/Archive 1

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^[1]. A lot of the other secondary sources tend to only focus on individual ones like a new product^[2] or the attractions^[3](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)[reply]

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.^[4][5] 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.^[6][7][8][9] newsjunkie (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You know that the repeated bludgeoning and refusal to drop the stick is disruptive. Continuing to rehash already settled discussions with minor variations is disruptive, and may result in you losing editing privileges. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I've done is point to reliable American and Australian primary and secondary sources (normally preferred), including an American news source that is widely used across the site as reliable for all TV/Movie related content. Nobody has offered any argument as to why they are unreliable or flawed other than that they disagree. They're not self-published, tabloid/fringe or questionable or anything, it's all either associated directly with the production or news sources or a government source. And if the sources are seen as contradictory, isn't that the more reason to include them for the full picture as per NPOV? newsjunkie (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking once? Yes, that's good. Asking over and over again, with ever more finely parsed variations of the same question? No. This has been explained to you over and over again. I must ask my question a third time: how many people must disagree with you before you conclude that consensus just won't go your way? Because what you're demonstrating right now is "no number of people", which is very much WP:IDHT. In particular, this passage applies:

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".

You could be such a productive editor, if only you learned to take "no" for an answer. As it is, you're wasting many volunteer hours on ideas which have been clearly indicated by the community to be non-starters. This is very much tenditious editing, which is a blockable offense. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very much was trying to hear what others were telling me and finding points of agreement, to the extent that there was substantive counterargument. There was objection to an American source, so I looked for explicitly Australian ones (primary and secondary) which is not my "perspective" at all. No argument was made about what if any issue there is with them or if they are considered reliable. Finding points of agreement too: The main point of my latest proposal was to make clear that I actually completely accept the primary source being cited as accurate and am not rejecting the language at all and am okay with citing it on its own, without *any* additional sources I proposed. The only other substantive counterargument was about primary sources being more accurate in some contexts.

I understand some people were frustrated after a previous argument that was initially sort of about something else, but it really was just an inconsistency I happened to noticed toward the end of that which I hadn't even added originally. Completely dismissing sources that as far as I know have no particular reliability questions doesn't seem right either.

newsjunkie (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've warned you about your behavior (arguing ad nauseum), and you keep trying to argue content (by restating the same points you've repeated ad nauseum). I don't know how else to explain to you that what you're doing is a disruptive time sink, and you've given no indication it will stop. Consider this a final warning from me. I'll stop commenting on your talk page unless required to do so. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Newsjunkie_part_6. Barry Wom (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.

Per ANI. This is not a site ban. You can appeal through the unblock process, but I would seriously think about how you approach discussion and conflict before writing an unblock request. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a question about possible unblock conditions/conditional unblock, does that go here? In the past there had been a suggestion about a editing restrictions or a word limit. I'm not sure to what extent anything recently would have gone against such a word limit (per post?) but having a very specific limit, even a much more stricter one or alternate one than that, I think would be helpful for me to address the bludgeoning concern. How could I go about drafting the specifics of such a thing?

In the ANI comment you also mentioned warnings about sourcing. I know what the ones were in the past incidents in terms of unreliable sources/primary, but since that didn't really come up in the main initial dispute here, I'm not sure exactly what sourcing issue would have been raised by the main content dispute in this case or which I would need to address. Thank you. @Sennecaster: newsjunkie (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I've taken a quick look through the link, it looks like that was proposed as a way to prevent you from returning to ANI and being blocked, unfortunately we've gone past that point because you've continued with the same behaviour and did end up being blocked.

The editing limit could be difficult to enforce, since it'd rely on other editors being aware of the restriction, then watching and reporting on your behaviour. That might also be why they're was no consensus on placing this restriction on you.

You've had a lot of warnings and those didn't work, which means the community has lost trust in your ability to edit without causing disruption and taking up the time of other volunteer editors.

You might want to consider the Standard offer.

This is where you edit another Wikipedia project of your choice for a few months to build up a history of productive editing. This way, you get to carry on editing, learn how to become a better editor and vastly increase your chances of being unblocked, all at the same time.

Simple English Wikipedia is really similar to English Wikipedia and is great for this purpose.

You can then bring this evidence to a future appeal, as proof that you won't continue to bludgeon and disrupt Wikipedia.

The Standard offer has helped countless editors come back from a block and make a fresh start, several are more very well-respected veteran editors (and maybe even one or two admins!)

I'll leave the rest for @Sennecaster to address, if she wishes. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was never actually formally adopted since the thread was archived, if I understood correctly that proposal was partially supposed to be a model for if there was another ANI report. I really think having some objective clear specific voluntary and/or formal limits would be very helpful to me that I can demonstrate that I can hold myself to at least for an initial restricted time. I would propose something more along the lines of the much more restrictive option example linked to in that thread, like not making more than on or two comments per day unless asked a specific question, possibly in combination with a word count restriction as well, and also once more than one person is participating, maybe only responding to one person per day.

I would also commit to being more thoughtful and deliberate about only following one dispute resolution process or one noticeboard in a more limited way in rare instances to avoid the appearance of forum shopping. newsjunkie (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any restriction would be considered by the unblocking administrator; as of now, there is no other sanction on you. I, as the blocking administrator, should not be considering further sanctions on you when being unblocked, and I trust the administrators that handle unblocks to consider something fair, reasonable to abide by, and would prevent disruption. They will probably pick something along the lines of a word count limit per discussion; 500 to 1000 total.

The concerns around sourcing were mainly around not getting the point and arguing further against the consensus of multiple others when they told you that you had the wrong idea around sources; take what others say to heart. Primary sources have a place in articles, but we prefer secondary sources as much as possible. I didn't review the full history of threads against you, but I saw enough disruption in the thread and a clear enough history that I blocked to prevent further disruption.

Lastly, Simple English Wikipedia is a good place to build a history of productive editing, but you need to be careful. They have a one strike policy; any behavior crossing their policies and guidelines will result in an immediate block if you are coming from another wiki with sanctions or blocks. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I plan to work carefully on a formal unblock request and take all this into consideration. I would like to point out for the record that one of my original edits that precipitated this particular dispute contained two secondary news sources plus a government source with relevant quotes, and that I was the one to link to/bring up several secondary sources at earlier stages of the discussion in response to a primary source cited by the other user and in response to claims by the user and another user that didn't cite any sources at all. newsjunkie (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi newsjunkie. I hope it's OK for me to add something here after reading this reply. In your unblock request it might be tempting to continue talking about your original edits, sources, the content dispute, or anything about the past when you or your arguments may have been misunderstood. A word of advice, though: if you try to clarify your earlier arguments or the content dispute in your unblock request, you will probably not be unblocked.

It looks like part of the reason you were blocked was because you may have repeatedly tried clarifying earlier discussions and edits. It would probably be a mistake to do that same thing in your unblock request. All of those content disputes are in the past. Convincing the reviewing admin that you have learned to let go of past and future one-versus-many discussions may give you better odds of being unblocked. This is just my two cents; I hope to continue seeing you around :) --tony 19:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do feel like I need to need address the concern about using primary/secondary sourcing though, if that was one of the reason cited for blocking, and was raised in previous instances, but wasn't actually much of a factor this time or really even raised by anyone. newsjunkie (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've already made your point on your Talk page or the ANI thread then I definitely wouldn't try to revisit it - for blocks over bludgeoning/not dropping the stick you need to take additional care to be as concise with your responses as possible.

Only discuss the behaviour that led to your block and avoid going off on any tangents.

Don't do anything that could be interpreted as continuing the original behaviour & trust that the reader can find information or for themselves if it's nearby.

It's usually a good thing to cover all your bases, but in your case that could be an unnecessary risk - especially if it's not directly given as a reason for the block like you've mentioned.

You write "...but wasn't actually much of a factor this time or really even raised by anyone." Trust your own instincts here.

If an admin wants more information about sourcing, previous blocks/disputes or anything else, they'll ask you in a separate comment underneath your appeal.

I help out with block appeals frequently and don't want to see this go wrong for you - keep your appeal as focused as possible in the core reason for this block only. If you want to persuade admins that you can let prior disputes go, don't include them in your appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was confusing because it was mentioned in the block decision comment by the admin on the ANI page, but it didn't actually come up that much in the actual discussion or the discussions leading up to this incident. I was expecting the references to bludgeoning but not the "warnings about sourcing." (That's why I asked.) I assume that comment and the reminder here from the blocking admin here about using primary sources was based on looking at the history and previous discussions, where it did come up and was raised frequently. newsjunkie (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a part of it, but to me the core aspect of the block was based on behaviour rather than content, so I'd focus the appeal on behaviour.

You can always add a line saying that you don't want to revisit sourcing concerns in your current appeal in order to keep things focused, but are happy to respond if the admin would like to discuss the matter further? Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike Thanks for the update. It wasn't letting me reply below for some technical reason. Yes, I would agree to that condition. newsjunkie (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern about this appeal: a misguided attempt to try to resolve what remains a larger deadlocked unresolved local dispute.

The dispute was resolved weeks ago when consensus was reached. You were reported for failing to accept this consensus and your resultant bludgeoning of multiple talk pages. Yet you are still insisting that the dispute is "deadlocked". Would you care to comment?

You have also frequently sailed close to 3RR, as pointed out at the ANI discussion. Would you also be willing to be restricted to WP:0RR, i.e. if one of your edits is reverted, you immediately turn to the talk page? Barry Wom (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the still unresolved "neutrality tag" on that page that was left by another editor, as I saw the specific point as at least somewhat related to that larger dispute, and my attempting to follow it up after that was added ending up being a misguided attempt to try to resolve that issue.

I will leave the determination on whether that restriction is necessary to the admin, but will follow any restrictions that are set. I have tried going to the talk page as much as possible when it becomes clear that an alternate phrasing attempt or edit summary discussions are not sufficient. newsjunkie (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my consultation with the blocking admin, a 1RR restriction was suggested. I think that is also a good idea. Would you be willing to agree to a one-revert restriction? Toadspike [Talk] 21:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. newsjunkie (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadspikeThank you. I also sent you a follow-up question via email - if you could take a look when you have a chance I'd appreciate it. newsjunkie (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked because I recognize that I let my frustration get the better of me, leading to bludgeoning behavior. I understand that this has been an ongoing difficulty for me, and it's something I believe I can work on and demonstrate under strict voluntary or formal limits.
I should have generally have been more conscientious about taking all the previous advice that was given in a previous ANI thread. I think it it would be helpful to me to demonstrate that I can hold myself to even stricter limits than what was originally proposed either in terms of word count and/or comments per day as based on the originally cited other user example. I would also aim to be more thoughtful and deliberate about going through the legitimate dispute resolution process in only selected circumstances so as not to be forumshopping or edit-warring. I want to set a good example by showing that I always am open to hearing other editors concerns, look for ways to find compromise and show that I can see disputes from the other opposing side of the debate. I regret that my contributions ended up being a misguided attempt to try to resolve what remains a larger deadlocked unresolved local dispute rather than finding a more constructive way to do so.

In terms of "warnings about sourcing" in the original block comment, compared to previous times, regarding content I don't actually think there was much expressed broader questioning of specific inherent source quality or reliability or use of primary sources in the conversations leading up to this dispute, which was part of what contributed to my frustration. Therefore I won't go into that in detail in this appeal, but am happy to answer any related specific questions or address specific edits. My intent was always to make constructive encyclopedic appropriately sourced contributions fully compliant with policies without any overarching ideology other than adding missing accurate information in areas of interest. newsjunkie (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking with a 500-word limit per discussion and a 1RR restriction. Please be careful not to get into trouble again. Try to stay calm in discussions and disengage when you sense things are getting too heated. And, finally, welcome back. Toadspike [Talk] 21:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Newsjunkie. Your appeal looks very solid, thank you. Are you willing to agree to an editing restriction limiting you to 500 words per discussion? (The other ideas EducatedRedneck listed at ANI are also good advice, but most of them are not suited to a formal, clearly-defined editing restriction.) Toadspike [Talk] 06:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you revise your latest edit, as it puts you (by my count) at 502 words. Perhaps remove "in the first place". That would put you back under the 500 word limit, excluding signatures. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had been checking and had already shortened before posting and had 498 based on what I had in a separate document, but I'll take another look. newsjunkie (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For my general better understanding of synth and how it applies, could I ask you here if these four sentences with no other further analysis in any way would violate synth? newsjunkie (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first two aren't synth, though may be WP:UNDUE. The last two sentences are very much WP:SYNTH; they are very much like the examples listed in that wikilink of stringing together two sourced statements to imply a third, unsourced conclusion. (In the examples, the SYNTH conclusions would be: The UN failed its mission, and Smith did not commit plagiarism.) I hope that clarifies things somewhat. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But in those Smith and UN examples, aren't the problematic examples the ones where there is an explicit original research/conclusion being made in Wikivoice or the voice of the editor? Whereas wouldn't he last two sentences I wrote just be two subsequent verifiable factual statements, neither of which is an original idea, like the two sentences in the non-problematic example?

Each individual sentence is fully independently verifiably sourced. The fourth sentence explains the rules that were in place for foreign shows in the same relevant years that this series, which is a foreign show, was listed on the nominating ballot of an American awards show.

Neither of the statements makes any specific claim about any of the specific companies noted in the previous statements. newsjunkie (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at the UN example. A textbook Synth example is The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world. Both are true statements, and (presumably) both are sourced. Yet it implies that the UN has failed in its mission, which is (presumably) not stated by either source. This is just like your last two statements.

Or, an even closer parallel is the next example: Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them. All it's doing is stating A) Smith said Jones plagiarized. B) Harvard's definition of plagiarism, both of which are presumed to be sourced, but it implies C) Jones did not plagiarize according to Harvard, which is presumed to not be sourced and thus SYNTH.

Also, just for my own peace of mind, can you confirm you read through WP:SYNTH? If so, is there a particular portion which is unclear? EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read it and today repeatedly the examples in particular, though the example sources are missing which might be making this more difficult in terms of telling what's supposed to be sourced and what isn't. That first U.N. statement is one declarative sentence with the "but" or an "and", implying that one is direct consequence of another, either that it failed to create peace or succeeded at doing so.

And in the second example it says on the page that the first two sentences are *not* Synth. "This first paragraph is fine because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute."

The second part is problematic starting with "If" where it makes a claim that the action described is "contrary" to what the manual recommends.

The final two sentences I have I don't think are causal in the same way though. Sentence A is a true statement about what is on the ballot. Sentence B is a true statement that is explanatory about the requirements to be on that ballot by the same organization that runs the competition in the same relevant years. In simplified terms: Show X is on the ballot. The rules require that any show that is a foreign show like X has to fullfill this requirement to be on that ballot.

If I were to say:

The accepted competitors for the 2022 Olympic track competition are Mary Jones and Jane Smith. The Olympic Organization's requirements for the 2022 competition are that competitors have to be 18 or older.

Is that a synth argument that both of them 18 or older, or just describing who the competitors are in the context of what the requirements are for that year? Is it synth that participants in a competition would be in compliance with the rules of eligibility established by the organizer that makes the determination of who can compete if there is no reporting questioning the eligibility? Of course there if there were other sources questioning eligibility, one would add that as well: As reported by NBC, Jane Smith claimed that Mary Jones was only 17, because her birthday isn't until December.

(In this example, the source for the first statement only lists their names and the one for the second statement only lists the rules, all for the same year.) newsjunkie (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Smith/Jones example would be fine it just said this and nothing else without the If sentence and contrary statement: Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. Harvard's Manual defines plagiarism as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them. newsjunkie (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the fact that the examples don't actually include their sources does make it harder. I'll do some digging and figure out if that can be changed, 'cause it's kind of stupid as it is to have no distinction between what is sourced and what isn't.

I don't think the examples are as different as you believe. Let me put it this way: if the two statements are not imply anything other than exactly and only what the statements say, why have sentence B at all? It's not relevant at all to the show, any more than some other arbitrary rule is.

As for the Olympic argument, yes, that's most definitely synth. Why note the age requirements if it's not relevant? If they participate, they are assumed (but not known) to have followed all relevant rules, and it need not be said. So including it casts doubt on the ages of one or both of them, which is synth unless there's some other source, such as you "Jane questioned Mary's age" NBC source, in which case that statement would also need to be included.

Finally, for the Smith/Jones example, your statement would still be synth, because what is gained by its inclusion? All I see is an insinuation, in Wikivoice, that Jones didn't commit plagiarism. I'm also going to point something out: you're basically saying "I think the SYNTH policy page is wrong". Which sure, maybe it is, but it's still the policy. Arguing against it is not helping your understanding of what it says now, and isn't likely to get you on the same page as all the other editors, which will only make discussion harder. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think the Synth policy is wrong, it's more trying to trying to understand how far it goes exactly or where things are "common sense" where a a "conclusion is obvious" as defined in Wikipedia:NOTCOM

Synth definitely applies I think to explicit statements in Wikivoice that are not in any sources, but in this case each of those final two sentences "are verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly", and there is no conjunction analyzing it beyond what those two sources say.

This rule about "foreign shows" is specifically relevant to this show because it is a foreign show being consumed and getting a reception in America. The TV Academy is an authoritative recognized unbiased organization in terms of how shows are recognized in America. A lot of the other rules like say the eligibility time period from September to May are equally relevant to all shows.

You wrote "If they participate, they are assumed (but not known) to have followed all relevant rules, and it need not be said." But can't adding the sourced information just be about being extra clear to address any possible doubts and provide context, especially when not everyone knows how some aspects of the TV business work? Isn't it conceivable that if someone would see just the statement about it being on the Emmy ballot somebody could ask how is it appropriate that an Australian show is under consideration for an American awards show at all? (And not the international Emmy Awards for example, the submitting studios have to choose one.) The full eligibility requirement provides an answer. And one can *also* include the sourcing that partially contradicts that in terms of whether it was "with a purpose to be shown on American television" given the statements about where it was originally intended to air. And maybe somebody else would read the first sentence as being in contradiction to the fourth one, which is also fine. The article can include the Wikipedia:Conflicting sources that contradict each other. "In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them."

With the Smith/Jones example, to me the particularly problematic Wikivoice statement is "If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted." But without that sentence if one just cites the Harvard Manual definition without any further analysis of what Jones did, to me it's just positioning Harvard as an authoritative source on what plagiarism is because it's Harvard without making any new claim about anything related to what Jones did, and letting readers decide for themselves how that properly applies to what Smith says or what Jones says, newsjunkie (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying about WP:NOTCOM, but the issue is the examples, and your proposed change, are nowhere near that clear-cut. Rules can be labyrinthine and, as pointed out on the NCIS talk page, at time contradictory. It's the same reason why we don't cite law here; sometimes the practical application of a law is almost the opposite of the plain reading of it.

Again, my main point is: If the third sentence is not making a conclusion, and is not related to the subject, then why have it? If the Emmy rules are truly unrelated to the previous statement about NCIS Emmy submission, then what relevance do those rules have to the passage? If the Harvard guidelines are really not implying anything, then what does it matter what they say?

Here's two more tracks to show why it's synth. Why is it only Harvard's standards which are brought up? How do we know no other standards say it IS plagiarism? Do we know what standard Smith was using? Or Jones? Perhaps Jones uses a different standard than Harvard and misinterpreted. We don't WANT the readers to "come to their own conclusion" because the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, which "provides summaries of knowledge", NOT raw data for others to draw their own conclusion. Especially on technical subjects like rules, laws, inferences, etc. it's VERY easy for an untrained person to make a mistake that leads to a totally wrong conclusion, and more importantly, it's impossible for readers to verify the interpretation is correct by checking the source.

In other words, Wikipedia is not a collection of things that are true, it's a collection of what WP:RS say about things. See WP:VNT. We're not here to provide raw data (rules, laws, databases) and let readers figure it out on their own. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not that sentence 4 is unrelated to sentence 3, but that it is background and explanatory about Sentence 3. But there is *no* sentence making any explicitly new statement that isn't in any source or even stating a conclusion based on those two sentences. The rule itself is documented in news sources as well, not just in the raw source. if a reliable news article documents and explains the rule as it pertains to one foreign show and the language is demonstrably the same in the relevant years this show was submitted, is it synth that it would apply in the same way to any other foreign show in the same situation? The article isn't making the claim that it *only* applies to that specific show.

I think Harvard would be cited in that example because it would be considered a particularly reliable source about what the generally accepted plagiarism standard is because it is Harvard versus rather than say a random community college. And if Yale or Oxford says something else then of course that be included too. And if Smiith and Jones are both at the University of Florida than that university's definition would also be relevant. The TV Academy is also a reliable source compared to a random Twitter post by some anonymous person. Different *reliable sources* can contradict each other just as much as "raw data" can. The Wikipedia:Conflicting sources essay is about "when two (or more) equally reliable sources contradict each other about certain facts." If the New York Times says X and the Washington Post says Y about a certain topic it would make sense to cite both even if they contradict each other somehow. newsjunkie (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we're going around in circles. Yes, it's synth, because whether YOU intend it to or not, to a big chunk of readers it makes an implication that is unsourced. Including ALL possible interpretations is wildly impractical, and it ignores the fact that the editor may have misinterpreted something. We're not dealing with Source X saying Smith plagiarized and Source Y saying Smith didn't. We're dealing with Smiths says one thing, Jones says another, and neither are experts on plagiarism that are independent of the topic. I'm afraid if you can't see how that's synth, how it makes implications, and how your Emmy example is a clear parallel to both examples in WP:SYNTH, I don't know what else to tell you. If you can't understand what is and isn't synth on your own, you may have to just accept it when other people say "that's synth" and move on. I'm sorry I don't seem to be able to explain it well enough; I was hoping this would be a quick chat and an "aha" moment, but my teaching skills must be rusty. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But why shouldn't be Harvard be considered an independent reliable source on the topic in the Smith/Jones example, if it's just quoting their sourced definition, without any of the other interpretive statements in that example paragraph? newsjunkie (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't mention Smith/Jones. Harvard is a RS on its own policies. It is not an RS on the Smith/Jones affair. The sentences immediately preceding the Harvard sentence put the whole thing in the context of Smith/Jones. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if one leaves those two preceding sentences out, starting with the sentence starting with If, and just says Harvard's definition is X, that direct connection isn't there It's just stating what Harvard's definition of plagiarism is as a respected institution. As respected institution of higher education, isn't Harvard one reliable source on what the generally accepted plagiarism definition is that can be considered relevant in the context? Not necessarily the only one, but one of several? Is any general definition of plagiarism appropriate to be cited (*without* analysis of the specific situation) or only comments that specifically are interpreting that situation? newsjunkie (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But if one leaves those two preceding sentences out... Yes, and that sentence would have no business in the article about Smith and/or Jones. isn't Harvard one reliable source on what the generally accepted plagiarism definition... Yes, in an article about the Harvard style. ...can be considered relevant in the context? No. Is the definition specifically about about Smith, Jones, or a combination thereof? Is any general definition of plagiarism appropriate to be cited...? No. only comments that specifically are interpreting that situation? Yes. Now I think you're getting it. If someone needs to know, wikilink Plagiarism, but citing any definition has no business in that article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the Ossian Sweet case. A mob was approaching his house. Sweet had armed himself with a gun and waited upstairs. Sweet fired into the mob. These things are true, so let's pretend they're sourced. Now I could then cite Michigan (where the case occurred) law and say, According to Michigan state law, "A person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree murder and shall be punished by imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole: (a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing." Sounds like he committed murder, yeah? Except he didn't. It was self-defense. Quoting the rules leads someone to a conclusion based off a simplified view, and ignores an incredible amount of context that can matter. That's why, in order to call Sweet a murderer, we'd have to have a source that explicitly does so; quoting rules and logical inferences can lead astray. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsjunkie, though I am reluctant to limit use of a user's own talk page, you are clearly using this discussion to further a content dispute and have blown way past the 500 word limit. Knock it off before you get blocked again. I strongly recommend staying away from this NCIS: Sydney stuff entirely; you need to get better at just letting things go. Toadspike [Talk] 23:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the limit formally apply to conversations on my own user talk page, or only discussions on article/policy pages, or just if it's related to a content dispute elsewhere? And does the limit close off *any* related follow up clarifications/conversations on my user page, since that conversation is less likely to discourage anyone from participating in the original article conversation, or only if somebody else reaches out or or do those conversations have to be somehow significantly separate in substance? newsjunkie (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is just 500 words "per discussion", so your user talk is no exception. I am personally inclined to give you more leeway on this page, especially when responding to direct questions. But in this section you've written over 1500 words arguing about a content dispute, right after you were warned about hitting your editing restriction on the talk page. This is not acceptable. Toadspike [Talk] 02:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind now. I was operating under the assumption that it applied strictly for articles related to specific pages that can be edited with more of a public audience than my own page, and that it could be less disruptive to have a conversation here than on those types of pages and didn't apply for that reason. And there was some question back and forth here and realization of the limitations of the guidelines in question as is that I think was at least somewhat illuminating on both sides. newsjunkie (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing this same dispute on WT:NOR (latest diff [5]). This is forum shopping, one of the problems raised in the ANI thread that resulted in your block. It can also be considered an attempt to skirt your word count restriction.

This is your final warning: Drop the NCIS: Sydney SYNTH dispute entirely. Go edit other stuff. If you continue relitigating this issue, regardless of the venue, you may be blocked again. Toadspike [Talk] 15:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the Emmy rule aspect would relate to other foreign shows as well in the similar or related ways is it okay to raise that as in general applying to multiple shows? Or is it okay if I only mention other shows? Like if it applies in the same way to how to refer to Masterpiece in relation to Downton Abbey as previously discussed here and here or other Masterpiece shows like All Creatures Great and Small (2020 TV series) and Miss Scarlet and The Duke consistently that are currently referred to in inconsistent ways or how to characterize Squid Game? Or just asking whether or how the guidelines on this topic could be clearer (as was also previously noted in that context??

Since it's a core guideline, I really did want to make sure I understand in general what the consensus is about the difference between what is a "new synthetic statement" and what are separately sourced statements as another user argued, since that seems like something that could potentially apply in a lot of situations, so I really did want to make sure I understand what the consensus is at least about the given examples. newsjunkie (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, six different editors across three different talk pages have attempted to explain WP:SYNTH to you [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Yet you still do not appear to "understand what the consensus is". Wasting the time of other editors by arguing further would be a continuation of the behaviour which resulted in your block. Knock it off. Barry Wom (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least some comments by by other users not initially related to me at all generally suggested there is at least some different points of view about what the consensus is for how the guidelines in general should be interpreted in cases like this. That's why it can be confusing.

While the Emmy rule is relevant to all the shows, the sourcing situation is not the same for all of them (in some cases there is relevant Emmy database information, in some cases news articles, so that's why I am asking if there is a legitimate way to ask how this rule should be considered in the context of the guidelines (or to make the guidelines clearer) across shows when there is different information/sources available and how much generalization is possible based on the sources available in the different cases (for all Masterpiece shows? all foreign shows?) newsjunkie (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Huggums537 comment was immediately followed by a correction, and the Blueboar comment is not at variance with SYNTH. Blueboar was saying if source A says "He was born on January 4" and source B says "he was born in 2002", it's not synth to say "He was born on January 4, 2002". Given that you've been cautioned to drop the discussion, I won't say any more, but I will reiterate what I said above, If you can't understand what is and isn't synth on your own, you may have to just accept it when other people say "that's synth" and move on. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The comment from the other user in the first example wasn't immediate "timewise", it came three years later only because I linked to it in that discussion this week. (I wasn't sure if that's what you meant). I was trying to determine if that Blueboar comment is considered the broader consensus or not. (and why). And I think the same other user was questioning them when they brought up the U. N. example, so that's what I mean in terms of trying to understand what the top-level consensus about these cases actually is. newsjunkie (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for breaching your unblock conditions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this because of the comments on the talk page or the comments before? newsjunkie (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had stopped responding on the discussion page in question after I got the final warning. I asked the blocking admin a question which I had not yet gotten an answer to. Was I not allowed to respond once to the comments today on my own talk page? newsjunkie (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this re-block is for relitigating the same discussion on your user talk page, after multiple warnings (including a final one) to stop doing so. To quote Toadspike above, your user talk is no exception to the 500 word limit, and, even with a reasonable amount of leeway, you had been warned repeatedly about having already gone way beyond that limit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether you should respond once to the comments, I believe that Barry Wom's comment made it clear that it did not invite a continuation of the same discussion as a response. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was the question to the admin permissable? I had not yet received an answer. I believe that was what he was responding to. He mentioned the concern about Synth. i was trying to state to him *and the admin* that in the case of the other shows there were *also* other sources involved (news articles, the awards database) so it would not be same exact Synth discussion. newsjunkie (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking me to weigh in on the very content dispute I told you to drop was a mistake. Toadspike [Talk] 09:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a legitimate way to ask how far the "relitigation" extends in terms of other articles? newsjunkie (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Giraffer @Yamla. You mentioned "once a topic reaches its limit." I understand I was under a 500 word limit per discussion. Clearly sometimes in general it is appropriate to ask a more general question on wikproject for example or get more input without it being forumshopping. Was I supposed to understand the 500 word limit as being enforced in a way that I could not at all ask a related question say on a Wikiproject subject to the 500 word limit on that discussion? I.e. isn't the 500 word limit per discussion enough without it also seemingly being seemingly a defacto topic ban? Obviously I know I went way over the limit on the talk page before I realized. But maybe assuming I hadn't commented on the talk page at all for example, would it have been inappropriate to ask a more general question on the wikiproject subject to the 500 word limit again? Or is it 500 words across any at all related discussion in any venue? newsjunkie (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved in two separate discussions on this page about this very thing. In any case, this is essentially answered below. Now would be the perfect time for you to stop, Newsjunkie. Your behaviour even after your block is working hard to demonstrate you aren't willing to listen to what you've been told. This is my last comment here. Be warned, you are far closer to losing talk page access than you are to convincing anyone to unblock you. --Yamla (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been having second thoughts about my block and wish to clarify myself:

Asking about the limits of your restrictions, in a vacuum, shouldn't be taken as a violation of the restrictions themselves – it would be quite Kafkaesque to assume that you're not even allowed to ask what you're allowed to do or not. The issue, and what led to the block, was that you were using it as a way to relitigate the original issue. Repeatedly asking if there is a legitimate way to ask a question, even after several editors told you to move on from that topic, gave the appearance of wikilawyering to circumvent your restriction. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. The Kafkaesque nature of that is what has been frustrating to me. While I understand it came across negatively, I was really just trying to understand how broadly construed the limit was by describing specific examples and trying to understand how it fit with other guidelines/precedent as it seems to have been a lot broader than I realized initially and possibly only really began to understand when I got the final warning. If you or or somebody could address my other question about what would be considered a stricter limit, I'd appreciate it. newsjunkie (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone answer whether taking over the exact limit from the other case " contributions to discussions under any particular subject heading (including talk page) is therefore limited to two comments per day" plus maybe a word count on any individual post would be considered a more or less strict restriction? newsjunkie (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) In my view, the above would be a less stringent requirement. Part of the issue has been the Green Eggs and Ham-style of making ever more finely parsed queries searching for a "yes". A subject heading restriction would very much allow you to continue the, "Okay, so consensus was against that idea, so let's start a new discussion about a variant idea" thing that, I think, is what the admins were trying to avoid by considering it all part of one discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't let me reply below. All I would like is to get clarity on what I was supposed to have done because I really was genuinely confused on how I was supposed to get clarity. But as per the Kafkaesque reference stated before, I'm not even sure how much and what is okay to ask where anymore (and I can't ask in an unblock request?) and the truth is very simply that I did not understand, and whatever I was wrong about, that was why. I'm not saying I *was* right, I'm saying I didn't understand and that's why I was wrong. (And was trying to ask questions to as you said "become right.") newsjunkie (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should not use unblock requests to ask questions, correct. They are for asking to be unblocked, not for asking for clarity. Asking via normal posts on your talk page is more likely to get you good results. I strongly suggest keeping it very brief. E.g., "I understand that the way I asked constituted continuing the discussion. In the future, how could I ask about the limits of my editing restrictions without making this mistake?" or "I accept that my attempt to understand synth broke my editing restrictions. Is there a way I could have done things that would not have broken them?" and then, this is critical, accept the answer "no" if that's what they say. Sometimes in life, we won't understand something, but we have to work around it anyway. Perhaps synth is one of those things for you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Either or both of those questions exactly I is what would an appreciate an answer to by any reviewing administrator as I did not have a correct understanding of what my editing restrictions were and probably still don't fully understand what they were or would be.

- I understand that the way I asked constituted continuing the discussion or came across that way. In the future, how could I ask about the limits of my editing restrictions without making this mistake?

-I accept that my attempt to understand synth broke my editing restrictions. Is there a way I could have done things that would not have broken them? newsjunkie (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell If you are willing, could you explain how I "failed to address the reason for the block." I have explained the posts in question and repeatedly said I did NOT and still DON't have a correct or clear understanding of the unblock conditions, how they would apply here or on any other project and believed they were different than what they were or how they were interpreted. If I understood them incorrectly and the unblock conditions wasn't spelled out or defined in detail, how I am I supposed to follow them correctly and how I am supposed to ask questions about them without getting into trouble? Time isn't going to make much difference either way if I don't have clarity over how the limit I was under was or is supposed to apply. I tried following EducatedRedneck's advice to ask some simple questions above, but I don't know how I'm supposed to be follow unblock conditions or do the right thing if nobody can explain what the right thing to do would be. newsjunkie (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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:

The logged unblock conditions were the 500 word limit and a 1 one revert restriction. I monitored the 500 word limit as best I could on all the page-related discussions I participated in, stopping as soon as I hit it in the one page case and never came close to the 1 revert limit at all. I admit I initially did not realize the limit applied to the talk page at all, and when I initially found that out, I stopped pursuing that talk page discussion. I admit I asked one general question about the examples on another policy talk page, where I purposefully did not respond to the first comment to see if I got other replies and then posted in response to a comment about what I saw as a related question on the same page, to try to determine what the top-level consensus is on this issue. Before I received the warning, I thought both would be acceptable as separate discussions if I kept to the 500 word limit which I did in both cases and didn't respond there anymore after the warning. Since synth is a very core guideline, I had felt like I should try to be sure I understood it fully since it would be bad in general if I was really totally mistaken in my understanding/interpretation.
When I got the final warning and the suggestion to edit other pages, I asked what I thought was a legitimate question to the admin about how to handle a similar issue affecting other pages/topic specific guidelines (based on previous productive discussions on the same topic that I wasn't involved with) that I fully intended/intend to comply with to avoid future blocks.(and of course the 500 word limit as well in any such new discussion.) I had not yet received a response when I got the comment from the other user that seemed to be in direct response to that. Since that comment seemed to suggest that *any* other engagement on the issue with other shows would be affected by the same Synth problem, I wanted to make clear *to the admin* and the other user that the other shows in question would not fall under the exact same Synth question as they had other stand-alone reliable sources(news articles, an awards database) in the same context and so the source situation was *not the same* for all the shows or identical to the original show in question, even if the context was related. Because it was all in response to/ in the context of what I thought was a new legitimate question to the admin and trying to figure out what if anything would be acceptable to do in connection on other pages, I did not think of it as being covered by the limit, with the same being true of the other user's comment. I fully understand now that my talk page is covered by the same limit and would like to show that I can meet the condition for all future discussions in the same way I consistently paid attention to on all the page-related discussions I participated in.newsjunkie (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing here gives me confidence that unblocking you would be a good idea. At this point, you've demonstrated that you simply won't stop. I spent some time thinking what stricter restrictions could be applied such that they would be easier for you to follow and I simply can't think of one short of a prohibition from you engaging in discussions at all, and a WP:0RR restriction, but I just don't see that as workable. If you can come up with something meaningfully stricter, something that would be very clear and easy for you to follow, you are free to suggest it. Perhaps another path would be for you to spend at least six months editing a different wikimedia project as though you were subject to the same restrictions there, making at least 500 problem-free edits, then apply again here. At that point, I'd support an unblock with your original conditions. Other admins may feel differently and you are welcome to make your case immediately to have another admin review your block. Yamla (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

For what it's worth, I conflicted with Yamla in declining this. Your most recent comment (Was there a legitimate way to ask how far the "relitigation" extends in terms of other articles?) is in itself problematic—hitting an editing restriction means you need to step away entirely, not try to find the smallest diversion around it. The spirit of discussion restrictions is exactly to prevent cases like this: we need people to move on entirely, and not to try generalizing the discussion topic once the limit has been hit on a specific context. If you want to be unblocked, you will need to demonstrate an ability to move on to something entirely unrelated once a topic reaches its limit. When you have a restriction, trying to get as close to unrestricted editing as you can doesn't usually go well. Giraffer (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second Giraffer's point here. It's very fundamental to your potential future unblock. Please seriously take the time to read what Giraffer has written and make sure you not only understand it, but really internalize it. --Yamla (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not sure I understand the "same restrictions" I was under without some further specifics, how am I supposed to follow them properly on any another Wikipedia project? Just guess? That's what got me into this in the first place. I fully understand the 1 RR restriction because it's specific and straightforward and I know how to follow it. When I agreed to the unblock conditions I thought I fully understood the other one too in the same way but it turns out I didn't at all, which led to the problem here and would make it difficult anywhere. Knowing I was wrong now doesn't automatically mean I know how to be right -- many other restrictions for others I've looked at in the mean time in various areas seem to be defined in much more detail than mine was. Even the very original proposal (based on the other case) for restrictions in an earlier discussion was more specific. newsjunkie (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Clearly I did not realize how broadly the limit was either intended or being interpreted. I had tried to follow the limit to the best of my ability as best I understood it at a given time and in relation to other policies, which I had taken to refer to discussion subject headings on particular pages rather than a discussion in its entirety. I am sorry if my talk page question to the admin somehow came across in the wrong way possibly by being a bit too longwinded, but in that question and the two subsequent comments, I was absolutely not intending to ask the admin to weigh in on the substance of the content dispute or to try and resolve it on my talk page. I was only intending to figure out how broadly the limit was construed by asking if there was a constructive way to gain feedback/find compromise on broader related questions in an appropriate other place and to what extent I was permitted to address similar issues with other shows based on previous discussions I was not involved in that would not be purely repetitive as explained (and to address why to me determining what the top-level consensus on such cases in general might be was confusing). My attempts at understanding the examples and how they apply were based on my engagement with the opposing editors to try and understand their arguments and cited policies better and what could be compliant specifically and in general similar to some of the issues/questions raised by various other editors in that policy page discussion this week. Based particularly on ChaoticEnby's latest comment, I would ask for a chance to show I can meet the conditions, of either the original limit or the proposed alternative from the other case of "contributions to discussions under any particular subject heading (including talk page) being limited to two comments per day" plus maybe a post word count (it just seems to be a little clearer and more specific.) In the case of the original restriction, I would appreciate more guidance, clarity and specifics on what I'm actually permitted to do with regard to *any* topic beyond a discussion on a single page especially in the context of other policies about seeking further input or dispute resolution.

Decline reason:

To put it quite frankly: your conduct on English Wikipedia has resulted in your being a time sink for other volunteers. Chance after chance after chance has been extended, and no chance given has improved the issues, and from the disucssions going on above and the history of the various times you've been taken to ANI it's unclear if you can't, won't, or refuse to productively change. The only way you are going to be unblocked is by taking the suggestion given above: edit other Wikipedia projects under a voluntary restriction mirroring the ones you were under here. After some time has passed without any issues there, come back here and request unblocking then, able to point at the trouble-free editing history you have established on other projects as evidence that you can be a productive and non-time-sink-y contributor here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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 understand that previous interactions were considered time wasting by many. However, the specific block reason that was cited was for very specific posts on my talk page that were said to violate my unblock conditions. I do not believe these posts violated my unblock conditions, or at least not the way I intended. Even if the statements were taken the wrong way by some admins, I believe they constituted asking questions to better *understand* my unblock conditions, rather than violating them. Only when I got the final warning did I even begin to realize that I had did not have an accurate or clear understanding of what my unblock conditions actually meant, how broadly they might apply beyond a single page, and how they were being interpreted and applied and I am *still* not sure that I do. I regret that incomplete phrasing in my initial comments possibly suggested that I intended to repeat the exact same approach across multiple other pages against consensus without any difference in a timewasting way when that was never my intention, which is why I felt I had to clarify about sourcing in a second post. My comments on my talk page were about what I might be permitted to do in a broader context related to other shows (specifically as clarified based on more extensive sourcing) in one appropriate location and brief observations that posts by others in the other discussion about this policy debate seemed contradictory and confusing, but I wasn't relitigating the definition of synth or how it might apply in a specific case or intending to ask any admin to do so.

While I believe what I was asking about posting in another venue would have been fully compliant with Wikipedia guidelines, and productive in line with previous posts by others in the past on the broader related questions, and drawing on previous feedback by having more substantial sources, I fully intended to follow whatever guidance I would have been given. That was the entire reason I tried to ask in the first place and felt like I had to explain a little bit so I would not get blocked or perceived as disruptive if I posted something elsewhere as I started to feel like I had no idea where the line was and what possibly tangentially related edits might be considered violating or where else, whom or what I could ask without being penalized. If I did violate my unblock conditions, it was because I truly did not fully understand what they were or how broadly construed they were neither when I first agreed to them and maybe not even fully when I got the final warning, which is why I posted a question in the first place. I would like the opportunity to show I can comply with the unblock conditions but this time with an actual full understanding of how they are supposed to apply specifically in connection with other policies. Given other Wikipedia policies, I truly was under an apparently mistaken understanding that the 500 word limit only applied to individual discussion threads on the same page and not a discussion as a whole, which was why I was very confused by the final warning and that I couldn't raise anything even somewhat related anywhere else at all, and was trying to clarify what related discussions were still possible without being repetitive or what was considered off-limits. I understand this came across as antagonizing, but until that point I believed I had been compliant other than the previous discussions on my talk page, and did not realize at all that what I saw as asking a question and responding two comments in response would be considered a violation.

Decline reason:

All those words (627 of them!) and you still fail to address the reason for the block or convey any confidence that you won't repeat the problematic conduct. Your next request needs to be much more concise. You should take some time away and carefully consider the advice that several editors have left on this talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Newsjunkie, please revert your unblock request and take some time away. Talk page access is often revoked after several unsuccessful unblock requests in quick succession. You could be a great editor, so I don't want to see you lose TPA, given that it would make it much harder to get unblocked in the future. Take a week or two, then come back and instead of justifying your actions, just ask the administrators questions about what would should do in the future. Don't say you were right, learn to become right. EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 was blocked for comments on my talk page that were seen as re-litigating a previous discussion after a final warning, which was deemed a breach of my unblock conditions, specifically a 500 word limit.

In terms of the limit itself, until I got the final warning, I didn't fully realize to what extent I might have a wrong or unclear understanding of my own unblock conditions, how broadly they were intended or how they work with other guidelines (on this Wikipedia project or any other), which I still have some confusion about. I falsely believed all my talk page comments to be seeking clarification of my unblock conditions, rather than breaching them. Until then the only other precedent of a similar case I had been made aware of previously seemed to apply to discussion subject headings rather than a discussion as a whole across multiple pages. I understood my 500 word restriction as a version of that and was making an effort to act accordingly in all page-related discussions, as I do understand the argument that overwhelming a *particular* discussion with posts from one person can discourage participation.

In terms of the content of the comments, I think unclear or initially incomplete phrasing of my question gave the wrong impression that I sought to tendentiously repeat or generalize the exact same Synth argument against consensus with no other context when that was never my intent. Rather what I was asking about in a flawed way would have involved using better more straightforward reliable sourcing available for many other shows in the form of news articles and an awards database to point out complex related inconsistencies across multiple shows with a focus on seeking constructive feedback on various options, rather than forcing any one particular approach, for how the existing style guidelines applied or could be clearer to develop a more consistent compromise approach that could prevent the need for future similar discussions that could become disruptive, in line with a previous discussion by others and the aim of "trying to find different arguments...and better sources.",

Due to my flawed understanding of the restrictions, the final warning came across as very sudden and left me very confused and uncertain with no idea what normally appropriate actions might be inappropriate in my case or how to properly seek clarification to not repeat problematic behavior. With a little more detailed specification as I've seen with other editing restrictions as partially suggested below and/or equivalent to how 1RR is detailed, I believe I can comply with any editing restrictions as I was already trying to do imperfectly and not endlessly repeat rejected arguments. (442 words) newsjunkie (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you try to take the standard offer. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

To the reviewing admin, note that Newsjunkie is rejecting the path offered by myself and The Bushranger. Taking a look at the behaviour since this most recent block, I think you will conclude this user is still a significant time sink and it's time to revoke talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before pulling TPA, I think it would be good if an admin laid down what their expectations around the editing restriction were. This would let them, at best, craft a convincing unblock request, but more likely guide them on how to edit on other projects so they can take the WP:SO. My current understanding is that the restriction is that the restrictions were WP:1RR, and a 500 word limit on discussions, meaning:

• Newsjunkie may write up to 500 words, excluding signatures, on any particular discussion, broadly construed.
• A "discussion" is both what is said under a particular header, but also includes the topic being discussed in any form, as well as any related topics.
• This includes any broader or more generalized issues or questions which would cover the topic. E.g., if 500 words were written about the reliability of a source for how toasters are produced, any discussion about the production of toasters is now impermissible, as is the use of that same source for any other purpose.
• The topics may span any number of pages, including article and user talk pages. (I hadn't considered this earlier; my apologies, Newsjunkie, for responding to you re: synth here.)
• The topics are agnostic with regard to age of a discussion; one cannot wait for some amount of time then return to an old discussion with a fresh limit.
• Any attempts at WP:GAMING or WP:WIKILAWYERING are likely to be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the ban, and thus a violation. In short, if a conversation in one place is anywhere close to related to a conversation in another place, treat them as the same discussion.

This is my understanding, which may be flawed. I think it would help Newsjunkie on some other project to have this confirmed, clarified, or corrected. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that the restrictions were unclear to some extent, and believe that interpreting 3 and 5 simultaneously is overly restrictive, as it would make Newsjunkie functionally topic-banned from anything they discussed previously, forever. I interpreted the restrictions as relating to any individual discussion (which may be continued on another page) but not necessarily multiple discussions on the same topic, separate in time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. In terms of the further points least in your non-admin view (or an admin) would you be open to leaving room for something like It is acceptable to escalate once to one broader venue like a Wikiproject and/or one of the official dispute resolution locations (either or or one of each?), in each case again subject to the 500 word restriction? newsjunkie (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I remain a non-administrator, but given that the problem has been rehashing the same discussion, sometimes in multiple fora, what you described runs contrary to the purpose of the limit. The restrictions are here because "accept that others disagree and let the subject drop" isn't something that seems to happen, and if a discussion needs broader attention or clarity, someone else will do it. A critical skill to learn to resume editing is how to acknowledge that others disagree with you, even if you don't understand it, and move on to something else. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I really meant that as very limited access to those mechanisms with some uninvolved input, 1 or 2 locations at most, so it wouldn't be endless. Defining discussion based on content in a straightforward way seems very difficult to me (rather than factors like time or word count), as it really can begin to feel like a defacto permanent topic ban situation. The absolute strictest interpretation seems to preassume a bit that I am always wrong, which is not always the case. I was also just wondering about something like two reply comments of 100 words per day per discussion heading after a (possibly longer) intro post, and also only if somebody else has commented since my last one, possibly in combination with the escalation limit. Not sure if that would help address anything but it just came to me. But really just *any* defined clarity would be helpful, whatever it is. newsjunkie (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Word count restrictions are a thing, odd spin-offs are not. No one is going to police that. Asking for alternatives is akin to someone in jail suggesting alternative conditions of their release because the court-ordered restrictions are too draconian. It doesn't work that way. The community is trying to give you a path forward, but it is not obligated to do so.

Re just *any* defined clarity would be helpful, whatever it is: Simply put, you should treat the conditions with the strictest possible interpretation. Don't try to wikilawyer the definition. You'd be hard-pressd to find an editor or admin who would not interpret that as "I'm looking for a way to come right up to the line, but no farther". Instead, self-regulate and just limit your discussion to what is necessary. Full stop. In your question of a case where someone comes into the discussion later, a more concise initial comment would have left you room for additional comment. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The original editing restriction example doesn't do word counts all, but also doesn't try to define content in any particular detailed way, just time and number of posts. I'm actually a little uncertain about what the precedent is for word count restrictions. I've mostly seen reference to them in connection with contentious topic discussions I think, but don't have any experience in that context myself. My guess/impression was though that those are discussion-thread focused? newsjunkie (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, treat the conditions with the strictest possible interpretation. Consider it to be "broadly construed". If you're talking about something even remotely related in two different places, expect the combined word count of both discussions to apply.

Please take the advice several editors have given, let it go, spend some time away, then participate in another project, and come back under the standard offer to see if you can work on this project productively. This constant questioning about your restrictions is no different than what got you restricted in the first place. Please stop making it worse for yourself. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)Defining discussion based on content in a straightforward way seems very difficult to me

Indeed. I have questions which might provide clarity.

In September, you raised the topic of the production companies on NCIS:Sydney in this discussion[12].

You then raised the issue of the production companies on the show here[13].

You discussed the issue again here[14] and here [15] and here [16] and here[17] and here[18].

Would you consider each of these discussions to be based on the same content? If not, in what way are they different?

For this behaviour, you were blocked.

Two weeks after being unblocked, you started another discussion about the production companies on NCIS:Sydney[19]. When it was pointed out your suggested wording would fall foul of WP:SYNTH, you continued the discussion at your talk page. Next, you started a new discussion at the NOR talk page[20]. Later at the same talk page you asked again about your wording regarding the production companies on NCIS:Sydney[21].

Would you consider these latest discussions to be the same as each other? Are they the same as the previous discussions about the production companies on NCIS:Sydney? If not, in what way are they different?

When you are unblocked and you find new sources regarding the production companies on NCIS:Sydney, would you have any reservations about bringing the subject up again? Barry Wom (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider all the original posts about the issue before the first block to be all part of the same discussion based on the same content. I particularly regret posting about it in so many different places (and especially so many horizontal other page ones) versus trying to determine one or two most appropriate broader venues.

In terms of the post on the NCIS Sydney page after the unblock, the content was not something I had actively looked for in that context but I happened to see it, it highlighted an aspect I hadn't been aware of at all before and I realized it had relevancy and it was a new source/approach that hadn't been considered before.

In terms of the original talk page discussion, it seems neither I or EducatedRedneck were fully aware that the limit applied there and it seemed like a less public/disruptive venue to focus on a particular aspect though i accept it could be viewed as wrong depending on the definition. Sine WP:Synth had been referred to, I was trying to clarify my understanding of the definition in a broader way (which much of that conversation ended up being about). I had particularly been concerned about the perception that I intended to make a more declarative interpretive statement based on the one news source versus pointing to facts in a more limited way and whether there was any difference in that regard.

The first NOR post really focused on the examples on that page I was trying to understand and didn't mention the dispute at all, which to me seems fully appropriate though I could be wrong, and I purposefully I hadn't replied to the first comment because i hoped there would be more debate. Then somebody else started the other discussion that seemed to have at least some relevancy and broader applicability and somebody made a statement that seemed somewhat contradictory to me at least of the other page consensus which is what I posted my response to. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to link to the original discussion if I made a post in that context at all? I'm not sure myself anymore. As it was all of my other posts there also ended up just being about the example definition that somebody else pointed to and didn't really end up addressing the particular dispute at all.

When i came across the earlier discussion about the manual of style in connection with Downton Abbey/Masterpiece and looked at other "foreign" shows that would fall under the Emmy rule (The Golden Globes have a similar rule), saw various inconsistencies, I realized that aspect had never been brought up in that larger context before and there was a broader discussion to be had with a broader range of sources (The Emmy database lists production companies for all nominees/winners) about what role if any information in that Awards rule context should have in determining whether something is a co-production with creative control, which production company to list (Netflix in the case of Squid Game or any Netflix show for example?), does foreign mean it should be single or dual nationality, is it only relevant for shows that get to the nomination stage with more information available or ones deemed eligible on the ballot depending on other sources available, based on the answers to those questions is there a general approach to all affected shows including NCIS;Sydney or not or only a subset of shows like the Masterpiece ones (that was suggested in the earlier Downton Abbey discussion) or all the Netflix and Apple ones - (with even possibly some implications for how to list purely American shows)? Can the wording be improved in terms of guidance for how to determine production companies? I don't have firm answers to all those questions myself and certainly am not trying to have that discussion here now and can see arguments to go either way and wouldn't want to force anything too much beyond pointing out parallels/inconsistencies, but to me it seemed to like a legitimate new discussion to have as a follow up to that earlier MOS discussion subject to whichever editing restriction on my part wordcount or otherwise.

My hope would be a discussion like that would produce some sufficient longterm clarity. Independently of that if there genuinely were new sources that became available about the NCIS:Sydney case with some explicit new statement, objectively it seems to me it should be appropriate at least in my view to bring that up as a new thread perhaps, though I think I would first very carefully consider how explicit any statements in that source are and review the degree to which it really brings new clarity or not. But I would also defer to any more explicit relevant definition of a restriction if there is one. newsjunkie (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we agree on how these should be defined, thank you for posing the questions with specificity, because I think it does illustrate the complexity. I don't claim any 100 percent certainty in any direction, it's just my very imperfect attempt to work through the same questions I have been and remain somewhat uncertain of. newsjunkie (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does illustrate the complexity

There is no complexity. You seem to be incapable of recognizing that repeatedly raising a subject as niche and specfic as "NCIS:Sydney production companies" is disruptive. This is what led to you being blocked. Twice. Barry Wom (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have one last tack to try before I step back. Newsjunkie, you were given an editing restriction to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. It was the least restrictive restriction the community thought would be effective. Any attempts now to add carve-outs, exceptions, or leniency reads as saying, "I cannot abide by that restriction, so I should not be unblocked."

I understand there is confusion regarding what the restriction entails. Hopefully Chaotic Enby's clarification above will suffice, but if it does not, I suggest trying this: think of the strictest of all possible interpretations of your editing restriction, the one which most constrain your actions. That. That is how you should act like it says. Perhaps you'll be more restrained than intended, but that won't disrupt the encyclopedia, and thus won't require a block. Going the other way, interpreting it too leniently, means disrupting the encyclopedia, and thus results in blocks. It's clear that you're uncertain about how strict the restriction is. Err on the side of non-disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested primarily in clarity, not carve-outs, exceptions, or leniency. i think the difficulty/challenge is that with something like 1RR or the restriction in the other case, there isn't really a strict or non-strict interpretation, it's just straightforward. (which is what I thought this one was originally). newsjunkie (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested primarily in clarity, not carve-outs, exceptions, or leniency. Good. That's a good start. Now, whenever you have a question, "Would X be seen as a violation of my editing restrictions?" the answer you should think is "yes". If you'd have to use more than eight words to explain why something is a distinct topic, treat it as the same topic. For instance, when asked above whether you thought some of your posts were about the same discussion, you wrote 411 words explaining why it wasn't. I've no doubt you could trim it down, but it should be as simple as, "Toasters aren't related to NCIS" or "The Sopranos is a different TV show". Or even "This is about NCIS casting, not production". EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how that would work for other "horizontal" pages so to speak and for the very original posts/sources leading to the first block. But I could genuinely say "This is about a policy affecting Downton Abbey" and "Squid Game", but then to just leave out that whatever conclusion there might have an impact on the other show just seems to encourage dishonesty somehow. newsjunkie (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So if you believe there could be a connection, then treat it as part of the same discussion. This is what I'm saying: if you have to justify it to yourself, don't do it. If there's a doubt, don't do it. Is this concept landing with you, or missing the mark? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concept in some respects, or a way to think about posts for me I guess, but I'm not sure it's the same thing as being a clear enough guideline as a definition for other admins/editors, at least compared to others or that someone might see some other edit on another page using some other third source as related or something like that, and might still veer a little too much toward ending up being like a topic ban. newsjunkie (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't for it to be clear for other editors, but for it to be clear for you. It doesn't matter what their interpretation is, if you've stayed on the right side of the most restrictive one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my reading that would still go quite a bit beyond the blocking admin clarification, and maybe that gap is unavoidable, but even with everyone's best attempts/intentions I'd still have some worry that it could lead to unnecessary misunderstandings, though that risk is probably somewhat omnipresent. newsjunkie (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what part of this is unclear to you. Your editing restriction remains exactly as it was, as-written. You act under the strictest possible interpretation of those restrictions. If anyone has a different interpretation, it is by definition more permissive than yours, and so you will not have violated them. There are no misunderstandings because, having obeyed the harshest interpretation, you are with certainty complying.

All this talk about trying to find the exact line, arguing about misunderstandings, etc. is what was meant by the WP:WIKILAWYERING reference earlier. It sounds like you're trying to tiptoe right up to the edge of the restrictions. It's like your driving down the road and trying to figure out how to get as close as you can to oncoming traffic; it's likely you'll find out just how far is too far, and that's a problem.

I'm not negotiating with you, I'm not presenting a choice between being more restricted versus being less restricted. Given your inability to understand the editing restrictions which are now clear to everyone except you, I'm presenting you a tool to navigate the decision of being more restricted versus not editing at all. You can just reject my idea, and unless you come to understand your editing restriction, your WP:SO will be very likely declined and you'll stay blocked. Because every other attempt to explore various topics (SYNTH, UNDUE, BLUDGEON, your editing restrictions) has not borne fruit, this rule of thumb is my very last idea. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was more an observation rather than a rejection. It feels more like driving without a speedometer that me or anybody can ever check somewhere where you don't know what the speed limit is or everyone thinks it's something else and that degree of uncertainty. It could be workable, but still difficult. newsjunkie (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. Everyone else has a speedometer. Yours seems to be the only one that's still broken. Which is why you drive super slow, slower than you think you have to. I don't understand what misunderstandings you think could possibly happen. I've thrown you a proverbial life preserver; do what you will with it. I've exhausted my ability to provide counsel. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the very initial repeated posts were all about a specific point asked about in too many different places based on sources that were only relevant to that specific show. I think at least the difference between that and the source/hypothetical I was asking about at the end was that the latter one would have ended up needing a broader question in a different location of how in general a source should be used or is relevant regardless of any editing restrictions in place, it's not something that could be established or resolved on a single page because it's related to a source that inherently has relevance in lot of different ways to a very broad number of shows for which different amounts of information are available and precisely wasn't niche and specific anymore, just as the original Downton Abbey debate went from the individual page to a broader policy discussion because it had broader implications. And in doing so possibly *prevent* the need for future further discussions on similar topics with the potential to become disruptive through anyone across multiple pages, which I think would be a desired outcome. newsjunkie (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) leaving room for something like It is acceptable to escalate once to one broader venue like a Wikiproject and/or one of the official dispute resolution locations

I'd add a strict caveat to this: no escalation whatsoever unless at least one other editor agrees with your viewpoint. Barry Wom (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length of the ongoing discussion, I will be unsubscribing from it. Any admin who, looking at the merits of the case, wishes to unblock will be free to do it without having to contact me first. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past month, as I watched things unfold, most of what I would have added to the conversation was also stated by others. My advice to you is very simply as follows:

• Take at least 6 months off from this project.
• Pick one of the other Wikimedia projects to contribute to, and do so as if you are under the same restrictions as you are here.
• Come back under the terms of the Standard Offer with a track record of productive editing from another project that will show you can contribute here productively.

Continuing to pursue an unblock is quite likely counter-productive for you for the time being. The above advice is similar to what was noted by @EducatedRedneck (and probably others I may have overlooked). I think your editing has been in good faith - you just need to focus your energy in a productive direction. I think if you follow the simple steps above, you can get there.

Not every message or notice requires a response. Choose your responses with extreme caution and care, lest you jeopardize your talk page access. There is no need to respond to this - it is what it is - advice offered in good faith to help you get back on track. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]