User talk:Joustice

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 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 arXiv contains preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed and hence should be used with a high degree of caution.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)

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)

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)


 * , 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.












 * 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, . 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)


 * 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 etiquetteEtiquette