User talk:EnoughsEnough

19:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Daily Mail references

I have reverted your removal of references using the Daily mail newspaper at English rose (epithet). The newspaper (although not a reliable source), can still be used to provide evidence of things the newspaper has written about. Amortias (T)(C) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_RfC

"the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

EnoughsEnough (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you add the RFC link to your edit summaries when you are removing Daily Mail sources. Most people seeing the edits will not be familiar with the discussion. Meters (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate". As appropriate. Please be sure not to violate WP:POINT in your zeal. Some people think all unreferenced material should be removed and enthusiastically remove it all, until they get blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure not to violate this new, and binding, RfC. EnoughsEnough (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the closers of the RFC, I find your edits are particularly troubling and a gross misinterpretation of the close. The Daily Mail is not prohibited from use. It is strongly discouraged, but there will be instances where it can be used (such as in the English rose article). Please cease from recklessly removing every instance without considering whether it should be removed. Alternately, as mentioned in the section below, consider actually replacing the source rather than making what could almost be considered drive-by vandalism. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Excirial. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Amanda Redman— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with this new RfC: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC. The sources you have re-added here are no longer permitted on Wikipedia. EnoughsEnough (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the source and replace it instead of going through every single article on here and disruptively removing it ?, –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also they are permitted. There's just some things they cant be used for such as notability. I'd quite expect to use the Daily Mail as a source on things the Daily mail said. Amortias (T)(C) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather you put at least some effort into replacing the citations with other sources. Quality over quantity and all. Sam Walton (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior is extremely problematic. I appreciate the Daily Mail sources need to be replaced but how is ripping them out and leaving content unsourced improving the encyclopedia? Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have raised such an issue at the RfC. It's decided now, same as leaving Europe; we're well rid of both and it's too late to want to go back for either. EnoughsEnough (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convenient how you reply the moment I start rollbacking - Either you replace the cites or you don't touch them at all - Consensus was to not use them from today onwards but there was no consensus to actually have them removed, So either replace them or leave them be. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you and why won't you even sign your posts? EnoughsEnough (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was typing fast but that's besides the point/. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if you type fast enough, you get to ignore a binding RfC? That's not how it works. EnoughsEnough (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that - I've already replied. EnoughsEnough (talk) 22

30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, kindly desist this editing pattern until the discussion on ANI has reached some sort of consensus. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do something more useful, click here to get a list of all BLPs that have a source to the Daily Mail, and replace each source with something more reputable, such as the Guardian or Telegraph (carefully picking both sides of the political spectrum) or a book. There's over 1,800 of them, and that's where our priorities should lie. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]