Jameskida

July 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Gladiator (2000 film), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please review WP:OVERLINKING - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Remember, just because it can be linked doesn't mean it should be. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'll be more careful next time. Jameskida (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Hi Jameskida! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. You're doing good work so far Squawk7700 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Ohhh... Got it i will be more careful next time thanks for the guidance. Jameskida (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mahnoor Cheema (August 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mahnoor Cheema and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article.

As mentioned, the individual has received extensive coverage. Due to time constraints, I wasn’t able to include all the references initially. However, that’s not an issue. I now have ample time to address this and will add all the relevant and reliable sources.

One more thing I’d like to ask: Is the information fine in terms of format and content? I’ve done my best to keep the tone neutral and non-promotional. From what I understand, the only issue seems to be the lack of reliable sources. Once that’s resolved, is everything else in order?

Thanks again for your time and valuable feedback! Jameskida (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mahnoor Cheema (December 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mahnoor Cheema and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jameskida! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ahmed el Ahmed (December 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ibjaja055 was:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ahmed el Ahmed and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh man, yeah—you’re right. I totally agree with the reasons you and @DoubleGrazing gave. I thought his page would get published because of his actions and the huge coverage he received, but things didn’t go the way I expected. No worries though—I’m a beginner and I’m learning new things every time I create or edit pages on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time. Let’s wait and see. I’ll do my best to keep the page updated with new information. Jameskida (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

I lurk around the Teahouse reading every single post, so I can learn as a new-ish editor who's very neurotic about knowing alllll the rules before I contribute more significantly in article space.

Your post helped me learn, and finally look into how to give a Barnstar and the surprising amount of specific, smartly defined "types" of Barnstars one can give! So I want to give you the first Barnstar I'll ever give 😀

Reviewing your talk page and contributions, I am very impressed by how well you take feedback and communicate with other editors in an agreeable, collaborative way. Your Teahouse post showed similar collegial maturity. I've read soooo much of the WP/Talk spaces on en.wiki, going back many years, and the skill of taking constructive criticism with honor and good cheer is WAY more rare than you might realize. In fact, many potentially strong contributors to the 'pedia could not overcome their tendencies to argue against consensus and assume bad faith when experienced Wikipedians are just trying to help them understand the complex, interactive Policies and Guidelines.

In my eyes, the number one best quality a new editor can bring is this attitude of acceptance and civility, and it doesn't come naturally to me as a wound-up anxious person, lol, so you have my utmost respect. These qualities will serve you well in all arenas of life, but they're pretty much a non-negotiable on English Wikipedia, so this Barnstar is well-earned.

(I'm doing this from the mobile app because I'm still a bit overwhelmed with all the options in desktop interface, so I might have to tweak this with a few follow up edits if it doesn't seem to display right!)

		The Civility Barnstar
		For friendly, collegiate communications with other editors, and a rare and admirable humility along the steep learning curve of editing! Sophiatries (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Sophia. Your words mean a lot to me. Your words have just made my day, omg I can't explain in words how I'm feeling right now. Jameskida (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Jameskida! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 23:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Jameskida! I'm glad that you are joining the March 2026 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hey what just happend why you have blocked me ? what i did ? Jameskida (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked you for undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry, based on off wiki evidence that I am not allowed to disclose. If you make an unblock request, someone else with access to the information will make a determination. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 21 April 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe this block may be a misunderstanding. I am not operating multiple accounts and have not engaged in sockpuppetry. I also have no undisclosed paid connection to the topics I edited. If any of my edits raised concerns, you can ask me. Jameskida (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So you've been evading your block while this was pending. Nope. We're done here - your best bet is probably the standard offer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:12, 16 May 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.

(Non-administrator comment) Please avoid using AI to generate appeals, as explained at WP:LLMAPPEAL.

I'm unable to see the evidence, but it's very unlikely that this was a simple mistake - blocks are only made when the evidence is strong enough to justify blocking an account.

If you genuinely wish to appeal, I strongly recommend writing a response in your own words with a stronger argument than simply claiming that they're wrong. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is I'm not aware of the technicalities of Wikipedia or how to appeal, so I asked GPT what to do; the things AI gave me, I have pasted here. My brain is not working right, to be honest. It's a big allegation for me; I don't know how to react...

I do not have multiple accounts, neither have I done any paid editing. I usually do the edits which were recommended by Wikipedia. Also, I have said on my user page that any odd edit I do is because I found something interesting while browsing. Also, I have created only one page on Wikipedia and 2 are in AfC rejected; none of the three pages I have created paid me or have any personal connection. Everyday I log in, do random edits, update my profile, do the right thing, and log off and now I'm here, I got blocked. I'm literally shaking right now. i got stuck or made mistake i alwyes asked the experts on tea house. Jameskida (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Thank you so much for responding yourself.

Since we can't see the evidence ourselves, we'll have to wait for someone who can - it's a difficult situation, since Wikipedia is often targeted by people who want to damage or misuse it.

There will be times where evidence can't be disclosed & this is probably one of those times; we'll have to trust that the person reviewing your case is knowledgeable and experienced enough to make a fair decision, which is pretty much guaranteed since that's the only way to reach such a position in the first place. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• The following accounts are a match:

• JamieFrancis199 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• MarcusAlphonso1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
• Krid1122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

PhilKnight (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Jameskida! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is Discogs is reliable source?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

March 2026 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Jameskida for collecting more than 9 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's March 2026 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8362 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)