User talk:JacktheBrown/Archives/ 3

Ukranie Russian war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: edit war? Not true. And anyway, if that were true, the edit war is with you, so there's no point in you sending me the warning. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You have reverted [[1]] [[2]] [[3]], a revert does not have to be all of an edit, only some of it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

And no, not just me. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can give you a contentious topic, you can’t forbid them

This page doesn’t belong to you. Yes, you can remove things, that signifies that you’ve read it. “ Also, a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to. Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or a similar kind of disruptive behavior.”. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: the user in question has never previously "banned" me from writing on their talk page, on the contrary they "banned" me without warning me first (see: [4]). I'm not at fault, I only contacted them once, today. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m just telling you policy. You can ban someone from the usual sort of posts, but not from giving you that alert. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sapsby (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sapsby: you have reported me for objectively correct edits; clearly you want to kill my Wikipedia profile. Congratulations. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

White pizza and Pizza bianca

I have now split the article. I believe you saw my proposal and didn't object.

We could use a photo of a pizza bianca, if you can get hold of one. If you can take it yourself, that is. Also, there's content from it:Pizza bianca that could be added to the English article. Un assiolo (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: very good work, congratulations! JacktheBrown (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi, Jack. I'm sorry to have to inform you that you've been topic banned from WP:GENSEX per the discussion at ANI. I'm hoping this won't be a difficult area for you to avoid, as it's nowhere near any of your primary editing interests.

Please read the links above to make sure you understand exactly what this means, as while I'm not adding broadly construed to this (which I hope will help you stay out of trouble), you really shouldn't get anywhere near it. Any questions, general ones about what this means or specific ones about whether a particular edit would be seen as violating this, should be dealt with here on your talk page by discussing with an administrator. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: you administrators have made a very fair decision. "I'm hoping this won't be a difficult area for you to avoid, as it's nowhere near any of your primary editing interests.": no problem. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: could you please list me all the controversial articles that I should, to be safe, avoid? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That isn't possible. Just stay away from anything vaguely to do with sexuality. And it's not just articles, it's anywhere. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, Doug is correct, it's impossible to list every article where GENSEX could apply. One thing you can do is check the article's talk page to see if it's listed as a CT within GENSEX, as some aren't obvious. For instance, J. K. Rowling is listed as contentious within GENSEX. She herself is a cisgender woman, but she's expressed opinions about trans people that are controversial. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, it would be much simpler if you advised that they shouldn't discuss or edit about sexuality or gender anywhere and that they should stay away form articles where it is clear that is a major part of the material. TarnishedPath^talk 14:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I would like to inform you that the user blocked indefinitely created this, but I never used those two accounts and IPs; I would like a check user to take care of it. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's something we don't do. See WP:CHECKME. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: if it's not checked, it should be closed; I never used those two accounts and IPs, but I would like a decision to be made. Thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it should not be closed. You're accused of using accounts, not just IPs. I'm not touching it . Doug Weller talk 14:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, there's a backlog, it'll be closed eventually. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, the WP:TBAN policy explicitly states that WP:BROADLY applies unless otherwise stated. Are you explicitly stating that WP:BROADLY doesn't apply? TarnishedPath^talk 14:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. I think without broadly construed it is confusing and ambiguous. How would an editor know what they could not do? Doug Weller talk 14:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I entirely agree. How would an editor know where the bounds are? TarnishedPath^talk 14:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I intentionally left out broadly construed because it's GENSEX, but I see TP is correct that this needs to be specifically stated, so I'll go do that at the editing restrictions. I don't feel it's any more confusing or ambiguous with/without, but I do feel someone could jump on the t-banned editor for validly correcting a typo from he > her, for example. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I would like to stay completely out of topics on GENSEX, they aren't suitable for me. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Jumping on someone for a he/her typo would obviously be out of order, but I do feel that without the WP:BROADLY the terms of the WP:TBAN become too ambiguous. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You can bring it up at WP:XRV if you like. I'm open to the community deciding I'm incorrect. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll think about it. I'm generally against going to appeal boards so I probably won't. I do however think that leaving out the BROADLY is leaving it more problematic both for the editor and everyone else. I'll leave it there for this particular discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 14:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on this too, but I've taken them to Valereee's talk page. If any of this ends up affecting JTB, someone can update him. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As a t-banned editor for about 18 months, I can attest that the "broadly construed" part is exactly what's kept me thinking I'll be jumped for correcting any small typo at J.K. Rowling's article. I agree that such a jump would be "obviously" out of order, but that wouldn't stop it from happening; the truth of what's "obvious" would just become part of the post-jump discussion. I advise you keep strictly to that simplest path of complete avoidance you mentioned at 14:39, Jack, and be lulled into no sense of security (false or otherwise). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I've made plenty of edits involving gender and sexuality during my ban, and not one has been a problem to anyone. Granted, you have no reason to think my past experience indicative of your own future results, so choose wisely. But I think you'll likewise have nothing to fear when it involves cis people's genders and sexualities. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I have forbidden myself to edit all controversial topics; style changes (example: MOS:CAPTION and MOS:GEOLINK) are, obviously, allowed: [5]. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If those allowances are what's obvious to you at this point, I think that only seems fair; good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Jack. The discussion at AN is telling me pretty clearly that I did not have this much discretion in setting the limits of the topic ban from GENSEX; I'm going to have to convert it to a 'broadly construed' restriction.

Broadly construed in GENSEX is particularly difficult to navigate. It often intersects with BLP, another contentious topic, the level of scrutiny for folks under a GENSEX tban is extremely high, and the tolerance for edits that can trigger a complaint is extremely low. I would highly recommend you ask here first before editing a biography of anyone who is not cisgender and/or of anyone who has ever weighed in on subjects of gender/sexual identity/politics. And as I said before, check the talk page headers; if GENSEX is in there, just let it go, even if it's an obvious typo. Don't weigh in on any discussions anywhere that involve GENSEX. Literally the only place you should be discussing or asking questions is here on this talk page with me or another admin. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I didn't understand; can I edit, for example, pages like Ricky Martin (he's homosexual), Tiziano Ferro (he's homosexual) and Gianni Versace (he was homosexual)? JacktheBrown (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: JacktheBrown, why are you editing Featured article J. K. Rowling if you are topic banned from GENSEX? Has your topic ban been removed? I was coming here to tell you that your edits at JKR introduced problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, Doug Weller, and Firefangledfeathers: I have now found and reviewed the discussion at WP:AN re whether the ban was broadly construed. Considering the comment on this page by InedibleHulk at 19:14, 23 August 2024, I wonder if the unnecessary and trivial style changes at J. K. Rowling were to test the boundaries of the topic ban. At any rate, I've reverted the changes so that JacktheBrown need not engage on article talk, considering the ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to test the boundaries of the topic ban, and she isn't transgender. Do you think I'm a bad editor? JacktheBrown (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about you to know if you're a bad editor, but this edit is disruptive; if you want one Geolink reinstated, then you could just do that without reinstating the rest of the problems described on talk. Please review WP:EDITWAR, and gain consensus before reinstating edits. WP:BRD is good practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

BLPs

Jack, you'd asked whether you are allowed to edit Ricky Martin, Tiziano Ferro, and Gianni Versace, all of whom are/were gay. None of these articles has a GENSEX banner, so in theory you should be able to edit any portion of those articles that didn't deal with their sexuality or their stance on politics, etc., as it affects LGBTQ+ people.

In practice, however: probably best to simply stay away. One thing other editors definitely do not want to see is any hint of you 'nibbling around the edges' of the topic ban. The goal here is to avoid it altogether, not try to determine exact boundaries. No one really knows what broadly construed means. The exact boundaries are always going to be blurry and are always going to be in the eye of the beholder. Trying to figure those boundaries out for yourself is just going to make people think you're trying to figure out how to game the system.

And again, to be very, very clear: you may only ask these questions HERE. You may not ask them or discuss the ban on any other page, including my talk, Teahouse, or anywhere else. The only exception is in an appeal, which is not something you should even be thinking about right now. Valereee (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: no, I absolutely don't want to violate the rules, the rules must be respected. Simply I have already edited these three articles in the past (for example, regarding an unmentioned article, I wrote the initial quote on the Sergio Leone page (here). I'm Italian, so I know Leone very well; excluding me from editing the page wouldn't be good for the encyclopaedia). JacktheBrown (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether a particular edit is or isn't good for the encyclopedia isn't going to be part of anyone's assessment of whether or not that edit violates a topic ban. I am not exaggerating; it will receive zero consideration. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: so basically I can no longer edit any page of any living person? Only Italian cuisine? I don't comment. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you can edit pages of living people, the tban is not about BLPs. It's when a BLP crosses into sexuality and gender that you need to be careful. Leone isn't gay? Totally outside the tban except something like reporting his stance on LGBTQ+ people or something. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: however, Sergio Leone was heterosexual. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, so probably completely outside the tban unless like J. K. Rowling he's made statements or has done work that would be covered by the ban. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: but for homosexual people I can't even make style changes (e.g. MOS:CAPTION)? JacktheBrown (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not that simple. In theory, you can work on biographies of people who are LGBTQ+, and in general it should be outside the topic ban if the article is not bannered as GENSEX and the edits you're making aren't related to GENSEX. The fact a person is LGBTQ+ doesn't mean the article about them is necessarily contentious. Some gay people are just people who are gay. Others are contentious figures. Some cis people involve themselves in gender politics.

It might be more productive if you'd like to ask about a specific edit you were wondering if you can make rather than trying to pin down the hypothetical boundaries, which as I've said are blurry and in the eye of the beholder. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: the specific edits are, for example, MOS:CAPTION, MOS:GEOLINK, fixing quotation marks and apostrophes, adding commas, etc. (see: [6]). JacktheBrown (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

At Foreign relations of Israel? What are you seeing as possibly GENSEX there? This tban isn't about all WP:contentious topics. It's about WP:GENSEX, gender and sexuality. Valereee (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: no, this is an example of the kind of edits I'm talking about. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, in theory edits like these should be fine in an article that both

1. isn't bannered GENSEX
2. and, even if the article itself isn't bannered, aren't within a section that deals with GENSEX-related content.

You can read more at WP:TBAN, which uses a tban from 'weather' as an example. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: in order to avoid risks, I will only edit pages about sexually non-controversial people, and therefore, as a consequence, articles about these people will be less precise in terms of style changes. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I certainly can't edit the article about Valentina Petrillo, but it contains numerous errors:
– "Petrillo" is repeated in every sentence, creating many unnecessary repetitions;
– inside the infobox "Italy" is missing after "Naples", which is written "Napoli" (in Italian)
– etc.

"...and therefore, as a consequence, articles about these people will be less precise in terms of style changes." is now reality. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the fact she is trans is interwoven throughout this article and would be difficult to avoid. Like literally you could change Naples > Naples, Italy in the infobox, and that's about it, and really how valuable is that? The vast majority of English speakers know Naples means Naples, Italy. It's Naples, Florida that really needs to be specified.

I'd have tripped over the fact she's referred to by her name three times within a single paragraph, too, but that para is about her transition, so yes, absolutely not something you should be editing.

I get that you're unhappy and believe this is a net negative for the encyclopedia. But the community was clear they wanted you out of this topic. That is just something you're going to have to deal with, and hopefully that you'll be able to learn from going forward. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: no, I'm not sad about this, since this isn't a topic that interests me. It's the encyclopaedia that loses some quality, not me; this is absolutely not a provocation, but reality. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are we wasting my time on a subject that doesn't interest you, Jack? Valereee (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: because the new revision of the topic ban that I received is, in my opinion, not perfect, and although this topic doesn't interest me, I'm interested in correcting style errors in all topics, but since it's blocked I'm no longer interested in the GENSEX topic. In any case, the encyclopaedia loses something; I hope I will not be attacked harshly again for writing this last sentence, which is completely correct, as did a user here whose nickname I will not mention (however, their nickname is the second one written on my user page). JacktheBrown (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course it isn't perfect. And I'm not going to re-read that entire discussion to try to figure out what you're alluding to. If this was all in aid of making some point to me, realize I'm the frickin' choir. Please don't ping me to make another point. Ping me only if you have an actual question about an article you actually are interested in editing and aren't sure whether you are allowed. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: it was an outburst, obviously not against you; I wanted my opinion to count. "Ping me only if you have an actual question about an article you actually are interested in editing and aren't sure whether you are allowed.": certainly, thank you very much. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown, your edits to J. K. Rowling are definitely topic ban violations. This was given to you as an example of an article you shouldn't edit, and the talk page notes the connection to the GENSEX topic area using the standard banner, which Valereee had cautioned you to check for. Please be much more cautious moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What the heck, Jack? Please explain why you edited that article. Valereee (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers@Valereee I'd think this warrants at least a short block. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering that the violations are continuing, I think a block is necessary. Pinging SandyGeorgia down to this section so we can hopefully consolidate discussion (not that this needs a response from you).

JTB, you can't edit Rowling's article. No one has said you're a "bad editor", but when you're told not to do something and keep doing it anyway, we all start to wonder how else—besides with a block—we can expect your conduct to change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Violations are continuing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I was replying to the user. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't talk about Rowling anywhere. You can ask questions about the limits of your ban here, within reason. You should have read WP:TBAN by now and asked specific questions if you didn't understand. You are asking a lot of the community right now. Have you actually spent time reading up on GENSEX and TBAN? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's actually a discussion above about whether making an innocuous edit at Rowling -- an article I chose to use as an example because I thought it was on-the-cusp -- would violate the tban, and whether a complaint about such an edit was out of order. I don't think Jack should have tested the waters, but I also don't think this is necessarily definitely a vio. Willing to be convinced. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like this limit to be clearer. I thought I could edit the J. K. Rowling article, since she isn't transgender; so I can't even edit articles about Elon Musk and Donald Trump? Not even the Gianni Versace article? Please be clearer. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I literally wrote just days ago One thing you can do is check the article's talk page to see if it's listed as a CT within GENSEX, as some aren't obvious. For instance, J. K. Rowling is listed as contentious within GENSEX. She herself is a cisgender woman, but she's expressed opinions about trans people that are controversial. I thought that was a clear instruction that you shouldn't edit JK Rowling. And I picked that example at random, not because I thought there was any remote possibility you'd want to edit that article. Why the heck are you even editing an article that is that far outside your wheelhouse or interests?

Clearer: don't edit any articles that are marked as controversial on their talk. Clear enough? It's well beyond your actual tban, but if you want a bright line, that's pretty close to one. Or how about "only edit Italian foods and dishes". Is that clear enough? You're asking us to give you some bright line. I can guarantee you every bright line we can possibly come up with will be much, much worse than the topic ban. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: thank you, it's much clearer now. Curiosity: Elon Musk also criticised Imane Khelif, should I avoid editing this page too? I'm referring, of course, only to style changes. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Jack, do you really want me to tell you not to edit anything but Italian foods and dishes? Valereee (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: this would be excessively too restrictive. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Then you're going to have to learn how to use some judgment. Valereee (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: then I will need some help to learn it. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that probably means you're unlikely to become a good fit here. Valereee (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators, could you please block me from the J. K. Rowling article indefinitely? I mean with the padlock. Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to block you from every article you shouldn't edit. It would be in the thousands, and it would take me months. A tban, unfortunately, is your responsibility. Valereee (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Sock

Why are you making such an accusation? Enamait (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, i know the page is ok now. I was complaining about still being indefinitely blocked from editing the Agnolotti page. This is because, months ago, I removed the nonsense from Xiamochel and his sockpuppets, and as a result, an admin blocked me for edit warring, that is why i am extremely disappointed and lost hopes. --Frukko (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frukko: don't worry, I'm here to fight their socks. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

great, apppreciate. --Frukko (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there; I know nothing about what lead to your tban, but from what I read above, I admire your courage to disagree with everyone else, and being criticised, all alone.

Why don’t you just shut up and retire?

I tell you it IS tiring to argue what you can and cannot say or do. This Wikipedia is just !?!?!??!!!

They want you to shut up. So you should :)

May I invite you to join the soon-to-be-established WP:PROJECT “Topic ban user retirement plan and support”?

(But hey, are you kidding? Decided to retire but actively joining a new project?)

Oh or maybe you start the project first, so that I can join later? :)

It’s just Wikipedia. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld: thank you very much for these kind words, I really thank you. Anyway, I will think about it. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I’m not sure whether I’m the “sexually non-controversial people” that you mentioned above. So you’d better avoid editing my talk page, just ping me here if needed ;) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

email

Hey, Jack! I don't like having these conversations via email. The type of discussion you're asking about is allowed here on your talk, and I don't like having this kind of conversation privately because other editors can't see what I'm saying, which means they don't have the opportunity to disagree. It's better for you to have this discussion here, as others may think I'm giving bad advice. Valereee (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: "...as others may think I'm giving bad advice." You always give me great advice, in my opinion you're a very good administrator. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: "...I don't like having these conversations via email. The type of discussion you're asking about is allowed here on your talk...". Yes, I agree 100%. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox deletion

Is there some reason why you keep nominating your sandbox for deletion? There's nothing in here. Why not just leave it? -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: yes, you're right; in this case there's nothing in here, it's definitely better to leave it. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Trivelino

Hi, you did not provide a rationale for your PROD at Trivelino. Please do so. The date is also malformed, so I suggest copying {{subst:proposed deletion|concern=CONCERN}} and replacing "CONCERN" with your reason for nominating the page for deletion. ✗plicit 12:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Explicit: I hope I have solved. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-attributed translations

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from it:Bacaro to another page. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Southern question

I thought the opening should be cased same as the page title, Am I wrong ? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So you rather editwar than enlighten me to why. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime: "Southern" should be written in lowercase (see: Talk:Southern Italy#Lowercase or uppercase?). JacktheBrown (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Your recent editing history at Southern question shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime: where's the edit war? You asked me a question and restored your change without waiting (I answered you), don't be impatient. It's too easy to send a warning, less easy to be patient. I wish you a good night. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Just FYI but generally you shouldn't edit comments after they have been replied to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: you're right. I just wanted to change the sentence about climate change, the existence of which has been scientifically proven. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries I don't mind, but be careful some editors can get upset by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

I reverted your edit as 'very renowned' is not good English. In general, something/someone is either renowned or not (unrenowned isn't used much these days). I guess if you're looking to expand on 'renowned' then world renowned might be a qualifier.

'Famous for' would probably be too flowery although I personally wouldn't object.

Hope this is ok. I'm not great at explaining things sometimes. Knitsey (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Knitsey: all right, no problem. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Italy

Hi, because you eliminated content with a source and added information without a source (for certain statements, sources are really needed). Hi, LukeWiller (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC).

Hi, because this sentence has a reliable source. LukeWiller (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC) .

Because it is impossible for you to grammatically improve an article already copyedited by the gilda. LukeWiller (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC).

I would like to point out that the gilda has also carefully checked the contents. LukeWiller (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC).

Topic ban violation

In this edit, you acknowledge that you are commenting about something that you are not permitted to comment about (presumably the RfC on The Telegraph and transgender topics). I'm not sure why you would think this is okay. It's not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Jack, I know I've been short with you at certain points in the past, in a way that could've potentially been discouraging—but I've been seeing a lot of good work from you lately and wanted to thank you for it. I'm glad to see it. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论 21:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: it's also thanks to you that I've improved as a user. I'm studying all the rules VERY WELL, and I'm happy that my work is appreciated even more than before (I've also improved the edit summaries a lot, if you've noticed). JacktheBrown (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have! I'm happy it's working out for you. Remsense ‥ 论 22:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@BGerdemann (WMF): thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sausages in Italian cuisine

Hello. With reference to your recent edit to the above article: I would consider adding the link back into the article. Some readers may not have heard of 'Tuscan' or Tuscany and the link would be helpful to them. If a link complies with MOS:OVERLINK, it should be included. arcticocean ▪ 21:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Arcticocean: restored: [7]. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you! arcticocean ▪ 21:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)