User talk:Newsjunkie

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my candidacy.—Theo (Talk) 17:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Links to commercial sites, especially if they provide no information about the subject, are not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and especially not a site to promote stuff for sale. Tverbeek 6 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

It's also considered rude to delete messages from your Talk page, especially without responding to them. Deleting only critical comments is particuarly inappropriate. Tverbeek 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a need to respond. I won't do it again - I was more concerned with the actual fact -that people make these fake buttons - than with that specific site, and using the site as an example. I thought I had the commercial site rule covered by having it as a source/reference/proof/example, whatever you want to call it. But if it's not ok, than it's that fine. I'll delete them from the other pages they're still on too, also because the links were not only commercial, but dead. I

I delete the comments, those that address a certain issue, once I have "dealt" with them. I leave the neutral ones because I usually don't have to "deal" with them in any way. If I had the time to figure out how to do it, I would probably have it all in an archive, like other people do, but I just don't right now. And of course, it's all still in the history, so anyone can check anything there. --newsjunkie 6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Just wondering, are you the same "Newsjunkie" who runs The West Wing News Blog? - Scm83x 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a peer review of The West Wing at Wikipedia:Peer review/The West Wing (television) and I inviite you to take part in the discussion and help make the necessary changes as the community as a whole reviews the work that we have all done together on this article. Thank you very much for your work on the article! -Scm83x 06:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did The West Wing live debate broadcast two episodes, one for the East and one for the West, or did they rebroadcast the East Coast feed as I had seen talk of on the TWOP? Thanks! -Scm83x 05:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have put The West Wing article up as a candidate for featured article status. I appreciate your help in this article's peer review. Your input and support in the FAC located here would be appreciated! Thanks! -Scm83x 08:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was your reasoning for removing the courtesy blank on Nicole Santos Facebook Hack? Inks.LWC (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I felt it was significant because it seemed unusual and something people could use info about. But I guess, we'll see how how much play it gets in the news tomorrow....--newsjunkie (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newsjunkie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newsjunkie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newsjunkie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bridget Moynahan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donnie Wahlberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bunker Hill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I tried to fix the problem, but couldn't see what it was until after you fixed it. 209.226.247.8 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding rest of the writers, I admit I was a little too lazy to do it myself. newsjunkie (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The West Wing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bravo and HLN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The West Wing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HLN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your efforts with adding content to West Wing-related articles, but could you please be more aware of how you add the content, and to do it to adhere to Wikipedia MOS formatting. I see you've been here for almost 20 years, you should be aware of formatting a citation using Template:Cite web. I've cleaned-up your entries over 20 times now and it's getting fairly tiresome. I've noted in my edit summaries of your issues, but you've yet to rectify any of these ongoing problems. You continually put commas after the ref tags (such as here which I fixed). You also put spaces before closing ref tags as I noticed in recent edits to The West Wing season 1, which is incorrect. With your recent edits to the season articles, you use the same reference almost a dozen times; you need to use ref names to avoid duplicate citations. Also, realistically, all that award information should just be in the Accolades subsection, because the ShortSummary parameter is just meant for a plot synopsis. If you feel you can merge that content into the Accolades subsection, that'd be great. I'll happily collaborate with you, I'm just looking for some cooperation in terms of your formatting issues. Thank you so much. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the awards information should also be tied to the episode information if it was episode-specific, because a lot of people are just going to be looking at the specific episode information and by putting it by the episode, it shows to viewers immediately which episodes/performances received particular recognition all tied together in multiple categories, rather than an isolated way, especially since there aren't episode pages for most episodes or if they are interested in watching particular episodes that got recognition. And I only did the Emmys for now in this case, but there are individual episodes that got other awards as well, and I think that information is most helpful when tied to a specific episode so people reading about a particular episode can immediately see that it also won/was submitted as part of a nomination and don't have to scroll back up and down and can also see performance win/nominations in the context of plot summary. newsjunkie (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've probably added most of the information I felt was missing for now and other than incorporating this week's White House event if nobody else does it I probably won't have too much to add for a while unless there a lot more developments/appearances. newsjunkie (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, even though I disagree; the ShortSummary parameter is for a plot synopsis, not production or other information. It's why there's a section for accolades, etc. It's actually more efficient to have all the information in one section, as opposed to the lengthy episode table where you'd have to constantly scroll up and down and you could possibly miss one of the "notes" because they're tacked onto the episode summary. However, I'm not going to dispute this further, as we're talking about a 25-year old TV show. But, I noticed you completely glossed over my main concerns about your editing habits (bare URL refs, incorrect formatting, etc.), which is troubling. Another editor below has also commented on it. I hope going forward you can recognize the mistakes and fix them; all you have to do is look any of the edits I made and see what I've corrected. Thanks again. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern about the commas and I will try to copy that more, but the guidelines on bare URLs do also say "Adding a bare URL reference to Wikipedia is much more helpful than no reference. If you only have the time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, that is a helpful first step, and we thank you for your contribution!". And while I think it's fine to summarize accolades at the bottom, I think it's also really additionally informative to display the information by episode if there is a specific episode reference because it helps people see which were the significant episodes in a way that would not necessarily become as clear if only enumerated separately at the bottom. (And I think it's more likely people would just look at the episodes part if they are watching/looking up a specific one and not bother to look at the accolades section at all.) newsjunkie (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I notice that when editing and adding references you add what is known as a Bare URL. Simply putting a URL in between <ref> and </ref> tags is not the appropriate or complete method for citing published or web news sources. It results in other editors having to come in behind your additions and complete the remainder of the tags and clean up the references you have added. This is somewhat disruptive and unless other active and proficient editors are watching all those articles and the edits you make - some of those references may not end up having been completed afterwards.

To help avoid both situations, there are features in the editor to aid you in properly completing the cite fields - you can see a drop-down menu above the editor, labelled "Cite". Please make sure you thoroughly review the Bare URL link above, WP:CITE and Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources and use the available aids and tools to help you properly fill in and complete the necessary citation fields. This also helps preventing the need for other editors to come in behind you and clean up the references, while also improving your proficiency as a regular WP editor.

If you have any questions or need further assistance to begin providing complete citations - please feel free to reach out to me. Thanks --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Hate to pile on – glad that you're showing an interest in The West Wing, I love that show – but i should point out that the scribd external links probably run afoul of WP:COPYLINK, as I doubt those are authorized-for-publishing versions of the script. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like scripts are in more of a grey area than actual episode footage, since scripts are often sold on ebay for example and so people get them legitimately second-hand and don't seem to be under restrictions on what they can do with them. And I've never heard of any legal action against original movie or TV scripts posted online for already released content (versus legal action against actual TV/movie footage/filesharing etc) newsjunkie (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think there is some precedent in allowing them to be available for educational purposes. newsjunkie (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Picard's Facepalm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Blue Bloods (TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I have previously advised above as to properly filling out the references. Simply adding a bare URL is not the correct method. Please refer to the previous notice to avoid future notifications and warnings. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I added were reliable and no source was removed as far as far as I can tell. As the page on "bare URL" itself states. "Adding a bare URL reference to Wikipedia is much more helpful than no reference. If you only have the time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, that is a helpful first step, and we thank you for your contribution!" newsjunkie (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the previous notification, as indeed there was nothing removed. My apologies for that oversight on my part when I first posted the notification.

While you did quote part of the guideline from the Bare URL link above - you missed the 2nd half of the guideline, and the totality of the scope of the guideline as a result:

"[...] please note that a bare URL reference is also much less helpful than a fully formatted citation. Please help readers and editors by using full citations instead."

It is clear that you certainly have ample time as evidenced by your visiting the reference source in the first place, compounded by the sheer number of edits you are conducting. Please ensure you are following the totality of the guideline, while also seizing the opportunity to notably improve your proficiency as a contributor by completing full citations to the articles you add them to. With the Cite editing tool at the top of the editor window - it takes approximately 15-20 seconds to do, using the information already provided on the source page you are referencing from. It can easily be done utilizing the same copy-paste method you use now for adding the bare URLs. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, you are continuing to add bare URLs as references. Please refer to the discussion above as well as the full context of WP:BAREURL to ensure the proper addition of references. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 01:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me your edit summary here, suggesting Sadoski's comment "speaks to widespread critical/mocking reception of series not yet mentioned anywhere else" is your perspective of the meaningfulness of his off-hand remark. How is that not WP:OR? Whether the actor is surprised of the existence of a meme is trivia. If there was a RS that covered the presence and impact of the meme or relfected on the "widespread critical/mocking reception" you suggest, then that's a different story... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me the article is itself a "reliable source" covering the "presence and impact of the meme". Why would they ask him about it otherwise (especially 10 years later!)? newsjunkie (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "off-hand remark" they asked him about it specifically and wrote a whole article about it newsjunkie (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BUYtv is the OFFICIAL USA channel and co-producer of the series, so their airdates SHOULD count. –ACase0000 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be a talk page discussion but just for consistency in that table it seemed to make sense to stick with the BBC airing (as the country where it's from originally and where it's based). Somebody else has added the U.S. air dates for the new episodes in the other table below. newsjunkie (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Blue Bloods (TV series), without properly citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:BAREURL and take the opportunity to properly add references to the article. Please make sure you also review WP:CITE and Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources and use the available aids and tools to help you quickly and properly fill in and complete the necessary citation fields. This also helps preventing the need for other editors to come in behind you and clean up the references, while also improving your proficiency as a regular WP editor.Thank you. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 23:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources were reliable: Newsday and TVLine. newsjunkie (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained repeatedly above - they were not properly cited. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 23:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute with as much or as little time as they feel able to dedicate. newsjunkie (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you certainly have ample time as evidenced by your visiting the reference source in the first place, compounded by the sheer number of edits you are conducting. Please ensure you are following the totality of the guideline, while also seizing the opportunity to notably improve your proficiency as a contributor by completing full citations to the articles you add them to. With the Cite editing tool at the top of the editor window - it takes approximately 15-20 seconds to do, using the information already provided on the source page you are referencing from. It can easily be done utilizing the same copy-paste method you use now for adding the bare URLs. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Blue Bloods (TV series), without properly citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:BAREURL and take the opportunity to properly add references to the article. Please make sure you also review WP:CITE and Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources and use the available aids and tools to help you quickly and properly fill in and complete the necessary citation fields. This also helps preventing the need for other editors to come in behind you and clean up the references, while also improving your proficiency as a regular WP editor.

Additionally, please be sure not to include tracking & metadata portions of the URLs that you use for references. The raw, shortened URL, ending in ".html" to the exact, cited source is what is necessary - none of the ancillary tracking & meta info which leads back to the original site which held the link you may have clicked on. This information may possibly be used to attain Personally Identifiable Information (PII) about you and your browsing when publicly viewable, so it is in your best interest to ensure this information is trimmed from your reference URLs. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 01:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the other editor noted, the tracking data was relevant in this particular case for the link to work properly. newsjunkie (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The West Wing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Party and Bob Casey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Blue Bloods (TV series), without properly citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:BAREURL and take the opportunity to properly and fully add references to the article. Please make sure you also review WP:CITE and Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources and use the available aids and tools to help you quickly and properly fill in and complete the necessary citation fields. This also helps preventing the need for other editors to come in behind you and clean up the incomplete references, while also improving your proficiency as a regular WP editor.

It is clear that you certainly have ample time as evidenced by your visiting the reference source in the first place, compounded by the sheer number of edits you are conducting. Please ensure you are following the totality of the guidelines, while also seizing the opportunity to notably improve your proficiency as a contributor by completing full citations to the articles you add them to. With the Cite Editing Tool at the top of the editor window - it takes approximately 15-20 seconds to do, using the information already provided on the source page you are referencing from. It can easily be done utilizing the same copy-paste method you use now for adding the bare URLs. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Instagram! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles. Nobody (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue Bloods (TV series), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how to format things properly. Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Footnotes go after punctuation. Sub-headings should be in sentence case. Piping links should be avoided when unnecessary. DrKay (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia has a manual of style. Please follow it when editing on articles. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it wrong. Please do not pipe links like this[1]. Do not write during the [[2014 Gaza War|2014 Gaza War.]] write during the [[2014 Gaza War]]. DrKay (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know I just entered the suggestion that came up through the Visual Editor in this case, so I don't know why it comes out that way. newsjunkie (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(or it was a copy from one other article where I had used the same language where I had used the visual editor) newsjunkie (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original research because the article clearly states "It’s unclear what a series pickup for FBI: CIA would mean for FBI: Most Wanted and FBI: International, which is set in Europe. Last spring, CBS renewed the mothership FBI for three seasons, through 2026-27, while Most Wanted and International were given one-season pickups, which are up in May." How it's written now implies there is a "definitive" future for all three shows together which is misleading, it should be made clear that *only one* is "definitively" continuing in that context and the other one is still to be determined. That is just a fact and it is clearly stated in the article, so it is not original research. You said we should deal with "what is definitive," but the crossovers are not definitive, a)because the new show has not been ordered yet and b) because only one of the three potential shows set in New York has been definitively renewed for two seasons. newsjunkie (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystalball and, deals in definitive fact, not speculative ideas.. Definitively, right now, Most Wanted and International were renewed for one-season renewals in May 2024. That's what is known. How it's written now is how Deadline Hollywood has reported it, in definitive terms. And honestly, it doesn't even allude to the future of either series, simply that it would exist in the same universal timelines as FBI and Most Wanted, which would allow for crossovers. You added in fluffed wording creates non-definitive, assumed original research, when definitively, we know what's been reported. Per the report, it states: With its New York setting, FBI: CIA would live in the same universe as FBI and FBI: Most Wanted, allowing for crossovers, something Wolf has mastered on his shows. (Wolf Entertainment's Law & Order franchise also is set in the Big Apple but its NBCUniversal home would make cross-pollination difficult.) How is that not definitive? Deadline Hollywood is telling us what it would allow for, not what it "could" allow for, which is not definitive. livelikemusic (TALK!) 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not definitive because the "crossovers" would for one of the two shows depend on its renewal status, which as you say and the article also does is *not definitive." I don't see how it's speculation or original research to say that renewal is "to be determined." They are definitely going to make a decision one way or the other, it's not a given it's renewed and it's not a given that it's cancelled, but that context which the article will also raises I think is important to understand what the options are. This article on "Paramount Plus" shows for example notes that the renewal status for several shows is "pending" which is really the only thing I wanted to make clear: List of Paramount+ original programming. To note that a decision is going to be made in one direction or another when one is definitely going to happen I don't think is speculation, like stating there is going to be an election or there are going to be future Emmy Awards. (And I don't think "could" is really problematic because other than the backdoor pilot episode the article is outlining things that could happen, but have not been definitively decided yet, so it's just expressing what the article says) newsjunkie (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Newsjunkie reported by User:Laterthanyouthink (Result: ). Thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your questions on the talk page and had already supplied extra citations. newsjunkie (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]