User talk:Waldizzle

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, News 99, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. •Clyde• (a.k.a Mystytopia) 01:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of News 99

A tag has been placed on News 99, 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. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. 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. Realkyhick 03:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Daker

I'm very confused: neither your contributions nor your deleted contributions (which you can't see unless you're an administrator) are on the John Daker page, which I've never edited nor deleted. Did you mean to leave that note for someone else? I'm not unhappy — I want to help you, but it's simply that until I know what's going on, I can't do anything. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Major League (band)

So, the main issue here has to do with Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, but for this specific problem, the Biographies of Living Persons policy makes it even more urgent. To verify that something like this happened, we try and verify it using reliable sources - and the sources we find are generally most reliable are ones that have some sort of oversight or peer review, such as academic journal articles and major newspaper or magazine outlets. But because Trask, and everyone in the band, is a living person, we have very strict rules about what can be posted and how it needs to be sourced. These rules aren't always followed, but they are really important when something like the allegation you've added to the page comes into play.

Essentially, the Facebook post you linked to accuses Trask of a crime. It puts him in a negative light and could be harmful to his personal, and especially his professional, life. That means he could sue Wikipedia if the allegations are shown to be false (which is possible; it may be that the band is defaming him, or it could be some sort of legitimate misunderstanding). But even if they are true, they have to be verified by some sort of outside source - some news outlet or press agency which has investigated the claims, or by the decision of a court of law. According to the WP:BLP policy, these kinds of accusations have to be removed immediately from a page if they are not properly sourced.

Your actions here could have legal repercussions for Wikipedia; it's important to remember this as you edit contentious material. All we can say without stepping into legally murky territory, and without violating Wikipedia's policies, is that Trask is no longer in the band - unless and until the details get reported in a reputable news source. (And even then we need to be circumspect, to respect the bandmembers' rights; we may need to couch the wording carefully, so that it's clear that we are reporting what the agency said, not the "real truth" - because we do not have access to the real truth of what happened.) If you'd like to add more detail here, I'd say your best bet is to look around in punk and alternative news outlets to see if it's been picked up; maybe Alternative Press or Absolute Punk have reported on this.

Thanks for asking, by the way. Chubbles (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]