User talk:67.182.201.141

These edits were made from what was a public access computer in a coffee shop. This is no longer the case

Dumping POV paragraphs into newspaper stories
Hi, I get the impression from your recent insertion of paragraphs into various newspaper-related articles - eg: San_Jose_Mercury_News and The_Denver_Post - that you may be pleased to see the back of certain people. That is your opinion, but please refrain from expressing it in articles. Just keep to the facts. Furthermore, when you insert some material such as this it is important that you (a) provide proper citations for it; and (b) ensure that it does does "break" the article in other ways. For an example of the latter point, the Denver Post article still says Singleton is in charge of the newspaper but your recent addition says that he has gone - by not removing the former point you have created an internal contradiction in the article, which is always unencyclopaedic. You might want to revisit San_Jose_Mercury_News, see how I have fixed your piece and then revisit all the other articles you are editing with the same story and correct the content, as well as checking for internal inconsistencies that result from it. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would that be an emotional impression or a professional opinion. How long have you been reporting on the newspaper industry? I think you may have to do some homework here.
 * Sorry, I missed your reply because it was out of place. Also, please sign your posts (type 4 tildes [~] at the end of them). My opinion is based on what I see: you are introducing commentary, your citations were imperfect and one of them was a blog, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What? What you see? Citation imperfect... and one of them a blog? Let me see -source Bloomberg/Business Week. The "Blog" is from Harvard University and one of the most respected (Neiman) in our industry. I've been an exectutive, owner and journalist in the newspaper industry for 30 years... Please share your qualifications for an opinion with me.


 * Please, please sign your comments.
 * Here's what you said in your first paragraph: "In January, 2010, Affiliated Media, parent of MediaNews, file for Chapter II bankruptcy protection. It emerged at the end of March, 2010, with lenders owning 89% of the stock, and with Dean Singleton retaining control of Affiliated's board."


 * it is Chapter 11, not Chapter II - correcting it meant that it could be linked to the Wikipedia article on the subject
 * you bolded the phrase, which would be contrary to WP:Weight
 * "emerged" is emotive, suggesting that something was hidden
 * the Tagarana link appears to be a blog in the first instance, although it does redirect to a newspaper page that, as I write, is unavailable (it may come back) - there are alternatives to a relatively unknown newspaper for this story, eg: NY Times. Blog links, in any form, are generally deprecated when there are alternative sources
 * although I appreciate that you appear to be new to Wikipedia, the citation format was wrong - this caused an error and was why it was highlighted to me because I was "patrolling" the page that lists errors with references in order to fix them (no biggie - a lot of newbies get these citation formats wrong)
 * And your second paragraph said:"On January 20, 2011, MediaNews creditors-turned-owners considered Media News chairman Singleton and president Lodovic to be on probation. In a shake-up, Lodovic (who has no street-level newspaper or digital operating experience, and whose financial skills were no longer relevant in the post-bankruptcy structure) was ousted and Singleton was reassigned to “executive chairman of the board." The Singleton-Lodovic appointees to the MediaNews board are gone, replaced by new directors representing the stockholders group led by Alden Global Capital, a hedge fund firm which has acquired a large, though not controlling, stake. Several interim executive positions were also filled by people related to Alden or its parent, Smith Management LLC."


 * in many of the articles you edited there was no mention of Singleton or Lodovic prior to your insertion, therefore the mention of them by their surname was confusing and had no context
 * your comments on Lodovic's experience may or may not be true but they were a copyright violation of the source you quote, so had to go. In fact, more or less the entire paragraphis/was a copyvio
 * as said before, by inserting as you did, you introduced inconsistencies in some articles and in others provided no context.
 * None of this is a big deal given that you are probably new to Wikipedia, aside from the copyright violation, but the problem was I was running round trying to clean it up and you were carrying on even though I'd asked you to desist from your copy/pastes and take a look at how it should better be done in order to comply with policies etc.
 * It is nothing to do with professional qualifications and certainly nothing to do with your opinion or experience. Anyone can say they have 30 years experience in anything here - who's to know whether they are truthful or not, whether the experience was relevant or not, and so on? I'm not calling you a liar, merely pointing out that it is not relevant and, even if it were, it is impossible to police. I am not intending to "have a go" at you, merely trying to set things straight. As it was, some useful information was added but at the cost of unnecessarily wasting quite a bit of both your time and mine. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not actually sure why the same paragraph needs to be inserted into all these different newspapers. Most of these newspapers have histories independent of their current owner and unless a specific newspaper is mentioned in the reference or a verifiable source mentions that the bankruptcy has had some effect on a specific newspaper, I see no need for this information -- especially the same paragraph -- to be put into every article about every newspaper owned by MediaNews.  People interested in the business side of MediaNews will go to that page.   XinJeisan (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. I was having to firefight a copyvio and wasn't sure where it would go next. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now removed from all but the William Dean Singleton and MediaNews articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Press-Telegram, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Los_Angeles_Daily_News. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Press-Telegram, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Press-Telegram, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sitush (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

John W. Gallivan, June 2011
You recently made a series of ten edits to the article "John W. Gallivan," which is the biography of a living person. None of your recent edits cited a source. Remember that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." Where you are introducing additional facts, such as details about a board meeting, negotiations, or where a person lived (or, irrelevantly, who else lived there), please cite a source. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research.--Thelema12 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on William Howard Taft. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 04:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)