User talk:Jensenjan

April 2025

Hello, I'm TheM1sty. An edit that you recently made to Marcus Melchior seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! TheM1sty (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under entry: Marcus Melchior I added his doctoral degree which is listed in the Danish Wikipedia under his name. Please revert your deletion. Jensenjan (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Tony Holkham. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Denmark, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony Holkham. Thank you for attention. Could you please let me know what exactly you deleted? I'll look into it as well as the rules and try to do better. Jensenjan (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that what you removed was in line 249. The correction I made is correct and I would like to reinstate it with the citation:

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmarks_statsminister

where it correctly states: Statsministeren udnævnes af monarken,

Please help me with the technicalities of reinstating this. Thank you for your concern Jensenjan (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use Wikipedia (any language) as a reference but you can use a publication that da.wiki uses as a source providing it is an independent source. Hope this helps. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jensenjan! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. I know there's a lot to take in when new to Wikipedia, but I wish you well, and will be happy to advise if you need help. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony Holkham. I think I found the place you corrected me about - line 249.

I left you a message there that the information that I changed is correct and a citation. I hope you can see it, because I can't find it again. I will try to learn and do better, but please help me to sort that one out. Thank you. Jensenjan (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jensenjan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to an article

You can see all changes to an article by clicking on the History tab at the top of the page. It lists every change, when it was made, by whom., and hopefully an edit summary explaining why the change was made. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Eve! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations: in the wikitext editor, try the reFill tool, and in the Visual Editor, the reference dialog can convert some bare urls into a full citation. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles. Magic Fizz ^(talk) 09:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind remark. I don't understand this, but I will try to learn from what you just sent me and if I have any further questions, I hope I can turn to you for help. Jensenjan (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I se what you mean. The reference was to an English translation of parts of two verses from Genesis, so I did not think there was a need for a real citation. The bare URL just directs the reader to the source of the translation......in case ANYBODY is interested in that. If you still think I need to improve on that, please let me know. Jensenjan (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jensenjan and WP:XC WP:GAMING for the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jensenjan, your response is requested at WP:ANI § Refocusing (Jensenjan). Thank you. — Newslinger talk 22:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jensenjan, there is another discussion on the incidents noticeboard discussion about an editor who has commented in the previous discussion. The thread is WP:ANI § LordDiscord's gaming of the extended confirmed permission. I am posting this notification as required by the incidents noticeboard procedures. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newslinger,

If I understand correctly, I do not need to take any action on this. Am I correct? Jensenjan (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no action needed on your part. In fact, that second discussion was closed with consensus that LordDiscord was not permission gaming, so I have apparently misjudged what the community determines to be permission gaming. I apologize for accusing you of permission gaming, and have changed my comments to support your re-application for the extended confirmed permission. Thank you for improving Wikipedia's articles about Danish and Biblical subjects, and I hope your future editing is more pleasant than this incident. — Newslinger talk 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jensenjan (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions!

		The Original Barnstar
		Just wanted to let you know that you are appreciated. And congratulations on getting to Extended Confirmed! 500 edits improving this great encyclopedia! LordDiscord (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouraging words. Jensenjan (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed granted

Hello Jensenjan. Following your request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed, I have re-granted your account the extended-confirmed flag. I am going to be honest: when I initially accepted your request, I thought that the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1192#LordDiscord's gaming of the extended confirmed permission was about you specifically. It was not until I granted your request that I realized my error. Because of this, in my user rights log entry, I included a link to that ANI discussion which is not directly related to you.

After reviewing your case further, I do not think it is worth reversing my action here, as multiple administrators have stated they are not strictly opposed to you re-gaining the extended-confirmed flag, especially in light of the outcome of that discussion (where an editor who made similar edits was found not to have acted improperly). I would caution you to edit a bit carefully from here on out and to expect some heightened scrutiny of your initial edits to extended-confirmed-protected pages. Let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mz7,

Thank you very much for attending positively to my request and to your warning about going forward. I will bear your admonishment in mind and act accordingly. Jensenjan (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]