User talk:Newsjunkie

/Archive 1

What makes a valid citation

May I suggest that you read Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. "Why Cite Sources in Your Academic Writing?". Yale.edu. Retrieved 2025-01-23.

• A link to a youtube or facebook video is not of itself a valid citation if it is you making a judgement about it: that is WP:OR.
  • If a notable person, speaking about a subject within their professional expertise, uses youtube or facebook as their publication platform, then that is ok to cite.
• An example of something being used on a website is not a valid citation: that again is your OR because it is you who had deemed it significant.
• An originator saying that they say, do or use something is not a valid citation: that is a WP:PRIMARY violation.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"If a notable person, speaking about a subject within their professional expertise, uses youtube or facebook as their publication platform, then that is ok to cite." It is the official Channel 4 channel. It is the only copy out there I can find of the full video. newsjunkie (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Academic citation model

Just to clarify: the founding philosophy of en.Wikipedia follows the in all articles, not just academic ones. All non-obvious statements must be supported by citing a reliable source that asserts that it to be the case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that and agree, that's why I don't really see what the issue is. It's an additional reliable source in combination with the news article, and my understanding of academic citing and citing in general has always been that it's always better to have more citations, rather than the opposite. newsjunkie (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have explained already that it is not a valid citation. Put simply, it can't be used to cite itself. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not by itself, but why doesn't it work as an additional source if an existing source already establishes the relevance (but doesn't include the full content) and primary sources are permitted to cite facts without analysis? newsjunkie (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not using it to establish significance (with no additional text or analysis to that effect), which the Guardian article has already done, but simply an additional piece of evidence for what was said. newsjunkie (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No, no and again no. It is not a valid citation in that context. It can't be used to cite itself. The only legitimate way to use it there is as a footnote [using {{efn}}] or as an external link.

This correspondence is now closed -- Ed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you point to where exactly in the guidelines it states that or what specific context you mean? I pointed you to examples from the primary source guidelines (that you pointed to) but you haven't pointed to any specific guidelines stating that. newsjunkie (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I also don't see what in the academic writing guidelines you pointed to would go against that citation, and those could even be interpreted to allow for the citation. newsjunkie (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see where on this page Wikipedia:No original research#Primary it would describe this as a violation. It does not say that primary sources cannot be used, but it provides guidelines for when they can be used and I don't see why this doesn't conform. newsjunkie (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It even says " a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." newsjunkie (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Article formatting

Could I ask you to pay regard to the consensus formatting of articles - by Engvar and date format - when editing articles, please? It would save other editors having to recorrect your edits, as recent at Alan Cumming. MapReader (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been using the visual editor mostly and I think it sometimes formats these things automatically (I'm not sure based on what exactly.) newsjunkie (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: Danny Reagan and similar cases

I understand your point of view on this, but I think there has to be some way to give the reader the benefit of seeing what the actor who plays the role looks like without having to click over to another page article. If the character were a costumed superhero or was otherwise presented with a very distinctive look that could not be conveyed by seeing the actor, I could see a much stronger case for not having a picture at all, but in this case, Danny Reagan just looks like Mark Wahlberg. The only thing out of place is that it seems unlikely that Danny Reagan would wear that particular suit. I would suggest presenting the image outside of the infobox, but that seems aesthetically suboptimal. BD2412 T 22:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

He definitely looks a particular way with a suit when he is playing the character. Look at the The West Wing character pages that use promotional photos of the actors in costume like Josh Lyman or C.J. Cregg, so you could look for similar ones for Blue Bloods. newsjunkie (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting point, and worth looking for. On the other hand, we do have articles like James T. Kirk, which shows the actors who played the character separately from the depiction of the character. BD2412 T 23:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The primary top photo does have him in costume though. newsjunkie (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Thanks for your two reverts on TV Guide! I'm currently chasing this multi-account spammer via the official channels and having someone else spotting their abuse is very validating! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary, especially in List of programs broadcast by CBS. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! NacreousPuma855 (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sure what you're referring to, most recently have only reverted spam and a few days ago referred a disagreement to the talk page myself. newsjunkie (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to the CBS page, I reverted multiple attempts to add incorrect and completely made up information. newsjunkie (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I also encouraged participants to discuss their concern on the talk page, where they did not engage, and where there was already consensus. newsjunkie (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying this has to do with incorrect information. I'm talking about the In Development section. The thing is, you are thinking that Wikipedia pages are your own (WP:OWN). None of the other programming articles have what you put up on CBS. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Some of the additional information I added for shows in various sections related to renewal is included on other pages like for List of Paramount+ original programming and there is discussion on the talk page about reformatting all the broadcast network pages to account for that. In terms of the years for the in-development shows, I think that is helpful because clearly a lot of the shows in development are probably not active anymore and may never happen and there doesn't seem to be a good mechanism for how to convey that as the list just gets longer and longer, so including the year gives some insight into how likely it is that any of these shows will ever materialize or how long the development process is. Just because I only added it to CBS for now, doesn't mean it can't be added to other pages as well, I just started with CBS because that's the network I was most interested in. But anyway in the most recent interaction I encouraged the person to engage on the Talk page where there is an existing related discussion where somebody offered to reformat all the network pages to account for the additional information. newsjunkie (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is an ongoing edit war though. I encouraged the other user to discuss on the talk page and there has been no interaction since. And the back and forth was occurring at the same time that a third user was repeatedly adding definitely incorrect information that I reverted several times, so that may have also caused some additional confusion. newsjunkie (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

There are references there for a reason. And just because it's your most interested network doesn't mean you can just modify to whatever you want. Also, have you heard of the 3 year rule? That's where if 3 years have passed, the shows in development are presumed dead and removed. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Where is the three year rule documented? I haven't seen it or been able to find it anywhere. Everyone can modify as many pages or as few as they like. And a lot of people don't follow or understand the ins and outs or details of the television business or even understand what development eans. If they come on to a page without the dates they could just assume everything is equally likely to be picked up, when that is likely not the case, whereas with the dates they can see it at first glance how long it has been and make an assumption without having to click or scroll down references. Always to open to discuss more on talk the page for the article as well, and I would like to know where the three year rule is documented as I tried for searching for related guidance at some point but wasn't able to find it. newsjunkie (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The three year method (not rule) has been used by most Wikipedian editors (including Nisf). Also, while anyone can modify as many times, they cannot keep doing the same edit when most users disagree with them (WP:WAR, WP:OWN). There is a thing called Reference Tooltips, those people can still glance by hovering the reference (if they are on a computer). But your additions are taking up too much space on the article and actually makes it messy to read. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I had been looking for some kind of guidance at the Television Project but couldn't find anything, also for how to handle/whether or where to retain previously in development productions. Not everybody uses the tooltips or especially not if they're on mobile or just taking a quick glance. I think it's something that should be discussed on the article talk page or as part of a larger overhaul of the page to table format that includes renewal information etc as is standard for other pages. newsjunkie (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but you need to think what the other editors (including me) think too. I saw a complaint against you and your edits have violated multiple policies: WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:REFCLUTTER, WP:OVERCITE, WP:BLUDGEON, just to name a few. Because you cannot agree to what others agree to. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, I think the discussion should happen on the article talk page. There hasn't been any on that topic yet. newsjunkie (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to listen and discuss with you and other editors on the article talk page, including where there was initial discussion about reformatting the page. newsjunkie (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That is what we did, but you still decided to revert the pages to your own version. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the CBS page, since that is the page you had concerns with. newsjunkie (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

On the CBS page I made a comment about a citation and specifically did not add it back in, which you responded to today. newsjunkie (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did. I still have concerns about the design of the page. You coming up with ideas that just make the article even messier. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Then bring them up as part of part of a new or existing discussion on the article talk page where everyone can participate. A lot of it will probably be addressed by the redesign, I would imagine. And everyone is allowed to come up with ideas. newsjunkie (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but some ideas don’t improve the page, which 80% of your ideas ruin the pages. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This should be discussed substantively on the article talk page by everyone, rather than making personal comments. newsjunkie (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, you have said discuss it before with Harry Potter, yet you still wanted your own version after reaching consensus. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither what happenedon another page that has nothing to do with this nor the conversations here between just two people can replace discussion or count for consensus on the relevant article talk page.

Every discussion on every page has different factors that play into it and different participants and when consensus is determined or what it looks like can be different depending on the circumstances and the participants, and it's not just about majority vs minority Wikipedia:Consensus. The only thing relevant to the CBS page should be the discussions that do or do not happen on the CBS page, not what happened on another page that has nothing to do with it. You saw that I made a comment about the citation on the discussion page rather than add it back. If you have want to have a conversation, bring it up on that article talk page rather than making assumptions or personal comments. newsjunkie (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Here you go again trying not to talk about what you are doing. You need to take responsibility and admit that not everything can be your way. You’re just trying to do the talk page as an excuse to cover up for your persistent reverts to your own version. Not just CBS, but other pages like Harry Potter, where you have reached consensus on the talk page not in your favor, but yet you still wanted your own version. Don’t pretend that didn’t happen. I’m going to say it again, your edits are violating several policies. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, what happened on the Harry Potter page has no relevance to what does or not happen on the CBS page and has been addressed through policies. If your concern is really any issues with the CBS page, further individual discussion here and personal comments will not help address those issues. newsjunkie (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

See you’re trying to talk about CBS when you’re trying to avoid accountability for your actions to Harry Potter. Numerous people told you to stop but you wouldn’t. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The Harry Potter issue has been addressed through policies. I was trying to address the concerns you brought up about CBS. newsjunkie (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Even when that was addressed, you continued to implement your changes and revert back to your version. That is not being accountable for your actions. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The administrative action that was taken is that the page is now under a full block, that has been the decision for how to address the issue. newsjunkie (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Per Wikipedia:Citation overkill: While adding inline citations is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode. Eleven sources, a good amount of them primary sources (which should generally be avoided if secondary sources exist per WP:PRIMARY), is almost as bad as the hyperbolic example on the WP page. wound theology◈ 02:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used to make straightforward facts, which these are, and I don't think the secondary sources fully cover how the event originated, evolved and became organized by Warner Brothers etc organizing the events. newsjunkie (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

As it also says: "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents" newsjunkie (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

And content (especially references) should not be removed pending consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal newsjunkie (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. wound theology◈ 16:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent edit,[1] which you can see from my report at WP:ANI is what gives the appearance of gaming the system. As this has expanded beyond a simple content dispute, I'm noting it here rather than at the article's talk page. Consensus was reached, and there is no obligation that your additional concerns be addressed. To be clear, while WP:3RR is a brightline rule, edit warring is not defined solely by exceeding that rule. Continuing to re-add what has been previously disputed and discussed is considered to be edit warring, any amount of which can lead to sanctions, so please stop edit warring over what has already been determined. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

So at this point [2] it appears you're just going to edit war over this until you get your way? I have really tried to assume good faith on your part, but at this point, it is clear that you have no intention of abiding by our community standards, policies and guidelines. Edit warring is disruptive. This is the last mention I'm going to make on it, after which I will seek specific sanctions. The discussion that was had addressed concerns of synth, overcitation, AND use of primary sources. I (and likely @Wound theology, too) see these continued edits as part and parcel of the same edits you've been trying to jam in against consensus. If you disagree with that assessment, you're free to open a new discussion and try to establish a new consensus, but at this point, I'd ask the edit warring to stop and please leave it as status quo ante while discussing it. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

How does this edit still have Synth concerns? Can you please address that substantively? Or why it goes against the permitted rules about primary sources and citing for example a company's basic statements about itself? (Which is basically what this is) newsjunkie (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The guidelines say "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." They also say "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary^‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. newsjunkie (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

(1) That "a primary source may be used" does not automatically equate to "should be used". (2) Just because a source exists is not a reason to include it. Not all information on a topic improves an article. Per WP:VNOT: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such has been the case here. Regarding your insistence that your concerns be satisfied for reverting your changes, per WP:ONUS, which is part of the verifiability policy: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. In other words, the onus is on you to support the inclusion and the change on the disputed content, not the other way around. There is no requirement that your questions or concerns be fully satisfied for your inclusion to be undone. That would be ideal but not required. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As you have probably seen, I have offered a new as concise as possible suggestion for a one sentence addition to the Harry Potter page, similar to the original sentence and would continue to appreciate any feedback. It has one primary source and incorporates existing references from the first sentence. I believe the analysis in the Variety article supports the use of the term "evolved." I *am* trying to listen and trying to address as many of the different concerns as possible including overcitation, Synth, overuse of primary sources, too much detail etc. This would be five citations for the one sentence, fewer than in the current version or the initial edit where only the citations were removed, rather than the content itself. newsjunkie (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I do recognize that you are making an effort to address concerns - thank you. My feedback on what you proposed is that muggle.net is a fan site (and declares itself as such), so that's not really all that useable. I'd suggest dropping that and the harrypotter.com. As worded, if you left it just the 3 secondary sources you'd be in a much better position, and less likely to raise objections. That's my opinion - it is possible other editors would see it differently. Ordinarily, since this is directly addressing something about the article, I would post my comment there - but with all of the comments back-and-forth, I really don't want to muddy the water over there so that you have the best opportunity for clarity on your proposal.

A few other detail items - but they should definitely be addressed because the article has (for now) a GA assessment, which I'd like to see the article be able keep:

• Be careful with automatically generating citations (if that's what you're doing). That doesn't always pick up all the data. Your Entertainment Weekly citation lacks the article date and author information.
• If the Variety article is the strongest, I'd put that first. If I'm right on your approach, you have them in chronological order, which is one way to do it. But IMO, a better approach is what is the key source. (That's based on my opinion above that you just go with the 3 key secondary sources - if you left the others in, maybe chronological is better.)
• This last one is really knitpicky, but it's a detail issue - we don't use "curly" quotes - for sure in the article text, but also within citations. One of your citations uses them. ‘Back To Hogwarts’ should be 'Back To Hogwarts' even if it was curly quotes at the source (which I'm sure it was and was picked up that way when you generated the citation - or if you copy/pasted it). See MOS:CURLY.

ButlerBlog (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I do think the chronological approach would be better because 2017 was really the big change, which I think is supported best by the one primary source as it is really the first time it was recognized by the official Harry Potter site (which I think there is agreement on is being reliable About:self) and I think provides the best verification and background explanation for the first part of the sentence "Beginning in 2017, the year referred to in the epilogue..."

The Mugglenet source is mainly a verification for the section about the "announcements" as one example of a summary of the ones made in one year, used instead of another primary source like . A lot of the other secondary sources tend to only focus on individual ones like a new product or the attractions(attractions trade journal) rather than summarizing how they they tend to make several announcements across different categories.

I use the Visual Editor primarily now, so that is how all the citations are automatically generated. I know how to add some information like in the EW case, less sure about the quotes or if there is some setting somewhere individually or the Visual Editor to make it show up correctly automatically in the first place newsjunkie (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciated the lengthy feedback you gave here yesterday. You didn't mention any Synth or Substance concerns with regard to that version. Even if just to help me understand how the policy applies, could you clarify if you would have any Synth or Substance concerns with this version as two individual/separate sentences? (and if so, in what way specifically?) or only citation/use of primary source concerns?:

In 2017, the year referred to in the epilogue, Warner Brothers first promoted the date on its official website, organizing virtual and in-person events focused on Kings Cross, including an appearance by actor Warwick Davis. In subsequent years the date continued to be an opportunity for Warner Bros to coordinate promotional in-person and virtual events around the world, including at King's Cross, featuring appearances by actors, and to make new announcements related to the franchise. newsjunkie (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think most of it at this point is primary source concerns. Personally, I probably wouldn't have a problem with the primary source for the first sentence. I'm not a "no primary sources" editor, but some are - that's just the way it is. If they're used judiciously, they can be OK, but if a secondary source is available for something, then it's better to just use that alone.

But even so... I think your best bet is to set things aside for now and let the dust settle. There is no deadline to get things done. Give it some time and come back to it later when things cool off.

And when you do circle back around to it, my advice is to make a proposal and then leave it at that for at least a day or so. Don't rush to respond to every comment (unless it's a specific question). Don't try to counter every comment. That just leads to WP:WALLOFTEXT which causes involved editors to dig into their position and other potential commentors to tune out from the noise.

Sometimes people can be swayed, and sometimes they can't. It's best to recognize when they can't be swayed and let things go for a time. The best approach is usually to just make your best case and try to leave it at that. Only add something if it really is necessary for clarification, but ask yourself, "Did I already say this?" And if people don't agree, then they don't agree.

I had a content dispute on a primary source once where the on-screen credits for a silent picture had the actor names that were different from what AFI listed in their database. Another editor simply would not accept the primary source even though the secondary source was wrong. AFI is reputable so I can understand that, but I felt that in light of the situation, the primary/secondary source conflict wasn't an excuse to leave our brains at the door when coming in to edit. So I brought in an uninvolved third party who was also active in the Film project. He actually agreed with the other editor and the (incorrect) secondary source information had to stand - and I was literally flabbergasted. But... that's the way it goes sometimes. And you have to accept the outcome when consensus doesn't go your way.

Now... I will mention as a sidenote that in this case, while I did accept the outcome of the content dispute on-wiki, I did take other steps to resolve the error. Off-wiki, through a contact at AFI, I pointed out the error and they agreed that the on-screen credits in the film were correct, and they changed their data, after which, I was able to come back and update the article. But that's not always a possibility. Sometimes, discussion or dispute resolution just doesn't go the way you had hoped, and you need to accept the outcome. I've had proposals get shot down, and I've lost deletion discussions before - it's frustrating when an article or template deletion discussion goes against you, but the outcome is what it is. It's a community-driven project.

That might not be the answer you were hoping for, but from my experience, I just don't see it to be likely that anything will sway the current position other than letting it rest awhile. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I also noted this point in the "Citation overkill" guidance. "For many subjects, some sources are official or otherwise authoritative, while others are only interpretive, summarizing, or opinionated. If the authoritative sources are not controversial, they should generally be preferred. For example, a company's own website is probably authoritative for an uncontroversial fact like where its headquarters is located, so newspaper articles need not be cited on that point." To me that is what would apply here with the official site being the most authoritative as the official organizer, and the secondary sources being there as well to show notability/wider relevancy. I don't think there is any question about the fact that the events occurred or about who organized them. And the currently resulting version of the six sources now being after the first sentence that are only partially related doesn't seem ideal either. newsjunkie (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

How does this edit still have Synth concerns? Can you please address that substantively? Or why it goes against the permitted rules about primary sources and citing for example a company's basic statements about itself? (Which is basically what this is). newsjunkie (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Policies

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (List of programs broadcast by CBS) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this List of CBS programming block still supposed to be in effect? I was only informed of a year long block for the Harry Potter pages, and the other account involved this conflict was restored? newsjunkie (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.wound theology◈ 19:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

Due to your consistent pattern of disruptive editing as discussed at WP:ANI, you have been pageblocked from Harry Potter and Talk: Harry Potter for a period of one year. Please be aware that if this behavior pattern occurs on other articles or pages, you may be subject to a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is the block above for the CBS page still supposed to still be in effect that was only supposed to be for 31 hours? This notice only referred to a one year block for the Harry Potter pages. I was going to add an uncontroversial update to a table: https://deadline.com/2025/04/cbs-einstein-matthew-gray-gubler-pushed-2026-27-season-1236380693/ newsjunkie (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Your comment only mentioned the Harry Potter page, but you also seem to have extended a separate 31 hour block at the same time that had been in place for the CBS page. Could you clarify if that was intended even though it wasn't part of this notification? newsjunkie (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Instead of waiting for my response, you went ahead and appealed the CBS article pageblock, and it was declined by another administrator. You are perfectly free to make well-referenced concise formal edit requests at Talk:List of programs broadcast by CBS. Yes, I was aware that the CBS article would be extended as a result of the Harry Potter pageblocks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I just hadn't realized that was automatic because it wasn't mentioned in your comment or the policy explanations I had seen and I thought it would have to part of the formal notification, so I was just confused and wasn't sure what process to follow first. (and also I did a reply to your comment first when I probably should have done it as a Ping originally.) newsjunkie (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Newsjunkie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here newsjunkie (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'll do you the favour of considering the text below this request template as your unblock request, but next time please place your request inside the template.

Your appeal seems to boil down to "I was right all along, others were wrong, and this block is unfair" or something to that effect. I'm afraid that in no way convinces me that the block should be lifted, as you would most likely resume the same sort of edit warring etc.

You have been pageblocked from only two articles and one article talk page. There are nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia, and considerably more non-article pages. You can edit all of them, apart from the three you've been blocked from. This is your opportunity not just to continue editing Wikipedia, but to demonstrate to everyone that you can do so without resorting to edit warring or other disruptive behaviour. Do that for a good while (by which I mean weeks or preferably months, not just hours or days), and you might have a stronger case for unblocking.

For now, I'm declining your request. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would like to appeal the block for the Harry Potter page/Talk page. I feel like this at heart a content dispute that got out of of hand and would be better served by a dispute resolution process focused on the actual specific content issue at hand. While I understand the concerns about Bludgeoning, rather than repeating myself, I feel that my comments were always focused on the substance of the content as per the Dispute Resolution policy and was referring to specific points about edits. Specific claims about policy violations were made that I tried to address in various ways in search of compromise, in the most recent discussion on the article talk page, I was making various suggestions for how to address the original concerns raised and just trying to understand how specific policies being cited were applied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Potter#c-Newsjunkie-20250411175700-EducatedRedneck-20250411172900 All the original edits were neutrally phrased, verified with sources and did not constitute original research because they reflected what the sources said and don't constitute some kind of minority opinion, but I nevertheless tried to address synth concerns by breaking down sentences, removing possible analytic language and simply focusing on the facts at hand that I don't think were ever in dispute. I also addressed primary source and overcitation concerns by reducing the number of sources and primary sources in particular. All I have wanted to do is to focus on the substance of the originally cited policy concerns and try to understand how to fix content suggestions to address those policy concerns.newsjunkie (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Newsjunkie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request an unblock at this time ONLY for the CBS page, which was only supposed to be for 31 hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newsjunkie#c-CambridgeBayWeather-20250425061800-April_2025 The other account involved in that edit conflict has been restored. The one year block was only supposed to be for the Harry Potter page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newsjunkie#c-Cullen328-20250426003500-April_2025_2 I was going to update uncontroversial information for the CBS page https://deadline.com/2025/04/cbs-einstein-matthew-gray-gubler-pushed-2026-27-season-1236380693/, and I have started an ongoing Request for Comment related to the CBS page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS#rfc_DB17DA6

Decline reason:

Declined. Yamla (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Some advice relating to your unblock requests

Your recent unblock request seems to be based, at least in part, on the belief that once a block has been placed by an administrator, no administrator is allowed to subsequently increase the length of the block if problems continue. That is far from being the case; on the contrary, if placing a short-term block fails to result in a change of approach by the blocked editor then a longer block is necessitated. I suggest that you read the comments above by DoubleGrazing, in which they suggest that by editing some of the other seven million articles over a significant period you can demonstrate to everyone that you can do so without further problems, and perhaps request an unblock when you have convincingly done that. JBW (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that, but I never received a notification about that block being extended, so I wanted to make sure it was intentional. The only notification about a year long block I received pertained to the Harry Potter page. It never mentioned the CBS page being extended. I didn't even realize until today that I was still blocked there which is why I had started the related RFC because I thought it had lifted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newsjunkie#c-Cullen328-20250426003500-April_2025_2 newsjunkie (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It would have been wise for you have waited for my response to your question before getting other administrators involved. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that now. I was just very confused about the situation and about who was able to review which decision. newsjunkie (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Warning You often edit without using an edit summary. You have previously been warned about this, and you are still not using an edit summary to explain your edits, like your unexplained addition of content and references. Edit summaries are particularly important when you are removing/adding references and sourced content from an article. According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. This is your second notice, I suggest you start paying attention, and responding, to the concerns raised about your editing behavior. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Joe-Job at ANI

For what it's worth, don't worry about the sockpuppets at ANI. Another admin and I were both so quick to conclude it was a setup that we ended up filing overlapping reports. You're too smart to try something that clumsy, and the checkuser will reveal that you have no connection. There's no need to protest your innocence; you've said it once, and the evidence will bear it out. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! newsjunkie (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Questionable sources and COI

Regarding this edit: [3], looks like a personal web site and questionable as to whether it meets WP:RS standards. But more importantly, this appears to involve a conflict of interest that would make it self-promotional. Are you involved in this site: [4]? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not personally involved at all with running the site at all (or the series) and don't know the people involved. I am one of two unrelated people the site credited for sending them information that the site used to compile that entry with additional information that I wasn't even aware of, like the difference between the U.K. and U.S. releases. newsjunkie (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It compiles such information about a wide range of TV shows in a database https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/ by series: https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series and by commentator https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/commentator covering 329 TV shows, not any one show in particular. newsjunkie (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Clearly a fan-site that credits you is a 100% completely unreliable source. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I have zero editorial involvement in this page and had no oversight or say in what they did or did not publish. newsjunkie (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Like Butlerblog and I said, it's a fan site and you have been instructed numerous times about this, not just by me and Butlerblog, but by other Wikipedia editors. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's also been used as a source here for similar information, a page I've had no involvement in: Pilot (The Critic)#cite ref-11 newsjunkie (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is not an argument for inclusion. In this case, it would seem to be a reason to remove the other instance. It is clearly user generated content, which disqualifies it as a reliable source, much like why we disqualify sites like IMDb as a RS. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not usergenerated at all in the same way as IMDB because I explained above not anyone can edit it, only the three named editors identified on the site. People can submit information but the editors with full editorial control full editorial control review and add additional information for accuracy, as they did in this case. IMDB anyone can register and edit. That is not the case here at all. As I explained in the comment above individual users who submit information have zero editorial involvement in the page and have no oversight or say in what they do or do not publish.newsjunkie (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The named editors are fans, so it is considered a fan site. We don't understand why you keep making false statements just to try to get your way. Please start WP:LISTENING to what other editors are saying to you about your WP:OVERCITE and WP:RS concerns. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing I have said is a false statement. It is not a usergenerated site in the same way as IMDB where anyone can register. There is far more editorial oversight. newsjunkie (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion. This is ridiculous. I'm not going to explain the same thing that we have already told you across multiple talk pages and ANI reports. Like Butlerblog said, your purpose is to WP:OVERCITE articles that contain numerous Unreliable Sources, and you come up with false statements just to WP:OWN articles and WP:BLUDGEON discussions. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing I have said in this discussion is a false statement. newsjunkie (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you'll forgive some unsolicited advice.

First, please don't silently edit your comments after someone has responded to them; WP:TALK#REPLIED details how to make such edits properly.

Secondly, this does highlight the problem you're running into: you and a group of editors don't agree on what are acceptable sources. I'd encourage you to use the approach, "If everyone else says X is bad, I may disagree, I'll edit as if X were bad so I don't disrupt things."

It seems you deeply feel that certain sources are acceptable, and rightly feel that there should be a mechanism to get the community to reevaluate its stance. Okay, makes sense. The first step is discussion: you do that, which is good. A problem you had in the past was when the discussion didn't come to the right conclusion, you wanted to continue it. Again, that's understandable: if I'm trying to insist on an article claiming humans are usually 3 meters tall, I wouldn't expect you to capitulate. The solution here isn't to keep arguing (WP:BLUDGEON), but rather to get wider community input, such as by going to WP:RSN.

If you do chose to go to the reliable sources noticeboard, I'd recommend you limit yourself to one reply per person at most, then answering direct questions only to make sure you don't bludgeon. (I try to do this on noticeboards.) Also be prepared that RSN may conclude that something is not reliable when you know in fact that it is. Sometimes community consensus gets it wrong. At that point, it's best to move on to something else. Wikipedia works because we respect consensus, even if that consensus is wrong. The alternative is that nothing happens because someone somewhere still wants to argue about it.

I hope this is helpful and gives you a way to get what feels like a fair shake. If this message isn't helpful, feel free to remove it with my apologies. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comment even though I know we had some disagreements. I am considering going to the reliable sources noticeboard for this one, but I did want to wait to see if there was a further reply to my response about the claim of it being usergenerated. (Whatever issues with the source there may be, it is not accurate to describe it as being usergenerated the same way as IMDB.) I had edited my own comment rather than post a new one because that had been suggested in another instance rather than posting multiple comments. I honestly hadn't been aware of the the guideline about when somebody already replied, although here the reply wasn't from the person I was trying to respond to with that comment. newsjunkie (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is user-generated content, regardless of whether the site owner is maintaining editorial control or not. It's a personal blog with affiliate links. It's not a citable source. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a general policy about how to handle affiliate links when it is disclosed? Because they are also used by a lot of established news sources especially for providing this type of information. Just a random example : https://tvline.com/news/how-to-stream-party-down-online-streaming-starz-1234934683/ newsjunkie (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

So disregard "affiliate links" links then - it's still a blog that is not a citable source by our definition. I cannot understand why this is so hard to grasp.

If this were the first conversation of this nature, it might make sense. But this isn't the first discussion of this nature. 99% of your edits are adding sources, and a significant number of those are low-grade, soft media that falls somewhere between marginal and fancruft, so it is quite concerning. At this point, it's either that you're unable to understand it, making it a WP:CIR issue, or you simply don't care, which makes you WP:NOTHERE. Either way, it's a problem. Your block was for disruption. That should inspire a change - instead, from what I can tell, is that you haven't changed - you've just shifted the same behaviors to different articles. I don't have the time for these endless wall-of-text discussions on every low-grade source and overcited statement you put up, but I'm also not going to look the other way on the most egregious.

I want to believe that you're here to improve the encyclopedia. Well, if that's the case, you could start by trying to learn what it is that we actually do here, and then showing that you're learning by actually changing. What you have been doing is more suited to fan sites. Nothing wrong with fan sites - but we're not a fan site. So if that's what you're looking to do, maybe consider another venue. If what you want is to participate in building and improving the encyclopedia, then take some time to figure out why we're telling you what we are telling you. Take some time to study article assessment and what actually makes a good article. Spend some time learning that. Pick an article that needs to be improved and improve it and then seek out third-party assessment. That's a good way to learn because you'll get third-party feedback to give you specific direction.

I'm speaking to you as someone who went through that process - I thought I understood the encyclopedia and the community when I started, and I really didn't. One of the best things I did was get directly involved in a specific and targeted project with other experienced editors. Then I actually paid attention to what they said. I worked on some specific articles, trying to get them improved to better assessment. I got third-party assessment and followed that advice. I was able to move several articles from stub and start-class to B-class and GA. I have also been on the other end of that, providing third-party review of articles for GA assessment. I'm not saying that to pat myself on the back - it's to point out a path to understanding and improving.

The only way to learn is by doing it, but you have to be listening to what other editors are telling you needs to change. If 99% of the feedback you're getting is the opposite of what you think is correct, that should be telling you something about how you're seeing things here. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding all links are considered on a case-by-case basis depending on context and the claim being made, even blogs. I take all feedback into account and have adjusted in some cases, but most of the negative feedback has only been coming from you who are specifically seeking my edits out now, and the majority of my edits have been to reliable news sources or were about:self cases and have had no issue from other editors at all. newsjunkie (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

<smh> ButlerBlog (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The Futon Critic, for example, could also be considered a "blog" and doesn't even post original content anymore, but by consensus it still has been considered reliable source.http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ newsjunkie (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Also as you pointed out to me with another essay I cited, the Overciting page that has been cited is an essay, it is neither a policy or a guideline. newsjunkie (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, if I pointed out to you that something was an essay, then that likely was because you referred to it as policy or a guideline. There is a difference, but that doesn't mean essays should be ignored. I haven't pointed to the overcite essay as policy, as I happen to be aware of the difference. However, while it is an interpretive essay on specific policies and guidelines, it represents a widespread viewpoint and should not be considered to be marginal. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

And I really did appreciate you pointing out the essay/policy difference to me, as it was not something I had been conscious of before. newsjunkie (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Here we go again with the false statements. I take all feedback into account and have adjusted in some cases No, you have gotten not one or two, but three reports (possibly four) to ANI. You have not adjusted your behavior at all. most of the negative feedback has only been coming from you who are specifically seeking my edits out now No, you have also received negative feedback from me, in addition to wound theology, and several other users. We usually seek other editors if they constantly violate Wikipedia standards. the majority of my edits have been to reliable news sources or were about:self cases and have had no issue from other editors at all While some had news sources, the majority of your contributions actually were nothing but overciting and unreliable sources. Please start paying attention to other users. It's going to help you a lot. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I have closed that thread as a final warning Special:Diff/1293892470. As I promised in that close, I'm going to metaphorically read you the riot act. I think you have some serious misconceptions about how sourcing works. I understand how those misconceptions could arise based on a casual reading of the various guidelines and policies. I also understand that you have attempted to stick with your interpretation of those policies over other's interpretations. So let me correct any misunderstanding. Wikipedia has a strong bias against primary sources. They should almost never be used. We have a strong bias against blog based sources. We have a strong bias against fan run sources. You are operating in an area where there is frankly little quality sourcing: television and fandom. If there isn't a quality source--and I'm talking article in a major newspaper or other quality equivalent--then nine times out of ten that information should not be included. You are not going to singlehandedly change how we source fandom articles. Your arguments as to the context and consensus of individual pages are poorly taken. Those sorts of exceptions are used very rarely. Going forward, you will need to step up your sourcing game, and be much more conducive to feedback from other people. I'm happy to try to answer any burning questions you have, as I think you need some mentorship, but you are generally on thin ice and at high risk of being blocked if you cannot learn our collaborative culture. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and thank you very much for closing the report. I do have several questions and could really appreciate some clarification on some the individual issues that came up if you are able to and I am sorry if there are too many but the whole process has left me somewhat confused as I have said.

I understand the concerns about explicitly fan-run websites, but I would really appreciate some insight at how the policies would apply in some of the individual cases that came up where the claims about "unreliable sources" seem to have been very hastily and broadly applied. I'm certainly not trying to change what the sourcing policy is, but it's sometimes hard to know what the existing policy allows when what is being sourced isn't particularly controversial and there is guidance like " Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources."

In the content removal edit that kicked this off at least partially, independently of the overcitation issue, to what extent were the sources unreliable? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=cur&oldid=1291556363 They included an official CBS video which first officially released the relevant information in combination with a later news article, TV Line or Deadline, which are respected TV news sites. The two questionable ones could be TV Fanatic and the TV Ratings Guide, but both have been used extensively across Wikipedia (though I know other stuff exists is a questionable argument) for commentary and ratings information especially with some previous discussion on the former here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nightswimming (Awake)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Say Hello to My Little Friend/archive1, which is recognized by Rotten Tomatoes and the latter for example recommended by university libraries https://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/television/ratings https://guides.nyu.edu/businessofmedia/audiences-and-markets

What about situations where actors or writers make statements in recorded podcasts or YouTube interviews as statements about themselves/their activities?

Was the initial edit to the Colin Morgan page objectionable based on the Wikipedia:Amazon guidance?

In terms of collaborative culture or consensus, how I am supposed to handle situations where editors seem to preemptively refuse to engage in any substantive discussion at all like in the first example above (where they immediately went to ANI and reverted), here where I believe my interpretation of the policy in that situation is correct or don't seem to engage with the actual argument I was making at all in terms of addressing previous edits for including an attributed source, in this case the New York Times and one About:Self representative tweet in response to this edit summary?

What is the best way forward for the three Blue Bloods related articles where large sections have been removed? A lot what was removed in fact was extensively supported by reliable/acceptable sources including TVInsider, TVLIne, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, the New York Times, attributed CBS Press releases and several more. It's not clear to me at all at this point what the consensus is in those cases at this point here, here and here given the lack of much substantive argument and in the third case some previous consensus to include information. For the Blue Bloods article and the Boston Blue article, is it acceptable to go back to the earlier version (in the Blue Bloods case with the clean-up tag) and then address points individually or is that going against consensus? Or is it acceptable to go back to the previous Status Quo version because there is no consensus after a Bold edit?

Thank you for taking the time with any guidance if you are able to. And just thank you again just for closing the ANI report which I found to be a very uncomfortable process. newsjunkie (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is some free guidance. Count how many editors posted comments in the ANI discussion. How many supported your view? How many opposed? Estimate the total number of hours spent by others in the ANI discussion. Ask yourself whether it might be time to accept the majority view. If people have removed your references, perhaps they know what they are doing and acceptance would be better than further pushing? Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I know what the majority was at AMI, but there was a lot of of confusion to me anyway between content and behavior, there have been other participants in conversations on some of the pages, some things only got removed after they came up in the context of that conversation with those particular individuals, and like I said I'm just confused on how to balance specific guidelines/policies and consensus in different places and of different people especially for future reference. newsjunkie (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer whether particular edits were or weren't policy; I'm not really looking to get into the weeds here or involve myself in a content dispute. But I'll give some general answers.

• I've used WP:BLUESKY exactly once in all my years, and I eventually did find a quality source that supported the claim I needed.
• A site may be "respected" by certain people, but that doesn't mean it is reliable, independent, or quality. If you're having a dispute about a source with folks, y'all should ask at WP:RSN--though only when you really can't agree, as its not a lightweight process.
• The NYTimes is a great source, alongside the WSJ, its almost unimpeachable for most uses. I think the issue you ran into was that you were trying to use too many references. Rarely does a single statement need more than three refs. If it has more than three, consider whether you could pick the best three and the statement still be effectively sourced.
• On Blue Bloods, that was a pretty big removal of content. Y'all are welcome to have a conversation about what could be saved from that removal, if anything. Its obvious that the article previously had lots of problems, though the trimming was pretty massive. But I would refrain from outright undoing that edit; better to discuss, or to tactfully restore select portions that can then be the subject of discussion.
• Yeah, ANI is uncomfortable. Try not to end up in that place next time. If folks are telling you you're wrong...you might be wrong. Or, you might be right, but that's not the model that Wikipedia works on. We work on consensus. You have to learn when to fold.

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. With the NYT article, that is what I did in the end basically, but it was something I felt like I kind of had to do unilaterally in what was admittedly a borderline edit war situation because at the time at least it didn't seem like there was any openness by the other editors to at all look to beyond the overcitation question for why I was trying to include that article in that way even it seemed like a lesser mention on the surface.

And sort of related to the issue of the first removal I mentioned, there was no opportunity to discuss the quality of the relevant sources at all (before thinking about even consulting Reliable Sources) because the response was just rerevert by one individual as being unacceptable (and in this case going straight to ANI). If you do start a discussion, how is one supposed to handle that kind of reaction if the other person just so far often always seem to rerevert and seems to say "i won't discuss" with no other conversation having taken place that could constitute consensus.

And both in terms of possible secondary sources and primary sources, to what extent does characterization/attribution make a difference? For example, saying a certain possibility had been discussed by TV commentary websites? Or quoting that an actor or writer made a certain comments about a production in a podcast interview? If there is an in-depth podcast or video recording of an interview with an actor or writer available online (no question of its authenticity), and the interviews are not necessarily by known journalists, is it more acceptable to have it as an external link rather than to try and integrate it with an attributed statement into the article? Can it be valuable to include primary sources together with secondary sources in some cases, to clarify "chain of custody" for lack of a better term for where a piece of information originated from, also given the primary source guidance that "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere."? newsjunkie (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you were reported right away because you had already been told not to WP:REFBOMB, and were then edit warring. Not really much to discuss there. As for characterization, that can be important. But for the most part, we don't give a hoot about what some actor says in an interview. The point is that reliable sources also help us decide what is WP:DUE coverage. If a RS hasn't decided to write about something an actor said, then its not really noteworthy, is it? Sometimes we include primary sources alongside secondary sources, but I'd generally avoid that in pop culture articles--especially because it keeps giving you trouble. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, the reason given was overciting and reliable sourcing, though again there was no opportunity given to address either issue on the talk page to find a compromise to discuss which sources to remove and why or which best reflected the statements in question or other ways to address the issue like by separating things out as an additional statement.

I understand that secondary sources indicate notablity, but does that apply to the verification of a relevant detail related to a specific subtopic for which there already exist secondary sources? The Due Weight guideline is very focused on majority, minority and possibly fringe points of view, which does not provide so much guidance on how to handle topics where that isn't as relevant. And, for example, main stream outlets may often do more brief superficial interviews that don't say anything substantial, whereas interviews in more alternative sources can be more in depth and thereby be helpful to verify specific facts. And in some ways interviews are primary sources regardless of whether they are with a mainstream or alternative publication, so it's still a tricky situation. newsjunkie (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

My advice (for what it's worth)

This is just "for what it's worth" - so you can take it as an olive branch, or discard it - that's up to you. I am sorry that you have had to go through ANI - no one likes that, regardless of the side one is on. Hopefully, that's the last you'll see of that - but that's also most likely up to you. So here then, is my advice: I would recommend that you spend some time reviewing our assessment criteria at WP:ASSESS and understanding how our objective of "summary style" (WP:SUMMARY) fits with that. As has been noted, keep in mind that just because something is verifiable does not make it suitable for inclusion. Be more judicious in this area. I think digging into what makes a B-class, GA, A, or FA article assessment might help you in understanding this.

If you're focusing on TV, the list of GA articles can be seen here. Important: Article content can change after assessment, so the current state of the article is not what you should look at. What you should look at is the state the article was in when it passed assessment. To do that, look at the banner of the article's talk page. For every GA article, there will be a GA section in the banner that will list article milestones - be that failing assessment, passing, delisting, or relisting. Review what passed and what didn't. Note what makes a GA article, because these are representative of what we are looking to do here. Also note in that milestone section you can click the "process" and see the GA assessment discussion between the reviewer and the editor involved in the article's nomination. It is worthwhile review to look at those interactions to see what is important and what is not (noting that since there is a human component here, there is going to be some variance of opinion). I would suggest looking over the WP:GA and WP:GACR6.

Everyone here has a different area of preference in which to work, so I understand that working on GA improvement may not necessarily be your thing. However, knowing what makes a GA helps you understand the direction we are moving things and would hopefully lead to less conflict. If, however, you think this might be good advice, what I would suggest is picking some articles that need improvement and work on improving them in the direction of GA. You won't get there right away and it takes a good deal of work, but working on editing an article or two to get them to solid B-class is a worthwhile exercise. Pick something that is Start-class (or maybe C-class) and try to improve it to the next criteria. Seek out independent assessment rather than self-assessing. This will help you tremendously. Then when you've got it to C-class, work on notes from independent assessment to get it to B-class. Then same thing - take the notes of independent assessment and get it to GA. If you do this within a project, many of them had some discussion area to ask for independent review. The TV project's is here: WP:TV/A (it used to be more active, but we lost @Bilorv who was a great reviewer, so right now, I'm not sure how much active independent review is going on there.)

Understanding assessment and the process of improving and article's assessment will ultimately help you improve your editing skills, IMO. I hope it is helpful, because regardless of what you may think, I do prefer to see people improve themselves and the encyclopedia rather than conflict and blocking. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft assessment

I'm putting this here rather than the article TP so that if this happens to devolve, that it doesn't bloat the article TP unnecessarily. I put on my "article assessment hat" and looked at your draft as I would any other article for assessment (and I have done a lot of assessment for the television project and the Westerns project). I will note that while trying to look at it objectively through the lens of article assessment, the distraction of overcitation pulls focus (you'll see that as a recurring theme in my notes below). It's important to emphasize our primary objective is readability - if an article isn't readable, what good is it? Overcitation distracts the reader with often unnecessary bloat. Yes, there are times when more sources are needed - but these are in instances of contentious information. There is literally zero of that in this article, which makes almost all of it (or actually all of it) unneeded. Until you get that figured out, your editing is not going to produce good articles. Our objective with citations is to provide verification of the statement - not to provide links to further information. With that said, here is my assessment. Keep in mind that I'm giving examples of issues that exist in the article, so this is not a simple punch list of needed fixes - there are other instances of the same issues throughout.

Compared to the ante version, it is moving in the right direction. However, there are still many overcited elements, which truthfully, was a major distraction from actually reading prose, which is the entire point of an article. A prime example of this would be the line that leads "Background": According to Deadline Hollywood, the Blue Bloods pilot was a "dark horse" that made it on to the CBS schedule due to a strong audience response during test screenings followed by 4 citations. That sentence literally says only one source is needed, the other three are superfluous. Or why does it take two sources to tell me Wahlberg directed an episode in Season 4? He's listed in the credits, so even just a single secondary source is more than adequate (if the line is even necessary).

There is still some stuff that drifts into the cruftiness (although evident that it's moving in the right direction). For example, the paragraph of visitors to the set. Mostly, who cares? If included - and I'm not sure it needs to be - it needs to be much more tightly relevant so that it doesn't read like trivia. Or the sentence that reads "The cast participated in a panel discussion at the Paley Center to mark the premiere of the 14th Season..." - so what? Similarly, the sentence right above it about the virtual dinner - these types of things are not entirely relevant.

Not that it's a "carved in stone rule", but for MOS:TV, you should have a Production section, while the background, casting, filming, and cancelation sections are all subsections. Spin-off would be at the end of the article (as a subsection if there were other media, top level section if not, which is the case now).

For length, the cancellation section entirely too long, and several other sections could be trimmed somewhat. Think WP:SUMMARY. Honestly, if you focus on fixing over-citation, that may lead to removing content that is superfluous, which would go a long way to solving this. Some of that bloat comes from too much use of direct quotations. Overcitation damages readability - our prime objective - especially in longer sections.

Ironically, the lead is too short. Even if you trim down content in the article sections, the lead doesn't fully summarize what's in the article. However, for the most part, an improvement on use of citations in the lead. Review WP:LEAD and associated essays on what makes a good lead.

Overall, article size is greatly improved and on just a size basis, it's now within range of workability. However, size assessment alone lacks context - the content needs to also fit assessment criteria, so while I wouldn't object to something the length of what it is now on length alone, I'd be looking hard at the sections to determine relevant summary content vs crufty trivial bloat.

As for sources used - I didn't look at those as much as the content at this point. This was primarily because much of my notes are that you still have a lot of unnecessary bloat in terms of citations, so who knows what's actually worth reviewing at this point? However, a quick glance shows inconsistency in style (listing EW.com vs Entertainment Weekly). These types of sources should be listed in a consistent style. Alos, if you list a youtube video as a source, (1) it had better be a verified channel and (2 - important!) should have specific timestamp for locating what is sourced - same as providing a page number for a print source - without it, it's not verifiable, which is the entire point. But my guess is that given the history, you're going to have some challenges with these types of sources.

Summary: Better than it was and moving in the right direction. Still needs work.

Other thoughts: you're probably not going to see success completing this as a "draft" and then replacing the entire article - although I could be wrong on that. My advice would be to take well worked pieces of your draft (meaning, parts that meet good assessment criteria) and work them in a little at a time. That will give you an idea of what kind of pushback you are likely to get, if any. And editing a little at a time does not mean small edits all at the same time (i.e. within a short timeframe). I would do something small and see where it leads. And then take note of what any objections happen to be so that you can adjust accordingly. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In terms of determining "who cares" or relevancy in some cases, doesn't having secondary sources play some role there, in that they determined that it was relevant? I'm still a little confused by how to apply the due weight guideline and the idea it's supposed to be based on "prevalence" in sources and how to reflect that if at all, if everything is cited the same way.

I do think some things are a little contentious, specifically things that touch on tensions between the actor and the network, at least in the sense those only comes from media reports and claims that actors make (and not acknowledged by the network at all), rather than some more straightforward facts, such as one producer describing the push to extend the series as something the network almost happily agreed to whereas another actor described it more as something that required more pressure and them doing so reluctantly. And for example the "dark horse" point, one issue is that it's addressed relatively briefly in each source, with the testing described in one article that was very contemporary, and then the "dark horse" reference coming in an article written with a look back.

And is the goal of helping users find additional information completely irrelevant as it is listed as one aim in the Wikipedia:WHYCITE guideline? newsjunkie (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• doesn't having secondary sources play some role there, in that they determined that it was relevant - not entirely. Simply being verifiable by a secondary source does not make something suitable for inclusion (see WP:VNOT). Does it improve the article? If it could be deemed "trivia", then certainly no. Sometimes it's obvious - other times it can be a grey area. This can very easily cross into indiscriminate or trivial information. Rule of thumb: when adding something, even with a reliable source, the onus is on the editor adding it to be able to support why it should be included. (And there are times this is clearly objective, and other times it is subjective - that's just the way it is.)
• some things are a little contentious, specifically things that touch on tensions between the actor and the network - That's not really what we mean by "contentious" in wikipedia context. In terms of what we (wikipedians) mean by "contentious" is when speaking in Wikipedia's own voice. For example, if the article says, "Selleck was an arrogant jerk", that's a contentious claim. It is putting a label ("jerk") on someone (Selleck) in wikipedia's voice (simply stating it in the article). That label is contentious. However, if CBS executive Smith said this in an interview and it is attribution ("After Tom Selleck threw his doughnut on the ground and squashed it, VP of Doughnut Aquisition for CBS Jim Smith noted that Selleck was an arrogant jerk") then that's not contentious at all if it's from a reliable source. It is not in wikipedia's voice, it's in Jim Smith's voice, and it is directly attributed to him. A single source can support that (unless challenged, which would be unlikely). Usually, "contentious" claims are value laden labels that are fairly rare in TV articles. Usually, it's things like political labels ("far right" versus just simply "conservative", or "neo-Nazi" rather than simply "far right").
• And is the goal of helping users find additional information completely irrelevant - no. However, it is not an aim - rather, it's a byproduct. The aim is to provide verifiability. The byproduct of that is the potential for finding additional information. However, citations are not generally intended to direct a user to more information about something (like providing external links). The general presumption in WP is that our users are Internet savvy enough to know how to use Google and other search engines. Hence, wikipedia is not a web directory.

ButlerBlog (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed in other contexts that having a secondary source (vs only a primary source) or what kind of source it is in general was the main way to demonstrate that something is relevant or due weight since it indicated some notability and it seemed to me that that is the main argument rooted in guidelines/policies that one *can* use to argue for inclusion if it doesn't fall under some other more explicitly inappropriate category like some kind of spam/virus website. I'm not sure what other appropriate arguments there would be other than editor personal preference.

To me saying that the network only did something after some pushback (which actually was stated in Wikipedia's voice, rather than directly attributed so far) is something of a value judgment even if it's not an explicit label, as it conveys something about how the network views the production and interests of the people associated with it. newsjunkie (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any more guidance on what to include just substance wise (setting aside the overcitation question for a moment if possible). I did take your advice and have been looking at some of the Good Articles and the related discussions, especially recent ones, (successful and unsuccessful), and obviously some articles go more indepth than others, and when there seems to be equivalent material in them, it can be hard to tell what might be inappropriate to include. newsjunkie (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

My general thoughts on this version:

I think that section-wise, you should look at MOS:TVPRODUCTION. The top-level "Casting", "Background", and "Production" all belong under this section. Note that you do not need to have every suggested section, but the ones that you have already all belong under "Background and production". I'd probably take what you have as separate "Background" and "Production" sections and merge that into the "Development" subsection of "Background and production". Carefully review the text you have as to whether it belongs in that subsection or another.

Some of the content you have is not tightly focused to the section that its in. There is information in the "Casting" section that isn't specific to casting. It's more related to other production elements or the character/actor themselves. You might consider pulling the table from the "Cast and characters" section and instead going with prose on the main characters. This may be a more appropriate place for some of the content that you have in your version's "Casting" section. But... before considering that, I'd address the production section organization first.

Keep focused on the fact that this is the top level article for a show that ran 14 seasons. There are list articles for cast and episodes, as well as season articles. The length and depth of content of the top level article should be reflective of that. There is no need to go into grand detailed minutia. One of the concepts in assessment is that the article be "broad" in its coverage. Minute detail is "depth" not "breadth". A top level article should focus on summary and let sub-articles focus on detail. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tolkien tourism. Please recall that edit-warring is forbidden. I informed you factually that you cited 4 redlisted sources: that is not in doubt. The other source, Vulture, is doubtful; and the claim they supported was itself a bit of needless gossip, as I informed you already. If you wish to discuss anything about this, do so on the talk page: you cannot do it in edit comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I have started a talk page discussion on this matter. You are notified that any attempt to reinsert the materials into the article before consensus is reached on the talk page is Disruptive Editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for coming across as bludgeoning. It can be really hard to balance trying to engage with people to understand their argument and trying to suss out where the actual specific objection point is to try to make my arguments better/stronger, which I really was trying to do with the most recent draft proposal, and knowing when not to respond when it sometimes seems like people are talking past each other or bypassing what the actual arguments are. I will try to pause engaging on the main page thread, but I hope there can still be some substantive discussion, and always remain open to suggestions either here or on the main thread for how to improve the suggested content either through other types of sources, examples or phrasing. newsjunkie (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I suspect most of what is worth saying has been said; and the flow of editors coming to comment seems to be drying up, but let's wait and see. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you clarify how you would define "major influence on Tolkien fandom" and "influenced Tolkien fandom" and to what extent the additional sources/examples in my second draft would not meet that definition? Could we have a discussion on establishing what the criteria are for "influence on Tolkien fandom" that is not tied to either Prachett or Colbert specifically? Could it also be acceptable to do a broader request for comment? newsjunkie (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

(Also just for accuracy sake: The other New York Times article was primarily about viewing of the movies, not the books.) newsjunkie (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

And on the new thread, please keep your replies few and short. If you are writing more and more often than everyone else put together, that is way over the limit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not want to keep replying, but could you at least try to address here or on the main thread the responses I made to your specific arguments?. You're initial argument was about sources being "gossip" or unreliable, I have supplied multiple additional reliable sources. You described a definition of fandom as a "communal activity" and the sources I supplied show multiple examples of that, so what specific aspect is still problematic or makes it more problematic than the Pratchett content? newsjunkie (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I don't want to reopen that discussion, where we have a community decision already. FWIW the decision was eventually based not on gossip or reliability, but on other grounds, which are clearly summarized in the decision, so I won't revisit them here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie, I would like to resolve this peacefully. Would you mind if I just went over what has happened, briefly? Since 21 August, there have been 126 postings to the talk page, of which 86 were by you and 40 were by everyone else put together: 14 of those 40 were by EducatedRedneck and 12 of those 40 were by me. You thus made more than twice as many postings as everybody else put together, and nine times as many as the next most prolific discussant. That is not an acceptable pattern of discussion. There are, I guess, three ways this could go. You could choose to leave the talk page alone and accept the collective decision; you could moderate your input to no more than other editors, on this and all other talk pages (and I'm not going to follow you about, but many other editors have already noticed your conduct); or you will move inexorably towards a permanent block. I really hope you can see that change is now necessary. With my sincere best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

But one way to develop consensus is to actually respond to respond to arguments being raised and engage in a substantive back and forth conversation to lead to an improved suggestion. The main reason I felt the need to respond is that it seemed like everyone kept responding to only the original proposal, completely ignoring that I tried to improve the original proposal by adding additional sources and context and addressing the specific original concerns that were raised. Isn't part of the process that one should be able to refine a proposal based on feedback from you and others, rather than rule it out completely? That's why I asking just now for your specific feedback. My summary of the initial consensus would be less clear-cut, there were different arguments being made that didn't always overlap, You were initially most concerned about the state of the sources and then the issue of what constitutes fandom activity, there were some Synth concerns mainly about my original proposal and whether the Blog source was appropriate (though another editor used it for the Prachett section in the current version). There was some discussion about notability though that doesn't really apply to content within articles. Then there was a separate proposal to include a list, which I think there was clear consensus against.(but not necessarily the content itself) But there were no comments/feedback at all on whether the additional material I added addressed any of the initially raised source or relevancy concerns. Would you be opposed to having an RFC with a wider audience so that one could determine what the criteria should be in a consistent way for everyone? newsjunkie (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie, I hear your pain and discomfort. However, you have sorely tried the patience of multiple editors, both at Tolkien fandom with the very large number of postings I have summarized, and over in the Harry Potter articles where I see you already garnered a block at least once. I am totally opposed to reopening the old wounds. You have caused the two communities to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort on discussions with you: where Tolkien fandom is 36,122 bytes, Talk:Tolkien fandom has in 10 days grown to 51,956 bytes, all for your addition of 2,099 bytes. That is, with all respect and sympathy, grossly out of proportion, and it is now time to stop and get on with something else. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Your recent editing history at NCIS: Sydney shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page.
Please gain consensus on the talk page prior to continuing reverting to preferred versions. Happily888 (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

In my last edit in response to your comment I explicitly added new Australian sources with explicit quotes about CBS Studios being a producer. newsjunkie (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)