User talk:NacreousPuma855
Page contents not supported in other languages.
|
 |
I see the issues you've been having with newsjunkie - both content and behavioral. However, she has repeatedly shown that she isWP: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]
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 beWP:WIKIHOUNDING. I understand the issue on the actual article. However, seeking input from the community (specifically TV project editors) through an RfC isexactly 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]
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'snot 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]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.newsjunkie (talk)03:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human),Uqaqtuq (talk),Huliva06:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]Hello! There's an ongoing discussion about neutrality, tone, and sourcing on theRyan 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 thoughtshere. Thanks in advance for your help!--IndyNotes (talk)15:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NacreousPuma855: Thanks for your note. My intention in reaching out was entirely consistent with Wikipedia’sguidelines on canvassing, specifically adhering to the practice of neutral and limited notifications.
As outlined inWP: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" inWP: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]
I do believe your intentions are in good faith. However, some of your interactions with newsjunkie - especially in this last ANI discussion - werein 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]
The referencing would need to be citing a lot more third-party sources that weren'tself-published by NBC before it could be promoted to mainspace. And if you need further assistance beyond that, you're far better off approachingWikipedia:WikiProject Television.Bearcat (talk)21:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]