Talk:WDIO-DT

Fair use rationale for Image:WDIO02.jpg
Image:WDIO02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WDIO-Not as strong as you used to be
As a former wdio production worker, I have to say the quality of your reporters and anchors have gone down hill since I worked there. WDIO used to have high standards about reporting the news correctly and now you don't care if you mistaken one part of the city for another. ie: you reported that 27th ave west was the central hillside and when I called your station and spoke with a rude female reporter all she could say was that is what the police call it. Well if someone is calling in and saying your making a mistake you need to look into. And not only did you report that particular story wrong once, you did it three times. I still can not understand why you keep Deborah Anderson on the air she makes mistakes every night and then laughs about it like a 3 year old would. Back in the day she would have been given her walking papers, now you don't care how many mistakes people make. And what really bugs me is you give half the story most of the time and then tell people to check out the website, well most people can't afford to be online in todays world. I know I am just one person and my comments are now going to change your actions but I do not tune into the news any longer becuase of how you guys report it, you have failed this 40 year old northlander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.183.163 (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material
Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to a list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:


 * 1) WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
 * 2) As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
 * 3) WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
 * 4) Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)