ExplodingCabbage
June 2024
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk.
Daily mail is NOT a reliable source - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Come on, mate. I've spelt out in excruciating detail on that article's Talk page (which I directed readers to in the summary of the edit you reverted) both:
- that the article currently includes claims that are sourced from the Daily Mail and not from any other currently cited source, and therefore we cannot simply remove the citations without also removing the claims or else we will leave them uncited, and
- that the claims in question ARE republished in non-deprecated sources, but that I think it's inappropriate to cite those sources over the DM in this particular case because their articles are all just plagiarism (in the form of either outright copy-and-paste or else paragraph-by-paragraph close paraphrasing) of the original reporting from the DM, and
- that other sources (besides the plagiarists) corroborate much of the DM's reporting in these particular two articles and thus lend them credibility above the baseline for the DM, and
- that we therefore face a trilemma: either 1. remove the claims, 2. cite the Daily Mail, or 3. launder a citation to the Daily Mail by citing one of the non-deprecated sources that plagiarised the Daily Mail's article
- If you're not going to suggest which fork of that trilemma we should pick, what's the point in touching the issue at all? Ripping out the citation without any further changes just puts the article into an unambiguously unacceptable state where we are repeating claims from the Daily Mail without any supporting citation at all; that obviously needs reverting, and doesn't move us any closer to a final resolution. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well maybe you don't realize, we have rule and guidelines here. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- And those "rules and guidelines" say we should source information from the Daily Mail but pretend we're not doing so, do they? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well maybe you don't realize, we have rule and guidelines here. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- The short answer is: stop adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia. No, you haven't come up with another clever hack to put DM links as references into Wikipedia. No, you can't use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page or arguing against multiple editors on multiple personal talk pages.
- The deprecation of the DM was passed in a broad general RFC, ratified in a second broad general RFC and broadened even further in a third general RFC (the one that found that the DM are such inveterate liars that dailymail.co.uk cannot be trusted as a source for the content of the Daily Mail). You know this already.
- If you really want to use DM links as references in the way you are, the place to make your pitch is the place where general RFCs on sourcing are held - that's WP:RSN.
- If you are serious in your proposal, take it to WP:RSN. If you aren't serious, keep doing what you're doing - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Let's continue this particular line of discussion in the duplicate thread at User talk:David Gerard#Please stop indiscriminately removing citations of deprecated sources. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't assumed ownership of anything.
- Literally the only thing I have done in that article that has involved overriding any other editors' wishes is revert removals of a Daily Mail citation while information sourced from the Daily Mail remained in the article with no other supporting citation. In each case, I explained why I had done it, spelt out precisely what content was currently sourced from the Daily Mail, pointed the editors to a discussion I'd started about what to do about those particular citations, and made clear, explicitly, that I would not object to the editors removing the citations so long as they also removed the content that was sourced from those Daily Mail articles. My beef with the removals - as I've spelt out every time - was that they falsified the references list by removing a source the article still in fact used. Whatever the merits of making or reverting edits that remove citations of sources an article's content still depends on - and there's an ongoing discussion of that on David's Talk page that I may yet bring to a noticeboard for an outside opinion - it's still the case that the matter could've been resolved instantly if you or David had simply agreed the information sourced from the Daily Mail should be removed and asked me to go ahead and remove it.
- Instead we're now in a situation where, for reasons unclear to me and that you have not articulated anywhere, you have reverted us to a version where we're sourcing information from the Daily Mail, despite now-unanimous consensus from three users involved in the discussion on the article's Talk page to rip out anything for which the Mail is the only source, and despite David also agreeing on his Talk page that this should happen.
- I suggest you look at your own behaviour. You have undone edits of mine that implemented other users' unopposed suggestions from the Talk page without offering any real explanation of why, while SHOUTING AT ME IN ALL CAPS (and personally insulting me) in your edit summary, and have sneered at my attempts to discuss and contribute on the grounds of me being a new user with few contributions. I don't think I'm the one exhibiting "ownership" behaviour, here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Drop the fucking stick, or get blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether, your choice! - FlightTime (open channel) 21:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wdit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)