User talk:Just10A

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]

@Just10A - sourcing and WP:verifiability

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]

Sorry - Proceed to DR?

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]

Edits not editors August 2024

@Just10A, the comment pasted below that you directed at @Soibangla on Talk:Project 2025#Mention Trump's disavowal in lede? is not helpful and a little inflammatory on a thread that has already spun out of control. Wanted to give you another gentle reminder to focus on edits and not editors.

"Of course. You're just so benevolent, that must be why your talk page is riddled with disciplinary action. Please, sell it somewhere else..." Superb Owl (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd agree. In this scenario, however, he opened the door to the subject of his personal credibility when he cited it as to how he disregards criticism. As a consequence, his personal traits were relevant. Just10A (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how many disciplinary actions do you see in the five years of edits shown on my Talk page? not complaints from editors, disciplinary actions.

how many blocks do I have after more than a decade of almost exclusively editing contentious political articles? sure, it's only natural I might scrape a guardrail occasionally, but it's not often.

there has been no attempt to censor P25 or to even ignore or resist suggested alternatives, we've reached consensus on issues just like we always do everywhere. I know what it's like to not win consensus for my suggestions, and now you do as well. soibangla (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Reprimand is a disciplinary action. Further, I’m not going to argue semantics with you.

2.) You are literally banned as we speak from another Trump related article lol. Just10A (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it took you this long to find a way to wriggle out of your bogus allegation, then you refuse to further discuss it. just classic. soibangla (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If y'all are gonna keep at it, please start another thread without me on it Superb Owl (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lmfao. Yeah definitely dude. The idea of “arguing semantics being futile” definitely originated with me and has 0 precedent. Your record speaks for itself. I think we’re done here. Just10A (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so how many admin "reprimands" did you find among the 175 discussions spanning five years on my Talk page? how many bans and blocks did you find? I know the answers, but I'd like to hear them from you. Your record speaks for itself. indeed it does. soibangla (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You done? Get off my page. Just10A (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False notices

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]

ChatGPT

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]