User talk:Jako96

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protist classification, a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACS was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hopefully might make up a little bit for the other stuff you've received. i wouldnt pay too much mind to the trolls, they just want a rise out of you, so don't give them one (even though I get how it might feel satisfying) :)

IAmNetx (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's so kind, thanks so much! Jako96 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Seaweed weirdness

Hi Jako96, hope you're doing well and I second the felid above. :-) You might want to have a look at the infobox at Seaweed; the "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" section is absolutely nuts, as it includes e.g. Actinobacteria and Opisthokonta.

BTW, since I don't want to bother you all the time, is there a good noticeboard at which to raise these kinds of issues? I thought perhaps WT:BIOL but it looks very quiet. All the best, Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 23:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks, I'm doing well, I hope you too. For such issues, WT:TOL is a good place. Also, I'm not sure that cladistically included groups are nuts, because cyanobacteria are also listed as included. Oh, actually, to be monophyletic it should include the whole life (three domains) it looks like, as it includes taxa from the domain Bacteria, which is sister to the clade of Archaea + Eukaryota. Seems like it is nuts as it does not include all archaea and rest of the eukaryotes and bacteria. Jako96 (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes complete sense! cheers, Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 02:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Jako96 (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Protist classification

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

• A unsupported parameter error. References show this error when you use a parameter name that does not exist. Please replace the parameter with one that the template supports, or remove it if no such parameter exists. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:

• • Bass, David; Tikhonenkov, Denis Victorovich; Foster, Rachel; Dyal, Patricia; Janouškovec, Jan; Keeling, Patrick J.; Gardner, Michelle; Neuhauser, Sigrid; Hartikainen, Hanna; Mylnikov, Alexandre P.; Berney, Cédric (2018). "Rhizarian 'Novel Clade 10' Revealed as Abundant and Diverse Planktonic and Terrestrial Flagellates, including Aquavolon n. gen". Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology. 65 (6): 828–842. doi:10.1111/jeu.12524. ISSN 1550-7408. PMC 6282753. PMID 29658156. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |doi-acces= ignored (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) 16:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imbricatea, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Euglyphia was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Just because I talked about people gaslighting me I'm just getting blocked. Expected that! It's an honour to get blocked like this saying the truth by the way. May God reward you accordingly! Jako96 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Bobby Cohn. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You're making a lot of points about messages by others to be aspersions, but then to go on and remark about how a user may not be able to think logically definitely crosses a line that you should be aware of. I suggest you strike in part or in whole your remarks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, an edit conflict shows I was too late. However, your response above demonstrates that the block was adequately placed, if not too lenient. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for that reply. But @SarekOfVulcan, if you blocked me because of this reply, which was not really uncivil and was just a comment, I think that is quite unfair. If you feel the need to block me indefinitely just for example, uh, let's say you didn't like my userpage, then have fun doing it too! I'll give you a reason, I can say this block is in quite the bad faith. This is also a comment, by the way. Not uncivil. Although I agree with my recent anger, it was somewhat too far, agreed. If the block is for that reason, then sure. But if it's just for that comment, it's simply not sufficient for a block.

Again, I'm not the one that has the control here. Have a good time blocking other users in the future too. Best regards, Jako96 (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46001-44, I don't have a "habit" of removing or editing other's messages, I just cleaned up your message ONE time, and this enough for you to cast more aspersions about me? You clearly are unable to reply with something even moderately honest. But again, I'm not the one in control here, so your replies are much easier to send. What a good faith this is... Continue casting some more aspersions if you feel even more satistifed, I'm totally okay with it now... Have some fun there, friend! Jako96 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman Sorry, I can't send thanks to you while being f*cking blocked. Consider this message a thanks for your recent replies! Jako96 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jako96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

Hello. I was blocked for "personally attacking other editors," (edit: one more aspersion is casted while I'm blocked here, I don't have a "habit" of removing or editing other's messages, I just cleaned up that user's message ONE time and it is enough for him to cast more aspersions about me seemingly) but rather corrected the aspersions about me. Though was I too sharp while correcting? Sure. I'm frankly sorry for that behaviour, even if the appeal is not accepted. I'll me more nice when trying to make a point. I'm also frankly quite okay with this not getting accepted. I'm pretty much done here. But still would like that this would be accepted, although I agree that the block right. Edit: If I'm blocked for this reply, which this reply by the admin confirms, if it's SOLELY for that reason, then I'd argue that my reply was pretty fair and the block was unfair. I'd not say that reply was uncivil. But recently, I was somewhat sharp to TAs, I agree on that, so if the reason is for overall things, sure, but I'd defend myself for that specific reply. I'm pretty much done here after all these, probably, but frankly would still be glad to see a respond here. Thanks!

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

I'll me more nice when trying to make a point, as said above.

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

I'm probably done with Wikipedia pretty much from the recent discussions. But still it's your choice to accept this appeal. I'm quite okay with either, I accept my mistake. Thanks.

Jako96 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block was cromulent on its own, and your repeated personal attacks above in response to it make it clear it is lenient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@The Bushranger Telling that someone is in bad faith isn't a personal attack IMO. But the block was right for other stuff recently, I agree. Some other people here aren't very kind too, just saying... :I Glad to at least get a reply to this appeal here... Jako96 (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully isn't annoying, but there's one personal attack to me here, so it should be deleted and this diff should be revdeled, although not that of an important thing. I'm done with here now. Jako96 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't fall under any of the WP:REVDEL criteria, so removed is the most you could hope for. (Ignoring it would be even better.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)