User talk:Whycantimakewhatiwant

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

(Answering here rather than in an unblock box.) Because you are not independent. Self-published information is usable in very limited circumstances, because it cannot be verified. And you're right: any writings of Dr. King related to himself would be subject to the same restrictions. However, there are ample independent sources discussing King, so the use of King's works is limited to situations where a quotation is called for.

Additionally, please note that if you are the subject, you have a conflict of interest in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * so if someone else writes is, its ok?Whycantimakewhatiwant (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Subject to the rules of notability and verifiability, yes. That's actually the preferred route. —C.Fred (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

additionally, no one considers wiki a credible source. its despised by professors and teachers when used as a source by studentsWhycantimakewhatiwant (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If done right, Wikipedia is a good indirect (tertiary) source, in that a properly-sourced article will point a student to secondary sources. Accordingly, Wikipedia is in the same league as other encyclopedias as far as its value as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

and wtracrew wrote one....y isnt his ok?Whycantimakewhatiwant (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-notability, non-verifiability, and in one case, personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)