User talk:Newsjunkie

/Archive 1

What makes a valid citation

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

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

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

Academic citation model

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

Article formatting

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

Re: Danny Reagan and similar cases

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

Thank you!

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

March 2025

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

Edit warring

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

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