User talk:DogoMan900

April 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dank memes has been reverted. Your edit here to Dank memes was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/groups/berniesandersmemes/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Please stop reverting my edits. If you want to undo them and add sources please do, otherwise what I removed should stay removed due to being either too general, unsourced, or written poorly. Thanks.  HarryKernow  (talk to me) 16:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dank Memes
You seem to be new here so I just wanted to share some tips on the situation with Dank memes. I'm a redditor myself - I know the subculture and I love it dearly - but there are some things that just don't belong in an encyclopedia, and I flagged the article for deletion because because I'm not seeing a saving grace here. You're welcome to prove those in favor of deletion wrong - if you find some acceptable sources, then you would have a better case for saving it - but Facebook pages and a subreddit of 30k users aren't indications of notability on their own. It would take a significant amount of original research to stretch it out into a decent article with these kinds of sources, and 4chan and Know Your Meme aren't the kind of credible websites that you can directly draw references from to establish a case for an article. Content on Wikipedia is more or less an aggregation of secondary coverage, something that does not consist of social media posts or the speculation of the authors writing the article. The exclusion of topics which are not readily verifiable is part of what keeps Wikipedia's content fairly dependable. Keep this in mind going forward.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that you were engaging in an edit war with HarryKernow. This is not acceptable behavior here and, in doing so, you have technically violated the three revert rule which is a common way to be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'm not going to say anything this time but I will ask that you don't do this again as it may only hinder your case or your ability to save an endangered page from the axe.  Protoss  Pylon  23:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)