User talk:Basquerian

October 2021
Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please do not deliberately add deprecated sources to Wikipedia. They are deprecated because we literally cannot trust them.'' David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi David. Thank you for your message.

With respect, you are missing the point. You say that deprecated sources are deprecated 'because we literally cannot trust them'. Obviously, that is generally correct. But the specific point here - which you seem unable to acknowledge or engage with - is that the source is being cited merely for the specific point that the Sun article itself first came out on 25 June 2021. While I'd agree with you that the substantive content of the article is not reliable authority for anything in itself, it plainly is authority for when it was actually published.

So I would be grateful if you would do what you have so far failed to do: engage with that specific point and explain why it is wrong (if indeed it is).

Thank you.

Basquerian.

Hi David. You haven't goven me the courtesy of a response, so I assume you are accepting, by silence, that you are wrong. I will reinsert the source accordingly.

Basquerian


 * It's entirely unclear that creating a fresh sockpuppet account so that you can make one specific edit quite warrants an assumption of good faith editing; rather, it resembles an attempt to create a false appearance of consensus - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi David. Thank you for finally responding to me. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but you don't seem to be addressing anything I say above. The argument is that use of what would normally be an inappropriate source is clearly appropriate in this specific case for the specific purpose of confirming the date when the article was actually published. Is that argument wrong? And if so, why?

Basquerian.

Hi David. You haven't given me the courtesy of a response - and you still haven't addressed or responded to the argument itself - so I assume you are accepting, by silence, that you are wrong. I will reinsert the source accordingly.

Basquerian


 * as you're discovering, that's not how anything works on Wikipedia; I predict that if you continue on this path you will find your editing restricted. You should reconsider - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi David. Thank you for your rude, threatening and unconstructive response. I note that once again you have completely failed to address the argument being made - presumably because you know perfectly well that you were wrong, and you cannot let the point go. However, the point now seems academic, since I see that Martinevans has actually addressed the issue constructively by providing a better source for the same point (which, I confess, I hadn't thought of).

In the future, you might wish to consider behaving in a similarly constructive way, rather than aggressively trying to force your own views on others and ignoring rational criticism.

Basquerian