Talk:Easily Ltd

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Easily Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609061156/http://www.webhosting.info:80/webhosts/tophosts/Country/UK to http://www.webhosting.info/webhosts/tophosts/Country/UK
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111106191854/http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/ver031203 to http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/ver031203
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120326005928/http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/013108_Group_NBT_Expands_CM4all_Offering to http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/013108_Group_NBT_Expands_CM4all_Offering

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of non-rs
Twice now I have removed patently unreliable sources which are not only user-generated but from sources which have an actual history of falsifying reviews. Unless independent sources are talking about x companies reviews in x website in cases such as this (TrustPilot, Yelp, etc...) it should not be included in any article. As far as the accusation of me having some sort of external interest in this company: I don't. There is absolutely no indication I do and if you look through my recent contributions, you'll note that I removed nearly 20 instances of this unreliable source being used in other articles even when it was portraying the subject in a positive light. Further, I'd strongly encourage to rescind their two blatant personal attacks as a user of their tenure should definitely know better, I am neither ignorant with regard to WP:V or WP:RS nor do I have any interest in this article outside of ensuring it meets one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See also these relevant discussions: and there are dozens more discussions discussing these types of websites. Praxidicae (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And another relevant policy which says Amazon should not be used for reviews for exactly the same reason we wouldn't use TrustPilot, etc... also Reliable_sources Praxidicae (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Verifiability. Please revert your edit per the linked policy. Praxidicae (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole article is problematic but in this case, is not made better by removal of said information. The issue is that the lede of the article starts out by what is essentially a positive presentation of the company in question (was once one of the UK’s largest domain name and webhosting companies). However, the company for the last few years seems to have been enganging in increasingly questionable behaviour and that means that by not referring to the controversy surrounding it at the moment, Wikipedia would end up with a rather one-sided protrayal of the company.
 * I accept that review sites aren't necessarily the best source but when several of them consistently show the same type of review across hundreds of reviews, it cannot be simply dismissed because there may be the odd fake review on it (reliable newspapers have been known to publish junk on occassion too...). I would prefer a more "reliable" source than Trustpilot et al myself but in the absence of a journalist taking up this saga, that is unlikely to happen in a hurry. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Verifiability. Please revert your edit per the linked policy. If you think it needs to be rewritten neutrally, fix it. But we don't keep contentious material in an article so we can call it balanced when the rest is garbage and based on completely unreliable sources. And we absolutely do not allow user-generated reviews on sites such as this. Praxidicae (talk) 9:39 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * And if the issue is that RS aren't writing about it then it shouldn't be in the article. Praxidicae (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)