User talk:David Gerard/archive 16

IOTA
Please add IOTA (technology) to your spam patrol. Lot of hype on that page right now, just pruned a lot. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

 

Metadata on the March
From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1lib1ref campaign starts today, see The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref: also #1lib1ref introductory video by
 * Funders should mandate open citations, article 9 January 2018 in Nature by David Shotton
 * From snowflake to avalanche: Possibilities of using free citation data in libraries, translation from the German original of Annette Klein, Mannheim University Library
 * GLAM/Newsletter/December 2017/Contents/WMF GLAM report
 * Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won't happen again: Copyrights from the 1920s will start expiring next year if Congress doesn't act, Timothy B. Lee, 8 January 2018, Arstechnica
 * }

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 01:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

 

m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as Hub
One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier
 * The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign
 * Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by
 * Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by
 * What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018
 * }

Crying Sun Records
There is currently a discussion at Crying Sun Records to redirect/merge it with Radio Birdman, your comments/feedback are welcome at Crying Sun Records merger proposal. Dan arndt (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Creation of BookMyShow
I think the site BookMyShow has gained enough notability and coverage, It qualifies for an article. What are your thoughts? Notability AyaanLamar (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, though I see a little more WP:RS coverage since the AFD Articles for deletion/Bookmyshow. Definitely one for AFC/draft first - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They deleted the draft, too, FYI. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BookMyShow. —Cryptic 01:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018
Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition Did you know? Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?



Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.



This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

 * The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools.  The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments.  They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing.  The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January.  Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor.  Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits.  More information will be posted at Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
 * The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor.  When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs.  You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs".  The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges.
 * Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor.
 * The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time.  It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up.  Other wikis can have this service, too.  Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together

 * The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
 * Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
 * The  block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens.  This makes footnotes easier to read.  This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia.  If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either   or the plain (no parameters)   template.  If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki.
 * If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

 

Milestone for mix'n'match
Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author,, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal.

Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders.

These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. Mix'n'match/Manual for more.

For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading.

Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite!

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes 3D allowing users to upload .STLs for digital reference, Beau Jackson for 3dprintingindustry.com, February 22 2018
 * WikiCite report (video)
 * Formal publication and announcement of ISBN citation dataset, see Twitter post, February 23 2018
 * Plotting the Course Through Charted Waters, workshop on data visualization literacy from Mikhail Popov, Wikimedia Foundation
 * Using Wikidata to build an authority list of Holocaust-era ghettos, Nancy Cooey, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, February 12 2018
 * Why Should You Learn SPARQL? Wikidata! Mark Longair, blogpost November 29 2017
 * Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?, George Anadiotis for Big on Data, March 5 2018
 * }

Nomination of Fresh (band) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fresh (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fresh (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Perverted by Language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Claude Bessy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Perverted_by_Language check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Perverted_by_Language?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian Grigg
Hello David. You seem to have a lot of information on blockchain. I have two questions for you:

1. In the leaked documents that is used by the late David Kleimen's family to sue CSW, Craig is referring to David as one of the three persons involved in developing bitcoin. I am wondering if you have any thoughts on who might the third person be.

2. Who is Ian Grigg anyways?

Thanks --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I researched this heavily for the Craig Wright section of my own book on bitcoins and blockchains.
 * I'll state straight out, based on the evidence, that I think Wright had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of bitcoin.
 * I could find no evidence that didn't come via Wright that Kleiman had any interest whatsoever in cryptocurrency, or even in programming. The closest was a quote in Andrew O'Hagan's LRB profile of Wright from Wright's ex-wife talking about them visiting Kleiman - but given the complete absence of other non-Wright evidence, I'd class that as "from Wright".
 * That's all original research for Wikipedia purposes and my book's done quite well, but it's probably not an RS itself yet ;-)
 * Grigg is someone who blogs about financial cryptography. He has stated that he knows personally that Wright and Kleiman developed bitcoin. I see no reason to lend any credibility to this. He works at R3 on their not-a-blockchain product, and Wright quoted him in one of his backdated blog posts, so he's not completely unrelated to the area.
 * - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again David. I am wondering if there is any way to access CSW's old blog through some web archive or something. Do you happen to know its name by any chance? Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wright's blog with the backdated posts was at http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com/ - you may be able to find some of the posts through archive.org (which is how people worked out he'd backdated them, and given the apparently backdated PGP key I think assuming backdating of the blog is not unreasonable) or archive.is - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018

 

The 100 Skins of the Onion
Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.

Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.

Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF. From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus, CWTS blogpost 17 January 2018, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto
 * Citations with identifiers in Wikipedia, figshare dataset
 * Making women more visible online—with Wikidata tools!, Wikimedia blogpost 29 March 2018 by Sandra Fauconnier
 * Village pump discussion, Turn on mapframe? We’re ready if you are reaches conclusions
 * The Power of the Wikimedia Movement beyond Wikimedia, Forbes 28 March 2018, Michael Bernick
 * Tracing stolen bitcoin, blogpost 26 March 2018 by Ross J. Anderson
 * }

Nomination of Fresco (windowing system) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fresco (windowing system) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fresco (windowing system) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I would have appreciated if you brought your concerns about conflict of interest to me before posting them at the noticeboard. You appear to have misinterpreted the purpose of my Wikipedian-in-Residence position. I work for the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a federal laboratory that performs research on workplace health and safety. My position is not intended in any way to advocate for new technologies, but in fact to ensure that there is reliable information about their health and safety hazards.

I was and still am happy to bring more people into the discussion as it seems we're unlikely to agree on the policy issues, but you have accused me of some fairly serious transgressions in an area which is controversial on Wikipedia right now. I fear that the way you have worded these will make it harder, not easier, to constructively resolve the policy issues. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry if there has been any misunderstanding. I have not been paid to edit the Feynman Prize article or any other article outside of my Wikipedian-in-Residence position. None of my work on Wikipedia, paid or unpaid, has ever advocated fringe theories. User:Fuzheado and User:Doc James can confirm this. Please withdraw your accusations at COIN and AfD. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 09:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nanotechnology, particularly in the magical robots sense advanced by the Foresight Institute, is fringe science. You are literally paid to advocate nanotechnology as a respectable non-fringe field on Wikipedia. These are objectively facts. There is no "accusation" to withdraw - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I see where the misunderstanding is. Yes, the type of nanotechnology advocated by Drexler and the Foresight Institute of mechanical nanorobots isn't considered feasible or scientifically valid by most scientists, though it is notable for its historical role in the development of the field.  However, nanotechnology as a field is much larger, and contains much legitimate research on things such as nanoparticles, semiconductor fabrication, and supramolecular chemistry.  Top universities have faculty working in nanotechnology, and the U.S. government alone spends $1.2 billion on nanotechnology research each year .  Do you think all of that is fringe science?  Does this article, which I wrote as part of my paid Wikipedian-in-Residence position, look like fringe science?  I know that the Drexler vision tends to be more known in popular culture, but it isn't actually representative of nanotechnology research performed by scientists, and most people don't know that.
 * Also, it's the case that the Feynman Prize actually has been to awarded to practitioners of the latter type of nanotechnology rather than the narrow vision the Foresight Institute is known for. This source sums it up well: "Nevertheless the link between the Drexler program and the research recognized by the Prize and the stance toward Drexler’s NSR [nanoscale research] perspective is highly complex. While the great majority of the Feynman Nanotechnology Prize laureates equate NSR with important and sometimes radical or paradigmatic change in science, very few identify with the vision and priorities of the Drexlerian-sponsored Foresight Institute." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions proposal
David, thought you might be interested: A proposal to impose community authorized discretionary sanctions on all articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, is currently being discussed at Administrators'_noticeboard. Your comments are appreciated at that discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to LessWrong
Hi David, In reverting my edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LessWrong&oldid=prev&diff=843254142, you provided no explanation. I removed the xkcd reference because it that comic only discussed AI, not the specific themes of Roko's Basilisk. Are you able to justify keeping this reference? Btw, please explain your edits in future. Owen214 (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The tooltip mentions it explicitly - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any tooltips in the comic, I'm not sure what you mean. Owen214 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The tooltip on is "I'm working to bring about a superintelligent AI that will eternally torment everyone who failed to make fun of the Roko&#39;s Basilisk people." View source if your browser isn't rendering it - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I see now. Idk why this explanation couldn't have been provided in the edit log :/ Owen214 (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color: #7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

 

ScienceSource funded
The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video.

The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.
 * A medical canon?

The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.

Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.

Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data, Wikidata's multi-lingual dictionary project gets going
 * Ordia tool, a basic search interface for Wikidata lexemes and forms
 * OpenRefine tool 3.0, May update allows wrangling of tabular information into Wikidata
 * d:Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians pushes ahead with data modelling and imports
 * #1Lib1Ref Returns for a Second Time in 2018, IFLA blogpost 25 May 2018, second chance this year to participate in referencing Wikipedia
 * }

Pseudoscience tag on Foresight Institute
A couple of weeks ago you place a pseudoscience tag on the Talk page of Foresight Institute. You gave no reason. It has become a subject of discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Can you please help shed some light on the addition of that tag, preferably in that discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Foresight Institute pushes the pseudoscience version of nanotechnology, i.e. Drexlerian magical microscopic robots. There is considerable debate on the prize's talk page as to the extent this even deserves to be presented in Wikipedia in the form it's being presented in. Posting this here without mentioning that context comes across as deliberately misleading - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Neville Brody
Hello David Gerard, I have removed the content as it violated several Wikipedia content guidelines (partly unsourced, partly based on a non-reliable source, unencyclopedic non-neutral language and artist jargon). Subjective personal statements like "Neville Brody was a lover of fine art and painting. He had an obsession with art in the 1960s and 1970s." are fine in artists' biographies in magazines or the artist's own website, but simply do not belong in a fact-based encyclopedic article. Unfortunately several other sections of the article have similar flaws and should be rewritten in a dispassionate uninvolved tone. I have already started a short thread on the article's talkpage to point out some of these concerns if you'd like to comment. I'd be glad to discuss this to agree on possible improvements. GermanJoe (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Bow Wow Wow
I posted on the subject of this image & fair use at Media copyright questions if you would like to comment. Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, my question has been up for about a week, and no one is commenting on it. I'm trying to do the right thing, but I'm not getting any feedback. With that said, thank you for your feedback. Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 13 – 29 May 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 14 – 21 July 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hedera Hashgraph (Hashgraph Article)
Hello David,

I would appreciate if you asked before deleting facts on a Wiki articles.

Information was sourced from ACN Newswire (ACN Newswire distributes press releases in XML format for direct, real-time delivery to financial terminals, syndication partners, news databases and services, and websites around the world. In all, ACN Newswire delivers press releases to more than 3,500 websites, 8,000 media organizations and 1.5 million professional desktops in 70 countries. ACN Newswire is proud to publish with each of its publishing partners below.)

Some of their partners includes Bloomberg, Reuters, Marketwatch, etc.

The other citation is from the US Government website which expands on the 506(c) regulations for context purposes.

The 2 sources I have cited are quite reliable, if you wish me to add more sources just say so, but don't start deleting reliable sourced content.


 * Please read and understand WP:RS before adding self-sourced content such as press releases - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I read the section which I believe you are referring too and I do not see the infringement which you speak of. I can add additional sources but I am not removing the current citation as it is reliable and not considered self-published.


 * Please keep in mind that the crypto currency facts are mostly covered by the media and rarely by independent experts, if we were to ignore the media entirely, there wouldn't be anything about crypto in general and an article like Bitcoin would have to be stripped down from 90% of its article. I did my best to find independent sources which had no vested interest in Hashgraph and in that respect, I kept true into the nature of wikis.


 * To the extent this is true, it means that the crypto in question is not notable and shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia at all. This has previously been a recurring problem with the HashGraph article in particular - people add extensive material that just hasn't got reliable sourcing, and it has to be removed. This led to the article's deletion the first time around.


 * Press releases are completely self-published. They are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources, except as evidence of self-published material - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Then how can an editor tell the difference between a press release or news/media coverage, because all news to me looks like a press release. Keep in mind I am trying my best to update this topic at it is seriously empty of content and a lot of media has been discussed around this technology. 66.46.127.94 (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sanction alert
QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Coinify
There appears to be some dispute at Talk:List of bitcoin companies about whether Coinify is notable or not. This seems like the sort of thing you might have an opinion regarding. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is to create an article that passes WP:CORP really - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of X.Org Foundation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article X.Org Foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/X.Org Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. w umbolo  ^^^  10:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inter-Client Communication Conventions Manual


The article Inter-Client Communication Conventions Manual has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Only passing mentions in sources and literature; not notable."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. w umbolo  ^^^  10:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of X.Org Server for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article X.Org Server is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/X.Org Server until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. w umbolo  ^^^  10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ultrix Window Manager


The article Ultrix Window Manager has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Only passing mentions and primary sources."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. w umbolo  ^^^  12:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ultrix Window Manager for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ultrix Window Manager is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ultrix Window Manager until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. w umbolo  ^^^  09:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of XFree86 Acceleration Architecture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XFree86 Acceleration Architecture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/XFree86 Acceleration Architecture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Multi-Processing Environment


The article Multi-Processing Environment has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It deserves it - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

DTube
I copied and reworded the DTube info from the Steemit article after adding the redirect because I'm astounded that DTube doesn't have a page like BitChute on Wikipedia. I admit that I hadn't checked the citation, so I don't know about the "referenced to pay-for-coverage site" aspect of it. Perhaps you'll need to alter the Steemit article. Obviously I think the DTube stuff should stay. I only added it because I came to Wikipedia looking for more information on D-Tube and was shocked there's none. Seems weird. I'd be happy to start a DTube article if you think that's a good idea. I'll have to make time for that though and know it won't be deleted for some other reason I am unaware of (ie. political reasons, or maybe D-Tube is a scam - I wouldn't know cause I haven't researched it yet, but what I have heard it sounds pretty good). I look forward to hearing your ideas. Please ping me. ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   09:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, fundamentally - does DTube have coverage in reliable sources that aren't bitcoin blogs? e.g. I can find slight mention in mainstream sources. So I'd start with that stuff - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018
Read this in another language •  Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter  •  Subscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.



Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes

 * The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
 * The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles.  You can read the report.
 * The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
 * The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar.  You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
 * The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
 * The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images.  It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published.

Let's work together

 * The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website.  Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
 * The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
 * If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly.  We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation.

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

BTC Manager
BTC Manager does not accept pay to play articles. This is like saying Fox News published an article saying that Washington Post accepts Pay to Play on Amazon articles. #FAKENEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.188.42.237 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It turns out this is not the case - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Consideration for removing additional citations tag
You are one of the more recent editors to Steve Teig's wiki page and I'd like to ask that you'd consider removing the citations needed stub as I've added a couple notable ones to claims made. I believe it meets the requirement but since I work for the company and try to keep this transparent and abide by guidelines, I'd prefer if you take a look! Sam xperi (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It has literally no sources that pass WP:RS - without them, per WP:BLP, it shouldn't really exist as an article ... I just checked Google News for "Steve Teig" and there's three articles that aren't press releases, and they're only the barest passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

IPFS
Those Protocol Labs IPFS-related projects are admittedly not famous notable, but they are important and integral to how IPFS operates. What subsection title would you prefer that I place them under? We can create a new section for "Protocol Labs", "dependencies", "inter-related projects", or whatever you like. ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   23:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The big problem is that there were literally no RSes for any of them except Filecoin. If there was any sign third parties had written any of them up in RSes ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I included links to the open-source developments on GitHub. Do you have other solutions?  Perhaps they don't need to be independent "notable users" or separate paragraphs so much as one paragraph that encompasses all of them, perhaps "How it works" or "The Decentralized Web"?
 * Also, in my opinion, because the 5 Protocol Labs projects are interrelated, I feel the Filecoin article should be folded into the IPFS article.
 * What do you think? ~   JasonCarswell   (talk)   00:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Or better still - all folded into one Protocol Labs article, though I have mixed feelings about "promoting" organizations, etc, but it is all under one umbrella after all. Also, FYI, I have nothing to do with Protocol Labs.  I was the Bay Area over 10 years ago but I've in Windsor Ontario for years.  I'm just a fan of the profound potential of the Decentralized Web they're developing - if it isn't all vapourware and if they can survive the corporatocracy.  Anyway, I'm curious to know what you think. I'm asking as you'll probably be the one to revert my "errors", but perhaps I should take all this IPFS stuff to the Talk:InterPlanetary_File_System and Talk:Filecoin pages to die in obscurity.  I don't know.  That's why I'm asking.  I'd rather find inclusive solutions with you.  Not everything on Wikipedia has citations, so I don't see why it needs to be so severe for something so new.  I'm not trying to sell it so much as compile information, summarize, and clearly explain its new ideas for anyone interested.  Maybe it's a pipe dream to be exposed.  So anyways I'll check back here later if you forget to ping me.  ~   JasonCarswell   (talk)   06:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The fundamental reason is because Wikipedia isn't a directory of prospective projects, and keeping the spam down to only a small gushing torrent. This is particularly bad in anything even slightly tangential to cryptocurrency, as IPFS is. Github links are primary links and totally don't meet WP:RS. Everything in any article has to meet verifiability and no original research standards, with third-party reliable sources to back up claims. If other articles don't meet those standards, the answer is to fix those articles - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response and really good insight into the broader and finer stuff. When you say it like that it makes a lot more sense.  There certainly is a flurry of greed and nonsense, as well as desperation in these strange days.  Regarding the lax citations, I was not specifically referring to technical stuff, but I now see how some may think certain topics might need it more.  I don't disagree with most of what you said, but would like to explain a bit more of where I'm coming from, and maybe we can build on that, perhaps with some flexibility.


 * I'm not into code or the details of geekery, but I am a fan and I'm interested in much more besides. I don't pretend to know what will be successful or a failure.  I don't even know half of all the crypto stuff that exists out there.  I know Etherium exists and is more practical than Bitcoin but I actually have no interest in either.  I have a Steeemit account and posted less than 15 things over the last few years - and I still don't really trust it.  I'm not even a fan of DTube or BitChute, though I am terribly disappointed in YouTube in general and for all the censorship.  I've never used Mycroft, WebTorrent, or ZeroNet though theoretically they sound great though flawed.  For about a year now I've been considering installing IPFS but have yet to actually bother for lack of time and practical application.  But for some reason the concepts of IPFS (poor name choice) inspire hope like rarely before.  In part because I don't see many flaws in the concepts - and I'm looking.  The last time I got this excited was for FreeNAS.


 * So I may add to some of these tech articles (only those I'm interested in) and few more besides from time to time on rare occasions, but for the most part my focus and interests are more diverse. So why am I writing all this?  Because I'm so moved by the profound potential I see in IPFS, perhaps in error, perhaps not.  If there are similar projects like this I'd love to hear about them.  Seriously, please.  The only one I know of that might be similar is this Solid (web decentralization project) article that doesn't really say too much, and I only found that in a "See also" section and haven't heard anything about it in other circles.  Perhaps if I discovered these type of projects were a dime a dozen I might have to give up hope - but I'd rather know the truth than not.


 * The history and geopolitical newsworthy aspects of IPFS are interesting but I'm not going to research for that. I wanted to include DTube as a practical application that uses IPFS but I can live without it until it gets MSM newsworthy.  If some other application comes along, fine.  I'd only add it if I stumbled on it.  I'm less interested in the practical applications.


 * What I'm enthusiastic about is the theoretical aspects and how all 5 projects are inter-related. I don't like the InterPlanetary name.  Protocol Labs is meh, but its kind of appropriate and all encompassing.  I think Filecoin should be folded back in with the other four, even if it was all called IPFS.  I'd rather call them the "Decentralized Web" but I don't know who else would get on board with that broad a term that might also include others and need another more general article, including Solid, Indie Web, and Dat.  Anyways, the article title aside, I'd like to bring back those 3 other descriptions about the projects' functional purposes and better describe how they all tie in together - because they do all tie together and are important to each other and the IPFS.  It's like building a house without plumbing, electricity, and phone lines.  It's a house, but sorta not really.


 * I feel this article is incomplete without brief technical descriptions written for the layman, which one does not get in MSM press. The press may talk about geopolitical applications, initial coin offerings, markets, or whatever - things I'm just not interested in enough to actually research and document. As I said, I'm for folding the Filecoin article completely back into the IPFS article (we hardly need more coins) but I don't care that much, as long as it's included there with IPFS and the other 3.  I have no interest in expanding beyond the short descriptions that were there, brief is good.  They were each shorter than the Merkle paragraphs but I suspect we could simplify them further with some attention.


 * I've gone down my list of tech faves and interests and don't expect to do this again for another year or two. I have zero interest in any crypto stuff and little interest writing for any other tech articles I haven't already done (or tried).  Except maybe a "decentralized web" article/stub f that I'd be happy to collaborate with you on.


 * Sorry this got much long than I meant it to be, thanks for enduring my spiel. I value your feedback if you think Decentralized web is a good idea and if you might permit me to add shorter IPLD, Multiformats, and libp2p descriptions and redirects to the IPFS article.  ~   JasonCarswell   (talk)   11:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ping? ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   13:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Solve.care
You deleted a page I had created for solve.care. I have only ever really done maintenance tasks for the most part because I only have time on vacation ECT. Their project is very personal to me due to my long standing health issues and time I spent in and around the medical system. I am not affiliated with the company or an investor. You said it was because it was not notable due to some new non notable publication saying that one of my sources was no good. Which I responded to and never got a reply. But that is a separate issue. They recently were featured in an article on Forbes. What more do they need to be considered notable? They got approved on the google app store. They have a client in the USA. They are in operation. I'll probably stick to maintenance tasks again in the future. But I do not plan to give up on this... What do you need to see to convince you this is noteworthy? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffersonnunn/2018/11/07/high-costs-headaches-and-hidden-money-pits-of-healthcare-combated-by-blockchain/#983c12671248 Archersbobsburgers (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That's literally a contributor blog, i.e. not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. I set out some of the problem here - these things really are just user-generated blog posts, not evidence of any sort of notability.
 * I didn't delete it - I marked it for prospective deletion, and then it died a week later.
 * If you want it back - I suggest a Draft: space article with lots of third-party mainstream sources that pass WP:RS. Not Forbes blogs, not bitcoin blogs - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, understood. What about the other issue where you labeled a series of sites as pay for play even though the source is not even remotely reputable? I am confused how that source could not be used to show notability but can be used to pass judgment on other sites use on Wikipedia? That does not make sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archersbobsburgers (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to argue sourcing issues, go to WP:RSN, where it won't just be talking to me - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I did it got archived and no response. To be clear I am not trying argue it as much as trying to understand the logic in it. Obviously your the expert. How do I bring it back from archives? Or how does that work? Archersbobsburgers (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing prior comments
Hi. Regarding Special:diff/868022408, it would be cleaner to just strike out the part that no longer applies. That makes it easier for future readers to understand the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Susan Schneider editting history
Hope it's okay I'm bringing this up; I noticed you've edited Susan Schneider in the past, you're a wikipedian I recognized, and I'm not familiar with the appropriate thing to do in this situation.

I was looking at the edit history for the Susan Schneider article and noticed a strange pattern.

The article was created by User:Philosopher_of_Mind, whose only contributions (with one small exception) to wikipedia have been adding links in other articles to Susan Schneider and then creating and populating the page.

It was then edited by | an anon user, whose only contributions to wikipedia have been adding material to Susan Schneider.

Further editing came from User:Alessandraronemus, whose only contributions to wikipedia have been editing the Susan Schneider page, adding links elsewhere about Susan Schneider, and discussing the Susan Schneider page.

We also have a series of edits from |another anonymous user who has edited nothing but the Susan Schneider page.

And the notability tag on the page was removed by | another anon who has never edited any other pages.

Along the way there have been a small number of edits from other wikipedians, but it appears that virtually the entire article has been created by a single editor with multiple accounts / multiple editors who only care about one, not very notable, subject.

I don't know what the appropriate thing to do (if any) is in this circumstance so just wanted to bring this to you. I wasn't sure if I should post on the talk page or what. Larklight (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Vanity articles happen. Probably worth going over the refs for it with a fine tooth comb. It's from the transhumanist subculture, and they're very good at creating mountains of not-very-good cites to each other's work - David Gerard (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I just did a reference check. I particularly like the sole academic cite, which is to a paper (Eric Yang) that says her work is wrong - as if whoever wrote this was really scraping for something, anything, to add as a cite - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Allie Sherlock
Hello, I wanted to request the unprotection of the page Allie Sherlock. It's my understanding that I should first make a request to the admin who protected the page, which is you. It was deleted and protected two years ago, as the singer wasn't deemed sufficiently notable at the time, which is fairly typical for most unsigned singers. Since that time, she has continued to garner substantial coverage of multiple independent reliable sources, which should assist in satisfying the general notability criterion. She has also been signed on a record label and appeared on national TV. I would like the ability to create a new article, citing relevant sources, and if somebody still wishes to delete it, we can have a new discussion based on the current set of sources (a fair debate could be had, either way). Thanks for your time. --Rob (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * So, I locked it as the deleted biography of a minor person (13yo). As such, it probably shouldn't be unlocked without a definitely OK article ready to put there.
 * The best thing to do at this point is to start a draft, at Draft:Allie Sherlock. Bring as many sources of that quality as you can - third-party coverage in mainstream press like that is the perfect start. Put those together into the best-cited article you can, and when it's ready it can be put into place - David Gerard (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * also found, from the old version and from Independent.ie: - David Gerard (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

DSM
Hi, I added direct quotes from DSM-1 which you removed as vandalism, and quote from UN WHO with reference on the United Nation's site. Please refer to both sources which i clearly marked. I uploaded the original version of DSM-1 with proof to the wayback machine for your convenience. the link opens on the right page (vii) https://archive.org/details/dsm-1/page/n7 https://www.who.int/whr/2001/media_centre/press_release/en/

-- Alon Oz, a@cyber.training — Preceding unsigned comment added by War.technology (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The UN quote doesn't support the claim you attributed to it, and your DSM quotes were your own synthesis from them, Please review No original research - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation Tron (Cryptocurrency) - Currently salted article
Hi David, as per discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Tron_(cryptocurrency) and Articles_for_deletion/TRON_(cryptocurrency), the Wikipedia page for Tron has been deleted and salted (and with good reason!). However, since Tron is a fairly popular cryptocurrency, I've gone out of my way to accumulate accurate sources and create a page for the article I was hoping I could get your approval for - it can be seen on my Sandbox here: User:Dr-Bracket/sandbox/TronSandbox. I initially inquired to MER-C about this (see here), and he said I would have to get it approved through WP:DRV, but should get your opinion on the matter first. Thanks! Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The sourcing is a lot better in this version - it's definitely not just a recreation of the deleted content. Though the Yahoo Finance article is just a reblog from CryptoCoinsNews so should probably be left out, and Tron is literally mentioned only once in "World's Top-Ranked Crypto Exchange Adds 240,000 Users in One Hour". And the article's pretty short. So I'd add more mainstream media sources - e.g. (the price),  (BitTorrent purchase). (This Newsweek piece is definitely mainstream, but is all a bit forward-looking, about what Sun says his plans are rather than facts about the present.) Are there any peer-reviewed academic papers on Tron as yet? So basically, polish it up a bit and add the good sourcing, and take it to AFC for consideration.
 * I'm not sure DRV is the correct venue, given the previous deletion isn't disputed, and this is new text with an attempt at proper sources - it doesn't seem to fit any of the "what DRV is for" criteria at the top. which DRV purpose were you thinking of here? - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Number 3, given that it's been deleted at AFD and MFD. MER-C 19:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could take it to DRV then - though I suspect the correct answer there would be "yeah, take it to AFC" - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They deleted it without giving it a discussion, and now I don't even have the draft I worked on anymore. They originally said it had no reliable sources, which I disputed, then they said it was deleted twice already so they put it up for AfD, so I left a comment saying it solved both issues from previous deletion, and I woke up this morning and it was speedily deleted without discussion due to Section G4 of CSD, which the article didn't violate at all. Is there anything I can do? Dr-Bracket (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Deletion review, perhaps - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

PROD AccessApps
I noticed you've done some work on AccessApps. I'm just letting you know that I've proposed that this article be deleted.CircleGirl (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Tron Cryptocurrency
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Tron Cryptocurrency. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Request
David,

Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM

Thanks,

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Problem's simple: all the sources are crypto blogs or primary sources. Needs substatial third-party coverage in mainstream sources that pass WP:RS. I'd suggest not using crypto blogs as a source at all - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Guttmann method
How is my edit advertising or promotion? There is a whole Section here listing all the software implementations of the Gutmann method. I happened to come across another one that was not on the list, so I added it. How's everything else on the list not an advertisement but my addition is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleanmyf (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Literally your only contributions were adding this - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Cryonics: Legal situation in Switzerland
Hi David, why did you remove the sentence "The Swiss association CryoSuisse states that this applies to Switzerland as well." from the Cryonics article? It has been accepted in the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryonik "CryoSuisse gibt an, dass dies auch für die Schweiz gelte."

So why do you think it's not acceptable here? Thanks... Nicolai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:C70F:3896:3466:E641:D345:CB26 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)