User talk:Aeonx/Archive/2019/December

I have a concern

In this edit[1] you wrote "Undoing an update because I sourced the dailymail isn't justified. I'm an experienced editor, I know about the blanket suppression of it, and I choose to use it as a source anyways." I am concerned that you have declared your intention to not abide by the clear consensus of the community at WP:DAILYMAIL.

I have not bothered going through your posting history and putting together a list of places where you have used The Daily Mail as a source, but if you have been doing that as opposed to just talking about doing it, we have a real problem.

Would you like to reconsider and/or clarify the above statement? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully comply with the Wiki Community consensus that "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited". In particular, I draw your attention to the word "generally", which by definition means 'usually' or in 'general terms without regards to exceptions'. I believe there are exceptions where it IS appropriate to use The Daily Mail as a source, particularly when it's been used to indicate that there are News Reports that exist rather than being used to verify or reference a claim in article itself. The real problem here is editors like you that police rules without proper regard for the principles of Wikipedia and the objective to prioritise good encyclopaedic content rather maintain poor/incorrect content because it conflicts with a guideline treated as gospel. Aeonx (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)