User talk:97.123.3.124

April 2018
Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Machete, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello. While I did provide a reference, it appears that Wikipedia or you are unwilling to accept it as authoritative. Would you be willing to research for an acceptable reference that corroborates the information included in my edit? Or is the information too politically sensitive and unfit for public consumption? - 97.123.3.124 (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Machete, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As per WP:DAILYMAIL, the Daily Mail is an unreliable source. Peaceray (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Hi Peaceray. I notice that you keep defacing my article contribution to Machete without giving specific criticism or contradiction to the material of my edits. Having read the very exhaustive WP:DAILYMAIL, I have concluded that you are acting in defiance to the nature of that discussion and that you should no longer harass articles cited by Dailymail due to your own personal political biases, per WP:DAILYMAIL.  The information referenced by Dailymail is from a specific research collected by FIOA requests made by that agency, so it is the most accurate source to cite.  I am undoing your undo. - 97.123.3.124 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,, I do not see anything in the Consensus statement about "specific reason" to remove something that uses the Daily Mail as a source. You are welcome to add the material back if you find a reliable source other than the Daily Mail unless that source is citing the Daily Mail itself as a source.


 * Also, when you cite something, please use the citation templates.


 * Finally if you think that this I merely doing this because of my politics, I would invite you to review my edits at National Rifle Association.


 * Peaceray (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding improperly sourced content, as you did to Machete. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Discuss on the Talk:Machete page before attempting to add this again. As per WP:DAILYMAIL, "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."'' Peaceray (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.