User talk:JacktheBrown

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For fighting bias in the face of heavy resistance, and sticking to your guns ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

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

So?

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

@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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

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

@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)

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

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)

Bibliography

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)

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

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

Re: Age and health concerns about Donald Trump

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)

reversal of subject bars

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)