User talk:Joustice

Welcome!

Hello, Joustice! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hasan Piker, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Panda619 (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

All changes were provided with sources that were already considered reliable enough to be used throughout the page already. Dextero, used several times as a source for multiple articles on the same page. TimCast, another reputable source, and finally cosmopolitan, a source which was already included on Hasan Pikers page for other reasons. either you are telling me those are not reliable enough in your opinion thus all of the references from these outlets should be removed or you are the master of what belongs on wiki? Take your pick Joustice (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hasan Piker, you may be blocked from editing. The sources provided are not WP:RELIABLE and content added is WP:OR and not in WP:NPOV Panda619 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:GF WP:EW. Citation changing to https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.12843.pdf Cornell university WP:RELIABLE source no longer WP:OR per table XIII “list of channels within each channel category. “ pg 27 “far left (-2)” “Hasan Piker” WP:VERIFY Joustice (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see arXiv. You can drop all the caps you want, but arXiv contains non-peer reviewed papers. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hasan Piker. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• WP:GF context necessary to know political bias of commentator. arXiv contains preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed and hence should be used with a high degree of caution. Per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS, these reports should not be used to support medical or scientific claims. Inline direct quote used Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons WP:VERIFY Joustice (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • What. What does that even mean? What you're citing means, really, that this source is not to be used. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I was acting in good faith to provide context to a reader looking to know the political lean of a political commentator they may wish to watch. I used inline citation for “Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons“ which is required. Per the arXiv cite template page, this source is not against this rules in this situation. Verifiability does not mention any requirement of citations being peer or scholarly reviewed, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Joustice (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Cracker (term). WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:COPY Panda619 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Panda619 I did not insert any unpublished information, nor did I use any WP:OR, everything was a published sourced using direct in-text quotes which is not WP:COPYPASTE, WP:COPY NPR and the History Faculty Publications expert statements by three historians who work specifically on the history of the word 'Cracker', one Historian (Dana Ste. Claire)a former curator of history and a professional archaeologist at the Museum of Arts and Sciences in Daytona Beach who wrote a book on the word 'Cracker' these experts were used entirely to support the material. With that said, the first sentence "A second hypothesis term could have derived from the Middle English cnac, craic, or crak, which originally meant the sound of a cracking whip" is purely based off of assumption using a definition of a word in a dictionary only, not any actual expert notation that the word is part of the etymology which is absolutely WP:CHERRYPICK using WP:OR, however this unsupported misinformation statement has been reverberated throughout the internet in the last few days. This must be removed if you are arguing WP:NPOV.

As stated in WP:NOR, "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." which even then, I hardly rewrote any material instead relying on inline citations. This nullifies the claim of WP:SYNTH since as stated "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." which I did not do. a single reliable published source via history Faculty Publications was used to support this. the expert directly noted the use of the compound "corn-cracker"being associated to "poor white working-class southerners" who suggest that the name "intended to indicate a diet rooted in scarcity", for example the use of 'clay-eater', 'corn-cracker', or 'rabbit-twister'

As per wiki inline citations: Many Wikipedia articles contain inline citations: they are required for Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles. There are many ways to add inline citations to an article. Each is acceptable under Wikipedia's citation style guideline, but a single article should use only one type.

Please stop warning me and telling me im doing something wrong if you arent going to be helpful in providing context as to what EXACTLY I did wrong and how it does not comply to the various links to want to put on my screen.

Talk page

Joustice, I reverted your post at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos as it was not related to improving the article. I did want to respond in part to say that you have not been banned by Drmies, though I see you have been given a final warning. Firefangledfeathers 15:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, thank you for your response. I added the comment to get an explanation as to why classification on one figure is not allowed on the other. With that said, I would like to add the political lean of the political commentator which I feel is absolutely necessary for a reader to make a decision about viewership, however I have been repeatedly denied by editors and now by an admin. This label has been supported by the multiple sources listed below.

Allebach, Nathan. "The Most Influential Political Identities From Left To Right". https://medium.com/. Paragraph 14: Medium. Prominent Far-Leftist Media Outlets, Groups, And Figures: Hasan Piker {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Horetski, Dylan. "Ludwig explains why he crops Hasan out of his YouTube videos". https://www.dexerto.com/. Paragraph 6: dexerto. Having been on the far left of the image, Hasan continued to mention a few details {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Masiello, Shawna. "Hasan 'HasanAbi' Piker receives Twitch ban for racial slur". https://poptopic.com.au/. Paragraph 1: poptopic. HasanAbi is known for his far-left political takes {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Fairbanks, Cassandra (Dec, 14, 2021). "Popular Twitch Streamers Hasan Piker and Vaush Banned From Platform for Racism Against White People". https://timcast.com/. Paragraph 1: timcast. Popular far-left Twitch streamers Hasan Piker and Vaush have been banned from the platform for using slurs against white people {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |website= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Homa Hosseinmardi; Amir Ghasemian; Aaron Clauset; David M. Rothschild; Markus Mobius; Duncan J. Watts (Nov, 25, 2020). "Evaluating the scale, growth, and origins of right-wing echo chambers on YouTube". arxiv.org. Table XIII "List of channel titles within each channel category.": Cornell University. p. 27. Cell A2"far left" Cell B2 "Hasan Piker" {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Please confirm that these sources are verifiable and considered a consensus to label "Hasan Piker" as "far-left"

I would recommend posting this at Talk:Hassan Piker so other editors can weigh in. I would leave off the 'Medium' source, as I know off the top of my head that it's generally considered unreliable. Firefangledfeathers 16:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Firefangledfeathers. Joustice, attacking other editors in this backhanded way is kind of low, but worse is that you still do not seem to grasp what WP:RS is all about. "This is the first time Ive heard of wiki requiring citations to be peer reviewed"--well, if so, that is not a good sign, because peer review, for academic articles, is simply the norm. And if you take Timcast.com, for instance, to WP:RSN, I have no doubt that you will be told that websites from podcasters are not acceptable either. And what makes this gaming site an appropriate source for editing BLPs? You are not helping your case here by citing opinions by non-notable people published on such websites. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Drmies Attacking others? Your first message to me was "You can drop all the caps you want" as if you assumed I was acting in malice and anger. I'm simply reaching out to other admins and users in other situations involving classification of figures political lean on wiki, more specifically, identify how talks in Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos about his classification exists and are enforced despite some sources not complying to WP:RSN as argued by editors. I aim to understand this so I achieve my goal of providing the necessary content needed for a reader to reach an educated informed conclusion, all in good faith. Two admins had responded to this same situation in two different talks at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos where I assumed explaining my own situation in an attempt to get the help would be the next best option. I'm shocked by your complete dismissiveness of my attempted contributions to a wiki page. I'm asking that you follow the principles of wikipedia etiquetteWikipedia:Etiquette