User talk:Just10A

Welcome!

Talk page for User Just10A.

just wonderin' soibangla (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Just10A (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

who have had a hisotry of past partisan accusations?[1] soibangla (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Just10A and welcome to Wikipedia.

Just wanted to make sure you read WP:Civility. It looks like you tried to couch a disagreement politely on the Unitary Executive Theory talk page, but wanted to let you know that comments like "As nicely as I can possibly say it, a significant portion of the edits clearly reflect someone with a incomplete education/understanding of a complex academic topic" is not helpful. It is a generalization about an editor when it would be more practical to focus on specific edits than to challenge an editor and what they may or may not know about a topic.
Thanks and I look forward to working together on improving that article Superb Owl (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if there was offense. It was not meant to be an ad-hominem, but the article is about a complex and primarily academic legal topic that, like other similar articles, are at risk of getting substantially hurt by good faith editors who may not be experts on the topic. No harm was intended. Just10A (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that and sense that you are making a good-faith effort as well Superb Owl (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Just10A, as mentioned at Unitary Executive Theory,
1) please try to support your arguments with WP:reliable sources.
2) please review WP:Verifiability around making claims that are controversial in Wikipedia's voice Superb Owl (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue we are discussing on unitary executive theory is supported by a source that was already used in the article. Further, the claims are not controversial. Just10A (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying so without pointing to any sources.
Also, any claims like "All of academia agrees with this" are EXTREMELY hard to verify and need substantial sourcing, which is absent Superb Owl (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally read the source that is listed next to the text. Just10A (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a little bad for dragging in to that mess. Some of the Q crew folks there probably are not going to be swayed by reason. My proposal would be that we just move to RfC. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to, and I would support you. Just10A (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One revert does not entitle you to put an edit warring notice on my talk page. That template should only be added to the pages of editors who have made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. I request that you not post on my talk page again. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made not just 3, but 4 reverts on the Liber Oz page within the last 24 hours. This violates the 3 reversion rule. Just10A (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you are not an editor of that article, and it's considered bad form to post a warning about an article you are not editing yourself. Also, you have been asked not to post to my talk page again, and yet you did anyway. That's harassment. Again, an editor is allowed to ask another editor not to post to their talk page. I have done so. Please respect that. Skyerise (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and plan to, which is why I apologized in the post. Additionally, WP:KEEPOFF is generally frowned upon and is not necessarily binding, especially when the only posts are good-faith legitimate warnings of clear breaches in policy. Unfortunately, I know of no other way to inform someone that they are engaging in an edit war. If that's how you feel, please do not post on my talk page again either. Just10A (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were blocked, I think for a month. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were, I was present in their admin noticeboard discussion. Just10A (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't WP:PA if it is true, to the point, and based on evidence (meaning diffs).

So, me and Doug Weller have run some tests upon a diff from that thread. Results from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written, one scanner even mentioning it has "high confidence" it is AI-written. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI scanners are new, unreliable, and not infallible in any sense. Especially in an issue like this, where it is totally tangental to the actual issue at hand. Your remarks were clearly unconstructive, and the other editor expressly testified that they had not used them. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your remarks did nothing to address the actual issue presented in the talk page, and were solely used to personally attack another editor's credibility, with shaky evidence at best. Just10A (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you may not be aware of my preferred pronouns, but would you mind changing it? DN (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I don't think I can change it per talk page guidelines, but I won't do it again. Just10A (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Far-right politics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Languages of the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hasan Piker, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTRMT clearly states that maintenance templates are to be removed: "1. When the issue has been adequately addressed;" or 2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else) (AKA me, coming across the talk page discussion after the fact).

The community clearly addressed the issue on the talk page. A single dissenter who refuses to elaborate when asked to does not prevent that, that's textbook WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Please do not post such silly things on my talk page again, and do not edit war. Just10A (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like elaborated? --Hipal (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of your policy cites have been elaborated (such as WP:OR, for instance, despite multiple editors attempting to interact with you on it. (If not outright rebutting it preemptively.) And you should do it on the talk page. Just10A (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm confused by what you mean by "elaborated", when I've specifically labeled one elaboration of mine as such, ...elaborating:....

Thank you for identifying WP:OR as an area where you would like more information from me. I wrote, Editors appear to be relying on their personal opinions rather than following policies., The violations I see are BLP, NOT, and POV. Apologies if it could be read otherwise., and There's no OR, besides what's being used to justify inclusion. Summarizing: editors appear to be relying on their personal opinions to support inclusion rather than addressing the relevant policies (NOT, especially NOTNEWS; BLP; POV, especially UNDUE but also RECENTISM issues; and VNOT. There are no OR issues that I'm aware. Does that make it clear? --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no OR, besides what's being used to justify inclusion."

As has been explained to you by multiple editors, and is very clearly stated on Wikipedia:OR "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources"

What is being used to justify inclusion cannot be Wikipedia:OR. the fact you are doubling down on this makes it clear that you yourself need to refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia:OR and that editors have not been misrepresenting you, and you're actually just using it incorrectly. Ratgomery (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring what I wrote, again, There are no OR issues that I'm aware. --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what does "besides what's being used to justify inclusion" mean? does that not mean you are stating that what's being used to justify inclusion is an Wikipedia:OR issue? because it's not. Ratgomery (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk, and thank you again for your time and attention into all this.

I see how you're reading that. Apologies. Doesn't my summary above clarify it? As I noted on your talk, part of my concern is that the personal opinions don't appear to be based upon the sources used. --Hipal (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Qing dynasty on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what year you are, but finals are approaching so good luck. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm a 3L, I checked out long ago (lol). Best of luck to you too. Just10A (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3L here as well. Best of luck with the Bar exam. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Just10A, I think that this was a good edit[2] but just wanted to note in relation to the edit summary "The substance isn't the issue. This is clear WP:QUO/WP:NOCON procedure, see other editors comments on talk." that QUO links to an essay and should not be invoked in that context. There is no QUO procedure and it weakens your whole argument when NOCON alone would be sufficient. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm aware that QUO is technically an essay. I've always considered it one of the essays that "represent widespread norms" though. (You have more experience than I do, so correct me if you disagree, but I would probably say it's the most commonly cited principle on the encyclopedia for disputes.) But you are correct, it's not hard policy and is not binding by itself. I was just trying to give as much support as possible. Thanks for being clear, I should've distinguished. Just10A (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that... Incoming hits are a good indictator how how widely a particular shortlink is used and when we compare for example QUO with ONUS it seems like ONUS is more common... WP:QUO/WP:STATUSQUO combined have 253 hits in the last 30 days, and WP:VNOT/ONUS has 650 hits. And thats the best those numbers get, comparing the entire page Wikipedia:Reverting has only 566 page views in the last 30 days but Wikipedia:Verifiability has nearly 100k so I think it would be a stretch to say its that widely used. If we're talking the most commonly cited principle on the encyclopedia for disputes in terms of linked bold letters my money is on WP:BLP which has 3,834 hits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah my bad, I meant “most cited principle *that isn’t already an established policy/guideline*” That is, it’s the greatest *among the normal essays*. But again, that’s totally anecdotal. I would agree things like WP:V would have to be more prevalent. Either way it’s minor. Thanks for the help. Just10A (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah you're probably right about that, although I am no expert in the field of essays. In general though I think brevity is important, if the policy is solid and supports your point (which it absolutely did there) then adding an essay doesn't make the policy argument look stronger it makes it look like you don't trust the strength policy argument so you're throwing a little more on top. In my experience the strongest arguments on wiki are no longer or more complex than they need to be (and I envy those who can consistently craft such arguments). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back Seeing where that convo has now gone, any advice for how to deal with this? [3] Trying to follow BRD here, but he's just ignoring the talk discussion and wrecking the article space. Just10A (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would take it slow, just let the talk page discussion play out and try not to take anything too personally... Its a very volatile topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reform UK on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Somali Civil War (2009–present) on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]