User talk:NacreousPuma855

Welcome

Hello, NacreousPuma855, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Liz ^Read! Talk! 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! NacreousPuma855, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^Read! Talk! 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully) helpful advice

I see the issues you've been having with newsjunkie - both content and behavioral. However, she has repeatedly shown that she is WP:NOTLISTENING and has a tendency to try to get the last word. Don't be drawn into those wall-of-text discussions. It's best to just make your point and leave it at that. If you find yourself repeating what you've already stated, it's best to just take a step back and wait. Belaboring the point tends to make the other editor dig in defensively rather than coming around to cease whatever objectionable thing they're doing (if that makes sense). If something's truly bad, you can ping me or make a note on my talk page. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the advice. She's been giving me a headache for the past few days with her policy violations. As an autistic individual, I was kind of getting frustrated. I will step back from her for awhile. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand on my advice above: Don't make things personal regarding the issues with newsjunkie. In the RfC she posted, your comment is definitely unhelpful and could appear to be WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I understand the issue on the actual article. However, seeking input from the community (specifically TV project editors) through an RfC is exactly the correct way to handle the content dispute. We want people to learn from past mistakes and correct them going forward. By seeking an RfC, she's showing that she is trying to do things the correct way. If it turns out that she hasn't changed, then that will become apparent on its own. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I’m sorry. It’s just that she’s been trying to get her own version. I understand the policy now though and am sorry for not understanding. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s just that she’s been trying to get her own version. I get it. But you have to let the process play out. As I noted, if she's not here to build an encyclopedia, it will become evident. If she is really trying, then that will also become evident through behavioral change based on past mistakes. Please note that I'm pointing this out as best I can for your benefit as well - I don't like seeing anyone get blocked - it's better to see people improve. That goes for both of you. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. newsjunkie (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

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

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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

Request for input on Ryan Holiday article

Hello! There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality, tone, and sourcing on the Ryan Holiday article involving editors me and Vegantics. Given your experience with biographies and Wikipedia guidelines, your perspective would be valuable. If you have a moment, please share your thoughts here. Thanks in advance for your help!--IndyNotes (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

@NacreousPuma855: Thanks for your note. My intention in reaching out was entirely consistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines on canvassing, specifically adhering to the practice of neutral and limited notifications.

As outlined in WP:APPNOTE, neutrally worded requests for input from editors experienced in a relevant policy area—such as neutrality, sourcing, or biographies—are expressly permitted. The message I left was neutral, brief, and sought general input without suggesting or advocating any specific outcome. I reached out to editors who were regularly engaged in disputes and disagreements, suggesting familiarity with Wikipedia's standards on neutrality and sourcing. This neutral request for expertise is explicitly allowed under the section on "Friendly notices" in WP:CANVASSING.

I appreciate your diligence in upholding community standards, but in this case, I think my actions complied with both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I'm committed to consensus-building through transparent and neutral collaboration. Thanks again for raising the concern—I hope this clarifies the issue. IndyNotes (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I now understand what was going on. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution

I do believe your intentions are in good faith. However, some of your interactions with newsjunkie - especially in this last ANI discussion - were in my opinion a little too much. Sometimes, it's best to say your piece and then step back from it. If you find yourself saying something you've already said, there's usually not a reason to repeat it. There also usually not a reason to repeat something that someone else said to them.

So with that in mind - and this is my opinion, so take it for what it's worth - I would try to keep an arms-length distance from newsjunkie for a little while. Don't give the impression that you're following them around for the wrong reasons. Avoid interaction and be judicious in any interactions that cannot be avoided. You may have to have interaction in some cases where there are articles you've both been working on, so just try to give them the benefit of the doubt (WP:AGF). The objective is to see change rather than create conflict. Sanctions are only a last resort. Seeing (and helping) newsjunkie improve would be a better outcome. If you find yourself frustrated with them again, sometimes it's best to step away from it in the moment and come back to it later (or not at all) so that any interaction is with a clear head.

Of course, that is predicated on the fact that newjunkie shows good faith effort to improve. I do think the desire is there, but time will bear it out.

Just my 2 cents... ButlerBlog (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been trying to step back from some talk page discussions. Thanks for the advice, I’m trying to improve, and I bet Newsjunkie is doing the same. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be following Newsjunkie, aka, watching her contributions for revertible content. While that is not always forbidden, you have already received advice that it is unwelcome and can be the basis for sanctions. You are continuing to do it, and at this point, I suggest you stop. Nothing good is going to come from it. Work on improving articles you are interested in, and ignore her. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not trying to be mean here. I don't think Newsjunkie has changed her behavior. As you can tell (if you read my user page), I am interested in television. I'm just trying to clean up her mess. What if she added unsourced material or random gibberish? The Good Wife is a television article and I tend to watch articles like that. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you appear to be following me too. That goes both ways, ma’am. Nothing good is going to come from you watching someone clean up after a disruptive user and leaving notices. Am I being threatened with a block? No. Just because you closed my report doesn’t mean you get to watch what I do. Moderating someone trying to clean up after a disruptive user? NacreousPuma855 (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator elected by the community to deal with behavioral issues. That job sometimes involves paying attention to problem areas. I'm trying to help you here and suggest a course of action with less conflict. I recommend you read WP: WIKIHOUNDING and consider whether you have the editing skills to stay out of trouble. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to be helping is Newsjunkie. She has not changed her behavior continuing to add irrelevant content, YouTube links, excessive references, not moving on, etc. The conflict has been going on for far too long now and to see you continuing to observe and leaving a notice on my talk page, aggravates it even more. I have read the policy, but Newsjunkie's edits are super concerning. This all started with Harry Potter (possibly List of programs broadcast by CBS or Blue Bloods), and has now spread to other pages on the encyclopedia. It is also questionable whether Newsjunkie has the editing skills to stay out of trouble. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

The referencing would need to be citing a lot more third-party sources that weren't self-published by NBC before it could be promoted to mainspace. And if you need further assistance beyond that, you're far better off approaching Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for providing your feedback. The sandbox is still WIP, as I have yet to add the 3 finals groups, along with the Ratings section (which will have sources from Programming Insider). NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]