single exception: you should not quote verbatim dubious statements. BTW I verified the credentials of Hannah Francis, and she does appear to be a decent IT journalist, so the source passes two prongs of WP:RS: reliable publisher and reliable author. However there still the third prong: reliability of statements; even best journalists are prone to errors or occasionally sloppy writing. Therefore I strongly oppose to the text "It all started with...", because it may be misunderstood in several ways. And I fail do see how its removal worsens the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose to the text "It all started with..." is a lot different than the way you started, with forum citations and whatnot. In the bigger picture, I could not care less about arguing the precise meaning of that actual quote. I used it as a quick, incontestably sourced way to begin framing the section, in the midst of continual disputes. As I pointed out in my chronological controversy outline (the outline you called, "grandiose"), the controversial exchange between Jones and Batteriser began with Jones' June 5 post, and that can be made clear without unnecessary quotes in the fully realized version of the section...but is it possible to actually move forward with incremental editing? No, not at anything more than a glacial pace. So, while you can do just about anything you like as an editor, if you had picked through the 30k words of discussion for the relevant parts, or just asked, I would have explained why that quote was there for now, and this extra pile of words could have been avoided. --Tsavage (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
We are attempting moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please do not edit this article while discussion is in progress, and please take the discussion to DRN to centralize it rather than having it take place both there and here. Thank you. I will be adding any editors to DRN who have not yet been added. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead with your dispute. I am unsubscribing from your remote noticeboard, where you appear to take sides. I prefer discussing article content in article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And you continue to take sides, by deleting my votes from your draft while keeping others. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/David_L._Jones


 * Would the person who wrote the above please trouble themselves to sign it? Jeh (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the page says:

Articles affected by this dispute
 * 1) Template:David L. Jones


 * What? "Template"? I won't be surprised if this is rejected as malformed, as there clearly is no such template.
 * I'd just go in and edit the RFM page but I don't know if that would break their scripts. I believe that only the originator can make or request a change like that, anyway. Jeh (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was I who wrote the above, sorry. Anyway, it's fixed. Ronz, do you plan to go ahead with the RfC? ゼーロ (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm working on incorporating any proposed alternatives to the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the RfC require support from all editors involved though? If you can come up with suitable questions I'll support it, but I'm highly skeptical that anyone can. ゼーロ (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why anyone would think an RfC requires support of all involved editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, which is why I suggested a while ago that someone who seems to believe this is a useful approach goes ahead and puts up whatever they want, to move this along, as the hesitation seems to be at the point where outside editors may become involved (DRN having failed to move things forward or get outside input).


 * I'm also unclear why editors haven't taken items to the various noticeboards - I haven't so far, and explained why long ago: because I consider the challenges here are mostly obstructive and all but unfounded in PAGs, and don't want to waste other editors' time - ideally, they should be resolved locally among involved editors, so I'm exercising patience and local discussion. However, others who feel strongly about their challenges can easily put them to the test at BLPN, RSN, and so forth - why haven't/aren't they, why this less direct, less likely of a clear outcome RfC approach instead? --Tsavage (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the DRN discussion is archived here. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me like the DRN has failed, the RfC has failed to agree on questions, and some editors are ignoring the RfM. We have reached an impasse, and the only way I can see to break it is to agree to RfM. ゼーロ (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There appears to be some confusion on how the RfC process works. While it's best if all involved editors agree to the wording of an RfC, it's not required. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but work on it has ground to a halt and the results are unlikely to be accepted or even useful. ゼーロ (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry - it's not for lack of interest on my part - but I have some real-world stuff I have to attend to. No time for the extended, careful writing this requires. Maybe next week. Jeh (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just going to drag on forever. I suggest a deadline of the end of next week to start the RfC. ゼーロ (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive this page?
Regardless of dispute, the talk page is getting longer, and a reader would no longer bear browsing older sections at large size. Meanwhile, in case of frequent questions, we can create FAQs. --George Ho (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sections that have last been commented on prior to 2 Oct, the date of the last AfD decison, should be fine to archive, everything else is still currently being discussed, and the ToC gives a good overview of what's going on. The page size (500k) is still within reasonable file size, and is "readable prose size" by our page length standards, so I don't think there's a pressing need. --Tsavage (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But there would be very little archiving. I checked the dates. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "There would be very little archiving" - Well boo hoo. exactly. If we set it to a point where there would be significant archiving we will squirrel away a great deal of currently relevant discussion. (Or at least, I think it's currently relevant.)


 * The dispute is far from over, and if a reader would not be inclined to browse older sections at its current large size, they would be even less inclined to go look at an archive page.


 * Archiving is not recommended by any guideline, let alone required by any policy. Per WP:ARCHIVE it is merely "customary" - emphasis on the "merely".


 * As for an FAQ, I can only imagine the length of the discussion that would be required to arrive at agreed-upon "Answers" that cover it all.


 * Heck, I think we'd have a tough time agreeing on an archive period. I personally think it should be no more recent than the close of the previous AFD, say around May 31, not the more recent one.


 * I for one object strenuously to enabling archiving at this time. This suggestion and the required discussion is a distraction we don't need. If we do decide we want it, we can set it up without help. But thanks. Jeh (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's too early to archive. Let's resolve the disputes first. Jeh, would you care to add your decision to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/David_L._Jones ? ゼーロ (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Much of this needs archiving now. Archives material can still be linked and most of it is dead now. ゼーロ (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft RfC ready at this point?
I think the draft RfC is ready. Anyone see anything that needs improvement at this point? --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this RfC is ill-formed, and serves as an end-run on the AfD process. --Tsavage (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm not happy with the current structure at all. Frankly it's been driven by the same people who argued heavily for deletion, and who then have fought tooth and nail to reduce the content to a stub. I would rather see the RFC be a referendum on the contested interpretations of PAG (SOAP, ADVERT, BLP, etc.) rather than on specific snippets of content. Jeh (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with the RfC either, but I doubt any of us ever will be so you might as well just start it and get it over with. Chances are high that it will fail or be challenged anyway, so I don't see any point delaying it further. ゼーロ (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the arguments for each of these sets of changes (deletions) - i.e. the arguments against the existing text in the article - should be expounded. Thus, if it fails (and the existing sections are retained) then that will act as a rejection of those arguments, not simply on the exact changes proposed. At the very least, perhaps the comments added by responders (it is called a request for Comment, after all) would be informative as to others' analyses of these arguments. Jeh (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's actually a good idea. However, it will only work if the arguments can be summarised into reasonably short points. Otherwise it will be TL;DR and the default option of keeping what we have will win out because people can't be bothered to go through it all.
 * How about this as an alternative to arguments. Have short statements supporting each proposed version or complete removal. No arguments against, only in support of the editor's preference. That should avoid it turning into the usual Pythonesque debacle. ゼーロ (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Welll... it seems to me that if one has a statement in favor of a version that involves much less content than the existing one, then one is very clearly arguing against the existing version... or at least against the specific content that's in contention. So that rule would make it difficult to write such statements. So I think that rule would be overly restrictive.


 * Please note that I use the term "argument" not in the sense of the extended back-and-forth we've been having here but in the sense of an "argument" in a somewhat formal debate. State the issue, you state the rule you're claiming supports your side of the issue, and then you show how the rule applies to the case and why you think it supports your side. (See IRAC.) i.e. simply naming a P or G is not sufficient. Since nearly all of the disagreement on this page comes down to interpretations of P and G, I feel it is absolutely essential to forward progress that such arguments be commented on.


 * I object to the notion of "no arguments against". It seems to me that if you and Ronz can come up with a reasonably short point in favor of a change from the status quo that you want, and I should be able to agree on a single, reasonably short rebuttal. But no back-and-forth after that. (unless... see the end of this contribution.)


 * My thoughts here aren't complete... I wanted to get them out while they're fresh. But if you and Ronz and Tsavage like this idea, why don't we run a "pilot project": you and Ronz pick one of the points (say, the first one) and see what you two can come up with in terms of a succinct argument in support of the change you want. Then Tsavage, if s/he likes this idea, and I can draft a rebuttal. I think it can go fairly quickly because I can't imagine that any of us will have to, let alone be able to, come up with anything new; we just have to sift through all of the above on this page, find what we want, and whip it into succinct shape.


 * A couple of rules: you don't get to revise your argument after you see the rebuttal, any more than you would in a debate... so make it good the first time. I think you pretty much know what we're going to say, or at least what tacks we're likely to take, for most of these anyway. Trying to pre-empt the rebuttals should also be forbidden; your arguments "for" your changes should be all about making your case. If we wanted to extend the "formal debate" model then we could have another pair of statements, "argument against this change" (in which rebuttals to the argument for the change would NOT be allowed, only arguments against the change), that to be followed by "rebuttal of argument against". But let's first see if we can take the first step.  Jeh (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz and I are not a team, we don't agree on everything. In any case, I don't want to drag it out. If you object to the comments I made on the draft RfC then don't include them, and I'll repeat basically the same thing in the comments when the vote comes around. I just thought it would be a useful way to summarise the justifications for each version, without it getting TL;DR. If you can't justify your preferred version in a few sentences max... Well, IMHO you might as well not bother because no-one will read it and I'd say go with no statements. It's up to you, I just want to get on with it. ゼーロ (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeh's pilot project idea is a good one, which I'm up for trying, however, from discussions that have carried on for over two months now, the issue seems to go beyond rationally working out a reasonable application of PAGs. After all, would we be seriously arguing over details like whether or not to include the audience size (number of subscribers) in the description of a commercially run YouTube channel that is central to the article (and there are multiple examples of content challenges like this). What we have only touched on as a potential policy-based contributing factor is editor conduct. We have a prominent note on the draft RfC, from the DRN moderator, warning of off-wiki activity - following the link that gave rise to that warning, it seems that one of the editors involved here may actually be banned from the EEVBlog forums. Is that relevant here, is there a personal conflict of interest? Any comments on that? --Tsavage (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Better to WP:FOC.
 * If anyone thinks there is a conflict of interest, take it to the editor's talk page (which I already did) or to WP:COIN. Given there's no admitted coi and no evidence has been provided that there is a coi (accusations made outside Wikipedia count for nothing), I don't see how there could be an actionable WP:COI problem. Pursuing this without evidence can easily become harassment (see WP:OUTING). --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(material removed by　ゼーロ, see below)


 * ゼーロ Your deletion of my comment goes directly against Talk page protocol (emphasis from source):
 * "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. ... Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." - WP:TPO
 * You don't have my permission to edit or delete my comments. You made a claim that I outed you: there are no personal details or anything remotely close in that comment (or in anything else I've written), and the link in question, which I did not duplicate but only referred to, was supplied by you, and is the basis for the off-wiki caution at the top of the draft RfC. If there is some other policy or guideline issue here, I am not aware of it, please let me know. --Tsavage (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion, particularly "Since Oversight is not immediate, an administrator may provisionally delete the information from public view to minimize harm, then promptly contact an oversighter. Even if the material is ultimately found not to be suppressible, administrators are allowed to err on the side of caution, even in cases with an apparent conflict of interest, provided it is in good faith and they quickly seek oversighter review. If the oversighter decides suppression was not appropriate, the material will be restored or admin-deleted instead." I did ask you to do this yourself, as a courtesy, but since you declined I will ask for removal myself. Please do not restore it until an oversighter has made a decision. ゼーロ (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to apply to administrator deletions while waiting for oversight. Are you an administrator? If not, why are you deleting my comment? --Tsavage (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, yeah, mia culpa. I'm under some pressure here and trying to sort this out. Can you at least do me the courtesy of waiting for the oversight decision? I've emailed an administrator asking for them to look at it. Obviously, if this is unacceptable to you then please restore your comment, but perhaps you might consider emailing me directly first so we can discuss the matter off-wiki? I'd be happy to discuss the issues you alluded to. ゼーロ (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a bit, or restore while leaving out whatever I think you might think is a problem, which is hard to tell since no names or other identifying details are mentioned. I have no desire to enter into private discussion with you about anythings. I only want to fix up this article, post-AfD, and go... --Tsavage (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even a username at the other site was mentioned. Seems to me to fall very much short of "revealing personal identifying information". Jeh (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally overlooked the named references. I don't think having them all together will cause problems. We have an RfC. --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And I missed this expansion. I don't have time to fold it in now. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason for the Neutrality tag?
On 11 Nov 2015, ゼーロ placed a POV (Neutrality) tag on this article. According to the tag usage instructions:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

One of those conditions is:
 * 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given

Please explain what the neutrality issue is, otherwise, considering that a month has passed, the tag should be removed. --Tsavage (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As there's been no response for a week, and the editor who placed the tag has been active on this page during that period, I conclude there are no specific reasons for the Neutrality tag, and am removing it per guidelines. A non-neutral BLP is a problem, and such a problem if detected should be discussed and fixed promptly. This tag was in place for over a month. --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the RfC underway and that WP:UNDUE is one of the concerns, the tag shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz Please state the reason for neutrality here. Saying that "WP:UNDUE is one of the concerns" and pointing to a multi-part RfC is not making it "clear what the neutrality issues" and is not a "satisfactory explanation," as the guideline indicates. You are also tag-teaming with ゼーロ, who originally placed the tag. Furthermore, the RfC you are referring to, "RFC: Inclusion of draft sections," makes no mention of UNDUE or any other specific policy or guideline concerns, and in fact does not state any reason at all for its existence, other than to ask that editors pick from various versions of sections of content, presumably for whatever reasons they like.


 * Insistence on preserving a Neutrality tag with no stated reason for over a month is against the guideline and spirit of the tag. I have therefore removed it. --Tsavage (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tags should remain until the disputes resolved.
 * "The current version appears undue".
 * "It appears that some editors want to insert certain material into the article that other editors consider poorly sourced or undue weight." --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz: Your actions are disruptive, and hard to follow. I removed an umbrella Neutrality tag from the article, that had been there for a month with no clear explanation, leaving notes along the way right here in this section. You restored the tag, without providing a valid reason (the RfC you refer to does not question or even mention neutrality in any way shape or form). I removed it again. You have now placed Neutrality tags on two sections instead, neither with clear explanation,, and left some sort of pseudo-official, vaguely worded notification-style message on my Talk page, with a link to comment you made in the current RfC:


 * ''December 2015
 * Information orange.svg Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)'

You appear to be trying to create the impression that you are working well within policies and guidelines, instead of simply acting on your personal opinion, however, the latter seems to be the case. For example:
 * I did include a valid reason for removal in my initial edit summary: " removed Neutrality tag placed 11 Nov 2015 - no reason given and tag has been in place for ever a month: see Talk: "Reason for the Neutrality tag?" for details" and also recorded details here in Talk;
 * The POV tag I assume you're referring to not mentioned in maintenance templates, so I'm not sure why that is linked, meanwhile, the actual POV template page is quoted above.

I'm noting this here so there's a clear record of the various actions being taken. --Tsavage (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would help if we could all WP:AGF and WP:FOC.
 * The tag is justified given the DRN discussions, the prior discussions, and the discussions since. Let's focus on resolving the disputes. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't own this article, the tag is meant for the use of all editors towards improvement of Wikipedia, not just for those aware of a complicated multi-month dispute, and to that end, there are usage guidelines and instructions. The POV template page is clear in stating:


 * "You may remove this template whenever ... it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given."


 * This is directly linked to from the POV tag: "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met.


 * The best thing to do in a dispute is remain polite and follow policy. Your citing of assume good faith and focus on content do not excuse you from following unambiguous PAGs. You have now newly placed POV/Neutrality tags on two sections with no explanation, which means they meet the conditions for removal. --Tsavage (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm focusing on resolving the dispute, rather than the tags indicating the dispute exists. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why are you creating new tags? You don't seem to be acknowledging my comments or PAGs: POV tags, as their usage instructions state, are meant to highlight specific issues, clearly described for ALL editors, they're not private tags for involved editors, and should be removed if there is no clear, easily accessible explanation of what they are there for.


 * I'm focusing on article improvement, rather than wasting time on a poorly-formed RfC that even you, the original poster, doesn't have confidence in - your comment in the RfC, "I can't recall one like this that went well, but it was recommended by a neutral editor." doesn't say much for why it's there, and why anoyone should participate. Removing the month-old POV tag, which is not intended as a long-term tag, especially on a BLP article, is actual, direct article improvement. --Tsavage (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
The purpose of this multi-part RFC is to determine whether particular sections should be included in David L. Jones.

Please reply Yes or Include or No or Exclude in the Survey for each section. Where there are two choices of content, please indicate which is preferred. Do not respond to the !votes of other editors in the Survey. Discussion should be in Threaded Discussion.


 * Note to closer - There is off-wiki coordination concerning this article. For that reason, please discount all !votes by unregistered editors.  Please take into account that comments by new editors may represent off-wiki coordination. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Batteriser
Recent version: Recently, the article stated : On September 17, 2015, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article reporting on an upcoming battery booster product, the Batteriser, and controversy surrounding the claim that it could extend battery life by up to eight times. Dave Jones published at EEVBlog a detailed 40-minute theoretical 'takedown' of Batteroo's claims without having the product.. The CEO of Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, stated that "every single one" of Jones' points was wrong, indicated that legal action against Jones was being considered, claimed that Jones had no formal electronic engineering credentials, and alleged that Jones was in the employ of Duracell (a claim that company denied). Three electronics and battery storage experts interviewed for the article concurred in finding the product claims of 8x battery life extension, misleading.

Earlier, on September 2, 2015, the EEVBlog channel received a number of "dislikes," which Jones alleged was an attempt to demote the rank of a second video criticizing the Batteriser—it was later discovered that other YouTube channels with videos critical of the Batteriser were similarly affected. A researcher at Dell SecureWorks noted that the majority of the dislikes arrived "all at once in massive spikes that did not correlate with an increase in the number of views to the videos being disliked," and explained that dislike spam is a way to manipulate YouTube's view recommendation system.

Proposed version: "In mid 2015 Jones published a video blog disputing the claims made by the manufacturer of a then unreleased battery life extender, the Batteriser. Batteroo, the company behind the product, refuted Jones' arguments and published a number of demonstration videos in response. Jones' videos received a number of 'dislikes,' which he alleged was an attempt to demote the their rank. '"

Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed version ゼーロ (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed version While we have multiple sources here, they say almost nothing about Jones, and little about EEVblog. The current version is clearly undue. WP:NOTNEWS states, "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." While I think some coverage may be due, the current version has details that are far beyond anything encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP recent version  Jeh (talk)
 * Include proposed version - I agree with an above user that the current version is clearly WP:UNDUE and the sources do not necessarily support the information in the current version. The proposed version is more appropriate.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 01:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep current version subject to improvement - More specifically, include well-sourced facts that fully describe the controversy in a concise format. Choosing between arbitrary versions in an article that is in the midst of being written from scratch is not helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Change but expand Batteriser: A brief version is warranted, but elements of the the longer version are far more relevant to Batteriser, and could/should expand that article. Per my Industry Reaction vote, this Batteriser para should be included with Industry Reaction. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  04:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposed version should replace the word "refuted" with "disputed". If they refuted his arguments they disproved them (at least to wide acceptance), and that's not supported. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  00:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I'm hesitant to change it in the RfC at this point, but any associated content should be changed accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Ronz's arguments are invalid, examples of misapplying PAG.

First, the notability point he quotes from NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The section that NOTNEWS links to starts out: "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: [...] News reports." Emphasis added: It's about inclusion of entire articles, not content within articles. This is yet another example of the principle that notability requirements apply to article topics, not to points within an article. I would agree that we should not (given existing sources) have an entire article on the Batteriser controversy, but that's not what's at issue here.

WP:DUE does not apply here either. Rewording slightly from my earlier comment on this topic... I quote from WP:Neutrality (which is what WP:DUE links to):
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I don't see a problem with the existing content in this regard. If anything, Ronz and others have been vigorously trying to find reasons to exclude "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", rather than the opposite. But let's continue:
 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

In other words, WP:DUE has to do with giving appropriate emphasis to various viewpoints in an article that presents several opposing ones, even to the point of ignoring some viewpoints if they're the position of a "tiny minority". To correctly use WP:DUE to exclude sources here, they would have to present the viewpoints of a tiny minority, and for that to happen there would have to be a much larger majority with an opposing view. But there is no such opposing majority here, certainly not one whose opinions are being ignored. Therefore nothing at issue here can be considered UNDUE per the WP neutrality policy. Jeh (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
 * "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz: To restate editor Jeh's comment, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" refers to situations with multiple viewpoints. There are no multiple viewpoints here, the exchange between Jones and Batteriser exists, that is without a doubt, there is no second viewpoint saying it doesn't exist. You are attempting to apply DUE to an issue of how much coverage to give an item within a particular article. You quote one sentence of DUE/NOR policy, but fail to include the limiting sentence that immediately precedes it:
 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * This has to do with not making, for example, that some few people still claim the Earth is flat, so much coverage in an article on Earth, that readers may give conclude that that view is more prominent than it actually is. This is entirely different from you deciding that the Batteriser exchange doesn't deserve X amount of space because it's not very important. Relative weight of different sections of an article is certainly a concern, but it is not necesarily a DUE consideration - when sections of an article become exceedingly long and detailed, based on reliable sources, we create spin-off articles.


 * "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Sure, but the verifiable Jones-Batteriser media exchange is obviously suitable for an article about Jones and his media. This is where the often repeated PAG instruction, use common sense, comes in. --Tsavage (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz quotes: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." That's from WP:NOT. But the "inclusion" being talked about there is as standalone articles. Here's that sentence in context from WP:NOT:


 * "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: [...] News reports..."


 * (emphasis added.) This clearly is talking about development of "stand-alone articles", not content within articles. Once again I will state that I do not think Wikipedia should have a stand-alone article on the Batteriser controversy. I hope that that satisfies the concerns over this issue. But nobody is proposing that, so the quotation from WP:NOT is inapplicable. There is nothing there that requires or even encourages reduction of the existing content as requested by this RFC.


 * Even if we do consider the text in WP:NOT to apply here, there is nothing I can see there that definitively says that the existing text on the Batteriser controversy is unwarranted or excessive. Remember, the flip side of "not all verifiable events are suitable inclusion in Wikipedia" is "... but some are." We're left with "two commenters think the existing text is excessive, others don't." No P or G definitively supports the "it's excessive" conclusion, therefore Ronz's is not a PAG-based argument. It's just his personal opinion, stemming naturally from his belief (as repeatedly stated in the AFD discussions) that this article should not exist at all.
 * And if we do apply WP:NOT to this small item of content within this article, then we have to say that this phrase in the above-quoted text:
 * "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within Wikipedia's coverage"
 * clearly supports the retention of the "recent" text, which is "current and up-to-date information", "within Wikipedia's coverage", i.e., within the existing David L. Jones article. The proposed reduction would make it less up-to-date. Jeh (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * POV applies to all content. When sources are poor, any mention of a viewpoint may be undue. Promotional material might not have a specific guideline as WP:FRINGE does, but it still applies.
 * NOT applies to all content. WP:N is specific to article inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "NOT applies to all content" is belied by the text I quoted from NOT, which is the text you're trying to use to support your position, and which uses the word "article" to describe its area of applicability not once but twice. Even if we accept that NOT applies here, your argument is basically raising FUD. "When sources are poor..." begs the question: it has not been established that the sources are poor, that is simply your assertion, which you're trying to slip past us here as a proven point. "Any mention of a viewpoint may be undue" - yes, it might; but then again, it might not be. In this case there is no viewpoint being promoted here. We're not saying Jones was right (or wrong) about Batteriser or commenting on his actions in any way. There is only a series of events being reported. Jeh (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Similarly, re NPOV, you claim there are NPOV issues. But there can only be a NPOV issue if there are well-referenced points of view contrary to those presented in, but not included in, the article. Again, I don't think the article is presenting any point of view here, it is just relating a series of events. But if it is the case that a POV is being excluded, the correct action is to include it (with, of course, references), not to eviscerate the existing text. So: What are these other points of view that you claim the article is currently ignoring? Wringing your hands and saying "since the sources are not good enough by my evaluation, there may be POV issues" is not at all sufficient and cannot be used to justify exclusion of material. Jeh (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP says otherwise. It tells us to follow all content policies strictly, and to remove any material that is poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Follow all content policies strictly" - that's fine, but I claim that your interpretation of the content policies in question (NOT and POV) is flawed. "Poorly sourced" is also just your interpretation. Jeh (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original version is too detailed. However, I think the proposed one is a bit too short; I think it should mention that Jones was responding to information published in a news article.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anne Delong: Not to argue against your opinion, but to provide context, please check the comment above at 23:05, 19 November 2015. The first version presented in this RfC is in fact an interim draft, providing only a partial description of the events, on the way to writing up concise and comprehensive coverage, as summarized in that comment. The whole thing can be set out in no more text than what is given to partial coverage in the version here, and fine tuning of details would normally be done on a completed version; however, editing has ground to a halt due to many weeks of continual and (IMO) vaguely stated challenges like this RfC. --Tsavage (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was drawn here by a ping to the RFC. The proposal appeared very specific to me, and I made a specific suggestion for an addition to it, one easily sourced to a news report. I have no particular interest in this topic, but I am generally in favour of keeping articles concise as opposed to detailed, and adding a reference to a news report, magazine article or book with additional details if the reader wants more.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

μWatch
Recent version: Recently, the stated :"In 2008, Jones released the µWatch, a scientific calculator watch in kit form, which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400, the last available scientific calculator watch since 1985. Engadget ' and bit-tech' published positive reviews. The µWatch may be built from off-the-shelf parts following DIY instructions. It has a 16-bit processor and 64K of flash memory, and uses open source software. '"

Proposed version: "In 2008 Jones published open source plans for the 'µWatch', a scientific calculator watch in kit form, which he designed as a replacement for his defunct Casio CFX-400,"

Should one of these (the current or proposed content) be included in the article? If so, which? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed version ゼーロ (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed version: From the sourcing, μWatch appears worth noting, so we should include something. The current version appears undue, and its identifying reviews rather than using them as sources is unencyclopedic. It's unclear from the sources and discussions what was "released" and when, placing the Murph 2008 reference in question as to if and how it should be used. The proposed version has none of these problems, and can be easily expanded upon if needed. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * REJECT change: Proposed version excludes fact that Jones sold parts kits as well as releasing plans and microcode for free. Jeh (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * CHANGE to proposed version, with the expectation that "open source plans" would subsequently be modified to "open source plans and microcode": Though reviews might demonstrate professional critical reaction, both "reviews" listed are actually previews, and I've been unable to find anything significant (though this from Elektor is a possibility). The kit is a kit, but it's not bags of components and a blank PCB. Proposed version + modification covers User:Jeh's objections ("kit form" implies parts sold;"open source" implies released for free). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  02:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Retain existing version with reversion of "positive reviews" edit The Recent version under consideration here was not the version of the text under discussion for weeks, "positive reviews" was an editor's trim down edit that interpreted attributed quotes from Engadget and bit-tech as "positive reviews." Engadget, bit-tech, and Elektor are all reputable publications, and bit-tech and Elektor did full-length articles on the μWatch. Balanced, neutral editing (NPOV) suggests that we include mention of this significant media coverage, unless there is a clearly stated, policy-based reason why we should not. --Tsavage (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Industry reception
Proposed content #1: Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers.


 * Microchip Technology responded to one of Jones' largely negative reviews with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof, responding to the design criticisms.
 * Tektronix collaborated with Jones on a April Fools prank video concerning a minor effect of gravity on the accuracy of one of their products.
 * Silicon Labs embedded the EEVBlog Tiny Gecko review episode on their web site, and recommended it as a good video guide to their product.
 * Extech Instruments responded to praise from Jones with a press release covering in detail the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison.
 * On their web site, Cypress Semiconductor noted that Jones' had unpackaged their PSoC 5LP product in an EEVBlog "Mailbag" segment, and encourage readers to request a product review.

Proposed content #2: Jones' exhaustive reviews, antics and pranks, and irreverent style have been the subject of reactions from product manufacturers.

In "EEVblog #39 - Microchip PICkit 3 Programmer/Debugger Review" (9:54), Jones published a negative evaluation of the PICkit 3, commenting:
 * "I reckon management took over ... designed it by committee, how can we do it different ... these MBA management types, that's what they're trained to do. ... So they completely dropped support for the really cool external programmer software ... and I don't reckon we'll ever get it back. Why? Because some dickhead manager at Microchip ... will never admit they're wrong. That dickhead is probably going to get promoted, too. ... I tried to find something good about this compared to the PICkit 2 but I can't really, it's worse in almost every respect. It wins the EEVBlog Retarded Product of the Week Award."

Days later, Microchip Technology replied on YouTube with a spoof video, "Microchip Response to PICkit 3 Review from EEVblog #39" (7:40), where a fictional newly-hired manager with an MBA, D. Head (identified later in the video as Dick), reduces product quality and forces consumers to pay for upgrades in order to increase profits; the design engineers fight back by improving the product, and Mr. Head is eventually fired. In a follow-up EEVblog episode, Jones gave Microchip his first Flying Pig Award, described receiving a phone call from Microchip CEO, Steve Sanghi ("thanking me for raising the issues"), and commented, "It really is incredible that a multi-billion dollar huge corporation like Microchip Technologies would actually care about what someone like me says in my blog."

Extech Instruments covered the results of "EEVblog #91 - $50 Multimeter Shootout - Extech EX330, Amprobe AM220, Elenco, Vichy VC99, GS Pro-50" in a product press release, commenting on Jones' "candor, humor" and "characteristically irreverent and off-the-cuff style," and the "exhaustive 54-minute episode." The release includes frame grabs from the episode, and quotes liberally from the review.

Silicon Labs embedded the "EEVblog #269 - Energy Micro Tiny Gecko" (29:54) review in a company blog post, "EFM32 Tiny Gecko meets EEVblog," with the caption, "Not sure where to start ... ? Here is a good video guide made by David L. Jones from EEVblog ... an electronics engineering video blog showing how to test various electronics design products in a unique and enthusiastic way."

Tektronix supported Jones' concept for a 2015 April Fool's prank, resulting in "eevBLAB #8 - New Tektronix AGO3000 Oscilloscope" (8:24), an EEVBlog preview of an imaginary new product featuring a "mechanical, gravitational field sensor" intended to compensate for the effect of gravity on precise measurements (a real but non-problematic phenomenon), with Jones commenting, “Awesome, Tektronix leading the field yet again. Gravity compensation. Look out for gravity compensation."

Proposed content #3:"* Microchip Technology staff responded to Jones' largely negative review with a self-satirizing YouTube video, responding to the design criticisms."

Should one of these be included in the article? If so, which? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed content #3 ゼーロ (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude: Exclude as poorly sourced, promotional trivia inappropriate in a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed content #1. Each item is perfectly well sourced and presents the facts as described in the source with no neutrality issues. Jeh (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include #1 as closest of the choices provided. Manufacturer reactions to the reviews -- positive and negative -- are relevant to EEVBlog. My preference would be for the fifth point and (probably) the fourth to be clipped, for the puffery to be reduced, and and for things to be paragraphed as follows:
 * Jones's reviews have garnered a range of reactions from product manufacturers. For example, Silicon Labs recommended EEVBlog's Tiny Gecko review episode as a good video guide to their product and embedding it on their website, while Extech Instruments released a press release detailing the "exhaustive" EEVBlog product comparison. Microchip Technology responded to design criticisms in a largely-negative review with a self-satirizing YouTube video spoof.
 * 
 * undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk) 03:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Include #1 with expanded Microtek coverage, as it was a significantly more involved reaction than the others. --Tsavage (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
If there is no agreement then I will change my vote to exclude. ゼーロ (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing RfC
If no-one else objects I'll close this one. It seems like there is agreement and no desire to debate it further. ゼーロ (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't. There's no hurry and it would be better than someone independent of the disputes close it. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No comments have been received other than from people who have been on this talk page since long before the "RFC". The point of an RFC is to gain input from those not already involved in the dispute. An RFC that has attracted no, or an insignificant number of, outside comments is therefore null and void and should be closed as "no conclusion". Jeh (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

EEVBlog
Currently, the article contains a section titled "EEVBlog" states:"EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel on 4 April 2009. As of November 2015, the channel includes over 900 videos, has more than 290,000 subscribers, and a total of over 50 million views, recently averaging over 65,000 views per day;"

Proposed alternative:"The EEVBlog YouTube channel was started on 4 April 2009."

Should this content be included on the EEVBlog, regardless whether or not the Batteriser subsection is included? --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * INCLUDE proposed alternative ゼーロ (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed alternative I am unclear how all the stats are encyclopedic in any way, while they are clearly promotional. The section should have a basic description of the blog, especially if any are available from secondary sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include proposed alternative - Subscribers, views, and views per day are too promotional. Users are always attempting to add these types of statistics to articles but they are almost always removed. Meatsgains (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include broadly descriptive viewership statistics It violates neutrality policy (WP:NPOV) to exclude reliably sourced information that provides basic description of the subject, for selectively subjective reasons like, "it's promotional." Significant to describing any type of media is how many people a property reaches: circulation of a newspaper or magazine, box office revenue for a film, ratings for a TV show, subscribers for a cable channel, chart positions and sales awards for a music release, number of visitors, subscribers and views for web sites and streaming audio/video programs - we can't make odd exceptions for (commercial) online media. See: Template:Infobox YouTube personality. --Tsavage (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include some viewership statistics I agree that viewership is relevant to coverage of video based content, and can be included in ways that are very much not promotional, but I don't feel that going so in depth as to cite his average views per day as of a randomly selected date is necessary. I think that his subscriber count is descriptive enough, and the total views/views per day stats can be removed.(comment added by User:Tpdwkouaa at this diff)
 * Retain existing text Every movie article here cites box-office numbers, "Rotten Tomatoes" ratings, etc. Every TV article cites viewer statistics ("Nielsen" ratings or etc.). A great many articles on books include copies sold, number of weeks on on best-seller lists, etc. There is no specific policy or guideline that states that such things are "clearly promotional". Why are the equivalent stats "too promotional" here? Jeh (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep most of current version, clipping the average. Per User:Tsavage's para, Template:Infobox YouTube personality is applicable. Viewership/subscriber stats are part of that infobox, hence by (some) current community standard deemed relevant, and should be retained (unless/until said community standard changes). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  03:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
The viewership statistics are verified only with a primary source, demonstrating no encyclopedic value. For anyone to claim they belong, we need a secondary source to demonstrate the claim is not OR, that the information is DUE, and that it is something other than SOAP. Otherwise it violates WP:BLPPRIMARY.

WP:BLPPRIMARY states, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: This seems like a tortured interpretation of BLPPRIMARY, which augments WP:PRIMARY, not supercedes it (the section begins with a See also link to WP:PRIMARY). This has already been discussed: BLP is concerned with taking extra care with content that may directly affect an individual's life, such that it might hurt their reputation, invade their privacy, or otherwise cause them harm. BLPPRIMARY specifically says:
 * "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
 * That is the entire section, you only quoted the second half. It is referring to sensitive primary source material, not to wide open, non-controversial material like viewership stats published on YouTube, or reported on by a web stats service. WP:PRIMARY is clear on general inclusion standards:
 * "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
 * "For anyone to claim they belong, we need a secondary source to demonstrate the claim is not OR" Here you're into a totally different argument than BLP, the OR claim being that if a secondary source doesn't mention viewership, then we can't. That would hold true if viewership stats were some sort of opinion or conclusion, in fact, they're just a straightforward property of the media that has been deemed noteworthy. WP:OR is clear on this:
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. ... The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."
 * Viewership stats are straightforward facts (per the source), whether reported on from a reliable primary or secondary source. Also, I believe the stats are cited to a stats tracking service, which is a secondary source. --Tsavage (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "not supercedes it" I disagree. BLP does indeed supersede it. BLP places additional requirements to sourcing, content, and dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "additional requirements" for potentially controversial or damaging content about living people. If BLPPRIMARY superseded (took the place of) PRIMARY, it wouldn't start by linking to PRIMARY, it would say that it supersedes it. What it does say is that it concerns primary sources used to "support assertions about a living person" - as a definitions, that does not include statements of fact about the viewership of an online video program. BLP has a clear and obvious intent, spirit, and purpose, and that is not to protect people from YouTube viewership stats. --Tsavage (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is poor. BLP requires we use better. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The source is poor" is only your evaluation, not established fact. Jeh (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

writes: "Subscribers, views, and views per day are too promotional. Users are always attempting to add these types of statistics to articles but they are almost always removed." Please. Every movie article here cites box-office numbers, "Rotten Tomatoes" ratings, etc. Every TV article cites viewer ratings. A great many articles on books include copies sold, number of weeks on on best-seller lists, etc. There is no specific policy or guideline that states that such things are "too promotional". And the notion that viewer stats dispassionately gathered by computer programs require a secondary source to comment on them before we can include them is absurd. Jeh (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes and Nielsen. Note that they are notable and well-sourced for the specific purposes of box-office numbers for movies and viewer estimates for tv. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SocialBlade is well-sourced for this purpose. And your reply is an attempt at deflection, as it does not address my question: How is it that stats for one type of media are acceptable but stats for a YouTube channel are somehow inherently "promotional"? Or is it that stats from SocialBlade are somehow inherently "promotional"? If so, how is that? Failure to address my question strongly suggests that you know you don't have a good answer. Jeh (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage's argument is novel but clearly ridiculous. The stats don't increase the NPOV, let alone being required by it. Including them would require some expansion and explanation. Are the numbers impressive or mediocre? I did a bit of research but couldn't find much, beyond eevblog's subscribers being far too few to get near the top 5000 channels.

Including these numbers really seems like a poor attempt to deceive the reader into thinking that they are somehow indicative of success. I expect none of their advocates would be happy if we added a line about the channel failing to reach the top 5000, to maintain NPOV of course.

Note that the stats are incomplete too, since EEVblog is now available on other sites like Vimeo, so as a measure of views and popularity they suck. ゼーロ (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ゼーロ: These are more grasping arguments:
 * "The stats don't increase the NPOV, let alone being required by it" Not what was said. I said that selective omission of stats violates NPOV. We can't generally include media stats in articles, which we do, indicating wide consensus that they belong, and then exclude them for particular properties, because they've suddenly become "promotional."
 * "Including them would require some expansion and explanation. Are the numbers impressive or mediocre?" Not a requirement. The stats are basic attributes of the subject, they don't inherently require explanation. Additional context provided by a ranking number is useful. The Alexa rank for the EEVBlog web site (which you or Ronz removed) is such a ranking. Your argument appears to be that stats should only be included if they are somehow exceptional on their own...which is ridiculous: we have determined the subject notable, after that, any verifiable, reasonably descriptive information about that subject is to some degree noteworthy.
 * "I expect none of their advocates would be happy if we added a line about the channel failing to reach the top 5000" What exactly are you speculating about and why? The stats aren't there to indicate that the subject is notable, they're there because they describe the subject. As mentioned, the Alexa ranking was included - #56,359 global, at the moment - and you removed it. As for YouTube, number of subscribers for the most-subscribed YouTube channels are in the multiple millions - it's a long-tail number and ranking down the tail, while interesting, isn't all that meaningful on its own (long-tail indicating that a relatively small change in actual traffic can cause a seemingly huge jump in ranking the lower in rankings you go).
 * "Note that the stats are incomplete too, since eevblog's is now available on other sites like Video" And? That's the equivalent of saying that US box office figures for a movie are incomplete (and therefore shouldn't be included), because the film is also playing in the UK. The basic stats should be the most comprehensive available. Those in the article clearly refer to the YouTube channel, the original, main and best-known outlet.
 * Nothing you've argued holds up in the least. --Tsavage (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SocialBlade is a redlink. Rotten Tomatoes and Nielsen are not. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And? Pointed out to you earlier (00:03, 28 October 2015), Google News "SocialBlade" (sometimes, "Social Blade") to find it quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Variety, Business Insider, Forbes, New York Daily News, Global TV, Washington Post, NDTV, Daily Mail, MTV, ABC News, USA Today, and a significant number of other reputable media. I think it is safe to conclude that, between all of these media organizations, which include the leading business and entertainment industry news vehicles, enough third-party verification of SocialBlade as a reliable source has been done to meet our standards of verifiability. --Tsavage (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * US box office figures are a key metric by which movies are measured in the industry. Failure to perform often has negative repercussions for those involved in the movie, and can lead to things like sequels being cancelled. A lot of effort goes into gathering and reporting those statistics in a way that reflects this importance. In fact the Rotten Tomatoes score is an aggregate of critics' scores, not a simple raw statistic but an average opinion formed by mostly reliable sources. You can't compare either to raw YouTube stats.
 * You haven't addressed the issue of the stats being difficult for the reader to interpret either. Raw data like the physical size of something is easy to compare and visualize. Movie box office stats are widely published and can easily be compared with the cost of making the movie. YouTube stats are not well understood by most people, and require interpretation to be of any use. Other editors have voiced similar concerns - that their inclusion appears to be merely an attempt to make the channel look successful and thereby promote it.
 * Finally, try to avoid OR. YouTube is "the original, main and best-known outlet"? Says who? Are you sure there are not significant numbers of viewers elsewhere? What argument would you make against including Daily Motion and Vimeo stats too, if any? ゼーロ (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the article's detractors have bothered to respond to the question of why they deem the stats here to be "promotional", let alone "too promotional", when similar - agreed, not exactly the same - stats for other media are not. Jeh (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I did respond to that question in the paragraphs you replied to. ゼーロ (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You did not address why consumption statistics for online media are "promotional" when the same stats for TV, movies, books, music, and every other medium, are not considered promotional. Your convoluted arguments appear to be grasping at anything that might help to suppress content in this article. Why don't you (and Ronz) take this YouTube stats are promotional argument to the PewDiePie article, which affects way more Wikipedia readers than this article, and fight to remove the BLP promotional YouTube stuff, starting with the entire "YouTube information" infobox section with its "Subscribers 40.9 million (December 2015)."--Tsavage (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made my case, I won't be sealioned or prolong the RfC any further. Other editors can read what we wrote and make their own decisions. ゼーロ (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on RfC as a whole

 * Comment - Summoned by bot. This RFC is way to complex to answer. Break it down on separate RFCs if you need to, otherwise it is unlikely you will get a good response. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't recall one like this that went well, but it was recommended by a neutral editor. We'll see how it goes. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of fact: The DRN moderator did not recommend an RfC, he brought it up in a list of possibilities and asked how the parties felt about that avenue: "is each of the editors willing to agree to rely on Requests for Comments on the inclusion or exclusion of the questioned material?" Ronz, you were the only editor to unequivocally favor this approach ("RfCs are standard dispute resolution tools, and I cannot imagine why RfCs shouldn't be used."), while doubts or no commment were expressed by all other parties. So you are actually following through on your own preferred course, in a multi-part format that was argued against, even while admitting doubt in its effectiveness. --Tsavage (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * WHat do you propose we do otherwise? You already rejected further arbitration and didn't propose an RfC of your own design. There isn't anything else left. ゼーロ (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The next logical step has always been clear (at least, to me), and I've mentioned it, also, why I hesitate to take it because I don't want to clog up site-wide resources - editors' time - carrying on what I see as personal agendas being acted out through editing.


 * Content challenges have to come down to actionable specifics. Each challenge has to isolated, and then taken first to an appropriate noticeboard, and if no clear result, to an RfC. Undue weight is not open-ended and up to editor opinion, ultimately, if something is reliably sourced, that sourcing establishes sufficient weight for noteworthiness, and if the item is not obviously trivial or otherwise unencyclopedic (as covered under other PAGs, like WP:ISNOT), then the question is only of wording. At the point where it's a matter of wording, and editors still insist on forcing specific views through editing, behavioral policies against edit warring and reversion come into play.


 * This is standard procedure, but with the number of challenges being made, we would have perhaps dozens of individual noticeboard/RfC queries. For example, "is Engadget a reliable source for X," would be one item. "Is bit-tech a reliable source for Y," is another. And so forth.


 * One other, more nuclear approach, is to bring this to AN/I as a case of long-term disruptive editing, but that is an even bigger time-drain and overall headache-inducing prospect.


 * The way forward by PAGs is not unclear, it is just...unappealing. --Tsavage (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, okay, but you didn't do any of that and are now complaining about what did happen. ゼーロ (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm following the process. Four editors appear to be hugely committed to this article about an essentially non-controversial subject, which I think it is safe to say holds little to no interest to the vast majority of other editors. As one of those four editors, I'm trying to resolve things within the group, without distracting others, in particular because IMO these are not serious content issues, the arguing itself overshadows what is being argued about.


 * Talk discussion went to DRN at your suggestion (I believe, or Ronz's, or both), where I participated because I was not familiar with that DR option (I am now), and it was completely ineffective in this case, except, it gave rise to this sprawling RfC. You proposed formal mediation, Ronz quite promptly refused to participate, so I did not have to decide on that. And now I am respecting the RfC, insofar as politely commenting on it, as it seems to be the thing that at least two of the four editors, who are also the ones generally opposing my views, are involved with. I'm also patiently waiting - another recommended course - rather than possibly encouraging some sort of edit warring by committing changes. Does that answer your comment? I'm waiting on you. And Ronz. --Tsavage (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you expect will happen when the RfC finishes? ゼーロ (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm already continuing to edit. This RfC cannot find consensus for locking in an article to specific information and wordings of text. Certainly not on this vague basis. As you've seen, I'm continuing to edit as time permits, and, having exhausted other means, I will reluctantly use the noticeboards for very specific queries, and prepare a full complaint for AN/I if there is undue reversion. I'm trying to see how our system works when fully played out, and I think patient discussion has been given a good run. --Tsavage (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC seems to be gaining some traction from other editors. Please engage with it and respect the outcome, which is going to conflict with your edits. Please respect that other editors have made their opinions clear, even if you disagree with them out think they fail on technical grounds. There is still time to comment and vote. ゼーロ (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Please engage with it and respect the outcome, which is going to conflict with your edits." How do you know the outcome? --Tsavage (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't, but all possible outcomes at this point conflict with your edits, unless you somehow manage to get the RfC cancelled which I feel is unlikely. I hope that clarifies. ゼーロ (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the versions here I didn't write, and the majority aren't even in the article. At worst, we get local consensus on some random version, and that is used to argue more, meanwhile, a local RfC can't override wider consensus, which is most immediately represented by the PAGs. There are no actionable PAG-based challenges here, "pick one" means nothing, --Tsavage (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that you will ignore the result of the RfC if it does not go the way you think it should, because your interpretation of policy differs from that of the editors who voted a different way. Presumably you plan to resume your edit war when the RfC is translated into edits.
 * Obviously, I'm sure everyone wishes to avoid this. It seems like the consensus is against you here, but you won't accept that. You rejected moderation. How do you hope to resolve this situation? Simply edit warring and sealioning until other editors grow tired is not a good plan.
 * Please suggest something other than "keep arguing until everyone agrees with me", that incorporates the consensus reached by other editors. ゼーロ (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The RfC does not pose a clearly actionable question, as far as policy- and guideline-based issues - based on what criteria is a choice between versions supposed to be made? --Tsavage (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any criteria you like. Make your argument, see if it gains any traction. The time for moaning about the RfC content has passed. ゼーロ (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Split RfC: I just noticed this split of an RfC in an article under ArbCom enforcement. Any objections to doing the same? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going ahead with the splitting. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting reasons for POV/Neutrality section tags on μCurrent and µWatch?
Ronz: You newly placed POV/neutrality tags on two sections, μCurrent and µWatch, without explanation of the neutrality issues. Your edit summary says, "tagging while under dispute," however, it is not clear to me, and unlikely to be for any editor arriving freshly at the page, what the dispute is (even as an involved editor, there have been so many discussions and permutations over this relatively tiny amount of overall text, I am not clear on what the perceived problem is with the particular versions currently in the article).

Per the POV template usage instructions:


 * "You may remove this template whenever ... it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given."

Please indicate what the perceived problem is with each section. Thank you. --Tsavage (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Same reasons as given, discussed, currently the focus of the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz: That is not a "satisfactory explanation" that makes "clear what the neutrality issue is." The RfC question says zero about POV/Neutrality, it only asks editors to pick what they prefer from different versions of text, with NO additional instruction, so saying that it is the focus of the RfC is profoundly confusing. I'll wait a reasonable amount of time for an explanation of the tags - even I, an involved editor, have no clear idea of why they're there - and then I will remove those tags, per the POV template instructions above. --Tsavage (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. I suggest seeing if you can get anyone to agree with you. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ronz: This is a BLP. Addressing POV tags is a priority, and in order to address them, clear, actionable descriptions of the perceived problems must be supplied by the tagging editor. You still haven't done so. --Tsavage (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP says to simply remove the disputed content. How about we do that? --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing content requires a reason, same as tagging it with POV. You can go ahead and remove it, as you clearly threaten, and if there is no reasonable justification explicitly provided, I will restore it. You can't remove well-sourced, non-controversial content without a reason. You seem to be pushing for edit warring.


 * Why don't you simply comply with PAGs and provide clear reasons for the POV tags, so I and any other editors who come along can be clear on why those tags are there? --Tsavage (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing poorly sourced information from a BLP is a requirement. How about we comply with it? --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a little more specific, although it doesn't speak to the POV tags. Which sources are you questioning as poor? And what is the contentious material you are considering removing per WP:BLPREMOVE? And again, what are the clear explanations for each of the POV tags you placed? --Tsavage (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All the self-published sources are poor - WP:BLPSPS, (WP:BLPSELFPUB when using Jones' own publications). The interviews are poor - anything that Jones says in interviews in considered primary - WP:BLPPRIMARY. Very few sources are left, and those say little about Jones and EEVBlog. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You are describing sourcing issues, but you fail to indicate which sources you see as failing RS.
 * There are 22 items in the References section, 16 of which are independent sources, six of which are Jones' media, in an article of under 600 words.
 * The independent sources are all web sites, magazines and books from reputable publishers, there are no personal blogs, self-published books, or anything of the sort.
 * Three of the six citations to Jones' media are paired with a primary citation to an independent source.
 * All six of the Jones' media citations cover routine, non-controversial information, like taking the channel start date from the YouTube channel site.
 * Two interview articles are cited, but the material used is from the introductions to the interviews, which are secondary sources, and it is routine info, like that Jones founded EEVBlog and AmpHour.
 * Practically every sentence in this brief article has a citation.

In other words, what you are saying is not consistent with what is in the article, and that is why you need to refer to specifics. Anyone can make broad claims and point to an entire article and 22 sources: in order for other editors to consider your challenges, you must make them clear. Which sources do you have a problem with?

In addition, your vaguely stated sourcing issues do not establish a problem with neutrality. How is each of the sections that you placed a POV tag on, in violation of WP:NPOV? --Tsavage (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: I added a secondary source citation, so you can add "1" where applicable, above. --Tsavage (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We disagree. We have a RfC open in an attempt to get consensus. If you want to list and label each source in the disputed sections, I'd be happy to comment on them individually. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to list and label each source, I think they're fine, it is you who are challenging them. If you want to challenge content, you have to do the work, per PAGs, and make your concerns absolutely clear.


 * The RfC you are referring to is also vaguely framed, poorly formed, it asks editors to chose between versions, with no indication of why, it basically requires uninvolved editors to edit the article, section by section. Multiple editors have now pointed out that the RfC is not effective. Taking one huge and ineffective RfC and dividing it into several small and equally vague and ineffective RfCs doesn't improve the situation.


 * You still have not made clear the reason for the POV tags. You placed them, you are responsible for making why they are there clear. Please do so, or please remove them. --Tsavage (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I have no reason" I'd hope that reason would be to gain consensus and improve the article.
 * In my experience, the explanations are very clear. Best find someone that agrees with you if you're not going to change your mind about helping to achieve consensus yourself. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean the following as explanations, then I already addressed them. It's pretty simple to take whatever is not agreed upon to RSN as a logical place to seek DR for sourcing issues. To repeat:
 * Challenge: "All the self-published sources are poor - WP:BLPSPS, (WP:BLPSELFPUB when using Jones' own publications)"
 * Reply: All six of the Jones' media citations cover routine, non-controversial information, like taking the channel start date from the YouTube channel site.
 * Challenge: "The interviews are poor - anything that Jones says in interviews in considered primary - WP:BLPPRIMARY."
 * Reply: Two interview articles are cited, but the material used is from the introductions to the interviews, which are secondary sources, and it is routine info, like that Jones founded EEVBlog and AmpHour.
 * Challenge: "Very few sources are left"
 * Reply: There are 24 citations in the References section, 18 of which are to independent sources, six of which are Jones' media
 * Challenge: "and those say little about Jones and EEVBlog."
 * Reply: They clearly support what they are cited to, which is all they are required to do. The independent sources are all web sites, magazines and books from reputable publishers, there are no personal blogs, self-published books, or anything of the sort.


 * That's quite specific. Which cited content do you want to take to RSN first?


 * And, it's three days and counting since you placed multiple POV section tags on the article: what are the neutrality issues, so that they can be addressed? --Tsavage (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * These aren't RSN issues. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If they're not sourcing issues, what are they? And how do they relate to the neutrality tags that you placed on these sectons. It must be going on a week now, and you still haven't given any specific reasons. --Tsavage (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV issues, as repeatedly stated. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what ARE those NPOV issues? You placed two POV tags a few days ago, and I don't see any discussion dated since then, only this thread where you vaguely mention what appear to me to be broadly stated, non-specific sourcing issues, but which you call NPOV issues (and which have been addressed, to which you have not replied). If you are referring to previously fully stated NPOV problems with the sections you tagged, please indicate where, although I don't see this as likely (I've looked).


 * For perhaps the half-dozenth time, please explain what the POV issues are for the two tags you placed, per the tag template instructions as noted above. The template usage is made perfectly clear at Template:POV:
 * The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.
 * The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
 * Over the course of several days, I've been patiently and repeatedly asking for "specific issues that are actional within the content policies" and you have provided none, only continue to defy the template usage guidelines by not doing so. WP:NPOV is an entire page of policy, referring to it as a whole is far from actionable. Please provide specific, actionable issues so that they may be addressed, or remove the tags. --Tsavage (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the one who added the uCurrent section, and I'd like to discuss the reasons why it, as well as the uWatch section, are flagged for neutrality issues. Based on the above conversation, it seems like these reasons have yet to be explained. I have a hunch, and so to the editor who added the badges, I ask is the NPOV issue in question the inclusion of those sections entirely? That is to say, do you believe that the uWatch and uCurrent are not noteworthy, and that by including them, there is a bias that is lending undue importance to Jones's projects? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added here.
 * How about we start a specific discussion on uCurrent, as it was added after the RfC? Note that it's been mentioned multiple times, and that the expansion has all the problems of the disputed content in the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is my assumption for your POV dispute correct or not? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: The POV tags are being discussed here, this is the discussion for why they are there. That they are there without explanation is the issue. And the RfC is irrelevant, as it contains no specific challenges to anything, it only asks editors to choose versions. Can you please just answer the reason-for-POV-tagging question, or remove the tags? --Tsavage (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Tpdwkouaa: I believe I've said both are worth noting. What's disputes is how much weight we give each. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, Ok, I see. So they perhaps don't need their own individual sections, is what you're saying? In that case, they could potentially be lumped together into like, an "Other Projects" section. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ronz: Finally, something specific, but it is the same shifting argument you have been making for three months. Here you're talking about, it seems, balance (WP:BALASPS, different from WP:UNDUE), while in the RfC, your comment about the μCurrent watch is entirely different (my emphasis):
 * "From the sourcing, μWatch appears worth noting, so we should include something. The current version appears undue, and its identifying reviews rather than using them as sources is unencyclopedic. It's unclear from the sources and discussions what was "released" and when, placing the Murph 2008 reference in question as to if and how it should be used. The proposed version has none of these problems, and can be easily expanded upon if needed ."
 * The word "undue" is used, but the only actual issues described are about sourcing, not balance. That it can be "easily expanded upon if needed" suggests that, with better sources, more detail would be appropriate, which is contrary to your weight argument. And we're talking about a 70-word section vs a 30-word section, so this idea of misrepresentative balance based on how long the item is, doesn't make much sense.


 * Furthermore, we have multiple reputable media - Engaget, bit-tech, Make:, Elektor - with dedicated coverage of this watch, so to suggest that it gives too much weight or prominence to include information like basic specs and what some media said about it, defies common sense. There are more reliable secondary sources cited for this one paragraph than in some entire articles.


 * All of the above holds for μCurrent. And none of this supports a POV tag, no neutrality issue is described, which is what this section is discussing. --Tsavage (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If we're going off the nondeserving of separate categories thing, then perhaps there shouldn't be any separate categories, considering that none of the independent categories are more than like 5 lines long (excluding the batteriser stuff, which I'm not sure should be that long). Perhaps we could just have one category detailing all his pursuits? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * By "category" do you mean subsection heading? Jeh (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sry Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It would make sense to me to group all of the products under an H2 (top level) section called "Products". If the amount of content justifies, then have an H3 section for each product. Otherwise there is a way to make a heading that's approximately at the paragraph level - I don't remember the syntax. Jeh (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, or subheads under "Products" or whatever could simply be bolded, not marked up as headings. None of this supports a POV tag.


 * IMPORTANT NOTE: For editors not involved from the start (post-AfD "keep" in early Oct), the article was being rapidly expanded to a reasonable state when two editors (who supported the AfD), began challenging every edit, until improvement ground to a halt - otherwise, product headings and the like would have been changed and adjusted within hours or days. The sections in the RfC and in the article now are arbitrary drafts, frozen by argument, and not strongly held versions by one side of a debate. This is all documented in excruciating detail in the tens of thousands of words of back and forth, above. Here is the preferred version of the article late last September, according to Ronz.--Tsavage (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Products" or something similar might work. We need to be careful of WP:OR since we don't have any sources that cover them all. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A straightforward, neutral description is, "Electronic devices." I am still unclear on the justification for the POV tags. --Tsavage (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would propose using "Projects" for the subheader title, then the EEVBlog itself could be included as well Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That might fairly describe the µWatch and maybe the first version of the μCurrent, however, the second and current μCurrent Gold is a Kickstarter-funded commercial product, like any other piece of commercial electronic testing equipment, so calling it a "project" seems to minimize it, as if it's not a serious piece of professional gear, and we have sources that indicate otherwise: and others. Upon reconsideration: great idea! --Tsavage (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I didn't fully register the idea of including EEVBlog under Projects. Maybe that could work, if Projects is seen out of the hobby world context - which this subject is in - and read neutrally. But what's wrong with simply having straightforward headings, at least, for now, each indicating an item - Ronz hasn't even agreed that that's the issue? The larger concern is, why are we guessing at what specifically Ronz finds wrong with weight (same as we're making up our own issues in the "pick one" RfC)? How about Ronz follows guidelines and simply says, "This is what I see as the problem, blah-blah-blah overemphasizes X," and so forth - in clear, actionable terms - with direct reference to relevant text and sources? --Tsavage (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * EEVBlog has much more prominence than anything else. It's not even close to any of the other projects. The number and quality of the sources clearly demonstrate this, EEVBlog is as notable or perhaps more notable than Jones. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronz: After all this, that's your challenge and reason for POV tagging two sections?
 * A. If months of obstructive arguing hadn't held up actual contructive editing, the EEVBlog section (with Batteriser subsection, and perhaps others) would be substantially longer than μCurrent and µWatch sections, which would probably be single paragraphs.
 * B. There's no basis for POV-tagging with purely descriptive section headings, that comprised only of the name of the subject of the section.

That said, it's easily changed in 30 seconds, because either way, it doesn't matter, this is an interim version of an article in active development. And I have removed the POV tags because no clear PAG-based reason has been supported, and the general challenge has been addressed. --Tsavage (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

More appropriate infobox
As David Jones' notability is primarily based on being the founder and host of a YouTube channel, EEVBlog, I suggest replacing the current infobox with the more descriptive YouTube personality infobox: Template:Infobox YouTube personality. --Tsavage (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)