User talk:JacktheBrown

@ModernManifestDestiny: thank you very much! 🎳 JacktheBrown (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You really don't get how idiotic that sounds? Paradoctor (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Paradoctor: what are you referring to? I've never interacted with you.
"...how idiotic that sounds?". Dear user, education and civility aren't optional. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Check your contributions. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Paradoctor: my contributions are of very good value, which one are you referring to in particular? However, you're no one to negatively criticise the contributions of other users without a valid reason and, even worse, to insult them gratuitously. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have reason, and that you're either unable or unwilling to acknowledge our previous interaction just adds to that. Unless you come up with an appropriate reply, your next reply will be the last one in this conversation. Paradoctor (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Paradoctor: please show me the link; I've participated in many threads, I don't remember all the answers. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Paradoctor: for this? The reason is very simple: the page currently has no consistency with the Template:Lang, so adding just one doesn't make sense, but if you want to add the lang to the whole article, it would be a good contribution. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You're repeating yourself. I won't. Paradoctor (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Paradoctor: then let's close this useless discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Paradoctor: regarding this, It is recognized as a prodotti agroalimentari tradizionali... is grammatically incorrect, because in Italian "prodotti" is plural and in English "a" is singular; never change a part on many articles if you don't know the rules of Italian grammar well. Thank you and have a good day. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Don't contact me anymore. Paradoctor (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Very bad behaviour on your part: first you contacted me calling my edit "idiotic", and now you ask me not to contact you? JacktheBrown (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ref your edit to typewriter, I reverted your change of 'Further reading' to 'Bibliography'. Conventionally, the bibliography is a list of the books cited in a paper. In wikipedia, only article that use {{harv }}ard referencing (using {{sfnp }} etc) make much use of it (though there are quite a few older articles that have 'cold' references like Smith, Jones (1865), p 399 that need converting when someone gets around to it). So 'Further reading' was correct in that context. JMF (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@JMF: same thing here? JacktheBrown (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes and no: yes it's the same principle but no it shouldn't have been there in the first place – the list had no redeeming features. "Further reading" is always a bit dubious in my mind but may be defensible if it is an abstruse academic topic. If not, then it is just a WP:PROMO violation (and violates the spirit of WP:ELNO), though in all probability it was done originally in good faith.

btw, thank you for saving my blushes with my uncompleted 'hidden note' markup. JMF (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Neoplasticism#Further_reading is an example where the list is justified, because the list contains lots of material that could be mined to further improve the article. IMO, of course.--JMF (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I come across a lot of further reading sections that are dubious an editor discretion is advised in removing them.... that said...compiling bibliographies to facilitate research for our readers is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia and is an integral part of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. If sections get too big they usually get moved to their own bibliography Wikipedia:List of bibliographies or removed if they are not academic in nature. Moxy 🍁 01:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Yes, I agree. To me, the most important added value of Wikipedia has been its contribution to "information discovery" (formally, Guide to information sources). So I would tend to let such book lists stand unless really dubious. JMF (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please discuss on the talk page before making any further edits to the article. Please note as well that we do not proactively delete sourced material from an article merely because the article is asserted to be too long. In such cases, we discuss how to reallocate the material first, and then split the article into multiple articles covering different aspects of the topic accordingly. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

the subject bar is a combination of the portal bar and sister project bar. it uses the Wikidata item to link up all the other sister project pages for the subject. so you don't need to have multiple templates for portal, commons, sources, Wiktionary, etc. Also, it includes the link to wikidata, which is often missed out of wikipedia articles. A subject like Italian cuisine is likely to have many articles on different language wikipedias, a situation enabled by using Wikidata to host language independent references and facts providing consistency. so from my perspective, swapping in the subject bar is improving the article from where it was at, even if it may appear to you to be a like-for-like and unnecessary change. I will concede that on the chrome browser, the subject bar's text can present as smaller than the rest of the article text but that's the only drawback I've encountered. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Your (mostly) mistaken changes at Mediterranea Italiana were undone, but you're edit-warring to restore them. Please self-revert, and then – if you wish – take the third step in the WP:BRD cycle: discuss! Please understand that making large numbers of unnecessary/mistaken/pointless edits can become disruptive if continued in the face of opposition. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Justlettersandnumbers: "Edit-warring"? It was really bad of you to delete all my useful work on the Italian Mediterranean buffalo article; I've improved the page, even adding wikilinks to the red ones (I know Italian cuisine very well). JacktheBrown (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment: JacktheBrown is also edit warring intermittently at the Rambo: Last Blood page, as well. They have removed material that is supported by sources three times and I had to revert them each time, [1], [2], [3]. On the last revert they had the gall to say "discuss it in talk page" but didn't even bother opening it up in the talk page themselves, even though it's their grievance to begin with. Armegon (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I appreciate your work on the Culture of Italy article. However it is not appropriate to repeatedly force the removal of the "Very long" template (via reverts) without discussion on [[Talk:Culture of Italy]. The template should only be removed based on consensus. Vineviz (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Vineviz: you're completely right. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think you can have that part about M.Bitton on your talk page, you aren't allowed to use it as an attack page which means that you aren't allowed to make disparaging comments and then link to them like that. M.Bitton knows they've been banned from your talk page, the world should not be told. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Horse Eye's Back: I had completely forgotten about him; in any case, he behaved very rudely towards me.
User page, not talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes... But you can't use your user page to talk about how he has very rude towards you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please do not change comments in significant ways which alter their meaning after they have been responded to as you did here [4], thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Horse Eye's Back: it was necessary, otherwise it could have confused future readers. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It wasn't, it had already been corrected... The next comment says "Yes... But you can't use your user page to talk about how he has very rude towards you." so what you've done is to confuse future readers. Thats why the guideline says don't do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I had also almost hesitated to tell you this before lest it be perceived as gravedancing (M.Bitton was very rude to me as well over the years) but they're gone and likely for good [5]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Horse Eye's Back: he has received an enormous amount of blocks, that's karma.
I'll now delete the section. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Horse Eye's Back:  Done. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Lately you've had a tendency of making broad statements at article talk unsupported by reliable sources. I know you know better than this so I'd suggest you would be wise to recommit to avoiding forumy comments. Furthermore claiming " it seems you all want to paint Donald Trump as a monster," is a failure of WP:AGF especially considering that I've been trying to pretty carefully adhere to WP:BESTSOURCES and to maintain a level of nuance in the discussion while generally calling for civility. Please be careful about this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Simonm223: thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]