Talk:Dave Days

History restored

WP:DRV has resulted in the page being unsalted, as it now appears that the performer quite possibly meets notability criteria. I've also just now restored the older page history, from before the previous AFD, and from multiple A7/G4 CSD deletions. This will make this history available just in case there is anything in there that anyone would like to use to build into the current page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Top 50 subscribed

I invite 117Avenue to explain his removal of information and his concern with the reliability of the source. Unless there is opposition here, I will restore the information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have explained it with every removal. Who's to say your source is reliable? When someone takes stats from different places, and calls it a comprehensive list, it is original research. When someone posts something online, they can have no credibility, anybody could say they know what the YouTube channel rankings are. That doesn't make them right, WP:SPS. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a search for YouTube subscriber rankings vidstatsx appeared as the first result, which doesn't necessarily mean it is reliable; however, I did a check on the subscriber numbers for a number of channels listed. The site was accurate within a couple hundred subscribers (which would be accounted for the next time whatever bot vidstatsx uses runs). I don't find the material in question to be contentious, and I believe the accuracy of the information on the site proves its reliability. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue, first, as the issue being raised is the reliability of the source, and not that the content is problematic, I put the content and source back and tagged the source with {{rs}} while we finish discussing this.

It is commendable that you want to maintain a high standard for sourcing for our articles, and for our BLP articles in particular. However, the objections you are raising here do not appear to be strong enough to warrant removal of both the content and the source in this case.

Regarding the content:

• You raise WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:V. WP:BLPSOURCES is a special case of WP:V and so we don't need to address WP:V separately. WP:BLPSOURCES extends WP:V by "adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." The content you are removing isn't contentious, libelous or defamatory. Again, it is not clear why you think the material is contentious.

Regarding objections concerning the source:

• Regarding your objection: "When someone takes stats from different places, and calls it a comprehensive list, it is original research." WP:OR applies only to content in Wikipedia articles and not external sources: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." This seems to be just a misunderstanding of WP:OR policy and doesn't apply here. The underlying objection is better stated as sourcing concerns, as you have been saying.
• Regarding you objection: "When someone posts something online, they can have no credibility, anybody could say they know what the YouTube channel rankings are." Certainly you don't mean to say that all content posted online cannot be trusted! This seems to be another restatement of an underlying concern about the reliability of the source.
• You have raised the objection "WP:SPS" twice. This seems to be just a misunderstanding. Vidstatsx provides a historical database of YouTube popularity rankings. It does this by running an automated process that gathers the stats YouTube publishes daily and storing the results in a database, that's it. This is not a Dave Days' "self-published source," and for it to run afoul of WP:SPS, Dave Days would have to run Vidstatsx himself. This is not the case, Vidstatsx is a third-party data resource unaffiliated with Dave Days or YouTube. Struck comments directed at wrong policy, I was confusing WP:SPS with WP:SELFPUB Zad68 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• The source you are removing can be reasonably expected to be reliable. As Ryan notes, we have run spot-checks on the Vidstatsx data and it looks accurate. It is an automated data collection process and not prone to error in the way a human-maintained database would be.
• Further, Vidstatsx is being used without challenge by editors in other BLP articles. Check out Sara Niemietz discography, Corey Vidal, Caitlin Hill and Charlie McDonnell among others. Actually of particular interest is Corey Vidal--you edited this article recently and did not object to the use of Vidstatsx there, so I am puzzled why you are objecting to it here and not there.

So, again, I agree with you that we should insist on reliable sourcing for BLP articles, but in this case, both the content and source are appropriate and should not be removed.

117Avenue, if this satisfies your objections, great, remove the {{rs}} and we'll all go back to working on our articles. If it doesn't and you don't have any new objections, let us know and we will take the question to WP:BLPN and WP:RSN. How does that sound? Zad68 13:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Zad, I agree with practically everything you said, but note that a self-published source is not always written by the subject. I could create a website about Dave Days and it would be a self-published source. In addition, contentious material doesn't always need to be bad, it can be good. That being said, I'm unsure as to whether or not this is self-published. It doesn't completely appear to be, but I'm not entirely sure because there isn't an about page on the website. It still seems reliable to me and the automated data collection aspect would appease concerns over self-publishing unless we have reasons to believe it is false. While contentious material can be good, I wouldn't call this contentious. Generally, contentious material would be outlandish. Something along the lines of Dave Days once saved 100 children from a well while fighting Sylvester Stalone with one arm. In any case, this has been taken to WP:RSN, you might want to leave your comment there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryan yup you're right as usual. I was addressing it as if it were WP:SELFPUB rather than WP:SPS. Annoyingly similar shortcuts. Striking my comment above. WP:RSN is the right place for the concern, I didn't see it was there. Sadly the WP:RSN issue isn't posed properly, it references the wrong site and doesn't mention the article content where it's being used, I'll fix that. Zad68 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears I have dived into this further than I am able to breath. From what I understand, in order to determine if a stat website is verifiable and/or reliable, it should be referenced by multiple third-party sources. You claim that vidstatsx "provides a historical database" and is "an automated process", I agree that it appears this is true, but according to Google, only six sources can back you up. This certainly does not appear to be Nielsen ratings, or any other high profile companies. True davedays may have 1,437,000 subscribers, but how do we know it is #46, and vidstatsx isn't missing one or two? I would also like to state that just because I make an edit to an article, that doesn't mean I endorse the entire article, it means I endorse the revisions I made. In the example you gave, Corey Vidal, I later decided to revert, because I decided to no longer to stand behind it, I also removed it from my watchlist because I don't have any vested interest in it. 117Avenue (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a fan of Dave Days, but as a Wikipedian, I don't like fandom. This is why I went through the article as toughly as I did. I don't mind being wrong, if it means a better article is written. I would like to thank you for re-adding the other things, that I removed, with reenforced references. 117Avenue (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

117Avenue, I'm not sure what you mean you "dived into this further than I am able to breath"? You questioned some sources, we cleared up the referencing, and we're (hopefully) going to get some input at WP:RSN regarding the Vidstatsx sourcing. I don't see any problem. I don't mind your toughness at all, in fact close scrutiny like this generally leads to better-referenced and more accurate articles. I had actually never heard of "Dave Days" before about two weeks ago when I saw this article at AFC, and I'm not any particular fan of his. I looked at a few of his videos... meh, in my opinion, but it's when a variety of editors get together and work on an article that we can get a better article. Good working with you on this, cheers... Zad68 14:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant, I feel this has gone beyond what I think my expertise is, regarding determining a reliable source. Since the RSN isn't going anywhere, I guess it will be up to us three to decide. 117Avenue (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So we got no feedback from WP:RSN. I think Vidstatsx is adequately reliable for what we're using it for. 117Avenue do you care at this point if we remove the "reliable source?" tags from the article? Zad68 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully responded to my 18 July 2012 comments. 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to address your concerns because honestly I can't see how they're reasonable. You agree with me about my most important points regarding the source when you wrote You claim that vidstatsx "provides a historical database" and is "an automated process", I agree that it appears this is true but add This certainly does not appear to be Nielsen ratings, or any other high profile companies and this seems like an unnecessarily high bar to require of a source supporting, even in a BLP, a quite benign claim and for which anyone can easily and independently verify its accuracy on a day-to-day basis. I have unarchived our WP:RSN discussion, maybe we'll get more input this time around. Zad68 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it cannot be verified. You cannot claim that he is in the top ten, or the top fifty, without using Vidstatsx or original research. A channel's subscribers can be verified with the primary source, but you still haven't proven that Vidstatsx is reliable. 117Avenue (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP:RS standard is not that a source must be "proven" (as you describe it) reliable. Even sources generally well-accepted as reliable by Wikipedians, such as CNN and Encyclopedia Britannica, cannot be "proven" reliable, and in fact they are occasionally wrong. Here's what WP:RS actually says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis mine). Determining whether a source "has a reputation for fact-checking" can be subjective, which is why we have resources like WP:RSN, because determining whether a source is reliable is not programmatic or subject to proof. So, again, it appears you are setting the bar higher than what Wikipedia policy actually says. Regarding Vidstatsx, based on the feedback here and at the RFC, we have some editors who think Vidstatsx is acceptably reliable for its use here: myself, Ryan Vesey, plus also the editors at Sara Niemietz discography, Corey Vidal, Caitlin Hill, Charlie McDonnell and the other articles where it's in use. We have editors who do not think it is acceptable: yourself and Fifelfoo (from the RFC). This article probably won't get deleted without the Vidstatsx-supported content, and honestly I don't care all that much about this bio article and am working in other areas. Although I don't agree with requiring what seems to be an unnecessarily high standard of this source, I understand your objections, and this article is a BLP after all. If you'd like to remove the Vidstatsx-supported content and source from the article, go ahead and I won't object. See you around the Wiki... Zad68 21:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to make enemies either, but you still haven't provided proof that the website fact-checks for accuracy. The six sources that call this reliable were provided by me, and do not stack up to the reputation of CNN and Encyclopedia Britannica. Vidstatsx remains a questionable source. 117Avenue (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

117, before we go any further here, can you please answer: Are we still discussing edits to this article Dave Days specifically or are we discussing something more general? Your response seemed like something I might expect from someone who didn't actually read what I wrote, so I'm having trouble following the path you're taking this conversation. Zad68 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read your comments, and if I remain unconvinced I will challenge the reference on other articles. 117Avenue (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of revert of edits by Byrondays90

Hi Byron, I wanted to explain why the edits you have been making have been reverted:

• Picture file:Dave Days at the 2012 VidCon in Anaheim, California.jpeg reverted back to file:Dave Days by Gage Skidmore.jpg

As has been explained to you on your user talk page, the evidence of permission of the rights to file:Dave Days at the 2012 VidCon in Anaheim, California.jpeg has not yet been confirmed. Also, this new picture isn't as good a close-up of the face as the Gage picture, it's not a clearly better picture.

• Article starting as "Dave Days (born August 13, 1991), is a musician..." reverted back to "David Joseph Colditz (born August 13, 1991), commonly known as Dave Days, is a musician..."

Please see WP:FULLNAME for an explanation of how Wikipedia does this when we have a birth name that's different from the common name. For an example, see Che Guevara, which starts off as "Ernesto "Che" Guevara (May 14,[1] 1928 – October 9, 1967), commonly known as el Che or simply Che, was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary..." We put the full birth name first, and then the name the individual is popularly known by next.

• "Dave taught himself..." reverted back to "In middle school, Days started playing in bands. He taught himself..."

We refer to people by the last name, not the first, so "Days" and not "Dave". Actually I changed this to Colditz for purposes of historical timeline.

The content about playing bands in middle school comes from this interview days did with Forbes, where he said "I played live in bands in middle school and high school". You shouldn't remove or change sourced material so that it does not reflect what the source says. Is there a reason for us to believe the source isn't reliable?

• "Days does his much of his music production himself" reverted back to "Days does his music and video production himself".

Again, don't change sourced material. In the Forbes article, Days says "I do all my own music and video production."

• "Most Popular Videos" as of July, 2012 section removed

Review WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Time-sensitive lists of non-notable individual entries like this do not really add to the encyclopedic value of the article, and would have to be updated regularly. They don't belong in an encyclopedia article.

I hope this clears up why these edits were made. Please understand that there is a learning curve for writing Wikipedia articles, so no worries. Zad68 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zad. Definitely still working through this learning curve. Please help me if you can, as I do business with Dave and am making these edits on his personal suggestions:

Regarding the picture, he sent it to me and asked it to be replaced. Is there any way it can be approved? The current picture doesn't have a great shot of him - kind-of dark, etc... Regarding the ""Dave Days"" vs his birth name. Is there a way that we could simply phrase it differently so that the article opens with Dave Days as opposed to David Colditz? Not trying to make the information invalid. With the Dave taught himself sentence, we are fine with using the last name, however, could we still get rid of the "In middle school section" It seems a little unnecessary and the line feels less like its describing an amateur musician. The source is totally reliable, the point just isn't particularly relevant, and adds a little girth to the article. Regarding the music and video production line, the article quoted is slightly dated as Dave does have a full time video producer now, which is why I rephrased that sentence. I added nothing, I just took something away which I knew to be slightly dated. Finally, with the Most Popular Videos section, this was put in place to provide Dave with a comparable Wiki article to his contemporaries such as DeStorm Power

Thanks for your advice!!Byrondays90 (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For the picture itself, it would be better if you could crop and enlarge the image so that it is less background and more Dave. The Gage picture is better than this second picture in that way.

For the picture permissions, you should follow the directions Ryan sent you here: User_talk:Byrondays90#File_permission_problem_with_File:Dave_Days_at_the_2012_VidCon_in_Anaheim.2C_California.jpeg. Basically the same instructions are at the file here: File:Dave_Days_at_the_2012_VidCon_in_Anaheim,_California.jpeg. The copyright holder of the image has to state that the permission has been given to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. The request to get the permission applied to the image file will be entered into Wikipedia's Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS"), and a volunteer will follow up with you. Let us know if you need any more help here.

Regarding the article in general, one of the things you are running into here is that Wikipedia's goals won't necessarily be in line with your/Dave's goals. You/Dave are probably interested in showing Dave in the best light for promotional purposes or to serve fan needs, whereas Wikipedia's goals are to present as complete and accurate an encyclopedic biography as the reliable sources show, with a neutral, non-promotional point of view. A Wikipedia biography article won't be under the control or direction of a PR or management team, and might include negative information about the individual if reliable sources report it.

Regarding the name, Wikipedia has a Manual Of Style (MOS) that governs how biographies are presented. Again, take a look at WP:FULLNAME and the example I gave you above. We generally start articles with the full given name, and if sourced childhood background information is available, we include it. Look at Woody Guthrie or Barry Manilow or really any of our thousands of biographies. It's not "girth," it's nice biographical background information, totally relevant to what he's now notable for.

We can update his video production information if you can provide a reliable source that says what you're saying.

Regarding the video stats, actually if you look at DeStorm Power the section listing uploaded videos is tagged as not-notable... it should probably be removed as well.

Hope this helps... Zad68 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

New profile picture

I've been thinking Dave needs to have his current profile picture replaced with a different, namely this one if it's trimmed down to fit the size of a profile picture. https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/149269_10151833502584466_1740899726_n.jpg Just a suggestion. --Wikieditor14 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia can only accept free images. 117Avenue (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts

Has he worked with all of those ? Or are some just associated as being other "youtube personalities" ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dave Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614145307/http://watch.accesshollywood.com:80/video/twitter-fan-question:-miley-explains-dave-days-youtube-cameo/1312875594001 to http://watch.accesshollywood.com/video/twitter-fan-question:-miley-explains-dave-days-youtube-cameo/1312875594001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620005257/http://thedigitour.com:80/index.php/digitour-2012-headliners/ to http://thedigitour.com/index.php/digitour-2012-headliners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dave Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://watch.accesshollywood.com/video/twitter-fan-question%3A-miley-explains-dave-days-youtube-cameo/1312875594001
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thedigitour.com/index.php/digitour-2012-headliners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402014221/http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx to http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)