User talk:Jackjd0

Thank you for the thank you!

I’mmm.. not sure if this an appropriate use of the “talk” area. Apologies if not. I want to thank you for being my first thank you for my edit! Markspapercut (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

im gonna be so real, i have no idea either. i only started doing this a lot recently and im making it up as i go. im glad tho. i do a lot of vandalism patrol so when i see an edit that is just straightforward good editing i like to show that someone is looking and appreciatingJackjd0 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it! I’m glad you’re looking out for vandalism.. I also started this recently as a little side hobby, even? I work, have stuff to do, but whenever I’m bored.. I like to read, educate myself, and fix things along the road for not only myself, but others that like to learn.

I hope you do well with your editing goals! I need to edit my User Page.. Markspapercut (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Noelia

my dear friend you revert crucial updated information about Noelia.. wrong Latintechreporter (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

if you feel this way, feel free to re add the information, with proper sources. wikipedia is very strict in it's guidelines about biographies of living people, i dont make the rules. Jackjd0 (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you,am a Journalist and her page is missing almost 2 years of updates, she now become the most powerful and Rich Latina in the World with a 12 Billion Dollars empire, she is news Latintechreporter (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

im sure that will make finding sources quite easy then

Jackjd0 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

[] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latintechreporter (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Noelia

https://app.chartmetric.com/artist/63052 ~2026-40902-92 (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Noelia Stats

https://app.chartmetric.com/artist/63052 Latintechreporter (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

can i ask why you are putting these on my talk page? in case you did not see my earlier reply, the way to add information to wikipedia without it getting deleted is to add it, with sources, to the page. you don't need my permission to edit it. my only role here is chosing to undo edits that violate the policies. if you follow the policies, the information will stay.

Jackjd0 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Dead links in references

Hi Jackjd0. I wanted to point you to WP:DEADLINK, which has some useful advice about how to deal with dead links in sources/references. In general, it's best not to remove them, but rather use something like {{Dead link}} instead, which identifies the problem for someone else, possibly a bot, to fix if you're not able to. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

yes, i saw you doing that and went and familliarized myself with it- thank you. and thank you for talking to that person and working on that page. i tried my best to follow guidelines as i understood them but i wasnt sure how to help in that situation. if there is anything else i could/ should have done differently, plz let me know. i was trying to be helpful but apparently it didnt work. 😬 Jackjd0 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Active dispute on Rouran Khagante

Hello there. Looks like you made a mistake by thinking I made a mistake. This is false, I removed unsourced content (-1450 chars) stating: note the unsourced phrases in the lede of the page.

Your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rouran_Khaganate&oldid=1365659314

I want to bring your attention to this, since your undoing was wrong. Lets come to an agreement so you dont start reverting my revert all over, resulting in a block for both parties.

: ) ~2026-41200-11 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

hello, thanks for reaching out

so- a few points here

1) removing unsourced content from the lede

- in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section they state that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". this means that unsourced content in the lead is not in and of itself a reason for deletion without discussion. this information is sourced later in the article as well, here in the current version. instead of removing, a more appropriate action would have been to look in the article, though i do understand that this is an easy mistake to make and do not blame you for it

2) you also added content. in this case, you added the phrase "likely monolingual". this is not only adding uncited information, but it is directly contradicted by the section, which states "there is no definite evidence as to their language". if you have evidence for this, feel free to re add the information with citations

3) unexplained content removal. you removed a significant amount of well sourced content later in the lead without reason given. this is the primary issue i had with your edit. if you would like this information removed, you will need to provide reasoning

4) edit summary. your edit summary did not accurately represent the changes you made. in the future, please accurately represent all the changes made in articles to avoid further reversions and warnings. Jackjd0 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I reviewed your response.

The link leads to nowhere but another category in the middle of the page, as of now and not to any sources. I looked in the article before deciding that there was really nothing holding these phrases up. I wont add content without sources.

No one removed well sourced content like you claim. Removing citations is against the rules, which I did not do.

I was not warned because I did not do anything.

My next actions: go to the article and remove unsourced content, and list what I removed.

) ~2026-41200-11 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

is it possible you are having computer issues? because there was significant content removal, and the link does show a source. #74, "History of Civilizations of Central Asia. UNESCO. 2006. p. 317. ISBN 978-92-3-103211-0" Jackjd0 (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted 295 chars while documenting every single one of my changes. I did not delete a citation you just sent. ~2026-41200-11 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page

Hello This user repeatedly removes or changes article content without any valid justification. He even changes text that I copied directly from the source. I wrote it exactly as it appeared in the source, yet he still changes it. Thanks for your help 7712Touch74396 (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Really? Proof Дурантас (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

this is about an interaction several days ago. if you are interested in becoming a productive editor, i would recommend checking this out Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers Jackjd0 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, I want to address your revert on Diocese of Ogdensburg, claiming I have a COI because I work for the Catholic Church. "Working for the Catholic Church" includes a group, internationally, of hundreds of thousands of employees. Some are quite critical, by the way. Would none of them be able to write on Wikipedia for topics far away from their daily lives? I do not work for any of the dioceses where I edited, and I have no acquaintance with the people described. I consider that to be neutral enough. --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

please read up on wikipedia's coi guidelines because it seems like you may misunderstand.

a few relevant quotes

"Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI."

"Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

"Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits" BUT "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit."

i object, and as such, it is not an uncontroversial edit. unless the coi noticeboard rules that your stated religious and employment affiliation with the catholic church is not a conflict of interest, i will be treating your edits regarding the church as subject to coi guidelines. Jackjd0 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a COI in any of those points, except for the last one, so I will wait and see what the noticeboard people say. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

ok, i appreciate your willingness to wait for the proper processes Jackjd0 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I do have a general question about the Ogdensburg cite, though. This has nothing to do with NPOV, I am just interested. If a regional newspaper says "unnamed law firms" have 30 cases pending, but the law firm is named nowhere, would that be a valid supporting reference for Wikipedia? --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 fair question. I'm gonna be away from my computer for most of the day today but I will look into it and see my impression of it. its not just up to me though. I'd suggest you bring it up on the article's talk page and see what others think Jackjd0 (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, will do. Have a good day. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User ~2026-33716-54

Hello, as you noticed this user has been engaging in edit warring on "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" page. Also he just removed a broken mapfrime (I think it should be fixed, not removed, but I don't know how to fix it). Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah it does seem that way. i dont have the brain space rn to fully reconstruct, but since the text for 3rr says "The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually."- you might want to just put in a report for edit warring- tho id double check the history logs and make sure, cuz im kinda scattered atm and might not be reading the logs correctly. im not sure how mapframes work, but maybe the teahouse could be a place to go to ask? Jackjd0 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I asked about this broken mapeframe in the Teahouse. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Ann clywd

hi there i attempted to edit ann clwyd (welsh mp) wiki page today to add thr fact that she gave birth to a son who she gave up for adoption. You removed it on grounds it had no reliable source. I am verifiably that son (original birth certificate)and traced ann as an adult and met on several occasions. What in wiki's view would constitute reliable source in this particular instance? Thanks for your help. Tom Chufferboy (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) First, welcome. I know that it can be annoying to be reverted for not providing a reliable source when you just know that it's true - we all have these moments.

This is because that Wikipedia works on the principle of "it's better to be agnostic than to be wrong / misleading", and therefore places a heavy emphasis on the sourcing of every significant claim. That means they should be from perennial sources that are recognized by most people as trustworthy - reputable newspapers, prestige journals, government documents, etc..

And as a rule of thumb, the more significant a claim is, the more stringent it is required to be cited - such as claiming someone to have a kid.

p.s. While we do trust that you're being truthful, there's also the practical difficulty of making sure of your identity, e.g., how do we know that you are you, and differentiate someone trying to impersonate you, from the true you?

Thank you for reading this, and, again, welcome to Wikipedia. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

hi thanks for that info. However key bit of info I was after to advance the case is what would wiki accept as evidence I am who I say I am ie. Ann clywds child now aged 66! The adoption was concealed from everyone for decades so there is no public proof as such. But as I said I do have my original birth certificate with ann clearly identified as my mother. Do you need to see that? Thanks tom Chufferboy (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

ok so, in this case, you should look at wikipedia's rules for conflict of interest.

to answer your question- if this is something you want on wikipedia, the best and only way to do this, if there is no secondary sources (news reports, books, etc.) backing up the claim is to talk to a journalist and get the information published somewhere, then cite that. wikipedia's verifiability policy states that "Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information", meaning that your personal experiences or evidence- if not published- are not eligible for inclusion.

im sorry, this is certainly not the answer you are looking for, but i wish you luck

ps: if there is any published info from news sources, feel free to link me to that and ill take a look at it and let you know (added 17:12 27 july)

Jackjd0 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

hi again this is turning into a very interesting discussion! Im not annoyed or frustrated at all and totally understand the need for Wikipedia to have clear operating rules. However this could veer into kafkaesque territory. Surely a birth certificate is irrefutable evidence of my birth to ann clwyd. And as a government document on public record readily available to anybody on request meets the 'published' criteria far more than an article by a journalist? Thanks for such prompt and detailed responses. Tom Chufferboy (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

to be honest I'd still lean towards no, as again, Wikipedia discourages use of primary sources- but honestly. i dont know enough about record keeping outside the US to know how records like that are kept and accessed, and if theyre easily fakeable (not that you would do that/ are doing that. its just precaution). so its unlikely, but if you really want to give it a shot, you can go here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask. the people who regularly look at that page are gonna have the tools and knowledge to help you more than I will. Jackjd0 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chufferboy: Please forgive me for jumping into this conversation, but I happened to notice it in passing and wanted to provide my opinion. You've received some pretty good advice from others already, such as the advice to get the information published by a journalist and bring this up on the reliable sources noticeboard for more expert opinions, but I think it's going to be a bit more difficult to use a birth certificate as a source—if it's at all possible, to wit, not barred by some de facto or de jure blanket ban—than they've been intimating. To be terse, I don't think you'd be able to include that fact whatsoever if the only source you have is that birth certificate.

To provide a platform for me to speak about this a bit easier, I'd like to briefly summarize the most pertinent policies pertaining to this issue even though others have already done so to some extent. If I'm understanding this correctly, you want to add the fact that your mother had a son—you—whom she placed for adoption in her Wikipedia article. To do this while complying with all relevant policies, you have to supplement it with a reliable source—in accordance with our policy on verifiability—have the source directly support the claim in such a way that you wouldn't be arriving at it via individual interpretation, evaluation, or analysis—in accordance with our policy on original research—and avoid using primary sources as the sole source of the claim—in accordance with a section of our policy on the biographies of living persons.

The extent to which your proposed change would be affected by any one of those policies are three different debates that may well be pursued by other editors, and if any one of those editors successfully demonstrate that it doesn't sufficiently comply with any one of those policies, you wouldn't be able to make it. Unfortunately, I think your change would manifestly violate the third policy, as the section of it I linked to makes it clear that using primary sources for any end but to provide more support for an existing secondary source is completely barred. Using a birth certificate as a lone source would likely be affected by this, so that'd prevent you from using it as one, thus preventing you from adding the information to the article per the policy on verifiability (which, I may point out, is extended further by another section of third policy, WP:BLPRS). I'll paste the most relevant parts of the section on primary sources below.

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

I hope I wasn't being too presumptuous with replying to you, as I understand I wasn't the person you were replying to yourself, but I hope this clarified our policies a bit better. In closing, I have nothing more to offer than to parrot the advice Jackjd0 gave: you may wish to bring this up at WP:RSN for someone with more experience to give you their opinion on it (I'd point you to another relevant noticeboard, the biographies of living persons noticeboard), but you're unlikely to be able to ultimately include the information you want to include with only your birth certificate as a source. If that indeed turns out to be the case, your best bet is to contact someone who can publish such information, try to have it published, and use the publication as a source instead. In any case, I wish you the best of luck! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I understand the thing I wrote is inapropiare in Mali offensives page but is there a page in Wikipedia I can share my Brawl Stars achievements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Дурантас (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

no. please try a social media network Jackjd0 (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

You are administrador or something like that so you must have a direct contact with Wikipedia creators. Can you propose the idea of making social media page in Wikipedia, please? I just want share my Brawl Stars achievements Дурантас (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Дурантас I am not an administrator and I have no contact with the creators. everything I can do is only because I have edited enough Wikipedia that I have access to certain tools and know how to work them. this has been proposed in the past but has been turned down, as this Is not the purpouse of Wikipedia. instead, please try something like reddit. Jackjd0 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It was proposed before? Really? I believe you but can you send the discussion page where it was proposed Дурантас (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Дурантас I dont keep track of every page I read so I have no idea where I saw it, youre welcome to look yourself though Jackjd0 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The way you talk shows you are not educated. Most of people would search the page for others or atleast give a normal answer. Дурантас (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on V. A. Shrikumar

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page V. A. Shrikumar, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use placeholder names, or the name of the newspaper or organisation, instead of the source's actual author or editor name. If no human author is given, the fields should be removed. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:

• • Bureau, The Hindu (2024-08-31). "Case registered against filmmaker Sreekumar Menon on complaint of sexual harassment by junior artiste". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2026-07-30. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC) resolved

A beer for you!

Thank you so much. NOT A PERSON(THIS IS A PERSON) (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

dan mckeon crime section

hi!! tbh i thought i'd perfectly adequately explained, considering my comments on the talk page before, but very sorry if i need to do better with that in the future.

unsure how familiar you are with nebraska legislature process but keeping this in at the time was a stretch since it was a bill spoken about once and went literally nowhere. i'd encourage you to look at other nebraska state senators' pages; it is VERY nonstandard to keep bills in for being introduced once and, again, doing literally nothing. its hearing was about an hour, which is pretty average for judiciary. it was your average lackluster bill that ended up going nowhere. in november, before session started in january, it was for all intents and purposes a dead bill. the only thing that would have made it worth including is if it had been brought back from the dead this session, which it wasn't. in nebraska, we don't kill bills until the entire legislature is over. we politely let them sit on referral, pretending they might do something, but as soon as the first session is over the amount of political gymnastics it would take to resurrect a bill from the previous year would be the only thing that would make 127 notable. it was on the worksheet on day one of session (jan 7) as still being held by the judiciary committee, and wasn't formally killed until we adjourned sine die on april 17. it might happen to a bill that people were debating before the break, but one that never made it out of committee before adjourning would not make it onto the second session calendar. it never did. it isn't of note; it wasn't even a priority bill.

the 109th legislature is done, so it is now for sure a dead bill. it wasn't worth keeping in after june 2025, but i left it alone until i could prove that it was, in fact, irrelevant information. this certainly was not a mistake, and it was not an experiment. the user who wrote it clearly just wanted to expand mckeon's page, which i am all for, but he did more notable things than this (even excluding his sexual assault allegations) and i would highly encourage them to focus on that, instead.

i see no reason to try to increase this article's word count just for word count's sake. i am, as i see you've read, staunchly for its removal. i can certainly do better on flagging my recent edits; i assumed that it was clear bc of the talk page but i totally get if we can't rely on that :) Noorexistsmaybe (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

fair enough, sounds good. generally, i just see a lot of people removing things like controversy sections without explanation so the removal of a section on "crime" very much raised the hairs on the back of my head, yknow? especially seeing youd removed it many times and been reverted. but looking closer at the talk page and your explanation here, this seems totally reasonable. feel free to revert me :) in the future, if you wanna avoid things like this, id reccomend writing your edit summary with the expectation that those looking at it will have no context for what theyre looking at- so something like "removal of non notable bill which was not passed or discussed much. see talk page" can help people know to look further. but yeah, sorry for that and all is well, again, feel free to revert me Jackjd0 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

sick!! i'll do better in the future thanks :)) Noorexistsmaybe (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)