Newsman12

November 2019

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Plain Dealer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: same goes for your recent edits to Sun Newspapers. You have a lot of detail in these edits, so you must be looking at some source of some kind. Please cite it. You have some tone problems (e.g. "drastic" is a judgment; just report the information and do not characterize it, leave that to the reader), but otherwise, apart from being unsourced, your edits are, I think, sound. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Your sourcing protocol is unclear and seems to require a degree of html knowledge I do not have. Typically I would just use hyperlinks but it seems that is not as easy as highlighting text and hitting a button as it is with most publishing platforms. I was concerned that if I tried to do so without knowing exactly what I was doing it would look sloppy. Newsman12 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, just include the hyperlink surrounded by <ref></ref> tags, like this:

<ref>http://www.somereference.com/news/news-story-about-something.html</ref>

It's not ideal, but is much better than unsourced, and someone like me can clean it up for you. No one will revert your edit for the source being less than perfectly specified; but they will for not including any source at all. And after a while you'll get the hang of it. And welcome to Wikipedia! TJRC (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain why the subhead "Chris Quinn controversies" and all sourced content under that section has been deleted since yesterday? Newsman12 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted edits

Many of my edits have been deleted since this afternoon. I realized that I needed to go back and reinsert some citations that got deleted accidentally but it seems strange so much was taken down out of nowhere. Newsman12 (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Newsman12, your recent edits aren't really in keeping with an encyclopedia. They read more like investigative journalism and have WP:NPOV issues. It might be better for you start a blog and publish that material there. TJRC (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with your contentions about my edits. I have tried to express those disagreements previously but received no reply.

I have made several contributions to The Plain Dealer wiki page in the last month. The page had not been updated in at least 5 years from what I could tell. A lot has happened since then - layoffs, changes in leadership, and major rebranding of its separate digital sister company, Cleveland.com, with which it shares a website (and a wikipedia page for some reason).

Many past (pre-2012) high-profile criticism and controversies at The Plain Dealer have been chronicled on the page. All are factual and well sourced. I created a similar section chronicling similar controversies that have come to light in local and national media. Using the same fact-based approach as was used to create the PD criticism and controversies section, I went about documenting those involving Cleveland.com and its leadership. The contributions were properly sourced and presented various viewpoints for an even view of the matters. Yet, they were erased one day without explanation. After I attempted to re-add them to the page, an admin contended that my contibutions were not in line with the "spirit" of the encyclopedia and not done in a "neutral voice POV." That is false, I argued, explaining my position. I have received no further feedback. IMO, it is the admin who is not acting neutrally by censoring my factuql, well-sourced contributions. Why? I don't know. It could be fear of repercussions from Cleveland.com or some other reason that would contribute to his bias. At any rate, this situation undermines wiki's already questionable integrity and I believe it should be remedied at sooner rather than later. Newsman12 (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

TJRC (talk) Please engage me based on my previous comment regarding your deletion of my contributions.

Edits are legitimate

In what way are these "investigative" in nature? Those edits simply chronicle actual, fairly high-profile events that have occurred at the company in recent years. They are no different in substance than anything included in the section labeled as "Plain Dealer controversies." Why do you feel the need to try to frame these edits as something they are not? (See, that last sentence is the sort of thing one would write if they were investigating something, not "Cleveland.com was criticized by local media for something its editor said on a local TV show" with quotes to show that happened.) So please show some integrity and republish the bits of history I took the time to contribute. Newsman12 (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

You put a note at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request which appeared to be a dispute resolution request. That page is only for discussing improvements to the request form for which it is the talk page and your request will not be processed.

However, be aware that before any request for form of moderated content dispute resolution will be accepted, even if properly filed, there must be an extensive discussion of the issue in question at the article talk page demonstrating an attempt by the parties to work the matter out between them through discussion. Discussion via edit summaries will not suffice. The talk page for the article you are interested in can be found at Talk:The Plain Dealer. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

The moderator has not responded to my last message. How many times am I to leave him/her unanswered messages before the issue has been discussed thoroughly enough? Newsman12 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, "there must be an extensive discussion of the issue in question at the article talk page", but even if the discussion above had been at the article talk page it would not have been "extensive" with just one response by the other editor. If an editor will not respond, consider the advice given here: WP:DISCFAIL. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Essentially, you are giving certain editors the ability to impose baseless censorship of content at will, with no need to regard the actual merits of taking such actions. As long as he/she chooses to ignore disputes, the content remains unpublished with only vague, unsound explanations as to why.