User talk:Panika ts

February 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Mike Shinoda has been reverted. Your edit here to Mike Shinoda 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj2WhaGzR94#t=106, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ2UlNQj_BY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. 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) 11:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mike Shinoda. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Extraordinary claims require extensive, reliable sourcing, not just people's tweets and YouTube videos. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello C.Fred, I'm new to this and I don't mean to be rude, I really don't understand, how aren't YouTube videos of a person speaking what is written in the article reliable? I saw a lot of pages that said "N announced on their Twitter account" and the like. I know that looked like nonsense, but that was no vandalism, all of the information I put there was 100% true and the sources were actual proof. So please explain, why do you say it's unreliable? So that I never break this rule again. Thanks!Panika ts (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC) (copied here from User talk:C.Fred)


 * It depends on what's being announced in the self-published sources. Routine information such as relationship status will generally be accepted based on the subject's comments. A date of birth may be accepted but with a grain of salt, since celebrities are known to fudge their ages. However, you're alleging that the subject has said he's a "clone" and "part unicorn". Claims like that are so extraordinary that they can't be sourced just to statements by the subject. We would need some sort of wider coverage in independent reliable sources such as newspapers or magazines.


 * Even if his claims were just part of a publicity stunt, we would need the secondary sources to show that the stunt had a widespread or long-lasting impact on his image before it could be included. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thank you. I guess it makes sense, there could be tons of information on every Wiki page otherwise. Sad but true. Thanks again, sorry for bothering you.Panika ts (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)