User talk:Rjarows

Welcome!

Hello, Rjarows, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Accounting4Taste 01:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard Fans Anonymous

A tag has been placed on Die Hard Fans Anonymous, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Die Hard Fans Anonymous. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Accounting4Taste 01:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this article because it fails to assert notability per WP:WEB. Please also see Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and verifiability. These are core policies that make up the framework of what Wikipedia accepts for articles. Regards, Reso lute 03:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among other reasons, the claim is unverifiable. Also, per the notability guidelines, for this blog to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, it needs to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. A google search does not reveal any coverage at all. Regards, Reso lute 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your most recent reply, I might also suggest reading our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Also, per WP:V, "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Specifically, for your claim to have broken the story to be verified under Wikipedia's guidelines, a reliable source would have had to written about it. Message boards and other blogs are not considered reliable sources. I wish you the best of luck with your blog, but thus far, I am not swayed that this claim acts as a claim of notability. If you would like a further review by other editors, I would recommend following the procedures at Deletion Review. Regards, Reso lute 04:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the time stamps, one could suggest that you broke the story before two specific newspapers. Does that prove you broke the story first? Can't say. That is, however, a side issue. Fair or not, Wikipedia's policies have been developed over time based on the consensus of the community. Wikipedia's intent is to be a tertiary source, not primary or secondary. You may believe that you broke this story first, but you are the primary source. Lacking reliable secondary sources, we have no way of verifying this. The specific issue, however, is that for a blog or website to be considered notable, the site itself needs to have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. i.e.: your blog would have to have been written about by, for example, a newspaper.

I can understand your dissillusionment with the process, however. You are more than welcome to propose changes to the guidelines and policies on their talk pages, if you so choose, and if there is community support, the guidelines can, and do, change. However, Wikipedia does not claim to be an encyclopedia of everything. It does strive to be as accurate as is feasible given the highly fluid nature of the project, and this is why the requirement for secondary sources is important. Regards, Reso lute 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nick Munro, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Nick Munro was changed by Rjarows (c) (t) blanking the page on 2007-10-15T04:55:25+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]