Talk:Pak (creator)

Weasel Words Tag

The "Weasel Words" tag was added by user Siliconred but it is not clear to me just what the supposed "weasel words" are. It is not my intention to write a misleading or bias article. Please be explicit as to what lines are viewed as"weasel words" so appropriate edits can be made if required or tag removed. Thanks. --Pmmccurdy (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)pmmccurdy

Edit: Removed Weasel Words tag as per comments above Pmmccurdy (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the comment. Not sure why you added a comment and then removed the tag yourself, and then referenced yourself without signing your own comment. A lot of your edits here seem to be without much sense of checks and balances. You've reuploaded images after they were removed without proper attribution. You've undone several of my revisions (including on the List of most expensive artworks by living artists without addressing the concerns that were raised. In general this article has a lot of issues -- it's full of non-encyclopedic content like lists of "significant NFT drops", Vimeo staff picks (which... don't add anything at all to this article), etc. The talk page discussion around a contested deletion is full of rejections which use repeated phrasing and come from anonymous accounts, which after your edits here I'm somewhat suspicious you're involved with.

In general this article needs to be seriously edited down. It is full of bloat and unnecessary information. It seems likely that any edits I make will be rejected by you -- so I'll stop editing this article but I would encourage you to address some of the flags I've added and be wary of how you word this article. Time needs to be spent editing out unnecessary information and writing about only the the most relevant and well-sourced details. Sentences like "Pak is also known for challenging and questioning such concepts as value, ownership, and art and often forces his collectors to choose between different scenarios", "and has become a common practice", "Thus, the artwork was the same for all of the NFTs but collectors nevertheless were willing to pay vastly different prices.", have a strange, biased tilt.

Many of the "citations" on this article are shaky. Many reference first-party sources, like Pak uploads to Vimeo, Nifty, Pak's own Medium articles, and Pak's tweets. These aren't "citations", just link farming. There are also references to sites like Gemini, which serve as advertising boards for their products, not third-party discussions. Just because something exists on the internet does not make it a Wikipedia citation.

In general this article needs a lot of work. Please take the time to apply that here. SiliconRed (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

NFT art 'questionable importance' tag-

As the primary author of this section, my objective has been to try and establish an artistic timeline of releases/drops and provide additional information. As there hasn't yet been a timeline made, I have used this section to write up the research I have done independently. I believe it is important and historically interesting to log the various artworks, progression and have done my best to add sources. In fact, I would argue it is worthwhile adding more sales information on editions sold, value and how that has changed over time as it shows a rapid valuation in the artist's work which itself is a phenomenon of interest. As such, I do not believe the "unclear tag" is justified and am not clear what user Siliconred has issues with. Please do advise and appropriate edits can be make or the tag removed --Pmmccurdy (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)pmmccurdy

Hey, keep in mind WP:NOR. Wikipedia isn't a place for original research to be dropped into the article because it doesn't exist elsewhere. That section needs additional third-party citations and lots of simplification. This is an improvement tag, not a rejection tag, so keep that in mind as you edit. I'd encourage you to take a look at WP:REL and WP:NPF if you are curious how to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information. Thanks! SiliconRed (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Collapse the brigading keep !votes - the article has been kept. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page should not be speedily deleted because: 1) This page is substantially different and focuses on Pak (the subject) and their contributions to the NFT/digital art space in 2020/2021. The previous page was from 2014 2) All sources are from significant media coverage (Time Magazine, Sotheby's, CNBC, etc.) and the page does not mention wards like in the previous 2014 page which was promotional and inaccurate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murat_Pak). This page is substantially different and by different contributors 3) There is precedence for highlighting NFT artists and creators as seen by Pak's colleague (Beeple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Winkelmann) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortshoward (talk • contribs) 06:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... pak is a culturally significant artist with a huge following and is of great interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxand98 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2A00:23C4:7884:F300:518E:A89D:76F3:98BC (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC) The previous discussion asserts that Pak's achievements in 2014 were no more than average. But in 2021, the same no longer applies. Pak collaborates with Sothebys, and has sold more than $70 million Non-fungible tokens. The fact that Pak is an anonymous artist, like Banksy, actually makes Pak's achievements more rather than less notable. This page should not be speedily deleted because the focus of the page - Pak - meets all the criteria for a page for a notable living person. This entry now includes a range of sources from CNBC, Vice, Time Magazine, Sotheby's, and others all of which are reputable and verifiable. In addition the has been written in a neutral tone. Articles added discuss things such as the Sotheby's sale: https://news.artnet.com/market/sothebys-wades-deeper-digital-art-game-new-custom-nft-marketplace-called-metaverse-2021205 as well as extracts from Sotheby's CEO made on CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/sothebys-enters-nft-world-in-collaboration-with-digital-artist-pak.html Plus Time Magazine Kids put Pak on the cover: https://www.timeforkids.com/g56/digital-art-boom/?rl=en-800 also see: https://twitter.com/timeforkids/status/1450104671746629635/photo/1 This should be more than sufficient to confirm Pak's standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmmccurdy (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... the information is true and correct. Pak has a significant following. Pak is not some made up entity, please do your own research prior to deleting. --2600:8806:A000:1476:CC37:BBB6:EF35:96C3 (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... Pak is love, Pak is life. This page should not be speedily deleted because the Pak page provides valuable public information. --2600:1015:B02A:E1CF:D9E:424C:3C3E:19DF (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... This is a legitimate factual page for this artist. --2A04:4A43:447F:B48C:582:DCD7:80E6:81B0 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because Pak is one of the most important digital artists alive. The rise of NFT's and digital art since 2020 means that not having entries such as this will diminish Wikipedia's relevance and scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.152.5 (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because Pak is a great artist that is changing his field and has proven himself time and time again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.66.115.77 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because this is the only authentic and authoritative page on Pak the artist. What is the problem with this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA13:7102:2700:D9A:B396:A1BF:5BF2 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... pak is a globally recognized NFT creator validated on many platforms 189.174.11.9 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2.38.65.194 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2601:5C1:4500:CF70:84B0:F86:BD96:7F7A (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Pak is a significant figure within the Art and Design space. They have made a major impact within the zeitgeist of NFTs and continue to be an amazing thought leader with regards to coding and mechanism in the space. Having this page would continue to add value to the users and keep them from having to go to legacy media where most of the articles are pay walled. This page should not be speedily deleted because... Pak is one of the most important contemporary artist working today. Their work has significant cultural impact on society and their art works have some of the highest ever sales in history. A testament to this is their art sale called “The Fungible” at Sotheby’s in January 2021, amounting to a total of over $69 million USD of sales--2001:6B0:1:1041:7CA0:F43:F721:B850 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... he/she/they is an creator that has sold works at major auction house, way more deserving of a page than some people that have one--2601:985:4000:2693:943:1D2D:8ED7:4EE0 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because...if the Wall Street Journal believe Pak is worthy of an entire article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pak_0.png and has cited him as 'possibly the future of Art', then I believe it would be wrong to deny people access to community collected information on this individual. Newspapers with paywalls should not be the only access to information on noteworthy individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawingyourdreams (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because CNBC have cited and discussed on television the importance and possible future of Art changing due to Pak cited here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I43RO2I-cxA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawingyourdreams (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... Pak is a respected digital artist who collaborated with Sotherby’s and aold over $ 100 Mio in art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.122.47 (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Seems most of the arguments for original deletion was lack of notable press -- a major sale at Sotheby's with coverage and profiles from Vice, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and others seems to clear that concern up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.27.100 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... the article is based on real events and well supported with references from established entities, such as known media outlets and auction houses. The article contains no harmful materials, and fits with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia both regarding content and format. --178.25.106.72 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because...it accurately reflects the history of one of the greatest creators of our time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.136.66 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Taner aksu (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Murat Pak is a well known designer that changed the way of understanding of the design world for the new medium meta. As a digitally native, he genuinely start works that will define art as an incomplete design. This philosophical look start influencing the web3 and metaverses. He is an important and indespensable part of web3. The reason to delete this entry is very invalid as Pak never tried to promote or marketing in any medium. His name is often heard after his works are already released. Taner aksu (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because it provides references that speak to the validity of pak --71.255.241.124 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (NFTs are a real space and Pak is one of the premiere artists of our time) --2600:1001:B10C:E3B8:A95D:183D:2E3E:9A24 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because Pak is one of the most important artists in the nascent cryptoart movement having sold millions of dollars worth of digital art including at major auction houses like Sotheby’s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.209.245 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2600:100A:B02E:879C:A5E3:E290:DD44:7926 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC) The artist Pak is a significant piece of the crypto and nft movement. No reason at all to delete This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Pak is a real artist and probably the most important of our time, deleting his page would be like censoring) --203.219.160.174 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lost Poet 12755.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns?

He? It? They? I've seen "he" used in most interviews, but the lead suggests it might be a team, so the pronoun "he" doesn't really make sense. Thoughts? SiliconRed (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Solved, just by... well... not using pronouns. SiliconRed (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wasnt sure if I tagged you in the below post so tagging you here too! ~~~ Pmmccurdy (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Most Expensive NFT List

I would like to know best practices with respect to citing items from the list of most expensive non-fungible tokens. Siliconred, I noticed that you removed my edit linking "The Clock" - how would you suggest we link to that page? I see, for example, Beeple's page links to it, should I delete that too? Meanwhile, artists like Jeff Koons has their Wikipedia page pointing to [[1]] - is the argument that no living artist should point back to a page that has records? Wikipedia oddly - and wrongly - isnt allowing NFTs on its list of most expensive artworks and you have said in other posts to use the NFT list so.... now I'm confused.--19:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Pmmccurdy (talk)--Pmmccurdy (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, take a look at WP:CIRC. If there is a source outside Wikipedia which provides a definitive ranking of highest-selling NFTs, then you can use that as a reference to say something is the "third highest". Wikipedia is not a definitive ranking, nor should it be used in place of one in other articles using wiki voice. Notice that the Koons statements use citations from WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Good point on the Beeple article, it should be similarly updated or that content removed. I haven't said anywhere to use the NFT list in this context? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can actually see how to properly integrate Wikipedia links in the lead of this article, which includes reference to the list of most expensive non-fungible tokens using an independent source. If sources describe "The Clock" as one of the most-expensive NFTs, I don't see a reason not to mention that. The Reuters cite does not do this, though. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

disappointed in missing info

Pak's work with archillect is illegal as he uses a script to scrape art from tumblr to post it then without attribution, i.e. the entire thing is copyright violation. He also engaged in further illegal activity by making a patreon to fund that. Given he already has an article, that should definitely be in it. Xenofur (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Xenofur Please provide a reliable source and perhaps it could be included in the article. JBchrch talk 21:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It's tough to get definite sources on this, because part of it came from FAQ pages that don't exist anymore, but here is him indicating the original source of the art his bot posts: http://web.archive.org/web/20220405125254/https://twitter.com/muratpak/status/901497039816716297 Here's a lengthy blog post he wrote that also confirms that he doesn't even know the original artist of the works he posts either: https://blog.archillect.com/lets-argue-attribution-6142386fd936 (it's on web archive too, direct link for tweets and such) Here's proof that he linked a patreon on archillect's profile: https://twitter.com/CAConsiglio/status/902682553374711809 (web archival request is queued) Can provide more if needed, tho i'd appreciate guidance on what would be helpful if so. Xenofur (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As a small extra note: The sourcing on e.g. this entry on his website https://archillect.com/376253 (web archive queued) shows that the only sources he has are tumblr, giving further weight to his tweet. Xenofur (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Howdy, there are a few sources which discuss this issue. I've added a snippet to the article about the controversy here. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "poor attribution" is correct phrasing, given that even a post from a few days ago has zero attribution: https://twitter.com/archillect/status/1510082600651603976 This account operated until last year but is dead now: https://twitter.com/archillinks/with_replies However even it did not perform attribution. It did a google image reverse search and grabbed the top few links. On the direct website are some links, but those are also only GIS results, instead of the actual source he got it from, or the actual creator. https://archillect.com/376253 Xenofur (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

We need to work with the WP:RS that discuss attribution, & can't start going about adding original research here -- I'm speaking specifically w.r.t. using a set of tweets and some WP:SYNTHESIS to discuss attribution. If there are cites that have more context or criticism here, they should certainly be added, and it seems plausible the points you bring up are documented by WP:RS (though I haven't yet found others). That said, Auction Daily does use the phrase without attribution so it makes sense to modify the wording to match. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, and taking action. :) A question, primarily to learn: Would archival and observation of archillect's own twitter posts + website and the lack of attribution there, as well as the admission above in Pak's own blog that attribution is impossible, serve as explicit primary evidence of the basic fact; or must even observable facts be reported on by an intermediary of a certain standing? Xenofur (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing! The latter is most useful, and should be used in place of WP:PRIMARY sources whenever possible. The blog post is primary, so though it could be used provide some context, I'm not convinced it provides new information that's not already well covered in the two cited WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Tweets aren't a reliable source and should rarely, if ever, be used as a citation -- see WP:TWITTERREF. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, so primary sources if demonstration of fact, otherwise independent. I'd suggest considering whether Pak explicitly stating that it is impossible for him to provide attribution (note also that he accurately defines attribution there) is new information, as opposed to the much weaker "criticized for".

For the second sentence, on a closer reading, i'd recommend changes: "A second account is used to post attribution for images when available"

• The second account *was* used, it is not anymore.

• As per Pak's own words in the blog post, it doesn't post attribution, attribution was never available as it would require knowing the artist. It only posted the top 3-4 Google Image Search results, which could be anything.

• It might also be worth noting that it only posted a reply, was never retweeted into archillect's direct timeline.

Maybe like this: "A second account was used to post Google Reverse Image search results in replies to archillect posts"

As for "Pak will take down images on request", it's a claim he makes, and i think it should be put as that. Reason for doubt is that his methods for that are the archillect and muratpak twitter accounts, neither of which have DMs open and both of which have hundreds of thousands of followers, making it obvious that there is no guaranteed way to actually get his attention. Xenofur (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to make these changes as I think it might veer too far into WP:NOR or WP:UNDUE. I'll wait on another editor to give feedback here before editing the article. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk)

@Xenofur I agree with @Siliconred here, I don't think we have the proper sources to tweak the article as you suggest. I would underline WP:SYNTH, which states that we can't use multiple sources to arrive at a result that is not stated in any individual source. JBchrch talk 15:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"not stated"

Asking earnestly, did you read Pak's post here? Did you read this part? "Attribution is still a big problem to be solved algorithmically because you can only share information that you have and @archillect does not have any data about the creator/title of the shared content."

Did you read this post by Pak and specifically this part? "Archillinks, a dedicated account/bot that finds possible sources through web searches" and understand the difference between "sources" and "attribution" as agreed to by Pak himself?

I can see issue with some of the changes i suggested, but i do not see how you could possibly in good faith reject *all* of them with the claim that taking their basic description of fact is "using multiple sources to arrive at a result not stated".

Also, at the very least you must recognize that "post attribution" is spreading a falsehood, because archillinks never did that, by the description above and observable in objective reality; and that the claim that the bot *is doing that* is also a falsehood because you can use your own literal eyes and go look at the bot and observe the objective reality that it is not doing that. To put it in other words: The problem is not even the accuracy of the second sentence, the problem is that it fails to describe reality and as such makes Wikipedia put forth a made-up fantasy, and if you don't want to correct it should at least delete it.

Note also that even the independent source used for the sentence does not use the word attribution, but source, which is a very important and meaningful distinction. Xenofur (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia places emphasis on verifiability, not truth. What you want to do is to use multiple sources of information together to arrive at what you consider to be an objective description of reality: that is called original research and it's not what we do here. We only reproduce the content stated by reliable sources. So I'm not saying that you're wrong (honestly I have no idea), I'm just saying that you haven't provided the proper sourcing. Absent a reliable source, the process for you is to first get this material published in a reliable source, and then come back here to argue for inclusion. JBchrch talk 14:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

How does that justify leaving a sentence in the article that verifiably differs from the source cited for it? I must admit i feel you did not actually read everything i wrote, and frankly, there are comments you made there that in themselves misrepresent me (in fact, very impolitely and upsettingly so), so i do not think i actually could do anything to arrive at anything reasonable here. Please just remove or correct the second sentence. It literally uses different words than the source it was pulled from. There is ZERO research or combination of multiple things involved with that. One source, one claim, one sentence. Xenofur (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please drop the "politeness" talk, not after you asked me to use "my own literal eyes". I'm trying to help you out here, and if you don't agree with what I'm saying or how I'm saying it, I can go and do something else. Looking back over your suggested changes, the only acceptable one I see is perhaps the suggestion that we change "Pak will take down images" to "Pak claims he will take down images". Is that a fair reading? As for the rest, please propose a specific change to the paragraph, with citations as you want them to be done, in the format "change A to B", and keeping in mind the WP:SYNTH rule. JBchrch talk 22:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"you asked me to use "my own literal eyes"" Apologies if that came across rude, it was merely me trying to emphasize which level of truth i was trying to point out. "Is that a fair reading?" Yep.

Proposed change:

Source: https://www.artrights.me/en/archillect-the-digital-curator-invented-by-the-crypto-artist-murat-pak/ - "Archillinks, a dedicated account/bot that finds original and alternative sources through web searches."

Current: "A second account is used to post attribution for images when available"

Change-To: "A second account was created to post sources found through web searches"

"is used" -> "was created" - A neutral phrasing that reduces the amount of claims made without inserting any. If that doesn't work then so be it.

"attribution for images when available" -> "sources found through web searches" - Straightup just replacing it with the exact wording from the source without doing any synthesis. The other source doesn't talk about Archillinks at all. Xenofur (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The content of the article comes almost verbatim from the two cites: For their part, Pak will take down any image upon request of the original artist from Auction Daily, There is a great effort in the research of different methods to identify the real source of the content and to safeguard the copyright. These include Archillinks, a dedicated account/bot that finds original and alternative sources through web searches. from ArtRights. Both sources use the term attribution. I'd recommend following JBchrch's suggestions (which I agree with entirely) — it seems unlikely any further changes will be made without additional WP:INDEPENDENT sources or without feedback from other editors. We're both working with you here, it's not worth trying to start hostilities 😊. SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your perspective. I've posted a suggestion to JBchrch above. You're correct that both sources uses the word attribution. However Auction Daily never talks about Archillinks, and ArtRights specifically uses the phrase "sources through web searches" when talking about Archillinks, which is a very different thing from attribution. Attribution is when you actually know the original artist and know that the piece of art in question was created by them. "sources through web searches" is what the bot does by taking the image and picking up urls through reverse image search which may or may not have anything to do with the artist at all. (Usually nothing.) I hope this makes sense. Xenofur (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xenofur Just pinging you to let you know that I will look at your changes in detail tonight or tomorrow. They do seem sensible at first glance. JBchrch talk 21:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice if that could happen at some point, given that the verbiage as present in the article right now still contains claims created by the editor, which however under inspection via {{{citation}}} are not actually ever made in the article linked to. I mean, let's be real here. Shouldn't the goal at the VERY LEAST not be to *not* post stuff that the sources never say? Should the editor not avoid creating claims that go beyond the actual source? Alternatively, how would one escalate this? Xenofur (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xenofur penciling it in for tomorrow. JBchrch talk 02:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheers. :)

Adding this in case a summary helps as to what claims are in need of {{{citation}}}:

"A second account **is used**": AuctionDaily never talks about archillinks at all. ArtRights only mentions that archillinks was created as part of an effort, but does not claim it is currently in use nor provides any information about its lifespan. Correct: "was created"

"A second account ... **post attribution**": As above, AD never talks about Archillinks. AR never claims it posts attribution, only sources, which as explained in earlier posts, are emphatically not attribution. Correct: "sources found through web searches"

There's an additional issue, which isn't a {{{citation}}} issue, but more of a "does wikipedia blindly copy claims from other websites, even if the claims are obviously nothing but quotes without verification?" issue or possibly a "shouldn't that be phrased as 'subject has made claims as per original source'?" issue.

"Pak **will** take down images on request": AR never talks about this. AD merely cites Pak directly as having said that. No verification or proof beyond "looking at Pak's website" is demonstrated. Correct: "Pak has offered to take down" Xenofur (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xenofur Here are the two changes to add a bit of distance between the WP:WIKIVOICE and the claim [2]. I hope this solves at least some of the issues you had identified. JBchrch talk 16:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for NFT Artist Market Report 2022

Pak's NFT Artist Market Report 2022 was conducted by ArtTactic, an art market research firm based in London. Its cited source is Newswire.com, a Sarasota FL-based press release distribution platform, not to be confused with Chicago-based PR Newswire, which Wikipedia consensus has deemed generally unreliable. By contrast, Newswire.com's editorial review process follows a Three-Tier review process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinpoach (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2023

{ARTICLE - REMOVAL} = The whole repository of information contained there and with in the very article are rare, false , a scam and plagiarized novellas from my [Inventory] . I suspect hoax edit (Inc.) 2 be Lie - Able in hinder sight retrospect 2 be a cause for the more of the ([1]container) . I`d like 2 go into severe & extreme lengths as necessary 2 verify the indignation of the listed data as misleading misguided and more so coarsely ^& even so ([c:]b/p)ore crime(-in-All) And pro-cess & pro-[ceed:] Into the nou1s Nu-GenZz:[AA..] of por pore pro - installing counter 2 the activities Enzo1578 (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)