User talk:JesseRafe

Once Upon A Time In Shaolin

Jesse, it's commonly known that Cilvaringz produced this album and not RZA. He also came up with the concept of it being a single copy. Type it in anywhere and you'll see it everywhere. Why are you constantly changing this??

Bridge Plaza

Hello Jesse,

Please stop changing or reverting the Bridge Plaza site. The Bridge plaza association hasdone extensive research on the history of the community. The area was never known as Rambo which was a term used only in a headline that was picked up by other magazines a few times. The area was first layed out in 1820 and most houses were built in the 1870's. 167 Concord was moved to its present location in 1901. It was prior situated in what is now known as Flatbush Ave extension. The original build dste is 1866. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.209 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jesse. Thank you for your welcome letter. I noticed that the edits that I made, last night, were removed because they were considered linkspam. Would the same content be acceptable, if I added the same edit, again, but without the link? Kristin Muller (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm trying to look into some information on the murder of Big L...can you tell me what was the cause of it? I am in a situation and I believe it is a repeat of the same plot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.197.242.180 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals who love me!

Im a very big fan of Big L and I know more about him than you so stop changing stuff if you dont know wtf your doing, do you know what a compilation album is? Why are you deleting Big L's work?!!!! He has more material out there and you keep taking it out! Stop being an ass hole and corporate with the facts! You stupid little bitch!

Adding: 03:29, 26 January 2015‎ Mrmike1695 (talk|contribs)‎ (Fixed typo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

This is my new favorite thing. Leaving it here as a banner. JesseRafe (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MrMike1695 was blocked and is still haunting from beyond the grave! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrmike1695 JesseRafe (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point Break

Who is this JesseRafe who keeps vandalizing my legitimate addition. Can you not see the reference and what gives you the right to call me a vandal for a legitimate post?

Are you a cyber-bully or just a person who can't leave well enough alone??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.44.12 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! JesseRafe (talk) 2):30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Plcoopr

NO I will not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoopr (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"greaser film"

You're an idiot. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an attack. It was an observation. The Wanderers is no more a "greaser" movie than West Side Story is. Or the Gangs of New York. Or Romeo and Juliet. Or the Iliad, for that matter. This post-modern obsession with jamming everything in life into some retarded Category Of Knowledge so that we can pretend to be wise is ... retarded. Hence, the comment.

If you can't handle the heat, best stay out of the kitchen. But children can't do that these days, can they ? 210.22.142.82 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro! JesseRafe (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Schultz - 50.174.10.195 and 4.35.70.123

I think you should stop editing Wikipedia from a certain point of view, especially the pro-Jewish point of view, and also reverting things just because there was change is not productive in Wikipedia. If there was an edit, work with the editor and do something better instead of just reverting it. Reverting is the easiest way. I think you are POV editor, very sneaky and unnoticeable, but people can see it, just telling you, because you have a big agenda behind your edits. This sudden interest? The introduction is about to break someone's tongue because of editors like you I assume. At least simplify it. 01:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.10.195 (talk)

Stop going through other people's edits. I don't go through your previous edits and start reverting your change. Keep it in perspective and move on. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own Wikipedia, or any of the articles you have put your bigoted stamp on. See WP:OWN and await the result of your ANI. Warning: You may not like the result. JesseRafe (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source stating that DS is Jewish? I glanced at Five Families, but did not see an obvious statement. I did restore the Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: remember 3RR is a bright line. I believe you are over that. Jim1138 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every mention of him ever says he is Jewish. He is one of the most prominent figures in Jewish Mafia history. Schultz, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, and Arnold Rothstein. Citing such a tautological fact almost seems tautological or trivial, but yes, google search it if its actually being contested... It's even in the title of numerous books about him -- google books "dutch schultz jewish" (no quotes).

Re: 3RR - does that apply with obvious POV/racist agenda as seen here and on the article's Talk Page? This user is paranoid of a Jewish Conspiracy, has a pattern of removing Jewish links and mentions, and had made no efforts to compromise or use common sense until the ANI, i.e. the talk page of both IPs have messages from me. JesseRafe (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I came nowhere near 3 edits in 24 hours as conveniently enough they were made between 10 and 11am on three consecutive days, i.e. about 24 hours between each one. Only today did I make two, six hours apart, and very emphatically stopped and opened the ANI. Have I misunderstood or misapplied the rule given your warning? JesseRafe (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apology, you are correct. I can't subtract. I would suggest a more direct citation to Schultz' background; it's not obvious on Families. I am not interested in editing the article. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not coming near it for a bit. I suppose it could be cited, but any biography would mention it. Likely to some length, and as I said, would even be in the title, that's how prominent it was -- which also is why I find IP's insistence on its removal so baffling. But to the 3RR point, say I had violated - would this have fit in the exception if it were a BLP? Only by the subject being dead, I couldn't righteously restore status quo without being in violation myself? I thought the self-professed bigotry and agenda the IP espoused would offer some more leniency than strict liability. JesseRafe (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on its removal does seem strange. A personal hero, perhaps? When someone deletes a piece of information, I often add a source when I restore it. More egg on their face if they delete it again. Re 3RRs, I believe removing unsourced/controversial/libelous info would be an exception. Though I'd be careful there with a 0RR/1RR and just take it to ANI. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteboyrobot

Stop harassing me. Get me out of your head and out of your life. Pretend I never existed. This is first and likely the last time I will ever bother to talk to you personally, on your level, on your own talk page. Please note that bullying is an epidemic and not everyone receives it well. In fact, most people have no tolerance for it. I do not know why you ever thought I would be any different. If you hit me and waste my time, I'm going to hit back twice as hard. It's not worth it to you. It also seems I wouldn't be the first person to respond to you for your apparent anti-Semitic tendencies or otherwise unacceptable behavior. I can tell it wouldn't be the first time you've gotten banned. How ironic that you would try to claim I've been banned, clearly not knowing the first thing about me, but I can see your whole talk page. Since you seem to have picked up an ironic knack for citing Wikipedia's rules and terms of use(without actually knowing them), I suggest you begin by learning and using them before it is too late for you. I will not hesitate to drop the ban hammer. This is your final warning.Whiteboyrobot (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, User:Whiteboyrobot filed an arbitration committee case request and I have filed it under ANI. Please review and make comments as necessary. The title is "Conflict Resolution - Premature Arbitration Committee Filing" Inomyabcs (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that worked out. Sorry about some of the misstated facts, I'll try and do a better job at reading everything before I post to an important board like that again. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Inomyabcs. I understand that you simply saw the misplaced arbitration notice, and didn't see what kind of mess that person was making. I don't want to get involved with that user who has now been blocked, but just in case you or anyone else care to know, the blocked user is now operating as 65.189.198.128 -- making some of the exact same edits made before as WBR. If any powers that be care to do something, please let it be done. I don't have the time or the energy to deal with the glut of personal attacks that would come if I started an SPI on him. JesseRafe (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mdclxvi0

You sound angry in your edits

I know Wikipedia occupies the majority of your time, just wanted to make sure you're okay. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me

Please stop messaging me, your behaviour is verging on harassment, specifically WP:AOHA and WP:DWH. I do not wish to engage in conversation with you and want to keep this a safe environment. Ergo, leave me alone or I will take this to the admins. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop messaging me and accusing me of being a sockpuppet

This is the 3rd time you have done this, and you are accusing me of a being a sockpuppet, leave me alone. My last message to you was asking you to stop messaging me yet you continually do it. Just because you are spending all your time on the website does not mean you will receive preferential treatment from the admins. There is a log of your posts to me and the next time you accuse me of such (see WP:NOASSUMESOCK) I will bring it to the admins. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolof

I saw that one of the articles you edited was Wolof language. As you may have noticed, Wikipedia is always in need of more Africa editors. I don't know if this is a continued area of interest for you, but if it is, here's some other links that you may want to check out:

Good luck, and happy editing! If you ever have any questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page; lots of folks helped me when I first got here and I'm always glad to pay it forward! --Dvyost 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jesse, glad to hear you're interested. Our coverage of Togo remains pretty thin and could definitely use the help. Unfortunately, you do have to maintain separate accounts for separate wikis; you can, however, add an interwiki link to your user page, like this: [[fr:Dvyost]], which would link to my page at the French wiki (as it happens, I'm actually working there at this very moment). As for an edit counter, there's no "official" one, but your best bet is to go here. It's worth remembering, though, that as Kate puts it, editcountitis can be fatal--it's easy to get sucked into racking up the numbers (almost everyone here does at one point or another), but the best way to win respect here is to put up a good article, whether it takes you one edit or four hundred. Hope this helps! If you need help with anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, --Dvyost 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan

JesseRafe, by removing my additional link to Kaplan (Surname) you're missing the point. I appreciate you adding the disambiguation page in the place, but by simply linking "Kaplan" on the page it's not clear that this link in fact leads to another page (i.e. Kaplan_(surname)). Proof of this is in that we've been batting around what text belongs in this article in the first place or not - if it were more obvious (which it is not), I wouldn't have kept adding information about the surname in this article at all. So blame it on Wikipedia formatting, but folks are messaging me asking what happened to the surname info. So please.... leave the surname link alone in this disambiguation post. It doesn't change the content of the article and only helps to clarify where the additional info is. You win.

Also, thanks for the "watchlist" tidbit. Turns out I had the page on the list, I just had the wrong e-mail address in my profile! Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. Kaplansa 04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knicks-Nuggets brawl

Responded to your concern on my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know about previews, but often even after a preview, I'll have forgotten an item, or will have overlooked a misspell. JAF1970 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Leong

Excellent work on the Al Leong article. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-08 03:56Z

Good catch on the Al Leong article. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-02-19 16:59Z

Seeking community input re standardizing baseball roster pages

Hi ... I'm leaving you this note because you recently made edits to one of the Major League Baseball roster pages. I've made a proposal for standardizing the format, structure and content of these pages here and would appreciate your input so that we may reach a consensus. Thanks. --Sanfranman59 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I checked the Phillies roster the other day and unless I missed something (certainly not beyond the realm of possibility), it should be accurate. --Sanfranman59 03:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies

Phillies standings

Sorry I took so long to reply...it's been hectic. What was exactly the intention? I saw there was talk about breaking it off into its own article, kind of like the Yanks, but I'm a little leary of that, only because if we only show the last 5 or 10 seasons on the main page, it appears to the unknowing glancing viewer that the Philles are an expansion team and not the oldest team in MLB. So, I'll have to read more when I get some time, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.

On a side note, I'm really glad to see they're starting to kick it into gear, but they still need to fire Charlie! Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies seasons

My bad. It's got to be reformatted, though, to match the rest of the abbreviations and cited properly in the footnotes. Killervogel5 (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as much as I should be asleep right now, I pulled all the Phillies rookies of the year (another reason why one lone award had to be removed) and got them all up there and cited. Thanks for your help... we could use you at WP:PHILLIES too. Our helpers there are pretty sparse. Thanks again. Killervogel5 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. We appreciate your contributions! Killervogel5 (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History discussion

I'm opening a discussion on the Phillies talk page about breaking out the history page. We could use some input. Thanks! KV5 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next step is in place for breaking out the history article. Input appreciated. See the Phillies talk page for more info. Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for the WP

Check out my sandbox to see my rough draft of a barnstar for WikiProject Phillies and let me know what you think on my talk page! Thanks. KV5 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PHILLIES question

A message to all members from the coordinator: Please stop by the project talk page and contribute to the discussion regarding the Wall of Fame. We would like to reach a consensus ASAP. Thank you. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:PHILLIES

No problem, Jesse; it's great to have you back on board! Welcome back. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we are starting a newsletter, and I'm having a little trouble figuring out what all we should put in it. I want to feature good Phillies articles with a little mini-lead, acknowledge DYKs (and I would like to have one new one in every newsletter, which means the project needs to make sure that they are writing DYK-style articles or expanding stubs significantly), and we are going to have an analysis page. I've got a guy who is going to write game analysis for us on selected games, but he's really not so involved in Wiki as a whole, just with this project. The newsletter template is in my sandbox (see the link at the bottom of my userpage), and I'd appreciate ideas as to what else we can put in the newsletter. Thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Phillies pictures

Thank you! I was going to get to editing them ASAP. With the Phillies and Eagles playing today, I have been very busy. But thank you for reminding me. Go Phillies! (and Eagles, now too!) Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mansbach

I just created the article on Adam Mansbach, and saw that it was in your list of things to work on, feel free to expand if you like. Also, his new book is nominated for Did You Know, should you be interested. I was looking for some coverage of Angry Black White Boy, but have, as of yet, been unsuccessful. Cheers--kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me! I was just modifying my user page, and saw that it was still a red link a few days ago. I was literally going to work on it next week. (I have my last final today, in two hours!) I read Angry Black White Boy like 4 years ago, and I think that's how long I've been meaning to start Mansbach's article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons

Hello. Whilst I appreciate that you made the edit in good faith, Wikipedia's policy on reliably sourcing is clear. IMDb is not considered a reliable source for much other than film credit information because it is based on user-submitted information (see WP:IMDb). The article in question is a Good Article; absolutely no unsourced content can be included in a Good Article. I have done a quick search and I cannot find any reliable source to support it, so I am going to have to remove it. The article links to both IMDb and SNPP in the external links so people can see those for further information. If you find a reliable source you are welcome to re-add it, but if it was as easy as just being able to put anything in with a citation needed tag and leaving it then my job would be far easier. Sorry, Gran² 20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNPP is a fansite, as is Simpson Folder so neither passes as a reliable source, while TV.com is also user constructed and far less reliable than IMDb and indeed, currently in the process of being removed from all external links sections across Wikipedia. To stress, I know what you are adding is correct, but the rules say they must be reliably sourced, and the rules say none of these are reliable. Gran² 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited references throughout wikipedia, including many on Simpsons articles, and many of them are obviously true, though without superscript italicized hyperlinked backup. I just clicked randomly on the page for Season 15 and chose the first one that was a parody title, The Fat and Furriest, and of course the cultural reference says it is a nod to the movie [franchise]. Is there a reference? No. Is it original research? Kinda. Is it likely to find a reliable third-party source that would publish that nugget of wisdom? Not at all. It's so obvious that no one would ever bother to write it out conclusively, as it's not a hidden gem of allegory with clever allusions, but a broadside pun on something in the popular consciousness. So, yes, it's original research, but one that I am not alone in having made, if everyone (who has knowledge of the film in question, obviously more people are aware of The Fast and the Furious than The Two Mrs. Carrolls) gets "it". I mean, how do you find a source for a joke that explains the joke? It's a joke. You're supposed to do original research mentally and temporaneously, and if you cannot then you "don't get the joke". But if you wanted to look up the joke on wikipedia, you'd be disappointed if you didn't find an explanation, just a lot of people who got the joke talking about how great it is. So rather than thinking of it as "original research" it seems more like "collective research" and as someone in I believe it was the Simpson Folder said, the title was an "obvious play" on the movie. Why not inform those who come to that page and may have previously been unaware of the reference? Again, thank you for not removing the item again, but I just don't think the "rules" in this case are right. JesseRafe (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you disagree with the rules or how they are applied then maybe you should take it up on the talk page of the rules? I write articles. I don't really care about the rules. I just apply them to the best of my ability. Just because something is obvious to someone, doesn't mean it is universally so. As WP:V states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Maybe I'm applying the rules incorrectly. I don't know. But your fundamental point is one you should raise at a wider community level, because I lack the knowledge and interest to debate it. Gran² 14:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat what I said above: if you don't like the rules, or my widely accepted interpretation of those rules, then take it up on the talk page of the rules. I'm sorry if that's "not cool", and really, I understand your point, but it's not my problem. Gran² 22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:The_Two_Mrs._Nahasapeemapetilons#Content_dispute_re_episode_title. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons (2)

1. The title reference for "Sweet Seymour Skinner's Baadasssss Song" is referenced. 2. Something being wrong somewhere else doesn't make it right here. All it means is that it should be removed from "The Canine Mutiny" etc.

But this isn't a clear issue. I believe no cultural references should be in articles unless they are reliably sourced. Period. But your view has the support of Hamsterlopithecus (talk · contribs) (see the talk page of "The Last Temptation of Krust"). My reasoning for this is on the episodes' talk page. But I would advise you to open a wider community discussion about this issue. Maybe here? I don't really care what the result is, I'd just like a result. Gran² 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over a month since I left the above message. Have you given any thought about starting a wider discussion to fully clarify this issue? Thanks. Gran² 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said my piece on the Nahasapeemapetilon page however long ago that was. Jokes that are title parodies and obvious, are, for the most part, completely uncitable. But that doesn't mean they don't belong on an encyclopedia article. Are they OR? Not really, especially given that with The Simpsons they have an established history of title-parodies, and there are a few episodes that are cited. What we have to remember is Wikipedia is for the readers, and this is the kind of information that they would need or want to know on a show's page. Especially given this episode's place in the pantheon of shows that have named themselves after that particular movie. JesseRafe (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand your view. And, as I have said, I totally disagree (based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy) and would like to establish some clear consensus one way or the other. Am I to conclude you have no interest in starting any such discussion? If so, that's cool. Gran² 20:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Farm in popular culture

Please be advised that your name has been raised in a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Animal Farm in popular culture for additional information. Doniago (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been revived. Let me know if you have a problem with my criterion of verifiable identifiable source with blue link establish prima facie reliability and significance. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I trust that you do get the apply here, rather than your page. I will put my two cents in, but as I'm in school right now and the previous flare-up was in the summer, I won't have as much time in general to keep up, nor to check-in on developments throughout the day. I am in agreement about a lot of the prima facie elements of unambiguous reference to AF. In my opinion every permutation of "# __ good, # __ bad" or "All X are equal, but some X are more equal than others" belongs as a reference to AF in the other work without any secondary sourcing needed. Some of the last bit of things included are not meritorious, the Jericho show mention for one, and I think including that together with some of the others is the weakest link in the additions and it makes it easier for detractors to be inclined to wholesale revert the edit. Also, any reference to Napoleon or Snowball or something like that would need to be secondary sourced, or just to the theme of it would also need an impartial source -- because that requires an editor to make the inference. That's my standing. In short, I agree about the self-referential original sources being enough to merit inclusion, but not all of the items in the latest round. JesseRafe (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to wp:notability, "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)". Given that the article only now includes notable material with its own article (i.e., only bluelinked topics), this policy seems conclusive. I will take up the reversions there that insist on a different criterion from the published one, assuming others support my interpretation. Check the edits at the article and let me know if you think I am mistaken in my interpretation. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not about to insist that items you don't find notable should be included. You will note I have deleted plenty on my own. But please do restore only what you find deserves it and I will support it wholeheartedly. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Five

Sorry, didn't mean to imply it didn't have "merit", any good faith edit on Wikipedia has merit. What I'm saying is, section breaks and paragraph breaks are similar, the question is when to use one vs the other. Paragraph breaks provide logical breaks in the content. In this case there is a new section header at the top of almost every paragraph, which is redundant, that's what paragraphs are made for. By adding those section headers, I believe, it chops up the article which discourages reading it as a single block of text from top to bottom, and encourages skimming and skipping, like reading an outline that hasn't been filled in, or a "list of" sort of thing, rather than a chronological and somewhat inter-related history of the origin of the high five. If we thought those origin theories were going to be greatly expanded.. say 4 or 5 or more paragraphs each.. I could see section headers making more sense, but until then, I believe it reads better as a single block of text. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the article talk page here. I see what you're saying, but I disagree. I think it looks better the way it is now, especially with the long block quote in the first section. I mean, the other option to me is bullets, but I think we both would agree that's not that aesthetically pleasing. Without some kind of division, it makes it harder to see that the three options are mutually exclusive, or arose independently at best. Without the divisions, in my opinion, it sounds like one origin narrative that all together led to the high five, rather than three separate possibilities. JesseRafe (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jesus Gonzalez (politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesus Gonzalez (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Gonzalez (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mt king^(edits) 01:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this block as an opportunity to apologize here to User:Valenciano for WP:UNCIVIL. Van Isaac_WS 19:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lulz, at Vanisaac! Racists and bigots not welcomed here, please do not write on my talk page ever again -- Unless Nelson Mandela apologizes to his prison captors, then maybe I owe Valenciano an apology. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with the matter entirely, but if you have any more funny jokes, please, leave them here! JesseRafe (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very worrying attitude. Learning to disagree amiably is a skill absolutely necessary to long-term success on this project, and I fear that your lack of perspective in matters like this are going to lead to more incidents at a later date. Please take some time to try to really understand the WP:AGF guidelines. Its purpose is to guide us when we are at our most vulnerable - when we are angry, scared, frustrated, and outraged - and making some effort to internalize the ethos is how we protect ourselves from escalating disagreements. From what I can tell, you are a passionate and well-intentioned editor who is working toward the goals of this project, and I don't like when editors like you end up at ANI with a history that requires a more forceful approach. It's not good for you, it's not good for the people who referred you, and it's not good for the project overall. Van Isaac_WS 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Disagree amicably"???? Did you read the other comments from the admins on the board? There was consensus that he used racist, derogatory, baiting language. I can't disagree amicably with that, I point it out, and say his opinion on the notability of the subject is invalid because he has evidence of systematic bias. Please, don't be an apologist for this kind of behavior. It's very sad. JesseRafe (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated personal attacks.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.--v/r - T P 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

First, I understand why a certain user has decided to get me blocked. I did not make any personal attacks and I did not do so repeatedly. It is really sad, actually, that I am the one getting blocked because another user was being extremely racist and offensive, and I'm the only one who pointed it out. And I am not a thin-skinned person who sees prejudice everywhere, but tried to explain how the words this user was employing were racist and unfounded in a logical way, but he did not respond to any of my points. I made a purely objective critique of some very hurtful and derogatory language used by editor Valenciano, comments Valenciano made which when read were clearly, unambiguously and objectively racially-motivated. I did not attack him, but pointed out that he was attacking millions with his views he was subtly placing, that Hispanic and Latino people are incapable of achievement without kickbacks and winks and secret cabals. What he said was something akin to "that it is no surprise that a Spanish-language newspaper would endorse an Hispanic politician" (I no longer have access to my pages to find the exact quote). I pointed out that this was prima facie evidence of him being prejudiced, and that it violated being civil, and on top of that, he was uninformed since all three candidates running for the position were Hispanic. It is offensive in so many ways: 1. To Hispanics and Latinos because it means that they can't be judged on their own merits, but can only secure endorsements from "their" people. 2. It is insulting to newspaper journalists to think that they cannot be objective to the facts and policies of politicians, and would solely endorse someone based on their race/ethnicity/language/culture/gender/age/orientation, etc. Would user Valencian have said this if a White candidate were endorsed by [virtually] any newspaper in the country? I responded by stating that I was almost beyond words that someone could say something like that in 2011. It's a comment that would not surprise me in the 19th century, but it was shocking and disturbing to see it on wikipedia of all places. JesseRafe (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This is a conditional unblock. I understand why you feel Valencian's comments to be ill-considered – and frankly I agree with you – but at this point there is no benefit to further critiquing them. I am therefore unblocking on the condition that you not comment further on them, or on Valencian or his motivations and/or alleged prejudice, and focus only on the notability of the article. If this condition is acceptable to you, then you can go ahead and resume editing. I will also be leaving a note to Valencian urging him to be more judicious with his comments in the future. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure an administrator will consider this request. I'd like JesseRafe to know that members of the community are also interested in the outcome here. My76Strat (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, My76Strat, I'm glad some users were able to read what he had actually said instead of just focusing on his cherry-picked comments he chose to post of mine. JesseRafe (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 28bytes, but I'm still blocked. And unfortunately have a lot of work to do. Rest assured, I wish to have nothing whatsoever to do with Valencian ever again. When does this take effect? JesseRafe (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now. 28bytes (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Incidentally, please avoid this sort of comment in the future. Calling people racists and bigots is not OK, and will get you reblocked, even if you feel the charges are accurate. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just shocked at how quickly I was railroaded. I understand that it's not cool to use those words, but it's far less cool for the words he used to be anywhere on wikipedia, even an AfD page. And for what it's worth, I felt it was a description of his actions/words, not a name-calling - it's not rude to say that about Apartheid or Nazism. It seems like there were a few other admins who came on that ANI board after I had been blocked and were the first ones to actually discuss the true issue, i.e. evidence of views expressing a systematic bias being a problem with objectivity when an article's deletion is at stake. It seems like that other user was the baiter and then, being the first to complain (I don't even know how), he got what he wanted, and I had no chance for appeal. This was an especially dirty trick since this happened as the election of which the subject of the article was a candidate's results were being announced and, had he won, I would've wanted to (and been in the best position to) update his article accordingly. Thank you for the somewhat quick and painless resolution, but this whole experience has left me pretty upset with this blocking procedure. It should not have been done so quickly like I was some anonymous IP (been editing for over 6 years, have created dozens of articles) and I should have had a chance to appeal, or at least get judged on the merits of the issue, not just on what kind of grease the squeakiest wheel wanted. JesseRafe (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is, I understand why you feel that way, and I hope you are able to put this unpleasant experience behind you. 28bytes (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse, here is the thing, NPA exists as a way to try an minimize conflict here. Calling someone who seems racist a racist doesn't minimize conflict, even if true - an conflict is minimized because the purpose of wikipedia is not social debate but writing encyclopedic articles and conflict generally keeps one from doing that :). As you can see from his comment, in the case of Valenciano it was not true - even if I and others can see how you could see it that way. If you have an interest in these issues in a systemic way, I think WP:CSB might be of interest to you.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 21:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Since you have !Voted twice in this AfD, would you mind, just striking out your Keep !vote at the top of the page, (in case you do not know how this can be done by adding <strike> and </strike> around your first comment). Mt king^(edits) 05:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to consider the option of adding {{db-author}} to the top of Jesus Gonzalez (politician), this should make it easer to re-create at a later date should he meet any of the other notability standards. Mt king^(edits) 06:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strike that someone else has commented on the AfD. Mt king^(edits) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did assist in trying to get this article in accordance with inclusion criteria. I'm afraid after some effort, I am left to concur that the subject does not currently meet the criteria. I am confident that it is likely that he soon will, and I hope you or someone remembers to create the article at that time, because the subject is interesting. Good luck to you. My76Strat (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too, thanks for your help and support (in both realms). Man, would I have been pissed if he had won and I couldn't be the one to say so in his article because of Valenciano's block! I have the word doc from last night, and I'll see what I can uncover later and re-add it when I have some more time again. Thanks again, take care. JesseRafe (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High and Mighty disamb page

Greetings Jesse, you restored the previous version of the page after my line from Hamlet edit. Is there an alternate version of my edit that would be more acceptabe? I do think the reference to hamlet is notable, because Shakespeare frequently either originated many sayings and phrases or frequentluy at least made the phrases popular. In any case, seeing or hearing "high and mighty" makes a lot of people think of Shakespeare. Best wishes, Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for edit

Thanks for your edit on animal farm, i didn't mean to delete material μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ramsey userfied

At your request I've userfied the article at User:JesseRafe/Laura Ramsey. causa sui (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you given any thought to this lately? I haven't delved too deeply into the recent DRV, but your version was the best that I have seen by far and I don't think it's very far from being ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Causa Sui, and Bongwarrior: Sorry, shortly after that episode, I was pretty bummed the fuck out about wikipedia becoming so Vogon-esque bureaucratic that I took a break from being as active as an editor, and have just been getting back into it now, and looking at my talk page I see that I forgot all about this for a bit.

Since we three seem to agree that while she's not going to win an Oscar or star in anything A-list she's obviously notable nonetheless, what needs to be done to fix this version? More notability? And the current mainspace page is blocked, no?

In rereading Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_January_3 I'm still confused about how the deletion vote went down, as it was deleted/nommed BEFORE my version of the article went up and all the rationales were based on previous poor attempts. I'm looking over the page on my userspace now and it looks like it's just as good and notable and sourced as 40-60% of the articles on here. Click "random page" for a little while and see pages much much worse than Laura Ramsey. I just don't get it.

Also, I don't really care about the topic, just was filling in a redlink with an actress who is obviously notable, given the number of credits she has, the upper echelon magazine industry write-ups she gets, and the NINE other language wikipedia articles on her. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably ready right now - the current version more than addresses the reasons why it was deleted, and it would survive an AfD today without much difficulty (not that I would expect it to be nominated again). I probably could have moved it back to mainspace back in May, but I didn't want to do that without your consent, since you're the one who put the work into it. If you have no objections, I'd be happy to do that now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to have this go live. Are you kidding me??? This is why wikipedia is broken. Because of the "rules" which people follow to the letter and not the spirit. THIS is the version of the article that was deleted. And why? Because someone else deleted a different version of the article before me and THAT was deleted. Unbelievable... JesseRafe (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is now restored - if you see any technical problems with the move, please let me know. Thanks for your hard work, and sorry for the runaround. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! Hopefully the rulebook has been looked at since this was ~10 months ago, I hope others don't have the same troubles I did. Appreciate your efforts, cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

D

— JL 09 ^talk_contribs 12:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This kitten looks delicious, thank you. But what did I do to deserve it? I looked back through some of your recent edits, doesn't seem to be any page overlap... Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R.A. the Rugged Man

I am an OTRS agent, which means I field issues affecting Wikipedia articles which are sent directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you can appreciate that those conversation are confidential, and I cannot reveal details without permission.

I can say that the actions taken on the article R.A. the Rugged Man were not undertaken lightly or carelessly.

The edits did remove some material which may well belong in the article. As you know, we always like to have material supported by references. While this desire is not always met, we are more rigorous about following it in the case of BLPs. Another OTRS agent removed material that was not adequately sourced. I added a list of sources to the talk page, and it may now be time to carefully add back some of the removed material, if it can be supported by references.

I do not plan on making any material additions, as I want to leave that to editors like you who know the subject material better. Sorry it looked like your toes were being stepped on, but I assure you it wasn't without reason.

Do you know if there is any other editor I should contact? (I'll also post this to Wetdogmeat).--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowery

Would you mind reverting Epicgenius in regard to "The" - I'm out of options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I see it unattended I'll surely do so. However this is not the answer to whether I'd mind doing so, to which the answer is "yes, very much". If he ignores the Talk Page on this subject do you think this is ANI-worthy? I don't want this to drag my watchlist into the clusterfuck that was Cooper Square again... JesseRafe (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard

Please do not recreate Gerard after I tag it for speedy deletion (again). I was going to move Gerhard there and was just waiting a few days for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Gerard vs. Gerhard before proceeding with the move and split I stated there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I was looking for information on Gerard, found it was an empty spot and all the info that wasn't in Gerald was in Gerhard it seemed the obvious thing to do. If I come across alternative spellings or easy mistakes with blank/red pages, I make redirects. Full stop. It's what redirects are for and how wikipedia works. For all users, not whatever pet game you're playing with the page. Wikipedia is NOT for editors, it's for readers. JesseRafe (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True Grit (2010 film)

Hi, Glad to see your revision to the burdensome cast list –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 18:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Is the New Black

Hi. I saw you reverted my edits on the Orange Is the New Black article. I had been adding the rest of the recurring characters. By which criteria you reverted that? Which character should be included and which shouldn't. You deleted a couple of characters like Lorna Morello or Janae Watson that I think should be included. There are some guidelines? PeterCantropus (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are guidelines. The cast listed should not be the entire litany of insignificant and even unnamed characters to ever appear in one episode. It should be significant only, no fixed number or cut-off but the explanation can be found at Wikipedia:CASTLIST:

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc."

The version I edited had something like 30 or 40 names on it, so I reduced it accordingly. JesseRafe (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usain Bolt

I disagree but respect your opinion and will let your revision stand. In my opinion this is not only legit but one of the best examples. If somone "bolts", it has always meant running quickly though usually in the context of leaving somewhere after being startled. "The horse bolted when he fired his gun." Mr. Bolt makes the lightning bolt gesture after victories because it symbolizes speed and quickness, not because he lights up the night sky. Ok maybe he means to convey that as well :) RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Consider also the superhero Flash's symbol is a lightning bolt. It's a well know metaphor. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your candor. As you no doubt know that article like others is a magnet for additions. Every so often I try to pare it down to a manageable number and only noteworthy examples, as well as on the quality of the aptronym itself. While there's no established criterion, it seems to me that keeping things as concrete as possible is the best stance on the slippery slope. Hence why I was also adamant about "Marc Rich" - not apt enough to simply be rich and a banker and be a Rich, but a name like "Rich Fairbank" is great or a poker player (but not a banker) named "Chris Moneymaker" (or that'd be good for a minter/engraver as well). To me, Usain Bolt seems like "Sally Ride" - sure you can see the connection, but it's not as evident as Sam Whitelock or Tommy Tune. JesseRafe (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and I should have mentioned before, you have done a great job in keeping the list from growing out of control. Tough decisions. Thank you for that! RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They sure are tough sometimes, and I find myself pouring over them if I decide to remove one whether that means I have to take out 3 or 4 more as well. I made some changes to the layout just then in responding and realizing Marc Rich was back in there, the secondary list and redundant introductions had bothered me a while, I hope they can stick or more "inaptronyms" can be found. JesseRafe (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For years of maintaining and trimming the list of Aptronyms, which without your diligence, would have likely grown to unmanageable and unwieldly proportions. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFCW Local 1776

Did you notice that many of the "notable" places are redlinks, and likely to remain so? Did you notice that there are very few footnotes in this entire article, and that the requisite WP:NPOV is not there? I'm a union local president, eager to see our coverage of labor improved here; but by that very token, I insist that we must apply the same standards to articles about labor as we do to articles about capital. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MF Doom RM

Hey, I noticed you recently edited MF Doom, and you might be interested in commenting here, Talk: MF Doom#Requested move to Daniel Dumile at the recently opened requested move. STATic message me! 05:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarface

Eh, I don't understand why you said my edits were unconstructive. Can you please explain? Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tish James

It says in the second paragraph "James gave up her seat on the Council to run for New York City Public Advocate, effective January 1, 2013." How does this not say that she's not currently a city council woman? You also erased a whole bunch of other changes I made without justifying those. --69.2.120.11 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your more recent edit revert left the section undersectioned and you exaggerated about the number of one-sentence paragraphs: There was only one.--69.2.120.11 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe: Retaliation cast list

Hello. While I respect where you are coming from, we are both close to violating WP:3RR with our edits on the cast list of G.I. Joe: Retaliation. It appears that you are not familiar with WP:BRD, because when I reverted your bold edit of paring down the cast list, that was the point where a discussion should have taken place, before any more reverting. I am happy to discuss this with you, but in the meantime, the article should reflect the cast list before the content dispute, until a consensus is reached on the talk page. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian footballers of Palestinian origin

For your information I'm not trying to attack other editors like -85.165.42.67, I'm the one who was actually trying not to cause any of us both trouble. All I did was respectfully and politely ask this editor to stop removing my accurate and undoing all my recent edits to articles of Jordanian footballers of Palestinian origin, which most of them were created by me while the rest were adjusted and improved by me as well. I even apologized to him for making us go through all that trouble. But, he never apologized to me. This editor is just making things worse. I mean if he really wanted to help contribute to articles like those, he wouldn't even be doing any of that. He acts like he owns all these articles, but he actually doesn't, and thinks only he has the right to edit or make changes to them. I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know much about stuff like this. Even his English is not that well. He has no (valid) reason to go on an edit war with me because his edits don't even make sense and he just likes to remove new info added onto these articles. I'm telling you, he doesn't even know what he's doing. If anyone should be suspended or expelled from making anymore edits or creating articles here on Wikipedia, it should be him because he's the one who first caused all this trouble and started it all. And don't even think about taking his side because you have no reason to. I'm not the one who's doing anything wrong, he is. So why don't you tell him to stop, and if he doesn't, report him to Wiki authorities and have him suspended because honestly this isn't fair for me at all.

Götaland

Another editor has suggested that I make sure you are aware of this. While removing those citation tags, you also changed King to king before a name, which you probably know is not correct in English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Götaland, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Spinning Spark 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might also care to read WP:Edit war which is also against policy. Spinning Spark 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The maintenance tags were used maliciously, and this sole editor is waging a war himself while three other editors and myself are all providing evidence contrary to his assertions. Should he maliciously add another misleading tag, I likewise will remove it again. JesseRafe (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Götaland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk Page and Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Removing_source_tags_without_sources_or_discussion until resolution, status quo should be preserved. JesseRafe (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JesseRafe reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: ). Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Götaland. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spinning Spark 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really did not want to do this, but you have indicated that you will continue to revert no matter what and I now have no choice but to block you. You have stated that the maintenance tags you are reverting were inserted disruptively. I see no evidence for that and you need to make that case. Accusations in edit summaries are not the best place for making such a case. Note that this is a different question from whether or not the facts tagged are true. Spinning Spark 18:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, User:Spinningspark, you'd block me without actually reading my statements and allowing me to respond at all on the noticeboard and that's a complete lie by User:Mendaliv to claim I was "unwilling to discuss". Did any of you actually read the Talk Pages? The consensus was overwhelmingly against the complaining user 3-1. Did any of you weigh in on the subject and its merits? The offending user was putting CN tags on the article subject itself. And we provided cites and he willfully ignored them each time. All the while being completely silent on what exactly kind of citation would sate him. A decade-old article is severely undermined by the header and article title having a CN tag on it. The CN tags should remain off (i.e. the status quo should be restored) until the Talk Page on all three articles are resolved. And, they basically were. Except for the Serge Woodzinger who just threw CN tags everywhere willy-nilly, then complained when everyone told him he was wrong, and then via his complaints his detractors are silenced, and thus Wikipedia, intellectual honesty, and academic rigor are all tarnished by this lemmings-like mentality among many of the site's administrators to blindly follow rules without investigating the heart of the matter. Spirit of the law should trump the letter. Sad. JesseRafe (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Respecting the Talk Page consensus and undoing what was, essentially academic vandalism. Inattentive admins decided to block me rather than wait to hear my side on the ANI or actually investigate the matter. JesseRafe (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You edit warred. Believing that your edits were right does not justify edit warring: in almost all edit wars, everyone involves believes they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If this statement isn't an indication of your intent to continue edit warring, I don't know what is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reads a lot like someone commited to fighting vandalism if you ask me. Is 3-1 not consensus? Is ignoring the Talk Page and wholesale pushing your own agenda preferred? That was SW's route, and he won! I was just trying to respect consensus and keep the status quo as the page had been. JesseRafe (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not vandalism. I strongly urge you to read WP:VAND, specifically the sentences: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Until such time as you understand and acknowledge why your reverts were improper, I would strongly advise any reviewing administrator to decline your unblock request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if it's not vandalism what is it? And should it not, regardless, be removed? How is acting "willfully against consesnus" also a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" -- It can't be both. The first time, yes, he was in good faith, but on three pages he did this, and was disputed by three editors, at that point it's no longer good faith -- how could it be? So if it's not vandalism, what is it? How is his behavior exalted, but mine vilified? Did you even read the talk pages? I've asked you that several times.JesseRafe (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after multiple edit conflicts) I was not even aware that there was a case open at the EW noticeboard when I blocked you. It is beside the point, your behaviour and stated intention is to continue reverting. That in itself is disruptive regardless of the rights and wrongs of the substantive issue. I looked at the article talk page and the talk pages of you and SergeWoodzing before blocking and am not seeing any evidence for claiming disruptive use of tags. It would help if you provided diffs to the supposed disruption and discussion about it. The principle of reverting to the status quo while a dispute is discussed cannot sensibly be extended to maintenance tagging. The correct response to a maintenance tag on a legitimate fact is to provide a citation, not summarily remove the tag. The burden of proof is on the person removing the tag. Having said that, I appreciate that there is such a thing as disruptive tagging, but just being mistaken or doubtful about something and tagging a legitimate passage is not disruption. Spinning Spark 19:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "the talk page" you are referring to in singular is so don't know what you haven't seen, but as I have said multiple times, there are THREE pages SW was engaging in his disruptive edits in disregard to consensus. The citation of every single use of the term "Geat" throughout Wikipedia would have been beyond distracting. The complaining user, as close as we can deduce seemed to be disputing the very word which is, prima facie, absurd. As I said he put CN tags on the bolded subject lede on the article itself. Why not request the page deleted if he didn't believe Geats existed? JesseRafe (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently, these pages were never viewed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lands_of_Sweden&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Geats&action=history

Also, note that those edit summaries and the Talk pages of those articles had been happening for DAYS before I was reported on the Gotaland article, which, apparently this kerfuffle is based on. JesseRafe (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't view them, nor do I particularly see anything indicating a practice of tendentious editing on the part of Serge. When you claim someone's acting in bad faith, or acting disruptively, it is important (nay, essential) to provide proof in the way of diffs. You still haven't even provided diffs, though you have now (finally) provided links to some talk page. And even had you provided diffs, it would not excuse edit warring. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. You didn't engage in the actual matter, didn't easily look up the page history (how is the above histories not "a diff" just view them, simple) and didn't see that there were three pages and their talk pages which all showed SW being against consensus and irrational ("Finally"??? They've ALWAYS been there! It's called the history tab, just view it and INVESTIGATE.). You just blindly block me. Engage. There's a reason for the rules, and this is not them. Engage in the subject matter, please, this is an encyclopedia not a rulebook.JesseRafe (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With that, I'll take the opportunity to disengage from this. It's clear you have no intent of recognizing or acknowledging the incorrectness of the conduct that led to your block, and further discussion is a waste of time for both of us. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're ridiculous. I asked you direct questions which you ignored time and time again. To wit:

"Ok, so if it's not vandalism what is it? And should it not, regardless, be removed? How is acting "willfully against consesnus" also a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" -- It can't be both. The first time, yes, he was in good faith, but on three pages he did this, and was disputed by three editors, at that point it's no longer good faith -- how could it be? So if it's not vandalism, what is it? How is his behavior exalted, but mine vilified? Did you even read the talk pages? I've asked you that several times.JesseRafe (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

I'm clearly trying to address the issue. You wantonly disregard direct questions. How can I acknowledge my conduct if you don't explain what I did wrong? Where did you explain my wrongdoing? I explained my understanding of the issue and you ignored it. Typical. JesseRafe (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark are you still there? Did you see User:Til_Eulenspiegel's comments backing up the fact that SW was the disruptive one? Did you see User:Mendaliv's dishonesty and dismissive comments while skirting direct questions? Mendaliv said SW was not vandalism, so therefore I am wrong about the issue because I used the wrong word. I asked what would it be and he ignored it. How is fighting bad-faith malicious edits that willfully ignore consensus bad policy? How again and why am I in the wrong here? JesseRafe (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to go hunting around multiple talk pages to find out where Til Eulenspiegel agreed that SergeWoodzing was being disruptive. You have been here since 2005 and if you do not know how to link to diffs its time you learnt (hint: WP:DIFF). In any case, it is not so important what Til Eulenspiegel thinks unless they are citing some evidence of disruption. Merely disagreeing is not in itself disruption and I am still not seeing any disruption by SergeWoodzing, only requests for citations. Please link to one or more incontrovertibly disruptive edits then I might start to listen. Your rant against Medaliv is also not helping your case. I have always found Mendaliv to be a thoughtful and fair user who goes out of his wat to help others. There is nothing in his posts on this page that amount to dishonesty. I don't know how many times we have to repeat this, but it is not relevant who is right and who is wrong in the dispute over the meaning of Geats. It is your repeated removal of tags without addressing them that is at issue. I might have more sympathy if SergeWoodzing had been spamming articles with numerous tags just for the sake of it, but that is not what is happening. Serge is asking for a very specific issue to be cited. That is not disruptive and the onus is on the editors wishing to keep the material to cite it per WP:V. Spinning Spark 20:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please, engage and answer my questions. This conversation: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests proves SW's disruption and violation of consensus from the other editors. Why has it never been answered what to call SW's behavior if not vandalism? I have linked to all of my edits and their summaries and shown how SW was disruptive, what else is there to do? I have "ranted" because Mendaliv (thoughtful??? Ha, I have seen evidence of laziness and herd mentality, but not a shred of thoughtfulness. Fair??? Vindictive and power-happy, maybe.) ignored direct questions again and again. Why has no one answered why/what I did wrong when I was undoing another editor's rule-breaking and policy violations? Why does consensus get disregarded when the losing party complains? (which seems to be the sole issue). Should I have let SW flaunt Wikipedia's rules, policies, and conventions? If I had been the one to go and cry to an admin board then I would have been right, but since the opposite side of the argument did so first, he is right. Logical! JesseRafe (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you're hoping for here. Your tone is hardly likely to encourage editors to respond. I'd recommend chilling out and coming back when you've had some time away from here.

I'd also recommend not removing maintenance templates without a thorough discussion and consensus at an article's Talk page, and not accusing an editor of disruptive behavior unless you can, clearly, provide both diffs and links to what specific policies they are violating.

I think this would have gone better for you if you'd stopped repeatedly removing the maintenance tags and let the discussion run its course first. DonIago (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to get my block lifted, which I see is not going to happen. I'm also hoping for an explanation of what I did wrong. How was SergeWoodzing right? He ignored consensus and consistently re-did what the Talk Page discussion agreed was best not to do. I was observing and following the protocol and consensus on the issue. But then I get railroaded because SW complained, and the admins just acted unilaterally without actually looking at the issue. And they completely refuse to confess that they were too lazy to consider that the one complaining was, actually, in the wrong. The maintenance tags weren't genuine but just part of one user's agenda. That's it. Merely calling into question a verified fact, lends credence to one's own crackpot view, and having to cite the mere fact that a word is a word and exists is disruptive to the article. Why should one editor who absolutely refuses to believe he is wrong on an issue get his way, and those who are fixing Wikipedia get blocked? How does that help? JesseRafe (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name is being bandied about so mich, I'm being called a "crackpot" and generally under personal attack, let me ask one essential question: why should you be exempt from discussing reverts as well as from providing sources to substantiate article text that without those sources can be considered speculative POV by any reasonable reader? I hope that question helps you in your quest for an explanation of what you did wrong. I know what it's like not to understand that at times, so I sincerely sympathize with you on that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This right here is a picture showcase of one of the biggest black marks on wikipedia's reputation. The admins here don't know anything about the subject matter Geats and don't want to know. They don't care who is correct and who is incorrect, or what justice is. They only apparently care about treating those who know about the topic Geats like children, wielding authority and handing out blocks while coddling the editor who says the Geats never existed and all scholarship is wrong and he is right (or WHATEVER lame WP:POINT he is trying to make) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse: What you did wrong was engage in edit-warring when you had many alternative options available to you. Nobody forced you to continue removing the maintenance templates; you chose that course. Whether or not the information "required" sourcing becomes irrelevant at that point. What harm would have been caused by waiting until you had a clear consensus to remove the templates before doing so? Little to none, as near as I can tell. Do not edit-war; it's that simple, especially when the edit-warring is itself a violation of policy/guidelines (removing maintenance templates without resolving the underlying issues they refer to). If your root issue was with another editor's conduct, you should have resolved that first as well. Stop pointing fingers at other people and show a bit of humility and acknowledgement that you acted improperly even if your reasons for doing so were, in your opinion, justified. It doesn't matter whether anyone else was right; what matters for the purposes of your block is that you did not behave in a constructive manner. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I knew what you admins were reading, because it's not what I wrote about the incident... There was a clear consensus on the issue. Q.E.D. Did you look at what Til Eulenspiegel just said above? Is consensus not a policy standard anymore? Why was I punished for enforcing the rules, and SW exalted for violating the rules? There only underlying issue was in the one user's head. Challenging whether the subject of an article even exists? Absurd.

Please clarify, I am wrong in assuming that the rules are "find a consensus on the Talk Page" (which is what I did), but, in fact, the rules now are "complain on an ANI board when three other editors all disagree with me" (which is what SergeWoodzing did)? Is that correct? DonIago? JamesBWatson? Spinning? Mendaliv? I'm not being passive aggressive here, I really want to know the new rules. JesseRafe (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, though all things being equal I'd be somewhat flattered to be mistaken for one. If you don't believe that a non-admin can contribute in a positive manner to this discussion, please let me know and I'll fall silent. I spoke up because I felt I could contribute in a positive manner to the discussion.

When it comes to edit-warring, I would say the general guideline is do not do it unless the disruptive behavior is blatant (obvious vandalism, for instance). When you engage in edit-warring, all other issues become secondary, including whether or not your edits are correct in principle. If anything, the fact that your edit involved the removal of maintenance templates makes matters more difficult, because proving that the addition of maintenance templates is disruptive behavior is, to my mind, a difficult task.

Your block is related strictly to the edit-warring...whether your changes were "right" is immaterial because they were not right "enough" to outweigh the violation of WP's edit-warring policy, which is essentially, "If you have to ask whether it was correct to edit-war, it almost certainly wasn't."

I would approach an unblock request from that perspective. Whether your edits were right in and of themselves is immaterial. What other editors did is irrelevant. It's about what you specifically did.

If and when faced with this type of scenario again, I would pursue it as a matter of editor conduct and follow the appropriate guidelines, and unless you can establish unambiguously that the other user's edits are actively harming the project, resist any urge you might have to continue reverting them.

I hope this is in some manner helpful, and am sorry that the situation has been so frustrating for you. DonIago (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was in fact, extremely helpful and appreciated. I guess I still don't understand this concept of "edit warring" as there've been umpteen times I've reverted a user more than 3 times within 24 hours and in those occasions it's called "fighting vandalism". The number of restoring previous versions of pages to remove non-notables on articles for local topics is in the hundreds, but this is not edit warring, either, or is it not edit-warring merely because a burner account or random IP didn't know to go to the ANI boards so their vandalism could be protected?

I'm generally flummoxed by the fact that being right does not make me right. Being right is immaterial to being right? I didn't have to ask whether it was right to "edit-war", or, in my terms "remove one editor's pet crusade to mystifyingly deny the existence of the Geat people" and I approached it the same way I approach "BALLLLLZZZZ!!!1", so the maxim didn't apply to that occasion even had I known it.

Still, though, is 3-1 not consensus? Why has SergeWoodzing's persistent and without cause conspiracy-theorizing celebrated, and my respect of Talk Page consensus vilified?

Can no admin admit they may have been wrong? Can they admit that had I started an ANI thread and said that SW was ignoring consensus and he had added another CN tag and he would have been blocked? Can they admit this simple fact that I was blocked not for what I did, but that one person (who just happened to be wrong, as all editors on those three pages agree (Point of order, a citation was recently added to appease him and he immediately reverted it again and restore his "Says whom?" So fair and objective, that guy!)) complained first and the squeaky wheel got the grease? Does that not seem wrong. Shouldn't substance come first and rules follow? JesseRafe (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, glad I could be helpful then. :) IIRC (and I may not) we once had a bit of a dispute ourselves, so I'm particularly glad I'm able to provide any degree of helpful feedback now.

The thing about edit-warring is that the admins aren't everywhere at all times, and often won't know about it when it occurs. I'm sure plenty of well-meaning editors have violated 3RR without realizing it, and other editors have edit-warred figuring they could get away with it. The bottom line is that if you feel you've entered such a scenario, the best things you can do are start a discussion at the article's Talk page, warn the warring editor (a friendly might be nice, followed by a formal warning), and if they ignore both the Talk page discussion and the warnings, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise, the simple reality is that nothing's being done in all likelihood because the admins aren't aware of the problem. I've heard editors accuse others of "whining" to the admins, and that's horribly inappropriate; if an editor feels they have a legitimate complaint, they should be encouraged to pursue their issue through proper channels, not castigated for it.

I know how you feel about the frustration of not being able to fix what you believe to be wrong simply because of a policy, by the way. It sucks when an ignorant IP (for instance) persistently inserts inappropriate information into an article while your hands are tied because you don't want to be on the receiving end of a policy violation. Trust me, though it sucks to do so, the best thing you can possibly do if they won't discuss the situation with you is report them and then wait while the admins make a determination. To some degree this is why I tend not to frequent Wikipedia on weekends; it gives me a couple of days to let some things settle without me feeling like I'm sitting on any triggers. BTW, consider it a compliment that I feel invested enough in this situation to be violating my own policy. :)

I don't mean to sound like I'm brushing you off here, but beyond the edit-warring situation I'd really prefer to minimize my involvement in this situation. As I've said, I'm not an admin...there's nothing I can do about your block, and I don't know enough about the specific subject matter to even offer much of an opinion as far as that goes. Also...FWIW, I tend to favor sourcing, and believe the most practical approach to having anything here challenged is to provide a source, so... if I did review it we might disagree on the best approach. I'd rather try to keep things positive between us.

If you genuinely feel your arguments aren't being heard, you might consider the admin's noticeboard or another appropriate venue, but keep in mind that if the admins don't support your viewpoint it could WP:BOOMERANG on you.

I will say some of the comments here are of a somewhat negative nature toward the admins. While I doubt anybody here always agrees with their decisions, it would behoove everyone to remember that they're people too. They're not obligated to respond (or at least, not necessarily in a timely manner) and antagonizing them probably won't help anything. It certainly won't incline more admins towards getting involved in the situation.

I hope this helps. I sympathize with your frustrations, but I have to admit that aside from offering a friendly ear and trying to provide an interpretation of what's transpired, I'm not really wanting to get too involved with this. He said after writing a mini-essay... :p I hope the rest of your weekend is less frustrating! DonIago (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Bradley

I won't rv it, but in fact you are mistaken here! all English surnames can be used as given names although not all of them necessarily have been (yet).Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's exactly why I changed it, because it's so vacuous. All colors can be used as given names, all breeds of dog and all countries in Africa, too! Doesn't really add much there and the absolute struck me as a little jarring. JesseRafe (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Baines Edit Response

This was a true and accurate detail about Harold Baines. I would understand your edit if there was no other information about his children but the page lists every child so it seems strange that this would be excluded about his new son-in-law. I'm new to Wikipedia edits so I don't know the rules but I certainly wasn't vandalizing this page. Mwjjohnston11 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There simply wasn't a better template that didn't include "vandalism" that also included the message that that kind of information has no place on Wikipedia. The fact that it's irrelevant trivia, that's it's not sourced/cited, but moreover the fact that it included a vanity nickname ("Polish") put it over the top as something that didn't belong in wikipedia and was either a joke or a conflict of interest, because non-celebrities do not get nicknames in the encyclopedia, in fact very few people get their sobriquets included in their pages or in passing mentions. In short, it didn't belong, but thanks for contributing and discussing the issue! I do hope you read a few of those links I pasted for you to learn how to continue to contribute to wikipedia is a positive manner. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpy Johnson NYC Mugshot

JesseRafe none of my editing is disruptive i am new to wiki and I am still learning how to edit so I made a few mistakes as for Johnson's page I was simple uploading a better photo of a younger Johnson that was a lot better than the one you guys had. Most of the information you guys have is false like there was no proof that Johnson was ever into bootlegging but yet it's on the page. If your wish is to falsely inform people than so be it I will no longer and my editing which comes from years of research not speculation or hearsay. With that being said I reframe from any editing or viewing of Wikipedia if the informations is going to be false, thank you.Madeguy1931 (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, not only I, but several people all within hours reverted or undid almost all of your edits. Working independently without communication. That alone speaks volumes about the quality and professionalism of your edits. Please read the wikipedia guidelines, then. Especially the bits about "Original Research", which is obviously a foible of yours, considering how you brag about knowing "most of the information you guys have is false" and "my editing which comes from years of research" -- then cite it. Also, please learn about encyclopedic style, and English style, if that is not your native language. Writing that someone is a "mob boss, a criminal, and a crime boss" is boring and horrible writing, which is something you did on one of those pages, I don't have the time or desire to check which one right now. Please, take all of this constructively, and don't treat articles as if you have an axe to grind, but read the pillars, learn the protocols, and cite your additions, avoiding OR. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent wording issues.

Hello. Like I said, I have recently cleared my talk page of templated things. Furthermore, I am not a new user so I would appreciate if you did not use such templates on my userpage.

If you wish to discuss the recent wording issues we've been having, I would be happy to do so here. Alternatively, if you would like to discuss them on my talk page, feel free to do so, though I ask that you do not template me.

Also, like I said in the edit summary of my talk page, I am sorry for getting all riled up earlier. No hard feelings.

(NOTE: I am currently at school at the moment, so I might not be able to get back to your responses as swiftly as I would usually. I'll be able to get into deeper discussions with you later on in the afternoon.) (NOTE 2: I've been having some severe health issues recently as well, so I've been more hot-headed than usual. Usually I'm just adamant, but recently I've bordered on brash. Once again, my apologies.) Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but all of your claims are false. I don't care for your half-hearted insincere apologies. If you don't know that your wording is absurd and affected and not appropriate, then you seem like a new user. Likewise if you didn't know that you had violated 3RR with your edit-warring. Shows inexperience. Further, to the point: 1) You absolutely did not add the Etymology section to Yo. That's been there for years. I would know as it happened about 6 years into my watching the page, do your research before making baseless claims. In fact, I didn't notice this, but you actually removed confirmed sources from the article, which I will be adding back once this kerfuffle is settled with your violations. 2) Nowhere and Nohwere nor Erewhon and Erehwon would NOT be pronounced the same at that time, even if it were true it would be limited to Middle English which that novel was not. The idea that the voiceless labio-velar approximant ([ʍ]) is the same thing as the digraph "wh" is one thing, and sometimes in phonetics that pronunciation is written "/hw/" out of convenience, but that does NOT mean it could be both. It's one or the other, at best. All your superfluous non-encyclopedic wording aside. Especially in the lede, maybe academic-up your prose and drop it down into the meat of the article, not there. JesseRafe (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief that my apologies are insincere are unfortunate, because I truly do mean them. I don't know what has possessed you to believe that I come bearing ill-will, but if it was the personal attack, then once again I do apologise. That was without question my fault, and I take full responsibility for that. I know that it does not change anything, but I have been going through some harsh times as of late.

The reason why I removed those sources was because they were part of a folk etymology. I agree that they could have been kept to refer to the etymology notwithstanding in a section relating to folk etymology, which is most certainly viable, but I hadn't thought of that when I removed them. I was only thinking "This is an incorrect etymology; it needs to be replaced with the correct one."

What is different between "wh" and "hw"? In fact, if one were to pronounce "hw", they would almost certainly utter /hw/, which is quite close to /ʍ/. It's quite possible that such was the logic of the author.

Finally, what possessed me to get riled up in the first place was the fact that you seemed to show no respect nor understanding whatsoever towards the fact that my English variety is different than yours. This much is quite clear linguistically from the get go; New England English is a very conservative and particular branch of dialects. As such, when you try to belittle my statements with claims that come off as "New England English is little different from General American", it comes off quite rudely. We are supposed to respect each other's dialects of English, whether we personally like them or not, and as such unless there is some particular stark affiliation of an article with a certain country, wording should not be changed merely to comply with an editor's personal tastes. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't care about your health or excuses. I don't care if you're a talking dog; you're wrong and you're rude, and you wantonly violate WP pillars such as being civil, ownership of articles, 3RR, and edit-warring, perhaps among many other policies. More importantly, and content-wise, you're just plain wrong. Consistently. The fact that you still don't know that "whilst" is CONSENSUS out of favor in ALL dialects of English, moreover North American ones, and accuse me of not knowing about the differences between dialects YET think "hw" and "wh" and [ʍ] are the same thing really makes me wonder which one of us is the "callow fool". You pass yourself off as some sort of blowhard linguistics expert, but you don't even know the difference between // and [] for phonemes and phones, do you? The prior etymology was cited, ergo it belongs, your contributions are merely unverified musings you made up and are NOT CITED. Which belongs on Wikipedia? JesseRafe (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming so strongly that I am wrong simply because a concept seems foreign to you isn't really all that fair. The idea that I take ownership of the article(s) in question is hearsay. Unlike many other languages, English does not have a sole, all-official language regulation body. Furthermore, what question is there that, in English, "wh" is /ʍ/, and "hw" (if it is ever used as representing a phoneme) is /hw/, which is quite close to /ʍ/. I am aware of the difference between // and [], but because I always make as clear and specific transcriptions as possible, I use both relatively interchangeably (except when I need to be even more specific about a pronunciation, in which case I use []). Notwithstanding, I don't claim to be a "blowhard linguistics expert", just that I self identify as a linguist and that I am an Anglo-Saxon linguistic purist. My etymology is not made up, I merely expanded upon the existing etymology in question. The fact that "yo" (and its variant forms) have been in use for "hey" since the Middle English times as a clear derivative of Old English ġēa (as are "yea", "yeah", "yay", etc.) means that the term does not derive from Italian "io", as the previous folk etymology that was listed there suggested. As such, I removed it from the etymology section and expanded upon the bit of the etymology that actually related to its true origins.

Now, is it possible that Italian "io" reinforced the already existing word "yo"? Perhaps; maybe even likely. But it in no way whatsoever is the etymon of the word "yo".

Finally, the only instance in which I was particularly uncivil was that personal attack that you have mentioned, which I have apologised for multiple times now. I've been quite civil with you since that point.

(Also, as a side note, regional dialects and their lexicons and grammars are not decided by linguistic consensus, for they are, after all, regional dialects. Linguistic consensus only works to form "standardised" or "international" varieties of a language. The people of my area who do not work in the journalism or law fields couldn't give two blasts about what some individual believes is "the proper way a true American should speak English" when that individual's mind is fraught with biases in regards to dialects, and otherwise pays little to no attention to other regional dialects that don't happen to tickle their particular fancy). Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) You don't know what "leave off" means, 2) You don't know how to properly use :s (remember when you were so desperately claiming to not be new to Wikipedia?), 3) Of course you didn't claim to be a blowhard, I called you a blowhard, but you're still claiming to be a linguist (a concept I find offensive given your gross and ill-guided negligence of the most fundamental aspects of the discipline), 4) Using two CONTRASTING notations interchangebaly and then bragging about it does not strengthen your claim, 5) who cares what silly idiolect you have and imagine others do too, every STYLE GUIDE (the things that suggest how to write) says not to use "whilst", simple as that. It's over, you're wrong on the subject, especially when the topic is a North American one, 6) All of that "derived from ġēa" hogwash is uncited, therefore does not belong. The derivation from Io is cited, therefore belongs. See the difference? End of discussion on my Talk Page. Bye. JesseRafe (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

I asked you politely to discuss this on the article's talk page, and you chose instead to edit-war, which is why you have received the above warning. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on your end, AussieLegend, and there is no contradiction between my, Drmagi, the MOS, or Strunk and White's interpretation of the rule. ALL singular nouns take "'s" with very few exceptions (Moses, goodness, etc.) (I see now in my haste I said "plural" instead of "possessive" in one of my edit summaries, but that doesn't make any sense so I assume the reading was understood to be "possessive" as plurality had nothing to do with anything). I think the confusion on AL's end is the wording in the MOS that says there are three practices, however AL perhaps interpreted that to mean one could choose which of those options listed as bullets at a whim, but they were specific to the situation and explicit as which should be used. I copied and pasted in my last edit summary from the pertinent part of the second of these three bullets listed under #3 for Singular Nouns in the Possessives section of the MOS, it couldn't be any more clear. Alexis /a-lex-is/ is possessively pronounced /a-lex-is-iz/ and as such needs to be spelled "Alexis's" to reflect the pronunciation, unlike say, "Gates" which is up to the speaker how it is pronounced as /gayts/ or /gaytsez/ and to which it should be spelled "Gates'" or "Gates's" accordingly. JesseRafe (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this response at the article's talk page. I would have thought that you would have at least acknowledged your edit-warring with a commitment not to do so in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain this edit summary? Specifically, when was that version of the article in place? I looked through the edit history and can't see how the edit was a restoration. Regarding "keep as status quo", this is inconsistent with your actions at List of castle episodes, where I restored the status quo and yet you chose to edit war. My point is that you can't expect others to respect the status quo if you won't do so yourself. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you being bad at research puts the onus on me to do it for you. Look at the edits before Tharstan started adding his own opinions and original research, it's a synthesis of several cited facts (what I initially called Tharstan out on as his edits are largely OR and he added his OR at the expense of removing cited material) that had been piecemeal removed from the article. Also, NB: I changed his wording because it was largely also his own conjecture. A source says "Middle English", he writes, "specifically the 15th and 16th centuries".JesseRafe (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the history of the article and don't see how your recent edit constitutes a restoration. I had hoped that you might provide some evidence that it was a restoration. If you are not willing to... The phrase "specifically the 15th and 16th centuries" was in the article before Tharthan started editing there. "Specifically in the 15th century" was added in 2012.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I easily could later when I have the time on mobile now, it was literally copy-and-paste from prior version from Etymology section, how far back did you go? I didn't say Thatstan did the removal per se, he removed some cited material but not everything that was removed that was cited was removed by him. Fair point on that 15/16th bit, I had thought it was him, i noticed it with his additions.JesseRafe (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Promotion and the parking lot gang

Regarding the edit [2] by 70.31.37.239 on The Promotion, which you restored:

It's not unheard of for me to edit articles on movies that I haven't seen, so don't be insulted when I ask: have you seen the movie? Race plays an important part in some scenes. After the incident where Doug is hit with a thrown bottle, and he sprays one of the gang members with mace, the store hosts a large public relations effort with many people from the black community attending. (The community leader is played by Chris Gardner, who published his memoirs, "The Pursuit of Happyness".) It's here that Richard embarrasses himself, and annoys the community leader, by accidentally saying "It's just a few black apples." So I see race as an important element in the plot.

For articles that have more than 30 watchers, I usually let the revert go, figuring that if nobody else changes it back, it's just me, or other watchers don't consider it important. Since this article has fewer than 30 watchers, I'd really like to change it back, if I can convince you. I await your input.

Willondon (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: Canibus

Actually, yes it does. It's a primary source relaying information about the artist's own work. See WP:FACEBOOK. - Forty.4 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevent MOS entry which you cited above also clearly states, "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", and there is no verifaction that what you claim is true. Other than his putative manager using ALL CAPS to declare himself so. It's just a CD-R with some Sharpie scribbled on it, who cares? Is there even an information about the album? No, none, it's just unsubstantiated. WP should only have info on it that is independently verifiable, and not original research. The album could be complete right now, but it might not even be released. Doesn't merit inclusion (keyword:) yet. JesseRafe (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the announcement that the album is finished being mastered, and the reveal of what the initials TFLDPR stand for (that's all it's been referred to as so far). But whatever. And there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, it's his official Facebook, all announcements regarding his past few releases have been made through it by his manager/himself. And yes there is other info about the album, if you took a cursory glance at any of the posts immediately below the linked post you'd see it. And confirmed upcoming albums are routinely included in Wiki discogs. Canibus's next album is finished and is called Time Flies, Life Dies, Phoenix Rise, and will be out in March/April. And all this info is on his official FB, which per WP:FACEBOOK is considered a reliable primary source for basic information about the artist and his career (and rightly so, because if this weren't the case, Wikipedia would have an extreme bias against underground music, given that this is how underground musicians typically make their announcements, via their social media platforms). - Forty.4 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You realise that WP:BRD requires you to participate in the discussion? Opting out of the discussion implies you have no argument to back up your edits (hence my restoration of the contested info). When you ignore the discussion and continue to revert my edits you're violating BRD. Regarding the objections in your edit summary: per WP:FACEBOOK social media sources are permitted as primary sources for such information. Therefore I don't need any media coverage of it, it's enough on its own. By the way, you realise this is an underground artist, yes? The kind of blogs that would/will cover this release will mostly fail WP:RS. There is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the account, it is his official Facebook account, through which all information about his last few albums has been released before being reported elsewhere, all of which has been authentic. Explain this supposed 'reasonable doubt' of yours, because it seems arbitrary and contrary to WP:FACEBOOK. - Forty.4 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did participate. That facebook page is not an unambiguous no-reasonable-doubt official page. You do realize that whether or not you need to find any media coverage is immaterial to my reasonable doubt about the authenticity of that facebook page? But the fact that you can't find any certainly doesn't play to the strength of your argument. I don't need to explain myself more than once, I apologize if you only accept authority when it's written in ALL CAPS like the author of Canibus's supposedly official page. Also note, the "official website" of this "official facebook page" is ... http://rtjcollection.com/ ? Oh, yeah, real "official". Sorry, buh bye. JesseRafe (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. Participation would entail responding to my points. Which you still haven't done. However, his Twitter is verified, so I don't need to talk to your filibustering contrarian bureaucratic ass anymore: see WP:FACEBOOK & WP:TWITTER. Peace. - Forty.4 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What'd the pot call the kettle? You ignored my points. That's a dubious source. That's all I need to say, the onus is on you to prove it isn't. Look at the links for crying outloud. Show how it merits inclusion, what substantive things are there? Just a sharpie scribble again? PS, I know you have some problems reading, but please try to be WP:CIVIL. I am anything but a bureaucratic ass, they ruin Wikipedia, but nowhere near to the extent of the rabid fanboys who fill up pages with clutter and nonsense and unverified personal opinions and blah blah blah from a site run by a friend of a friend of a guy they wished they knew. Leave off, troll. You are obviously suffering from a combination of an intense case of being a Stan or have CoI or NPOV issue on this matter. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think Canibus has made a good album in 12 years, so I'm hardly a Stan, I just don't like sourced information that I add being baselessly removed by wikicrats, particularly on terms that evidence Wiki's sourcing bias against underground hip hop. I demonstrated to you why the source is reliable (and an out-of--date link suggests nothing, since he doesn't actually have an official site anymore). Again: all of the info re his last album Fait Accompli was released via that FB profile. How would this be the case if it weren't authentic? Is there a spy with a fanpage in Canibus HQ?? That's what you have not explained. Your own 'feelings' about its authenticity are irrelevant, although I'm sorry if I hurt them. Anyway, as I said, I don't need to discuss it with you anymore. Leave the info where it is; his Twitter account is verified. - Forty.4 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And did I take it off? No. I already said goodbye to this troll. The facebook link is a shit source. End of story. The twitter is verified. Shoulda led with that, no? And don't start about this being biased against underground hip hop, it's a bias against all things "underground" because they dont get coverage, don't make this something it's not. I've been a member of WikiProject Hip Hop for longer than you've even heard of wikipedia. And if I had any bias against underground MCs that'd mostly be because one time Aesop Rock stole my lighter. Or the time that Metro stepped on my toe and scuffed my Timbs, RIP. Yeah, I'm a biased wikicrat.

Further, to the point, an out-of-date link suggests everything -- if one cannot be bothered to update or remove a website link, how can another be expected to believe one is accurate in all other information thus presented? Sorry, but that argument, that someone doesn't have the time to take down a link, is just too ridiculous to accept.

Also, correlation does not imply causation. I could mistakenly read the weather report from last year and it might be eerily accurate four days in a row, would it be accurate the next day? The fact that prior things were accurately foretold by that source is irrelevant if the source is poor. Besides that I don't care. In fact, I do care because underground artists are exactly the types of articles that get the Stans and the everything-under-the-sun-included wannabes. Look at the Big L page history for the bigger targets than the relatively better maintained Canibus-man. JesseRafe (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grown Ups 2

Have you actually seen the movie to know if the actors you removed are worth removing? Cause your coming off quite unprofessional by the constant reverting. If you know anything about the collaborative process of Wikipedia you would know that reverting something constantly gets you absolutely nowhere. Koala15 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koala, you are wrong in every way imaginable. In fact because you haven't seen WP:CASTLIST AND because you haven't even seen Grown Ups 2, you're so wrong you're not even wrong. This is ridiculous in so many ways: 1, I regrettably have seen the movie; 2, if you haven't seen the movie why are you on that page anyway, you're either 2a, trolling for edits or, 2b, intentionally bloating the cast past the styleguides' suggestion in a way of making the article look silly; 3, no movie deserves (or even has) a cast listing in the 50s. None. My trimmed version is still WELL PAST the recommended 12 entries; 4, that recommendation is in WP:CASTLIST which I have asked you to refer to repeatedly; 5, you obviously haven't; 6, I said take it to the article talk page. This is not constructive; 7, Actors and characters are different things. In MANY cases the removed were BOTH non-notable. Unless you can give an account of the notability of Kris Murrell as Kitty (please, just one review mentioning it! Even if it's written by her mom!) it's obvious your blanket reversions are proof-positive that you are just trolling this article not because you disagree with my edits but for entirely different reasons that you seem incapable of expressing. I gave a reason for my changes, and you responded with, "Derp". 8, and you call this unprofessional? I gave reasons (even though I didn't have to) and was in line with the MOS, you literally don't have a reason for anything that you're doing; 9, Seriously how full of shit are you? In consecutive edit summaries you say I "clearly removed a lot of notable roles" and then say you haven't seen the movie Wowww... 10, Also, protip: You can't just make up your own "rules" and expect other, better editors to follow them and then accuse them of being non-professional because they don't, "The person that removes it should take it to the talk page and discuss it." -- Umm, no. That's not a thing. The person who thinks this random article is somehow an exception to established Wikipedia film article guidelines and the MOS in general should state why on the Talk Page. JesseRafe (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How am i "trolling for edits"? Also, i was not the one who added all those cast members. Like i said, i haven't seen the movie yet. But i think you might have trimmed it down a little too much. Koala15 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're still beyond ridiculous. OK, you haven't seen this movie, that's fine. But have you seen WP:CASTLIST? How many times have I asked you that direct question? Similarly, have you seen any other movie's wikipedia article? Ever? Is this your whole experience of the internet, this one wikipedia article for a film you haven't seen? JesseRafe (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? "If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose." Koala15 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what was done! Is it not two columns to you? What is your beef? Again, what is the notability of "Kris Murrell as Kitty" that you care about it so much? Non-notables were removed, end of story. Bye. JesseRafe (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question.

Why do you think it more reasonable that "yo" suddenly popped up from two different sources at two different periods of time for very similar purposes, when:

1. Nautical fiction (especially pirate fiction) has been known to use "yo" to a ridiculous extent, and such nautical fiction was most certainly available in some way or another in Pennsylvania.

2. There is no reason to believe that "yo" comes from the Italian first person pronoun when it doesn't even serve a purpose vaguely similar to it. Contrarily, "yea" was in use both as meaning "yes" and "thus, so, it is such": a reasonable semantic ancestor of "yo".

3. Even if you argue that "yo"'s pseudopronoun use could be evidence for its etymon being the Italian first person pronoun, that could easily be explained by any of the following: One- Misanalysis of phrases such as "Hey, yo." Two- Misinterpretation of an unemphasised "you" Three- A conflation of both one and two.

So, again, why do you insist on claiming that this word goes back to Italian? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're boring. One, there are literally thousands of words that have popped up over time unrelatedly. Especially for such simple ones as "yo". Two, they are not for similar purposes. The one used 600 years ago meant "yes", the one in use in the past ~100 years meant "hey" more or less. Three, the nautical fiction (Pirate Talk, Arr me hearties, I assume you mean) uses this word without not only the "yes" or the "hey" meanings, but no meaning at all. It's a nonce word. It's a sound, like "Arrgh, shiver me timbers!" what does "arrgh" mean? Four, read the article, it explains semantic shift. Four, your #3 isn't in English, sorry, no response. Five, I never insisted it goes back to Italian. I am merely keeping sourced material on the page and removing nonsense fantasies. JesseRafe (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was unnecessarily cold of you. Please assume good faith. There is no need to be uncivil.

"Arr" is a dialectal variant of "aye". It's still used in parts of the England with the meaning of "yes". Not the best example to try and disprove my point, hm?

What I have said is not a fantasy, but the most likely case out there for the word. I don't understand why, when ever I try to discuss things with you, you almost always reply to me hostilely. It's quite unproductive. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that we may finally come to a civil compromise, I have requested some help with our current disagreement here:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Yo Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White House Down

Some of the characters you removed had key factors in that movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most common surnames in Asia

Why you decided that my edit was unhelpful? My edit was saying something true and quoting sources. What authorises you to revert it without discussion? Devi means lady, it is not a surname, please google it. The fact that i am an unregistered user does not mean that i cannot edit true things on wikipedia. Why this? Please answer me in a talk instead of just saying that my eedit is unhelpful without any explication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.123.60 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because your edit was nonsense, your sentence was horrible, your sources are Nazis, and not even quotations, just bare links. You linked a google search you did. Do you even internet? JesseRafe (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Momofuku-Milk Bar

Hi JesseRafe,

Thanks for writing on my talk page. As you can probably tell, I am new to the Wikipedia community. The page I created on Momofuku-Milk Bar is for a college course I am taking pertaining to online communities. So I just wanted to clarify a few things since I know you have now removed content twice from this page. I have no affiliation with Momofuku, I am a student. There is only one user producing content for this page, and that is me. I have read and understand the guidelines for creating a proper wikipedia page, so maybe you can help me out instead of just deleting the content from the page. I am being graded on this assignment, so I need to have enough content on the page in order to receive a grade. Please advise on how you think I should move forward with this page. Nwells1229 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for writing me and for contributing a worthy article to the encyclopedia!

One, don't take this the wrong way, but I really don't care about your course. That doesn't mean that I don't want to help you, but it does mean that that's not what Wikipedia is for, and putting one's personal wants over the good of the encyclopedia as a whole is in violation of some of the most basic principles of Wikipedia.

Two, even if these contributions are in effect removed, if your instructor only looks at the finished product instead of the page history and your user contributions, (e.g. sees you tried twice to list something that was removed and then made this effort to reach out and find out why) and still gives you a bad grade, then I'd imagine he or she is a poor teacher and doesn't understand WP. So far, you've done everything right.

Three, sorry, I'm busy right now and haven't been on much lately but I believe the section I moved in its entirety was "Popular menu items"? This is not encyclopedic at all. There was a lot of stuff on the history of the restaurant but it began to read like a biography of the chef, who, unlike David Chang, was herself not notable. I forget how many sources were being used, but it was few and way too detailed. For a relatively non-notable establishment, making too long of an article with too many details (especially relying on few or NPOV sources) is giving it undue burden. A lot was also just Momofuku company background as well, no?

If you need an additional section, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe the cuisine, or just the menu itself, but using words like "popular" -- especially in a section heading are NPOV and what are commonly called "weasel words" or "peacocking" and often suggest an editor with a Conflict of Interest (COI).

Hope this helps guide your further edits. JesseRafe (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just want to clarify a few things. My point in telling you that this is for a course was to reiterate that I not affiliated with Momofuku in any way. Of course I would not want to put my own personal wants over the good of the encyclopedia. I want to contribute valuable information that is not currently available on Wikipedia. Second, my instructor is not simply looking at the final product, however, I would like the page to have enough valuable content so that it does not get deleted. I think that this is a very important page and I am trying my best to make it as good as it can be. I understand why you would remove the heading "Popular Menu Items" because looking at it from this perspective, I now understand that it looks biased. However, the heading aside, I believe that there was some valuable content in that section that I would like to incorporate. This is where I could use your help as an expert wikipedian. Please let me know if you are able to help edit that section so that I don't have to simply eliminate all of that content. Nwells1229 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding it back, but temper your language. Terms like "outrageous" do not ever belong in an encyclopedia unless as a direct quote and if necessary. Sentences like, "Growing up in a suburban home, she was often caught mixing up some unsuspecting food combinations. Though she was labeled a picky eater, she never lacked creativity." are atrocious. That's a 4th-grade book report writing style and unencyclopedic content to say the least. She is not notable. Compare her to Chang himself, in my opinion there should be no more than 3-4 total sentences about her entire existence unrelated directly to the subject of the article, the Milk Bar. Biographical details should be in a section about her, not a list of menu items. Things if they belong, should also be where they belong. Good luck! JesseRafe (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of new sections on Milk Bar

Thanks for all of your help on this article. I suggested that the student working on this article add sections for Awards and Publications which you then reverted. However, I suggested Awards and Publications sections because they are often in other restaurant articles: Alinea_(restaurant), Alex (restaurant), The French Laundry, Eleven Madison Park, Manresa (restaurant). Can you expand on your reasons why it's not appropriate for Momofuku-Milk Bar? Thanks.AmandaRR123 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These were things directly related to chef Tosi, it's debatable whether they belong on the page as she has her own. Of all of your examples, the awards were explicitly for the restaurant. If there were awards for the chef, they were listed in addendum among awards for the restaurant. Of the one example with a "Publications" section that book is more than recipes, but also distinctly about the restaurant itself and its staff, not just the named chef. Not comparable. This article (MMB) feels like a redundant rehash of the Christina Tosi article, and she only contain information on her in brief, and be focused on the brick-and-mortar physical establishment, not her. JesseRafe (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point about the award, though I'll note it was primarily for her work in desserts and pastries. But the "Publications" section I'm inclined to keep -- the cookbooks have Milk Bar in the title, so don't they also belong in the Milk Bar article? I feel like an article about a restaurant is a clear place to list cookbooks with that restaurant's name in the title. AmandaRR123 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time they were one sentence each, and I don't think single sentences merit sections unless wholly different from the rest of the content, e.g. a BLP article with a single sentence "Early life and education" or "Personal life" are very frequent as they are not their "Career" or what-have-you. I would say that the publication of a book or two or the receipt of an award are not wholly different from the history of a restaurant, in Year A Restaurant X opened, in B Dish Y was added, in C Chef Z won an award for work at X, in D X expanded to new locations, in E Z published a book of recipes from X. That said, now that the there are two books, it could be in its own section (I don't know if there are hard-and-fast rules about this) or, it should be one paragraph. But I do feel like "Awards" AND "Publications" feels like bloating. Hence the original spam or NPOV tag put on the article (not by me I don't believe, but my first edit summary contained my impression that the meat of this had at least been copied-and-pasted from an MMB suorce if not wirtten by an MMB person themself). JesseRafe (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, I must say I feel to see how two simple sentences justify two additional sections. The book, in my opinion, is by Tosi, not the staff, and is her recipes, not the restaurant's. Hence my comparison tot he other book, I think it was Alinea, that was explicitly about the restaurant. I just don't see how adding these one-note sections are non-trivial (again, as they're about Tosi, not the subject) or not giving undue significance, "trumping up" the article so to speak, by giving it more sections and making it appear more substantive in lieu of actually giving it more substance. JesseRafe (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I view new sections as improving organization and readability. If two or three sentences only focus on one topic, it makes sense to break them out from the main body of the article. They are not "History", they are specifically a list of books about this particular restaurant. I can see that you are keeping a careful eye on whether the article is about the restaurant, as opposed to the chef, but again -- I don't see where that complaint comes in with creating a section of cookbooks that are recipes from the restaurant. We may have to agree to disagree. AmandaRR123 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo's Oil

Why am I not supposed to add the other actors who played Lorenzo, they are notable. Even the voice-over. MaxamillionSmart (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Please see WP:CASTLIST as I stated from the beginning. JesseRafe (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His dark materials

I am HUGELY glad that someone is taking an interest in HDM, I spent a lot of time tidying last year, but got tired. General observation is that there is/was quite a lot of speculation, OR and 'fansite-y' text. I'm going to remove your 'Geneva' link for two reasons, firstly in IS linked, secondly I've tried to apply the logic that we don't link to place names when they refer to 'in -universe' places, institutions etc. but do link when referring to the 'real-world' eg Lyra's 'Oxford' does not link to the 'realworld' Oxford, except when comparing the two. By all means contact if you think this logic is wrong.Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It is a chore when there's a ton of "fanboy" type prose to slough through as is often the case. I intended to link Geneva in the first mention, and may have forgotten to remove the now redundant link in the second, but I see your point. It was more apparent re John Calvin, which I left only linked in the real world parenthetical despite his prior mention. Logic is sound and I will look out for it. JesseRafe (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes especially problematic when referring to Magisterium etc. Pullman's Magisterium is clearly borrowing the term from RC Church, but is NOT the SAME. He 'borrows' so many terms/place names/ideas to play with on his own terms. The real John Faa, is not the same person as Pullman's John Faa ('King of the Gyptians'), but it was previously linked thus. I developed strategies for retaining the connections between in-universe and real world without direct linking or implying equivalence or 'explaining' the relationship. BTW I think your edit reason was correct, the 'final destiny claim' is speculation and therefore OR.Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking my work as vandalism.

Plese read over my work before you immeditely mark it as vandalism many news sources take issues out of proportion. Just because I edit one article you care about doesn't mean you can revert every useful edit i have made do this again and i will complain to the admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayershallhavehisbane (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read over your work, that's why it was reverted. You've contributed nothing but Original Research and opinions. You've deleted sourced and cited materials merely because you disagreed with them and they didn't fit your agenda. These actions violate Wikipedia's terms, policies, and fundamental pillars (you'll find links to these on your talk page for your reference). Please stop this behavior and learn how to contribute in a meaningful manner. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well some of my edits didn't have proper sources but some of them did so I'll add the ones which had proper sources back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayershallhavehisbane (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My changes to MF DOOM were not vandalism

Yesterday I removed "Mask of the North Star" as a collaboration album on MF DOOM's wikipedia page. The reason being the "Mask of the North Star" was an April Fool's Joke created by FACT Magazine. Flying Lotus and MF DOOM are not currently working on an album, and I was merely removing a something that was a lie from the MF DOOM page. It makes Wikipedia look bad when there are very obvious lies on a page. JamsTheKuma (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference there's a handy-dandy little thing called an "edit summary" that you may want to look into. JesseRafe (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patronizing JamsTheKuma (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, when did I call it vandalism? I wrote in my edit summary "No reason given for removal of content", because you did not write anything in yours. Use it next time. I know what patronizing means, I also know what "Briefly describe your changes" means, as the definition of the Edit Summary is given right next to it. Don't get your panties in a bunch because you did something wrong and someone told you you did it wrong. Reading is fundamental. JesseRafe (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles fans

Regarding the tense change on the Philadelphia Eagles entry, I don't think it's appropriate to source the present tense with a reference that's 13 years old. The end of the sentence is also in the past tense, making it an overall bad edit. I should have explained better though. Just letting you know what I was thinking. Have a good day! EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Scheer

Hi! I wanted to make changes to his page. I work for a company that works with him. His profile picture primarily. Any chance you can help with this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmichaelbean (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilt the Stilt

Would you care to discuss the merge? You already know what I think. The personal life section there (at Wilt) is more like a lead section for Personal life of Wilt Chamberlain. The death section at Personal would be perfect for the main. The rest doesn't make it too long I think. What you said in your revert of me didn't make sense to me. I encourage you to discuss it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you'd want to start it on the Chamberlain Talk Page, I'd chime in when I have a moment. I didn't even know there was a Personal Life separate article. As it stands, and has stood since at least 2007 or so, the article is far overlong. A lot of sections can definitely be condensed and not every single item of interest needs to be included, that's what a proper biography is for. I haven't read through the whole article in a long while, even as is, it's close to unreadable and only the most interested (and new to the subject matter) reader can do anything but skim. But I saw the 10 or 12,000 byte addition and just based on word count (not merit) I removed your largely extraneous or redundant or overly detailed, albeit well cited, additions. Thanks for the message and your time! JesseRafe (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a swift response. There was a merge discussion started on the Personal life of Wilt Chamberlain talk page just so you know. That is (in case you were unaware) why I made those edits. I wouldn't have made the edits if there was no request for a merge. I think the personal life of Wilt page is cool! I do agree if it is merged it could be condensed. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kroll Show - Theme music credit

Hello with reference to the Kroll Show page and the credit for the theme music - thank you for this information - my original composition was composed in 1999 - and then remixed for EMI by Josh Powell a couple of years ago. Scout McMillan has fraudulently stolen the music and even released a cd with the remixed track giving it a concocted title of "Polyhymnia" I am currently pursuing him through my publisher EMI/Sony - he has been issued with a "cease and desist" notice - but my intellectual property has now been damaged.

I can supply you with every evidence to confirm the correct authorship of this music.

the tracks are A New Renaissance and A Bass Renaissance. my original track https://www.emipm.com/en/gb#/search?textQuery=metamorphosis&fields=name,description,albumName,composerName,keywordText,albumCodeCompact&keywordIds=&labelCodes=&versionTypeIds= and the josh powell remix that was stolen https://www.emipm.com/en/gb#/search?textQuery=dubstep&fields=albumCodeCompact,albumName,composerName,description,keywordText,name&keywordIds=&labelCodes=&versionTypeIds= l am finding very hard to cover every post of this wrongly credited on you tube and soundcloud - to put right this terrible injustice. thank you for your time.(Catocalafraxini (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catocalafraxini (talk • contribs)

Your edit on Tommy lister Jr

he's not from arkansas there isnt no source saying he is , the encyclopedia of arkansas took down his article due to the lack of information , can u please change it back to compton , california . thank you . Ohgeejay (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a source that says he isn't. Or that he was born in California, as opposed to grew up there. The wrestling site is a joke. User-generated and barely has any proper sentences. When things like this are in contention, the status quo is preserved until it is resolved one way or the other. As the status quo of this article had had the Arkansas birthplace for years, and it was formerly sourced, the article stays that way until you can prove that it doesn't. JesseRafe (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2pac's documentary from 2010

Why did you erase 2pac's documentary 2010: Tupac Uncensored And Uncut: The Lost Prison Tapes. I own that documentary, you can watch it free on YouTube. You write "unsourced/non-notabled", all others mentioned documentaries doesn't have sources too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it sounded made up. Something being on YouTube, by the way, is not the defining characteristic of being a documentary. JesseRafe (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Because it sounded made up." Are you kidding me?!? That's way you erased it!!! Who allow you to be moderator on Wiki! If something is suspicious to you, then you check it up! You know how to use Google search, right? About YouTube, some audio/video material do not have copyright so it can be uploaded on YT. Here, maybe you buy it: http://www.amazon.com/Tupac-Uncensored-Uncut-Prison-Tapes/dp/B0042AHOPI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not kidding you, and the burden of proof is on you, the one who says it is real. There is no onus to prove a negative. So, either it's some made-up fan video on YouTube or it's relevant. Which is it? Sources would prove it. That's why they're asked for. It's simple. If it's not something some guy made in his mom's basement with archive/found footage, it should be easy for you to prove that. Bye! JesseRafe (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All other documentaries don't have sources and you didn't erase them? But you did this one?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jahlil Okafor

This serves as your warning that if you revert Jahlil Okafor again without considering the opinions of the opinions of the half dozen other editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Removal_of_dunking_and_frontal_face_pictures_from_Jahlil_Okafor_except_the_main_image, I will take action. You may be blocked if you insist on editing against the consensus of other interested editors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is clear and on the Talk page. You, sir, are the one in blatant violation of overwhelming consensus, e.g. everyone. JesseRafe (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus for you to attempt to pare down the article, but there seems to be consensus against your removal of the two images that you insist upon removing. The talk page that you are pointing to is one that has had only one other discussion this year. It is likely that the best place to discuss his article is at WT:NBA (where I have posted a centralized discussion). Please participate in the centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Removal_of_dunking_and_frontal_face_pictures_from_Jahlil_Okafor_except_the_main_image or in the new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Obstinate_reversions_by_User:JesseRafe_at_Jahlil_Okafor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Obstinate_reversions_by_User:JesseRafe_at_Jahlil_Okafor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your delusional. The consensus is 100% on my side, do you even know how to read Talk Page sections that you yourself start? Absurd. Stop obsessing over high school children. He's in the NBA now, no one cares about pictures of him "at his youngest". Bye. JesseRafe (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okafor 2

Please discuss the Igbo text at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Jahlil_Okafor.27s_ancestors_by_way_of_a_non-WP:RS. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, additions that have no consensus are not retained. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Jahlil Okafor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

One week is beyond unreasonable. I did not violate 3RR. Which policy did I evade then? How did I not manage to seek consensus? This was not even my edit, but another user's entirely and TonyTheTiger is the one who acted without consensus and I was restoring the page before information was wantonly removed -- THAT is status quo, no? Look at how many other useful additions I consistently make and how much vandalism I remove. A block is uncalled for as I very clearly established that I was open to dialogue, however was just restoring the status quo for that dialogue to happen. The edit in question should be TTT's removal of Ukabia's addition, not my neutral edits of restoring the page to how it should be. So my argument is there shouldn't be a block at all, but a week is beyond absurd. Further you acted unilaterally and without discussion on this matter. Seems like you were personally miffed and are using a block as a punishment and not a teaching device. No warning, no nothing. Again, did not violate 3RR so what was it for? JesseRafe (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Explained to editor below that further edit warring will lead to longer if not indefinite blocks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were invited to discuss at #Okafor (immediately above), and you've been blocked before for edit warring, so I'm not sure why you feel like you were entitled to another warning. I'll offer you a simple proposal to unblock if you agree to follow WP:DR and not perform any further reverts at Jahlil Okafor until a consensus is reached on the dispute. Otherwise, you can feel free to have an uninvolved admin look at your unblock request, though I would suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM.—Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And did I not respond to the invitation to discuss the topic? Clearly I did comment on that page and it was before the block. Further, I have never been blocked for edit warring (I don't hide my blocks, they're right here on my page) and have never been blocked without a warning. I made 2 edits in 24 hours so had stopped short of 3RR so I don't see how I could be blocked without a warning. I'm more than happy to wait for a consensus. There are dozens of misspellings and non-notable additions being added right now that I can't fix because of this silliness. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing some of your comments:

You have been discussing, but it doesn't give you a free pass to continue reverting.
Per WP:EW, edit warring is more than 3RR: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."
There were two previous mentions of EW in your block log
Per WP:EW, "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it." I decided, based on your amount of time here and previous incidents, you should already have known better.
I'm going to unblock you, with the understanding that future blocks for EW may be longer or even indefinite.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but point of order: if you look into the issues, I have never been blocked for Edit-Warring, however they may be labeled. And this was unambiguously prima facie a block for punishment, not prevention. So this seemed like a relatively pointless exercise in your power as an admin. JesseRafe (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If another warning after I had invited you to discuss would have avoided all this, then I apologize. At any rate, I think we are agreed on what edit warring is moving forward. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch

See talk page. Baruch page says 25, underlying source says 9. I'm somewhat indifferent how to resolve, but they do conflict. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conflict is just a mistake on Baruch's end. Fixed it and responded on Talk. Should only be one source, no conflict, or two sentences for two different rankings. JesseRafe (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding on The Wanderers

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding The Wanderers. When I said I reverted an edit and said "refer to the MoS layout", I wasn't talking about your edit. It was relating to another edit; made by another Wikipedia user. That's why after reverting the edit made by the other user, I noticed your edit and quickly made sure that it was placed safely back in the article. I apologise for any trouble caused. Metal121 (talk) 19:43, July 30, 2015 (GMT).

George Nada in They Live

The character is Canadian. He reveals it when talking about his life. Roddy Piper was also Canadian, and this lent itself to the character. 24.11.38.237 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about sources. The character also lies about his background to evade probing questions, and is variously called John Nada, not George. Most accurately he is not named at all, as Nada should make obvious. Last of all, in what way, other than national pride is his purported Canadian origin relevant to the telling of the story? JesseRafe (talk)

He's a Canadian who ends up more or less fighting for the United States. The "source" you seek is the movie itself. It may benefit you to actually watch it again.

Also, you have been blocked six times for edit warring and personal attacks. I can now see why that has been the case. Please stop pushing your WP:POV on articles and stop the edit warring & personal insults. 24.11.38.237 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single thing you've said is true, but thanks for playing! JesseRafe (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]] says otherwise. Please stop. 24.11.38.237 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why come here and harass this editor when you're discussing it at the talk page too? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, Sisyphus

If IP 72.229.40.94 is not already on your list of MrMike sock-puppets, I suggest its addition. (Sorry, I'm a bit exhausted keeping up with the reverts, and couldn't be arsed to check.) I appreciate the work you're doing combatting this type of vandalism. I tend to treat the edits one-by-one, go into detail when I can [4], and take the trouble to ask for help when I have time [5]. So again, I appreciate the work you do in tying it all together, and dealing with this at the master sock-puppet level. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just so damned annoying and undoing his work feels like asking a wall you're playing tennis with to give you a break. It's extra annoying because the pages he traffics don't have as high frequency with the admins, or even anyone really. I wouldn't be cruising by the Still in Tha Bassmint page if it weren't for following his 1995s to 1996s and other random changes. I appreciate your thanks and your heads up on this 72-user. I added that account, but I am positive the others are one (due to the consistency in the IP addresses themselves) but am not as 100% on this one. It already being blocked is a good start. JesseRafe (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperforeignism

I really sympathise. But I think the point being made is that some hyperforeignisms become so universally used that it becomes problematic to call them "incorrect"; they nevertheless remain hyperforeignisms. My favourite example is the pronunciation of "machismo" with a hard "ch" as in "masochism". I regard this as indefensible pretentious nonsense; however, I have literally never heard the word pronounced in any other way (except by me!) and I doubt that any dictionary would describe it as incorrect. But even if it is now "correct", the mechanism by which it comes into being was and remains hyperforeignism: excluding this example from the scope of hyperforeignism on the grounds that it is problematic to call it incorrect simply muddies the waters.

It's analogous to other mechanisms such as back-formation and folk etymology. All these processes depend on cognitive errors; but some of the resulting usages become accepted in the course of time and others do not. All the best. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even English, bro?

Read WP:POSS and tell me I'm wrong again. I'll wait. Calidum 18:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark B. Cohen

You've done some massive changes, so its understandable to have some hiccups. There are two broken refs... ...requiring no further House debate.</ref> and ...Pennsylvania," at http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2009/dec/03/feature_medical_marijuana_gets_h</ref> Bgwhite (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

District leaders

About New York district leaders in the NYC government article, I assume there is criticisms or some dislike of district leaders that is prevalent in New York? The only criticisms I've come across relates to "party bosses"--are district leaders considered party bosses? Otherwise I don't understand why quoting "district leaders" could reasonably be considered to cast them in a negative light. Int21h (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Idk who Mrmike is and okay I'll stop editing hip hop pages, who are you by the way sr.? if you don't mine me asking WRCO (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Feniosky Pena-Mora

Dear Jesse, Thank you for your notice, I very much respect the Neutral point of view and your efforts of improving the quality of the page. However, as the NPOV states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The editing you have done so far removed significant part of the facts of accomplishments that are on public record, but allowed clearly subjective languages such as "self-serving management", "hasty" which are not backed by the source and disruptive as well. What I was trying to do earlier is to bring in equally important views published by reliable sources on the same topic. If you have questions please feel free to let me know. If you feel it could be written in a better way, could you please help re-write it taking into consideration all the available information representing significant views from all sides? Thanks a lot Hiltonbright (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse's Trivia

Regarding the third Trivium: The pronunciation of Latin utopia in Anglo-Latin as you-topia is not a mispronunciation, but regular and correct (compare Uranus). The homonymy with eutopia (on which the antonym dystopia is based) was unavoidable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PAGES

Look people change this to much and I am a professional hip hop expert and that's the reason why I look at the pages and watch them. Hip hop is a passion of mine and when people like you start changing you guys don't know why I put it. It's part of their content and my patience is thinning down. So please I don't want any messages by you or any changes I will change it back to what I put it but believe me it's true. I study hip hop daily. I take hip hop classes such as Music and production so please understand. Rogelioorrelana (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just so you know about big L, all that I put was true so please don't even come to me and block me once I tell you this: GO STUDY YOUR HIP HOP!!!! Cause honestly I don't think you do!!!! Rogelioorrelana (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be rude it's just really read your hip hop. And you'll get why I change and edit a lot of the rap pages Rogelioorrelana (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry about editing the Zicklin Talk Page, I got confused tabbing back and forth between browser windows. Lex 1503 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smif-N-Wessun

Your requested move at Smif-N-Wessun has the same name for the target and source.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. I just checked and it looks like I asked for Smif-n-Wessun to be moved to Smif-N-Wessun. Is this not so? JesseRafe (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The League

Didn't know where else to put this, so I just created a new section.

I'm not entirely sure what was problematic about my original post on The League's page, considering I posted a grammatically correct description of something that has happened during the show's current season. Furthermore, what has replaced my original post is essentially the same thing, albeit with extra details. I'm not objecting to the change, just curious why you considered it "unconstructive" (which, by the way, is not actually a word) on my part. Also, I'm not exactly new, but I do only edit occasionally, so I do appreciate your aid in how to respond!

140.103.63.241 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) 140.103.63.241:

A new word for the holidays! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blues brothers 2000

Hi. I undid a recent edit you did to the blues brothers 2000 movie. The reason you gave for your edit was 'remove the non notable people'. The Ridgeway Sisters was a well-known backup group, although not as individuals. Perhaps this is why you did not recognize them? And Rick Marty was a session player at the time of filming, which may explain why he was uncredited. But he has since gone on to bigger and better things, including being a Grammy winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.173.103 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in midst of revisions

…could you perhaps wait until I finish, so we do not end up in edit conflicts while saving? TY. Le Prof 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would advise (i) leaving a sentence summary of the controversy in the lede, and (ii) removing the content in the tag focusing on this issue, once your edits to the lede are completed. Cheers. Le Prof 20:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Note also, I repaired an NYT citation that was broken as a result of your lede edit — I went into history and pulled the citation, and placed it into the next point that it appeared, so the red flags in the References section disappeared. (This further cleanup/correction you no longer need to make.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now, all yours to have at it. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I hear MrMike's fiddle playing?

I couldn't remember what MrMike's thing was, but 75.141.156.51 has been fiddling with release dates. Two different release date changes to the same article. Is that him? Willondon (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Willondon (I hope that pinged you, it's been a few days and I didn't want to have to have cross-chatter on your Talk page.) I'll keep an eye out for IPs using that string. I also noticed you were a past editor on a page I found myself in a minor imbroglio in with a very actively roving IP who likes to subsequently "revert my good faith edits" on other pages, on the Blues Brothers 2000 cast. In fact, I see your name a lot! And, also kudos to your handling of the Rogelio "MASTER OF ALL NO ONE SHALL CHANGE THIS" character, I can't take those people as seriously. The Big Pun legacy wouldn't be that bad if it were written in English and toned down from its fanboyisms, but that editor spends way too much time making spurious Associated Acts claims. I will see if 75... comes to any of MrMike's old haunts, a great many of which were already on my Watchlist for years. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like to give editors like Rogelio the benefit of the doubt. I thought I was pretty clear about the sourcing, though. I like to think that if I reach out, at least one potentially positive contributor might be persuaded to participate productively. I confess to zero success so far. The reach-outs are starting to wear like a clown suit of optimistic foolishness. Heck, I'm happy to wear it, because one day… oh, who am I kidding? Cheers. Willondon (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my beef with him went beyond the mere sourcing, but the overall combativeness and shouting, which sadly enough was his most coherent efforts, have you seen his multiple entries above? Hard to take him seriously, especially since he's probably 14. I try to reach out too, but I'm more of the type to want to chisel stone than mold clay that has already taken shape. JesseRafe (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, changing sourced content

I appreciate your efforts, but you're too freely removing/changing sourced content. If you have issues with its wording, then please either fix it yourself (without changing the context too much), or raise your concerns at the talk page. Its definetely not the first time you're doing this either (amongst other clear WP issues). If you get reverted back, the basic recommended rule is to pursue WP:BRD, and not just to continue reverting with Twinkle. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello just a friendly discussion on the anti-vietnamese page

I see your concerns stating the china section as dubious, I guarantee you that there is anti-vietnamese snetiment gpoing on in china, as there are several inceidents such as the 'no vietnamese and dogs allowed' with a link to secondary sources being provided. Further, anti-vietnamese sentiment has been especially high in gunagdong province by the cantonese chinese population, this can be proven by this news article published online: http://defence.pk/threads/anti-vietnam-sentiment-against-vietnamese-with-chinese-citizenship-living-in-china.402155/ I am cantonese and I also hate the vietnamese myself so I should know.

Julie Menin

Thank you for the work on Julie Menin. It's been a lonely job so far. That article has had an army of SPAs massaging it for years and repeatedly adding copyvio puff from her official biography. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive172#Julie Menin and Jessica Lappin. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No ownership, please revert or ANI

No ownership, please review the history with that editor. He removed tons of information with Jim's Steaks and John's Roast Pork (others have disagreed), then left a bitey messages in all cases and now this time again on the talk page. If you feel his version is better go ahead and revert. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI for one revert? Please lets do this one revert for ANI shows bad faith as well. I did not mean to undo your edits. Please apologize by removing the comment on the talk page of Dalessandro's or we can go to ANI whatever you prefer. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to redirects

I admit being overly dismissive of redirects for a long time, in fact until quite recently, and at the beginning of my editing career I believe I even made some edits only to "correct" links to redirects by avoiding them, a practice which I then found is explicitly discouraged (especially when the "correction" is the only effect of the edit), but there is nothing wrong in principle with avoiding a redirect in the first place, such as creating a new link [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] instead of just [[Einstein]] – at worst, it wastes a couple of bytes. However, lately I've come to be more comfortable with linking to redirects as I've realised how useful they are in view of the instability (in principle) of article titles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up and the dialogue. I think you misunderstood the complaint, which was against those who write [[Einstein|Albert Einstein]]. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was going to mention that myself (but forgot) because I've encountered it as well and found it highly irritating; I misunderstood your phrasing. But it's almost certainly a honest mistake, and I sometimes made it myself initially. It's easy to be confused about which part is the actual wikilink and which part the piped title. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of gratuitous pipes, you might enjoy this find I just fixed ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! I left a Talk message for a new user and based on his response things like this might be a result of using the Visual editor. That editor was the inspiration for the complaint about italics being piped. JesseRafe (talk)

Oh yes! That sounds like the most likely explanation. I keep forgetting that VE even exists because I have deactivated it completely ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am trying to improve the article about Molly Sandén. If you have any suggestions or edits that can be done please do :) Thanks.BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broad City 70.160.29.181

Re. your scolding about my minor edit of the Broad City entry - why would you call taking out the hard hyphen to correct from "Jew-ish" to "Jewish" an unconstructive edit? Seems like you had the wrong edit/editor, since you didn't even revert it. 70.160.29.181 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks, since "thanks" appear unthankable

Thanks for the notice re bruschetta, there was actually a discussion of this at the reference desks which led me to delete the entry. I'd have thanked your thank itself, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do that, hence my intrusion on your talk page.

Thanks, μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks! I actually thought there was a Talk about it and was going to reference it in a message, because I tried to delete it some time ago, but was denied and I gave up. Looks like it all happened in edit summaries, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hyperforeignism&diff=578028397&oldid=577993647 Revision as of 17:29, 20 October 2013 →‎Italian words: Bruschetta, maraschino et al removed - not hyperforeignizations, just pronounced as English. Where is this "reference desk"? JesseRafe (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert the meta-thanked edit. Many if not most of the other examples do not involve sounds or phonotactic patterns that are, as such, foreign to English, either, and the example is, just like the others, consistent with the definition in the first sentence, which does not require that the result of the hyperforeignisation is alien to, or even only unusual in, English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Da Silva Jr. and Rachele Brooke Smith Bios

Hi Jesse,

Thanks for your welcome message. I am just trying to figure out how I can get Luis's and Rachel's Bios to stay updated without them being deleted. I am their Publicist at MLC PR and they have requested that I use their current revised bios that we have written for them. These Bios were literally approved by the people who they are about and I have a personal relationship with them. What can I do to keep the bios that I edit for my clients on Wikipedia? Thanks. Mlr2626 (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Mlr2626[reply]

You're welcome. You can respond here or on your Talk Page, but I'll respond here because this one is most recent rather than carry on the conversation in multiple places. To start, you will have to read about Wikipedia's policies on Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV and Conflict of Interest WP:COI. Also, please look at the requirements that things be sourced, and what constitutes a good reliable source. I know it can be frustrating for people to find errors on their pages, (and in fact, I worked with Mr. Da Silva to help his article in 2015), but Wikipedia needs to be consistent. Some of the material that your clients approved of are great for a personal website or fan page, but are not written in the right tone or voice for an encyclopedia. For instance, you categorically refer to them by first name. The general policy is much like a newspaper, and after the individual is introduced, only use their last name. First names are only continually used in references to family or spouses or other individuals that have the same surname.

If there are errors and complete untruths, feel free to delete them outright. There is a policy that being bold is encouraged. If the consensus was that was in error, it can be reverted. Just be careful not to edit-war, but take it to a talk page (on the article itself if it's a question of article's substance). This called the WP:BRD cycle. If you want to be less bold, put "{{cn}} or {{citationneeded}} or {{fact}}" at the end of the statement and a "citation needed" footnote will appear. This gives you more substantive grounds to delete the remark after a period of time has passed without a source being provided. But wholesale re-writings just to suit a client's want is generally not appropriate.

Also, bear in mind recency. If I do something in March 2016, my article wouldn't need to say "Jesse recently did something in March 2016", it should just say "Jesse did something in March 2016". If it is still March 2016 or April 2016, anybody reading that would know it was recent. If it is November 2017, seeing an article that says "recently" about March 2016, it makes the encyclopedia look bad and amateurish. Are you going to remember every time you said something was recent? It's not only unnecessary, but also counter-effective. The Rachele Brooke Smith article was rife with this. Thanks for taking the time to contact me. Read up on these links, and good luck! JesseRafe (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His Dark Materials - in universe links

Hello, part of what I've been trying over a period to do, is remove links from 'in universe' text to 'the real world' (eg Pullman's Magisterium is not Magisterium, his John Faa is not John Faa, though the names are presumably 'borrowed'). My logic in removing the Rep. of Texas link is that there is already text below ('Texas' I think), that makes the 'in universe/real world' distinction and links to the rw historical republic of Texas. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "French and Danish settlers" or anything else in the below section is a reference to the independent Republic of Texas, let alone a wikilink. I think Pullman, as most alternate history writers do, was playing with the notions of formerly independent states remaining so, or irredentist movements being victorious, etc. I think the article does less of a service to readers by removing the link. It can be argued that this is OR or speculation, but that can be applied, in broad brush strokes, to the entire section. I think the work you are doing is commendable, but in this case you are not adding anything to readability by removing a piped link with the same phrase being shown as the plain text, only removing a historical reality and inspiration which some readers (from the UK or elsewhere) may be entirely unaware of. Just as, presumably, some may be unaware of Lappland. Or the use of "Muscovy" and "Muscovite" in English. Or that China used to be called Cathay or Sri Lanka used to be Ceylon. JesseRafe (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and personal attacks

Your recent editing history at Jane O'Meara Sanders shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I'll look forward to your participation on the article Talk page. I'll start a separate discussion section just for your concerns. Please remember that when you assert an "NPOV" violation, or claim that "weasel words" have been used, you need to explain those concerns on the Talk page. Your fellow editors are not mind readers, and revert-warring without explaining yourself is not likely to end well.

In addition to edit warring, making personal attacks upon a fellow editor in an edit summary (i.e.; "Agenda-based edits is obvious.") as you did here is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy prohibits you from making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence and advises you to avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence. It's offensive. Usually I would immediately file a report at WP:ANI (I've typed it up already, as well as a separate report for WP:AN3, in open edit windows), but on the chance that you are just having an off day, I'll leave this message first. See you on the article Talk page? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look through the article's history for all the vandalism and undue weight given this topic already. When I see a new editor making those same edits, I am enforcing the already established status quo that they do not belong as undue emphasis on a trivial note using liberal interpretation of what happened. JesseRafe (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked through the history, but I have no doubt there have been vandals -- political articles during election season attract them. If you see an editor making those same edits, of course you should revert them. But I haven't made those edits. If you think the subject matter could be trimmed without distorting what is conveyed, we can certainly work together on that. But when you reinsert stuff that is derogatory to the article subject, against what reliable sources actually say, then that's a problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rannazzisi Thread

He is best known for lying about 9/11. It's why when you search his name nearly all links and articles are about it. No need to destroy Chris Wylde's wikipedia page because you're Steve Rannazzisi's brother or publicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisWylde (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mean to have the issue with the formatting.

Can we have a discussion on the topic? I'm trying to understand what standard I haven't met.

187Journalist (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Undue Weight. JesseRafe (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically about WP:Undue Weight does it fall under?

187Journalist (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few weeks and I am still unclear about what component of undue weight my request violates. Could you please provide an explanation in the coming days?

Respectfully, 187Journalist (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said all I care to on the matter. It is an undue amount of weight to put that topic in the lede of an actor. It is not within the policies of WP's BLP and WP:LEAD to prominently display minor items, especially controversial ones, in the lede of a biography. If your goal is to sensationalize rather than report facts then a gossip website or a personal blog is more to your tastes it would seem. JesseRafe (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesesteak

Are you a vegan too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.183.1 (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yo#.22Misappropriation.22

I would like to know why you reverted a portion of my edits to article "Yo". You use phrases such as "nonsense explanation", commenting on "tone" & "style", also "clueless piping". I would like you to explain such edits before I explain them to you further, being as that your descriptions I find offensive as an academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W124l29 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be seeking conflict resolution with you if I do not have a discussion with you about your half-dozen reversions to my edits. By your cited justifications, the entirety of the "Yo" article could be deleted.W124l29 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect page move

Hi Jesse

I guess the page history for the deleted talk page is not visible in your edit history because it was deleted to make way for the page move, as requested. If you really want a copy please let me know and I can restore a copy to your namespace (at, for example, User talk:JesseRafe/Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

Cheers

fish&karate 15:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me, but that didn't answer my question. Why is this policy and why is does it make it impossible for editors to follow up on their requests? That seems to be a fatal flaw in the system, how can editors see to the proper administrative changes if they can't even see it in their contributions list? I made a REQUEST, why was that deleted? Why is the entire history of everything I did related to this move gone? JesseRafe (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on the page itself, requesting speedy deletion. The page was speedily deleted. The entire history of everything you did related to this move is 3 edits. Those 3 edits were

1) Blanking the page for a page move, with the edit summary "blanking for move page originally was a redirect for to just Responsibility to Protect as the Centre wasn't notable enough I imagine. No reason this should have a parenthetical when anyone typing or searching for t"
2) Tagging the now-blank page for speedy deletion, with the edit summary "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G6)"
3) Correcting a typo in the speedy deletion tab, with the edit summary "too much copy and pasting"

Thanks fish&karate 16:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the case. Thanks again for the follow-up and research necessary to do it. I had to state my position on a multitude of administrative backpages with explanations. It was a flurry of edits and open-requests. I was checking up on them for a few days until suddenly there were gone, which is when they were deleted so I can't speak to where or when they were, but I know it was more than three actions. I guess there is no real answer, but I am just pointing out there is a problem wherein interested editors can't confirm their actions or keep track of their requested improvements. JesseRafe (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled, as I've looked through all your edits in the Wikipedia: namespace since September 2015 and through all your deleted edits and am unable to find this. Perhaps there is a bug in Wikipedia - would you like to report it at WP:Bugs?. fish&karate 12:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will pay more attention or document the case if I think it will develop again. I don't have the data or the energy to explain this case on the WP:Bugs page. Thanks again, appreciate the extra mile you went. Just an awkward situation and maybe it doesn't come up too often. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing all my edits

In regards to Preet Bharara - Stop undoing all my edits. You are totally ignoring the talk page. Contacter2 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big L

Hi,

I see you reverted again and gave your reason (which was cut off in summary). However, how is the state of New York relevant to the subject? To be fair, Harlem is what's relevant and not the other way around. And MOS:OVERLINK is clear on this issue. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you PIPING the link away from Harlem and adding extra letters in blue??? I write Harlem, and you write Harlem, New York -- are you seriously arguing that your version has less blue than mine? I have no idea how you think it confirms to WP:SEAOFBLUE as your manner demonstrably results in more blue text and has the EXACT SAME number of words/characters in blue links as linking the state New York. But as the page is not Harlem (New York) or similar there is no reason to pipe, which only misleads readers and obfuscates the article's name. JesseRafe (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, lower your tone. Secondly, it's the same practice as Brooklyn, New York, Queens, New York (regardless of them being boroughs of NYC), and so on. I find it amazing that you are OK with New York City, New York and not OK with Harlem, New York. And thirdly, I wasn't asking about WP:SEAOFBLUE so you might want to read it again. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem isn't a borough. I have no problem with New York City or New York State. As I've said time and time again, why are you piping? If you don't care about SEAOFBLUE so why are you using that in your edit summaries if that's not what you were asking about? Neither Harlem nor Brooklyn should ever be piped. I've offered no opinion on "[[New York City|New York City, New York]]" on any talk pages or in any edit summaries in over ten years so why are you putting words in my mouth? JesseRafe (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that Harlem was a borough. There are many articles where Harlem or Brooklyn (or other 4 boroughs) are being piped. As for "putting words in your mouth", I don't really understand why you thought about such thing? All I did was ask, but you didn't really answer my question and couldn't justify your claim on why you think not piping is correct. Looks like this discussion is going nowhere, so I'll ask about this somewhere else. Take care. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling IP vandal

If the vandal you mentioned on AIV is using multiple IPs, please report him at WP:SPI with all suspected accounts and IPs. --Laber□^T 19:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JesseRafe, I have created a SPI for the vandal, see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/69.204.5.196 Sro23 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, so much! That must have taken quite some time and effort, something I was loathe to do as it seemed they would just open a new one in a moment. Hope a rangeblock can be instituted, or at least all of those in the range put on a short leash of instant blocking for a year or something, rather than the ineffectual 31 or 48 hours which mean nothing. Really appreciate it, Sro23!! JesseRafe (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bowery

I'm confused about where these two marginally different pronunciations are coming from, but also the importance of the slight distinction here on WP; my edit was just trying to split the difference in a single pronunciation. Are you saying that what is here labeled as the “New York English” pronunciation is the original “Dutch” pronunciation? In terms of what actually appears on Dictionary.com, I see only two pronunciation options given: /ˈbaʊ.ə.ri/ and /ˈbaʊ.ri/. There is also an addendum “1695-1705; bower+ -y” which seems to show more about etymology than syllabification. Where on Dictionary.com does it make the difference between a definite New York pronunciation versus a (presumably) “generic” English pronunciation? I certainly am not finding that information. Wolfdog (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More edits by 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E1E0:F98E:5AC5:EA5F

About this revert of an edit by a sockpuppet of a banned user, see Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E1E0:F98E:5AC5:EA5F and Wikipedia:Requested moves#June 10, 2016. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aptronym

Can you explain why you reverted my edit? You say "Non notable addition removed." I think Bowler should count as an aptronym, because they created a bowl-shaped hat. As for it not being notable, I think the hat is very notable, even if the creators aren't. Do you really object to this going in? 82.42.185.174 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Pete[reply]

I don't know what else needs to be explained. The section heading says "Notable examples", you listed two milliners who aren't notable. They were removed. Wikipedia has a policy that only those with articles go in such lists (viewable at WP:CSC), whether it's notable residents/alumni/anything. Feel free to start an article on the Bowlers if you feel they are notable enough. A good starting place is the selection of links I posted on your Talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Abramson

I apologize for that. I was just making a point to the OP. Was going to put that material back in. Just couldn't understand how blog gossip got in there but the OP deleted my additions involving major mentions of the subject in The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, and other noteworthy national media. I won't blank sections again but hope you will not let the OP blank my new sections either, which he did and which is what I was responding (albeit inappropriately) to. SanFran55 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a message board or comment section. There is no OP. Please read the links I left you on your User Talk Page to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and its policies. There is no tit-for-tat editing or points being made, only the best and most properly cited and relevant material to the article's subject. JesseRafe (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course. And again I apologize. I have now explained my edits on the talk page of the article. I hope that explanation makes sense? I was just trying to add a fully sourced section on major media attention to the subject on an issue of national note for which the subject was described as having a noteworthy and unique approach. And also trying to fix what look like factual errors in the article. I hope we can start afresh, with my apologies, and discuss those issues on the talk page. SanFran55 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Discussion will continue there. JesseRafe (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist me in that discussion? I am not understanding how major media can say something is noteworthy, as in actually new and unusual and worth writing about in the largest newspapers in the U.S., and then a section detailing that fact can be blanked entirely by a user (Steelpillow) only to have him accuse me of edit warring. Meanwhile, he is saying that if even a single person is offended by a poem, it should be noted in an encyclopedia. Can you explain (there, I guess) what standard he is referring to, and why no mention of experimental political journalism discussed in major U.S. media can be on Wikipedia, but minor internet brouhahas about a poem can be? --15:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanFran55 (talk • contribs)

That's because you are edit-warring. Wait for consensus to emerge on the article's Talk page. Also, your opinion of about the literary significance of a poem is as irrelevant as my opinion on you on an article because cites trump OR everytime. I may choose to not participate in a conversation if I so choose because I have no desire to engage in solid walls of text or people who bombard Talk pages with material from the article as if there isn't a "page history" button. JesseRafe (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're right. And I apologize. Hopefully I've done it right now by posting proposed language and cites on the talk page and not posting too much text. I really do appreciate your time, energy, and help with this. You've been very patient. --SanFran55 (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schvartze

It's a sad day in Wikipedia history when an editor is threatened with being banned for sharing the knowledge that "schvartze" is an offensive, racist slur. I hear my grandparent saying "schvartze" on a regular basis and no matter how hard I try to convince her that it's an offensive, racist slur, she refuses to believe me. There are still people in this world who believe that it isn't offensive and for you and the other reverter of my edits to censor this information (while somehow claiming that I'm the one censoring Wikipedia, however illogical that is), is defending racists regardless of its intent. BenStein69 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were several problems with your contributions and you can't just write whatever you want on a page and call other people enabling racists. You stated something that may or may not be true, but because you didn't list any sources it is just original research. I don't care about your racist grandmother nor do any of the other millions of Wikipedia users. If your racist grandmother wrote something that was published and notable about being a racist, then it could be cited as a racist term. If someone else wrote and published something notable about your racist grandmother and her use of the term as offensive, then that could be cited. More to the point, as I stated in the edit summary was that you broke format and gave special and confusing emphasis to schvartze by putting "(offensive)" next to it, which is simply not how it is done. The word that grownups use, especially in a dictionary, is "derogatory". That is a objective classification of the word and can be mentioned, if cited. "Offensive" is subjective and has no place in an encyclopedia or lexicographical article. JesseRafe (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiktionary definition begs to differ: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schvartze --BenStein69 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Robo-advisor Edit

Hi JesseRafe, I appreciate your welcome message and additional information on contributing to Wikipedia. The details you provided are very helpful. In addition, I can definitely understand the monitoring of pages such as the Robo-advisor page for spam. That said, I'd like to provide details to supplement the previous citations in order to clarify the proposed addition even further.

Therefore, please consider that blooom is a fiduciary"blooom ADV". SEC.. Furthermore, "[a]ccording to monthly SEC filings, no independent robo-advisor had made it to $300 million in assets managed faster than blooom."Penn, David. "Robo-advisor blooom Reaches $300 Million in Assets". Finovate. Finally, former FDIC chair, Sheila Bair, is currently a board of advisors memberHenry, Zoë. "Sheila Bair on the Fintech Startup Boom, Student Debt, and Saving For Retirement". Inc..

In addition to the initially provided regarding blooom's notability, I hope that this data assists in qualifying blooom as a notable robo-advisor. If more resources are necessary, I can definitely provide others. Thank you for your help with this.

Donlampert (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your ref tags because this is a talk page. I also removed Blooom because it is not notable, despite this information, as notability is not inherited, so the fact that Blair has a page does not confer notability to Blooom. For more information, see WP:COMPANY. JesseRafe (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely learning a lot from the information you've provided, which is good. It is helping not only with formatting but also with procedural details. For future reference, would it be accurate to say that additions like this would be best discussed in the topic's talk page before actually making the addition? Thanks! Donlampert (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. There are a lot of mantras etc in the Wikipedia community, one of which is being bold, as the bold action can be then just undone if need be, more details at: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, often simply called "BRD". No harm was done, as I or another editor would just remove it for being non-notable. In fact, a very similar thing happened since, with another editor adding a robo-advisor company that yet another editor subsequently removed for the same reasons I did. What I would suggest is that you use these resources you have and try to start an article on Blooom. You can also practice on what it would be like before it goes live on your own user page space, something known as Wikipedia:Userfication. I'd warn you about any potential COI or NPOV concerns that editors might have when they see a new editor making a page about an as-yet non-notable company. Build your case by making a lot of other helpful edits across the project and get a feel for how small in scope an article like this should be, even if it's a stub. A common mistake is overstating the significance of things to appear more notable, but all this really does is make it seem like Wikipedia:Peacocking which discredits the article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a draft page, and if you have the time, would you mind taking a look/making any comments on its talk page that might help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donlampert/sandbox/blooom Thanks! Donlampert (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! One thing I would shy away from is the lowercase. It's calling too much attention to itself and makes the article appear amateur. I'd simply say, "Blooom, often stylized as "blooom", is.." which is the norm for lots of non-standard orthography, such as Seven (1995 film) with a little note saying it's often written as "Se7en". As such, paying too much deference to a stylistic quirk of a proper noun can seem less than desirable, especially for a new article and especially for one about a company -- even a common noun is capitalized when it begins a sentence. Other than that it shouldn't raise any eyebrows for new page patrols, it's not too fawning or over embellishing or too grand in scope. Should pass, and then once it's better established and not XFDed, other bolder changes can be made and tried out. Thanks for taking the time to make the encyclopedia richer and for your patience to get back to me. JesseRafe (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"St Cyr slide"

Gotta disagree with lack of notability; this was a major tool of encryption over a considerable span of time. Anmccaff (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of DXRacer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DXRacer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXRacer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caffè latte caffellatte caffelatte

Caffè latte or caffellatte are both pronounced [kafˌfɛlˈlatte] in standard Italian since caffè produces raddoppiamento sintattico; caffelatte is a Northern italian variant, still not accepted in good Italian.--Carnby (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've fixed the "Hyperforeignism" issue: here and here you can find both the correct spellings and the corrept pronunciations of the 2 possible variants of the word made up of "caffè" and "latte" in Italian; I hope there are no more problems to solve :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.161.177 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I had to change my edit once again because not appreciated by another user... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.161.177 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit the page before clarifying this matter. Sorry for my English, but I don't understand whether the problem you're pointing out is about the Italian IPA or orthography. About the IPA, the Italian pronunciation reflectes the spelling, so 1 L = /l/ while 2 Ls = /ll/. About the orthography, both spellings exist in Italian and neither is written with the accent inside the word because accents are used only on the last letter. Also the utterance "caffè latte" is correct, but the single word form is usually preferable. Anyway, in that paragraph the point is more about the spelling itself than about the proncunciation as other paragraph just above in the same section, so it's not even strictly useful to insert an Italian IPA in this case. I've tried to explain as well as possible for me, now I'm going to wait for your considerations about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.161.177 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I am not the only editor who found fault with your edits. Your edit changed [kafˌfɛlˈlatte] to [kaffeˈlatte], which in addition to removing the geminate (has nothing to do with spelling, see above on syntactic gemination) also changed the vowel quality, which I do not believe conforms with Italian phonotactics, given the stress which you also changed. But all of that is moot because what matters is the final "e" in the orthography, which is the only aspect of this word, however it is spelled or pronounced otherwise that undergoes hyperforeignization, where it often has an accent mark in English. JesseRafe (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you didn't understand the nature of my edits, I'll explain better then. The word "caffelatte" is pronounced /kaffeˈlatte/ ([6]). The word "caffellatte" is pronounced /kaffelˈlatte/ ([7]). Instead, when the expression "caffè latte" is spoken, in standard Italian it's pronounced /kafˈfɛ lˈlatte/ (see this example). So, what's wrong in my edits? What should be changed on your opinion? The IPA /kafˌfɛlˈlatte/ written this way isn't a correct phonetic transcription for any of the possible spellings, rather than writing an incorrect IPA it's better not writing any, since they're not needed for the explanation of the "lattè/é" hyperforeignism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.161.177 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar on Dutch Schultz page

Yes, I am new to editing here and apologize if I'm ham-fisted or missing something.

I'm not sure what exactly the objection to my edit is. I recognize that "for to" does appear in some English and is understandable. ([8][9]) However, a dialectal use did not seem intended or warranted. I thought it a minor change that made the text more readable. Some alternatives:
A second ambulance was called for, to take Schultz and Berman.
A second ambulance was called for Schultz and Berman.
A second ambulance was called to take Schultz and Berman. [the change I made.]
A call was made for a second ambulance to take Schultz and Berman.
They called for a second ambulance to take Schultz and Berman. ["They" referring to the medics of the previous sentence.]

I don't actually care that much; I was just trying to be helpful. Gspontak (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your post to put your refs as external links, as refs don't go on a talk page as they will cause confusing formatting. If I recall there were a spate of edits that were exceptionally dubious labeled "linking" which was not an issue addressed in the edit. The dictionary use of "for to" mentioned above is not a correct parsing of the sentence and "for to" is not being used as one preposition, "call for" is one verb, and "to" is part of the infinitive "to take", but I agree that was not the bigger issue with the serious of edits. If you wish to make the appropriate changes again, it would be helpful. I see now that your edit happened to be in the midst of another series of edits by new or anonymous users and thus swept into that same wholesale reversion. Thank you for taking the time to write to me and for your help at making the encyclopedia a better and easier-to-interpret place. JesseRafe (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the edit and the explanation. I think I'll wait a bit to avoid being lumped in with the anonymous edits again. Cheers! Gspontak (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JesseRafe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conference / symposium title in italics

This is in response to by Bender the Bot’s remark posted at reversion of the article titled “Killer Bob” 20:28, 6 December 2016

I converted the name of the academic event titled “2013 Twin Peaks Retrospective” to italics because I interpreted it as a proceedings citation. When citing an academic symposium or conference, the name of the event is also the title of a publication of the proceedings, and applies both to a book or a film of the event. Titles of journals, books, films, complete TV series, and sea-going vessels are always referenced in italics, as opposed to individual articles, book chapters in compilations, TV episodes, and similar such names, which are not. (I’m not sure how to cite parts of films – like over-dubbed commentary or special features – and identifiable small vessels that are part of a larger vessel – like lifeboats, landing boats, or carrier aircraft.) 66.39.164.242 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the WP:BOLD edit at Chris Voss. That section had been there a long time and I wasn't sure how to handle it. I'm trying to expand the article. If you have any input or suggestions, I'd appreciate the help. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It needed to be done. I'm not familiar with the subject of the article, only checked him out as you added him as an alumnus of Kennedy, but the section heading alone gave me pause and I only needed a few sentences to see that the whole section needed to be nuked, you probably didn't know what to do because there were multiple fundamental non-WP appropriate fatal flaws there. I will take another look at the article and see if anything else can be expanded or improved. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Check article on cyberpunk. It's sufficient enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.167.67 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperforeignism

Tu puoi contribuire con un livello intermedio di italiano? Allora provo a scriverti nella mia lingua. Ti prego di leggere e rispondere per favore!

Prima di tutto: dici che editori multipli hanno annullato le mie modifiche, dici che il consenso è evidente. Non è vero: solo tu e PaulTanenbaum mi avete annullato le modifiche, e PaulTanenbaum me l'ha annullata una volta sola. Non ci sono editori multipli né consenso, ci sei soltanto tu che non vuoi provare a capire quello che ti sto spiegando.

Riguardo alla lingua italiana, se comprendi quello che scrivo hai un buon livello, ma non sei al livello di madrelingua come me e non puoi sapere tutto quello che so io sulla mia lingua. Inoltre, ti ho portato delle fonti (sources) che provano che quello che dico è vero: il DIZIONARIO ITALIANO OLIVETTI ("caffelatte" /kaffeˈlatte/ & "caffellatte" /kaffelˈlatte/). Te ne porto delle altre: il DiPI Online - Dizionario di Pronuncia Italiana ([10] & [11]). Queste sono le 2 possibili varianti ortografiche e fonetiche della parola, non c'è scritto da nessuna parte /kafˌfɛlˈlatte/, a meno che tu non mi porti una fonte.

Tu non hai neanche chiaro il concetto di "geminazione sintattica" in lingua italiana: è un fenomeno che si verifica fra 2 parole distinte, ripeto, 2 parole distinte, come "caffè latte". Se la parola è una sola, "caffelatte" o "caffellatte", non esiste nessuna "geminazione sintattica", la parola si legge come si scrive, punto. Nel caso di "caffè latte", la corretta trascrizione fonetica è /kafˈfɛ lˈlatte/. La prima parola "caffè" viene pronunciata col suono /ɛ/ indicato dall'accento "è", la seconda viene pronunciata con una "l" forte, doppia, ma la trascrizione fonetica (IPA) mantiene le parole separate. Ti riporto l'esempio che ti ho fatto sopra: /dʒozuˈɛ kkarˈduttʃi/, NON /dʒozuˌɛkkarˈduttʃi/. Su questa enciclopedia inglese si adotta questo tipo di trascrizione, è sempre stato così. Perché "caffè latte" si deve trascrivere /kafˌfɛlˈlatte/ ma "Giosuè Carducci" si scrive /dʒozuˈɛ kkarˈduttʃi/? Perché? Secondo te è sbagliata la trascrizione di "caffè latte" o tutte quelle dell'enciclopedia? Se secondo te è corretto scrivere /kafˌfɛlˈlatte/, allora dobbiamo cambiare la trascrizione anche di "Giosuè Carducci" e di tutti gli altri nomi italiani con "geminazione sintattica" dell'enciclopedia, o no? Rispondi, per cortesia.

Un'ultima cosa: ribadisco che nel paragrafo di "Hyperforeignism" dove si parla di "lattè/é" NON si parla assolutamente della pronuncia originale italiana, non si parla della "geminazione sintattica" della parola "caffè" con la parola "latte" ma solo del fatto che l'accento grafico è presente sulla parola "caffè" e non sulla parola "latte". Che cosa c'entra la pronuncia IPA? Niente! Infatti sta solo causando confusione, come puoi vedere. Però tu vuoi lasciarla a tutti i costi... Allora scrivila giusta! Ti ho detto che le 3 possibili trascrizioni fonetiche corrette sono: /kaffeˈlatte/, /kaffelˈlatte/ e /kafˈfɛ lˈlatte/. Se sei sicuro che sia assolutamente necessario inserire una pronuncia IPA, almeno scrivila correttamente. Comunque, se viene inserita la pronuncia di "caffè latte", allora deve venire inserita anche quella di "barista" (/baˈrista/) nel paragrafo sopra, allora bisogna inserire anche quella di "mate" nel paragrafo sulla lingua spagnola, anche quella di "entrecote" in lingua francese, eccetera... Non ha senso, si tratta di "Hyperforeignism" relativi all'ortografia, all'uso degli accenti nella scrittura di parole straniere, non alla pronuncia. Lo capisci questo? Perché allora vuoi a tutti i costi scrivere la pronuncia di "caffè latte" e non quella di "barista" o di "mate" o di "entrecote"? Perché "caffè latte" sì e tutti gli altri no? Perché?

Io credo che tu sia una persona seria, però sei un po' confuso su questo argomento riguardante la lingua italiana, non eri in malafede quando mi hai annullato le modifiche, eri solo convinto di fare una cosa giusta. Adesso però ti ho spiegato in dettaglio qual è la pronuncia corretta portandoti fonti autorevoli, e ti ho anche evidenziato 2 paradossi, cioè che se scrivi un IPA di un certo tipo per una parola italiana anche tutte le altre dell'enciclopedia devono essere cambiate nello stesso modo, e che se aggiungi un IPA per una parola italiana su questa pagina allora devi aggiungerla alle altre parole italiane e delle altre lingue sulla stessa pagina. È "coerenza". Scegli di essere coerente? O scegli l'ipocrisia? Spero di no, e credo che tu sia abbastanza maturo da riconoscere quando commetti un errore, anch'io faccio molti errori, non devi pensare che io credo di non poter sbagliare mai, ma su questo argomento ti ho dimostrato di aver ragione.

Ora ripristino la mia modifica, se sei ancora convinto che io sto sbagliando ti prego di non annullarla finché non avrai risposto al mio messaggio per piacere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.234.161.177 (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your vandalism, December 2016

You stupid son of a bitch, I put factual (& logical) imformation on these articles, these are not my opinions, you would have to be too lazy to actual look up these sources or mentally challenged. You take it down as if I'm vandalizing the article, but in all actuality I'm helping the article, YOUR the one vandalizing with your brainless deletions of good information.

1. On "Puerto Ricans in the United States". I put on a few sources regarding the Ethnic Intermixing subsection. But most of it is common knowledge.

2. On "Puerto Rican migration to New York". Never in the history of mankind did 70% of all Puerto Ricans in the world love in New York City or New York State or even the mainland United States. Thats why I added the word stateside you retard, at one point New York State (& city) did held 70% of STATESIDE Puerto Ricans, but NOT including PRs in the Puerto Rico, you dont need a fu*kin source for that its logical. Also, grab a calculator and put 723000 multipied by 0.41 , and it comes up to around 298,000 or just below it, point is the Bronx does have 41 percent of NYC Puerto Rican population as of 2010. Dont need of source for none of that.

3. On "History of the Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia". Neighborhoods like Fairhill, Hunting Park, and Kensington in lower North Philly, have high amounts of poverty and segregation (which leads to high percentages of Puerto Ricans in some areas) look it up instead of vandalizing and deleting you dummy. Neighborhoods like Juniata,Oxford Circle, and Olney are mostly middle class and working class, with high integration between blacks and hispanics, look it up theres plenty sources brainless dummy. Also, Camden County NJ has the highest percentage of Hispanics (& Puerto Ricans) in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, being over 16% hispanic. Even outside of Camden, theres a large number of Hispanics and blacks, and most of them arent poor like the ones in Camden, most are middle class or working class. Pennsauken is about 20% black and 30% hispanic. Just go to the wikipedia and census factfinder pages of these places, instead of doing brainless deletions.

Spreadofknowledge 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)