User talk:Dylandude89

 Hi Dylandude89, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Button sig2.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
 * If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

 Good luck, and have fun. --Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

About your edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources.

Re this edit: You would need reliable published sources supporting your statements, especially when those statements are about living people. Please don't add that material again unless there is a consensus on the article talk page that there are sufficient reliable published sources supporting it. Welcome to Wikipedia, though, and I hope you enjoy editing here. :-) Feel free to post a message on my talk page if you have any questions about how to use Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put a note about this at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake City School District
As a fellow student journalist, I respect, honor and encourage your efforts to make an unbiased and journalistic investigation of the issues surrounding the coach. However, Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research and reporting. That's not its mission. We only publish what can be verified in other reliable sources. Right now, there are no reliable, verifiable sources which have published the allegations of favoritism which you are reporting; thus, Wikipedia cannot publish them either. Furthermore, because your allegations are about a living person, our stringent biographies of living persons policy applies - all negative assertions must be scrupulously sourced. I am afraid that if you persist in inserting unsourced negative information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I don't want to have to do that, so please read the relevant policies and follow them. It's a question of journalistic ethics. I would suggest that you contact local media, including alternative media sources, after doing the relevant reporting. Also look at Wikinews, our companion open-source free newsgathering site. FCYTravis (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy
Hello. I explained to you on my talk page about the high standards that must be followed in order to post negative information about a living person. (I misused the word "defamatory": I meant negative. I'm not taking a position as to whether the information is true or false.) You haven't followed my suggestions, but have gone ahead and posted unsourced or poorly sourced information about a living person. Please don't do that again.

The URL (web address) you provided does not work. I click on it and I just get an error. It may be that registration is required in order to view web pages at that site. Maybe you can see the pages but others can't. Try clicking on the link in the version of the article you posted:  does it work for you?

If the URL doesn't even work, it's definitely not an acceptable source. Once you find a URL that works, there are still other questions that would need to be answered about the source. And remember, for something like this, more than one reliable source would probably be required. See Biographies of living persons policy.

I'm not familiar with Desert News, and I don't see a Wikipedia article about it. At the moment I have no particular reason to think that it's a reliable source. You would have to argue on the article talk page about the reliability of your sources, and convince other editors.

Please do as I suggested earlier: present your edits as suggestions on the article talk page, where we can discuss whether the sources are good enough (and check whether the URL's work). Please don't just add similar material to the article without discussing it on the talk page first.

Besides the reliability of the sources, there are also other considerations such as whether the information is sufficiently notable and relevant to the topic of this article and suitable for an encyclopedia. This sort of thing is discussed in the policy I mentioned above and in other Policies and guidelines. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Deseret News is the biggest paper in Salt Lake City, go to their website (www.desnews.com) It's a perfectly reliable source. I don't see what the problem is. Everything is fact that I put up.
 * Oh, I wasn't familiar with Desert News. They may be a reliable source.  However, please note all the other points I raised.  We don't necessarily include information about a person in an article just because there's been one or even a few newspaper articles about them.  Please discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page before posting negative information about a living person to this or any other article.  A link which simply gives an error message when I click on it is definitely not a reliable source.  Regardless of whether the link works or not, having a reliable newspaper article is not necessarily enough to be able to include that information in the article.
 * Please read the section People who are relatively unknown of the BLP policy, especially the second paragraph.
 * I think I understand how you feel. You're there and you know these things are true -- maybe you've seen some of the things happening.  So you want to let people know.  I know the feeling.  But try to see it from my point of view.  There are, I suppose, hundreds of thousands of schools in the world.  There are, I suppose, millions of people who have been found guilty of something by a court or by some organization they've broken the rules of.  Wikipedia isn't a catalog of all those wrongdoings.  If we tried to do that, we'd almost certainly get a few of them wrong -- and even one lawsuit could financially wipe out the Wikimedia foundation and destroy Wikipedia.  There's also the harm that can be caused to peoples' lives.  Even if someone has done something wrong, does it have to be posted on the Internet?  And newspapers do sometimes print things that turn out not to be true. So we have to be very, very careful about publishing negative information about living people.  It can be done, but only if it's very well-sourced (note that that paragraph says "multiple, highly reliable sources") and relevant to the article.  Even if multiple sources are found, for example, it might  be decided that the events can be mentioned but that the person's name should not be included.  (That's just one example of the type of thing that might be decided in discussion on the article talk page.) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)