Talk:Joel Fagliano

Conflict of interest editing; reversions
Fagliano was editing the Times crossword when they ran the racist slur BEANER in 2019. The same three users keep scrubbing sourced information about Fagliano's editorial choice to use BEANER in the New York Times crossword, which he edits with and as much as Shortz. I raised COI concerns because Sdkb keeps scrubbing sourced info about Fagliano and the BEANER scandal Fagliano was directly involved in, whether Shortz "only mentioned Fagliano once" as the latest reverter contends or not. Shortz issued only one statement on the subject, which is why Fagliano was mentioned only once. Sdkb and other users' desperate attempts to hide this information from the page, while accusing me of 'outing' an editor, are absurd and constitute harassment in themselves. When and where did I ever 'out' an editor? Again, I raised very valid COI concerns -- especially given the user's desperate attempts to instantly remove any reference to the BEANER scandal, which were sourced, which mention Fagliano before Shortz, and which was the only statement issued, hence the "one reference" to Fagliano in the scandal, though he edits the crossword as much as Shortz. It would only be 'outing' if my COI concerns are in fact true and valid. I have never 'outed' any editor or even raised any concern about one outside of the COI concerns, which being accused of 'outing' for, only seem to confirm the COI issues were correct.

This desperate scrubbing of Fagliano's direct involvement in the Times' editorial choice to run BEANER in the Times crossword is reminiscent of edit wars former USA Today crossword editor Timothy Parker engaged in, immediately scrubbing sourced, valid information about his scandalous behavior, to protect his public image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.206.114 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should reflect on an alternate reason that people may be removing your non-WP:NPOV content . There are plenty of good additions to be made but your current edits seem to misunderstand these articles as places to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You'll notice plenty of the controversies you added to the Will Shortz article were kept and just pared down for tone and undue weight.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, are my edits of factual info on Fagliano where all the even international sources directly mention Fagliano, NPOV violations? If anything, the constant scrubbing of this international news where all sources I've seen (hundreds) mention Fagliano directly in the scandal, is violating NPOV editing terms.
 * And it sounds like you're admitting the harassment and outing accusations are false, then? You essentially wrote: "Perhaps you should consider alternate reasons... [people are leveling false charges at you to block you for adding unflattering but true, sourced, international news about Fagliano's career in which the sources always directly mention Fagliano before Shortz]." Which would mean *I* am the one being harassed and falsely accused by editors, for adding pertinent, sourced info.
 * When did I edit the Shortz article exactly? Odd assumptions on your part, and more harassment, for my editing the Fagliano article?
 * Fagliano edits the Times crossword as much as Shortz. They edit together. Fagliano was named first in the public statement ["Neither Joel nor I..." --Shortz]. How is it "righting great wrongs" to report actual, factual, sourced info about Fagliano's choice to endorse BEANER, a severe racist slur which caused international outrage, which is therefore newsworthy and very relevant to Fagliano. The scandal Fagliano was half responsible for causing was reported in every major news outlet in the U.S., along with hundreds of international news outlets, as it was that newsworthy. All of these articles I have seen mention Fagliano directly. As you mentioned, this article is relevant to the Shortz article, so how is it not "righting great wrongs" there, but it is only on Fagliano's page? Righting great wrongs is reporting personal criminal activity, etc., irrelevant to their public image and work, which is not the case here at all. It's news that was reported and directly related to Fagliano's career, so belongs in the Career section on this page, no matter how many false 'outing' and 'harassment' charges are leveled to try to block the info from being added.
 * The constant scrubbing of this info by Sdkb, Cerebral726 and one other user, leveling false 'outing' and 'harassment' charges for adding sourced info, are highly reminiscent of when USA Today crossword editor Timothy Parker kept scrubbing info about his plagiarism scandal off his own Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.59.206.114 (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Copy editing
Hi —re this edit, The New York Times is one of the publications where the "the" actually is part of the official name. It can get tricky with a few edge cases (I much prefer publications that don't include the the), but for the most part it should be capitalized and included in wikilinks. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I do understand that the "The" is part of the official name of The New York Times, and therefore part of the title of the article. That doesn't mean that we should include the capitalized word The every time we mention the New York Times. Most of the time, we don't write the full formal name of publications or organizations. We say things like "I bought it from Whole Foods", not "I bought it from Whole Foods Market, Incorporated". In the case of the Times, we can just as well say the Times (when it's clear from the context) or the New York Times. It is rarely helpful to say "The New York Times". In fact, if the "the" has a grammatical role in the sentence (which it usually does), it should not be capitalized. But I think you're right about the title in footnotes, which I will correct. --Macrakis (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Macrakis, thanks, that makes sense! You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newspapers, as it'd be good for us to move toward a formal standard on this. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)