User talk:The Home Slice7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Notability of The Con Crows

A tag has been placed on The Con Crows requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

Information you put in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Unless you can source the information about these gangs, it will only be deleted. Friday (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Warren, Michigan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actually

It wasn't just me. The content you added was un-sourced and not relevant to the article itself. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Warren, Michigan. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

Here's the basic gist of what we can or can't use here on Wikipedia: if you were to go out and do investigative reporting, interview people, etc, we can't use it here. (But Wikinews can use it.) But, if you can cite newspaper or magazine sources for example, this is generally OK for the encyclopedia. The policy pages that try to explain all this include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The only reason you were blocked was that you reverted too much. If you be sure to not revert too much and can cite good sources for your edits, you shouldn't have any further trouble here. Friday (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)