Dear Jesse, let me know how and why this does not concern the article on Beirce: "Bierce was a conservative antiauthoritarian, according to not only his works but to the studies of M. E. Grenander and J. R. Macmillan; he was also influenced by Edmund Burke." all these are documented and published. In case you just think that the whole phrase must be placed elsewhere within the article, do the propper thing. Cordially, Adratiatic20.

Hey JesseRafe, its a butthead catfish, not bullhead :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandals who love me!Edit

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)

Point BreakEdit

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 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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


NO I will not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcoopr (talkcontribs) 12:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"greaser film"Edit

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

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 ? (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Cool story, bro! JesseRafe (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dutch Schultz - and

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 (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. (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

  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)
  • 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)
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 -- 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)


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)

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)

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)

Anon 80s Chinese Hiphop HeadEdit


DON'T CRAP ON OTHER PEOPLE'S HARD WORK OUT OF YOUR OWN LACK OF EFFORT OR ACTUALLY BEING SOMEWERE YOU WEREN'T — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mike, Jerry Nelson's friendEdit (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Jesse. I was a friend of Jerry's since high school and throughout his career. I thought I had information to add to his page that - at this late date - might not be available to anyone else. I think you should allow for personal reports, whether they can be "sourced" or not, and I find your editorial intervention arbitrary, reflexive, and thoughtless. Maybe you could tell me where you think there might be a "source" for this information, or how I might identify it as "personal knowledge" so it doesn't get arbitrarily chopped. Mike

Robbie Gosine, himself!Edit

I attempted to discuss your edits with you, you have so much preening on

your own talk page it's imposible. Ive left my comments on the wiki talk page for the NYC mayoral election.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 

I looked at your edits on the NYC Election page. good edits, however the removal of academic credentials and deleting of a write candidate is not true Wikistandards; this is an encyclopedia not a political forum. I re edited and put back in Dr Gosine as an independent candidate and put in his credentials. It is important to show that the individual is an educated person not a typical politician. His credentials are validated from his campaign website and his linkedIn profile. In addition, I was able to locate the references and validate the information. He is indeed a Senior Member of IEEE and has the work to back up his claims of inventor, educator, engineer and naval officer. Providing this data is historical fact as it defines the individual and does not constitute a CV. In the future, pay attention to Wiki and not go overboard. Thanks. — Preceding

You keep removing Dr. Robbie Gosine from the Wiki. He received over 5000 votes. He is recognized. Please do not use the Wiki for your politics. This is your 2nd warning. Do not vandalize. unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Hey - Just an FYI since you seem to be altering everyone's information on the City Point / Fulton Mall pages. This is for a class project, and we would appreciate if you could hold off with your little edits until after May 26th. This is a graded assignment. Be considerate, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc12345678910 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


Whoever this JesseRafe is, is really getting on my nerves changed 2 of my edits and tried too say she was go block me from Wikipedia if i kept vandalizing Wikipedia and it is LEGIT INFORMATION!!!!! To'Trill MoE (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


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)

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)


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)

Knicks-Nuggets brawlEdit

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

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)

Al LeongEdit

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 pagesEdit

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)

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)


Phillies standingsEdit

Sorry I took so long to'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! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Phillies seasonsEdit

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)

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

History discussionEdit

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)

Next step is in place for breaking out the history article. Input appreciated. See the Phillies talk page for more info. Thanks. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for the WPEdit

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)

WP:PHILLIES questionEdit

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. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


No problem, Jesse; it's great to have you back on board! Welcome back. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Phillies picturesEdit

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)

Adam MansbachEdit

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)

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)

The Two Mrs. NahasapeemapetilonsEdit

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)

SNPP is a fansite, as is Simpson Folder so neither passes as a reliable source, while 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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons (2)Edit

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)

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)
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)
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)

Animal Farm in popular cultureEdit

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

High FiveEdit

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)

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)

Nomination of Jesus Gonzalez (politician) for deletionEdit


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. Mtking (edits) 01:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Please use this block as an opportunity to apologize here to User:Valenciano for WP:UNCIVIL. VanIsaacWS 19:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. VanIsaacWS 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"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)
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 - TP 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

JesseRafe (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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)

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)

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.

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)

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)
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)
Try it now. 28bytes (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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). Mtking (edits) 05:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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. Mtking (edits) 06:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
strike that someone else has commented on the AfD. Mtking (edits) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)

High and Mighty disamb pageEdit

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)

thanks for editEdit

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

Laura Ramsey userfiedEdit

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

A kitten for you!Edit


— JL 09 talkcontribs    12:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

R.A. the Rugged ManEdit

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)


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

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)


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)

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)

True Grit (2010 film)Edit

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

Orange Is the New BlackEdit

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)

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)

Usain BoltEdit

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 meStalk 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 meStalk me 16:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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)
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 meStalk me 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)

A barnstar!Edit

  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 meStalk me 00:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

UFCW Local 1776Edit

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)

MF Doom RMEdit

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)


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

Tish JamesEdit

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. -- (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

G.I. Joe: Retaliation cast listEdit

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)

Jordanian footballers of Palestinian originEdit

For your information I'm not trying to attack other editors like -, 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.


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)

  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. SpinningSpark 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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//Δ's/ 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

  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//Δ's/ 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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.  SpinningSpark 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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. SpinningSpark 18:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JesseRafe (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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)

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)
If this statement isn't an indication of your intent to continue edit warring, I don't know what is. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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//Δ's/ 19:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
(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. SpinningSpark 19:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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)

So apparently, these pages were never viewed?

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)

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//Δ's/ 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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//Δ's/ 19:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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)"
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)

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)

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. SpinningSpark 20:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Your edit to BradleyEdit

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)

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)

Harold Baines Edit ResponseEdit

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)

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)

Bumpy Johnson NYC MugshotEdit

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)

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)

Recent wording issues.Edit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


  • 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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

The Promotion and the parking lot gangEdit

Regarding the edit [2] by 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)

re: CanibusEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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 ... ? Oh, yeah, real "official". Sorry, buh bye. JesseRafe (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Grown Ups 2Edit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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)
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)

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)

White House DownEdit

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

List of most common surnames in AsiaEdit

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 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Momofuku-Milk BarEdit

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revert of new sections on Milk BarEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Lorenzo's OilEdit

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)

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

His dark materialsEdit

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)

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)
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)

Marking my work as vandalism.Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My changes to MF DOOM were not vandalismEdit

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)

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) JamsTheKuma (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Eagles fansEdit

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)

Paul ScheerEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I work with Paul and listed and cited a handful shows that he created/Produced in the Other TV projects section and you deleted them. Can you please explain the decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I also restructured the layout - TV being on category and Podcasts being anyone. The way it's listed now, Podcasts and Comic look like they are sub-headings of TV — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A notice about your COI and how to deal with it is on your talk page. You were incorrect in how it is laid out, the other info is NOT subordinate to TV, but on the same level hierarchy as it, all under "Career" where it belongs. JesseRafe (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your notes about COI don't seem to hold much weight as they were just reformating and citing articles of the previously mentioned work, not even adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The weight they carry is in that you have disclose your COI with the subject and then only make edits that present neutrally. Which you have not been doing. JesseRafe (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So then help me do that. It the exact same fact with cited references. They were previously uncited. It was bolstering the information on the page as an editor look through and make changes but don't just delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wilt the StiltEdit

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)

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)
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)

Kroll Show - Theme music creditEdit

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,description,albumName,composerName,keywordText,albumCodeCompact&keywordIds=&labelCodes=&versionTypeIds= and the josh powell remix that was stolen,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 (talkcontribs)

Your edit on Tommy lister JrEdit

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)

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)

2pac's documentary from 2010Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
"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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 (talkcontribs) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
All other documentaries don't have sources and you didn't erase them? But you did this one?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 (talkcontribs) 22:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Jahlil OkaforEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Okafor 2Edit

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)

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)

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

JesseRafe (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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)

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)

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.

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)


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)

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)

Misunderstanding on The WanderersEdit

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 LiveEdit

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

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. (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not a single thing you've said is true, but thanks for playing! JesseRafe (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
[[3]] says otherwise. Please stop. (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)

Bless you, SisyphusEdit

If IP 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)

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)


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)

Do you even English, bro?Edit

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

Mark B. CohenEdit

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</ref> Bgwhite (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

District leadersEdit

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)


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)

Your edit on Feniosky Pena-MoraEdit

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)

Jesse's TriviaEdit

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)


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)

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)

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)


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)


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)

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)

The LeagueEdit

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! (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)
A new word for the holidays! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blues brothers 2000Edit

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 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in midst of revisionsEdit

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

Do I hear MrMike's fiddle playing?Edit

I couldn't remember what MrMike's thing was, but 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)

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)
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)
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)

Once again, changing sourced contentEdit

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)

Hello just a friendly discussion on the anti-vietnamese pageEdit

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: I am cantonese and I also hate the vietnamese myself so I should know.

Julie MeninEdit

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)

No ownership, please revert or ANIEdit

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)

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)

Linking to redirectsEdit

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)

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


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)

Broad City

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. (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks, since "thanks" appear unthankableEdit

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)

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

Luis Da Silva Jr. and Rachele Brooke Smith BiosEdit

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

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)

His Dark Materials - in universe linksEdit

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)

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)

Edit warring and personal attacksEdit

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)

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)
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)

Rannazzisi ThreadEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)


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

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 (talkcontribs) 13:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect page moveEdit

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.


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

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)

Stop removing all my editsEdit

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)

Big LEdit


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Rolling IP vandalEdit

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)

JesseRafe, I have created a SPI for the vandal, see here: Sro23 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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)


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, 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 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)

More edits by 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:E1E0:F98E:5AC5:EA5FEdit


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? (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Pete

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)

Seth AbramsonEdit

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)

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


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)

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)
This Wiktionary definition begs to differ: --BenStein69 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent Robo-advisor EditEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)
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? Thanks! Donlampert (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
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)

"St Cyr slide"Edit

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)

Caffè latte caffellatte caffelatteEdit

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)

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 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: I had to change my edit once again because not appreciated by another user... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
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 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Grammar on Dutch Schultz pageEdit

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)

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)

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 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)

Conference / symposium title in italicsEdit

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.) (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


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! --KeithbobTalk 19:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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)


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


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 (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi JesseRafe

I'm sorry you thought my recent amends were disruptive; that was not my intention. I sought to amend the page as my son is named Raife, after my husband's grandfather, using an additional spelling of Rafe/Ralph. We are based in England where Raife is also used for Rafe/Ralph and I wanted the Rafe (given name) page to include Raife. Perhaps you would assist, noting that I am new to Wikipedia. In addition to the Raifes I know, some noteable examples (and by way of authority) include Raife Burchall, Actor, V for Vendetta, Raife Gaskell, Pro Surfer and Raife Wellsted (note born in 1929) British Philatelist. I have also sent messages to you via the Rafe talk page, and initiated this discussion in an attempt to agree a suitable inclusion for Raife. I trust this approach accords with Wikipedia's policies but if not please direct me otherwise. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Raife16 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Of these, only Wellsted is notable. The others have no place to be mentioned on an disambiguation page. If you feel they are notable, please find sources on them and write their articles, then they may be listed there. Please also respect the tone and formatting of the encyclopedia, there are plenty of resources and guides provided to you on your Talk page when you first posted. JesseRafe (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


My pleasure, dude. Not only do I enjoy Czarface's work, but I've also been a huge Wu fan for several years now and 7L & Eso are my among my favorites from AotP — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the same article, I have removed excessive quotations from copyright materials from the article. Excessive use of non-free content is not permitted under our non-free content policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The redirect page "Wikipedia is not"Edit

You created page "Wikipedia is not", which was subject to deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 October 8. I was thinking speedy deletion, but it's been used in user talk pages. Also, it has been deleted several times. I don't know to do with the redirect page without asking you first. Shall you let the page deleted in any way? --George Ho (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I'm usually one to think that "it was deleted before" is a poor argument for deleting again. In the intervening ten years it has been continued to be used for "what Wikipedia is not". My edit summary at creation was "common variant". The real question is what is gained by deleting this redirect? I honestly can't see that argument. But what is gained by having it is what all redirects are for -- anticipating a common internal link error or deviation and redirecting the link to the proper page space. As Rossami said ten years ago, getting the decision wrong previously is no reason to keep following it, and as Rossami and you point out, it's used in multiple talk pages by multiple users -- an attestation to its value. JesseRafe (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
...Good point. We'll see when someone else nominates it for discussion then, okay? George Ho (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi, you claim that is not a good source

well i see that another wikipedia page used this blog for their source:

so i used this blog as well here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimgreen (talkcontribs) 05:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Mel BrooksEdit

If you think Mel Brooks father was Polish-Jewish, please provide a source, otherwise it's WP:OR. (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The category was just added on Jan. 29 [12], it does not represent any kind of status you and no consensus. Please stop edit-warring and please stop making false assumptions. His father was a German Jew, his mother was from the Ukraine, as already proven by sources and if you think his family was of Polish origin you need to provide a source. Using his father's place of birth to assess a nationality is WP:OR (and pretty absurd when talking about Danzig). If you want to add a category, it's up to you to take it to the talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


Please don't move articles to (name). Surname and given name are perfectly good disambiguators even if the corresponding one doesn't exist. Not to mention that Noel and Frank both had surname articles. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ted MallochEdit

Please join the discussion on the talk page so we can collaborate together and get the article cleaned up. Thanks! --KeithbobTalk 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Need any assistance?Edit

I beg your pardon, sir/ma'am. I happen to stumble upon an edit of yours on the page Mid-Atlantic American English. In the edit summary, you wrote the following:

"Why do I have to follow you all over the encyclopedia? This is *NOT* a good source, it's gibberish."

It seems you have been having a feud with this fellow. If you deem it necessary, you could report him to administration. That's all.LakeKayak (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I can agree with you one hundred percent that the web page [13] is not a reliable source. I personally think that the editing on the page is poor. "Fronting" was once used instead of "raised". Other than that, the page includes "Buffalo" in the "Mid-Atlantic dialect, when in reality, the "Buffalo" dialect is at the mininum "Northern".LakeKayak (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello Jesse,

Please would you review the Barrett Name page. It is definitely not a common Afrikaans surname that occurs in South Africa as stated in the wiki

I lived in South Africa for over 25 years, served in the Military and the Police in that time. I only met one other family that had the name of Barrett other than my own.

Best regards,

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:262A:2A00:B9C6:ECC:7F8:C858 (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jesse, please would you tell me what proof would satisfy Wikipedia that Barrett is not a common Afrikaans surname? This is so inaccurate it borders on ridiculous to anyone who has lived in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:262A:2A00:D9D5:7949:551F:64B8 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jesse, please see submitted request and proof: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:262A:2A00:484:6B85:79D0:1057 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Philadelphia EnglishEdit

I beg your pardon. It seems that I left you confused with my edit on the page aforementioned page. From my own experience, people from New Jersey, including myself, get offended when somebody says "Joisey", even if we're using it in the article as an example of a misconception. Is there a way to address the point without specifically using the example "Joisey"? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not confused by your edit, it just is inappropriate. Your rationale is not within the scope of Wikipedia's editing philosophies, but is instead seemingly stemming from WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT while also forgetting WP:NOTCENSORED. JesseRafe (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

My primary issue was that I didn't know of WP:NOTCENSORED. I can say that your latter assessment is more accurate than the former. Thanks, anyway.LakeKayak (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Do you think you can find a source for this information? Currently, the information doesn't have any source. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
They're probably not great sources, but they could be found, I just went off the top of my head from one cultural depiction, William Hurt's character as a "Philly mobster" in A History of Violence, the theme being the accents by actors other than Mortensen were not just bad, but distractingly so and that is largely due to them not fitting:
  • - "William Hurt is a talented actor with an Academy Award on his mantel and, in fact, received a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his work in this movie. We don’t get it. Man, does he chew up—and spit out—the scenery. Hurt plays the head of Philadelphia’s Irish mob, using an inflection that sounds more Brooklyn than Broad Street. Hurt said he studied the accent listening to members of Maria Bello’s family, who live in the Philadelphia suburb of Norristown. We’ll take him at his word, but he sure sounds like a Big Apple drunk trying to imitate Rocky Balboa."
  • - "Sporting a silly beard and affecting a pseudo-Italian/Irish accent right out of the Ed Wood school of dramatic arts, Hurt prances about, barks orders, shrugs, and talks tough as if he were begging to have his career killed."
  • - "The atrocious accents that came out of the mouth of the movie's unscary Philly gangsters?"
  • - "William Hurt was nominated for a supporting Oscar for his role in this examination of violence, monsters and what is mistaken for modern-day heroics. He wore his Philadelphia accent like a flashy coat and some moviegoers thought it a distraction, others part of his character."
  • reviews for the film keyword search "accent" - "faux Philly mob accent", "hilarious Razzie-worthy performance of this debacle is William(Bill) Hurt's whose Philly accent and Amish beard is so bad I laughed out loud", "a parody of an East Coast accent", "William Hurt comes into the movie much too late and in the portion of the film that just doesn't work that well. He's hammy and over the top in a role he never should have taken. The audience in the screening we were at started giggle as he chewed the scenery and displayed one of the worst accents ever on screen", "Their accents? I couldn't figure out what they were-They were supposed to be out of some crime family in Philadelphia. Were they trying to be Italian, because that is just ridiculous or maybe they were trying for a New York accent-But why?", "Harris, Hurt and a slew of stuffed actors take turns imitating Sylvester Stallone in order to give the film a "Philly" feel. Maybe someone forgot to tell them that Stallone is only marginally connected to Philly, having spent all of his formative years in north Jersey or Brooklyn, which is the actual accent Rocky has", "most absurdly bad east coast gangster accent", "stupid "fuggitabowtit" type accents", "a one-eyed bad guy with a Brooklyn accent (from Philly)"
Also these reviews/sites simply stated the mob in that film was from New Jersey despite them saying numerous times in the film they were from Philly:
I will keep digging for a proper source, but this contention is a thing. Both that "Joisey" is informative to an average reader, and that the accent under any name is often misappropriately applied to depictions of people with a putative Philadelphia accent or dialect. JesseRafe (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Turns out a good source for the exact passage was already on the article, I spent too long trying to find something about one narrow instance rather than a broad one. Also the discussion here: might interest you too. It is a thing, even if the forum isn't an RS, it's also not being added to the article. Glad we cleared that up. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"variety variety variety... means nothing, call it what it is"Edit

I beg your pardon. It seems that you now left me confused with your edit summary on the page Mid-Atlantic American English. Who exactly are you frustrated with? Was there an editor who changed the word "dialect" to "variety"? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I understand your issue now.LakeKayak (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edits re Michael S. Smith IIEdit

You have selectively used information which does not provide significant current information about the subject's career, as reported by major media organizations. Meanwhile, you have sourced information from an obscure blog, suggesting you may have connection to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natsecobserver (talkcontribs) 23:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You have already been warned on your Talk page, please respond in only one place. Wikipedia is not about your definition of "significant current information about his career" - You are interested in that info because you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and do not adhere to a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW with regards to Michael S. Smith II. The only source I have added is from Newsweek, not an obscure blog. Your accusations are absurd. JesseRafe (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Big Pun Grammy Award NominationEdit

Thanks for your input it seemed what ever I found was likely to never be enough. I did try searching for another reference but I could not find this CNN one what were your search terms out of interest. Smush123 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem... I believe I focused on just the "41st Grammys" aspect of it. Maybe added "Big Punisher" or "Capital Punishment" or "Best Rap Album" as well, but had in mind looking for a big media awards round-up than a specific article about Pun being nominated, which in 1999 the internet had 1/600000 of the content it does today, was very unlikely. "41st grammys big punisher" just now (on a different comp) and the CNN article came 5th, after WP itself and several sites that looked like just red carpet photos, etc. Also, FYI IMDb is never a good source. It's an open format website like Wikipedia, but the only difference is it doesn't even require sources. JesseRafe (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic American EnglishEdit

Hello. I attempted to instate a table on the aforementioned page showing the vowels in the Mid-Atlantic dialect. (Other dialect pages tended to have similar tables, e.g. New York City English, General American, Inland Northern American English, Boston accent.) However, the table only has the information I could parse through in the article. Therefore, as your knowledge of the Mid-Atlantic dialect is better than mine, could you verify that the information in chart is accurate? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing me on this. I can, but I can't promise quick results on it, but it will be on the back-burner as something to take a look at. Vowel quality analysis isn't something I can generally do at quick glance-over anymore... Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of ViewEdit

Hi JesseRafe -- I appreciate your feedback but am interested to understand how my addition seemed less than neutral to you when it was supported by citations. Are there guidelines for neutrality that you can point me to? Does Wikipedia have a guideline that states if something "seems" less than neutral to one individual that it constitutes the deletion of a cited fact? You can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Christineokelly (talk) 10 March 2017

  Hello, I'm JesseRafe. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sanjay Shah (businessman) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christineokelly (talkcontribs)

March 2017Edit

  I apologize for the misunderstanding in the edits of the article "Government of New York City". I agree not to edit that part of the article from now on. However, you don't need to threaten a user with an edit block just because of a misunderstanding. NewYorkRepub100 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Just so you know, Sumner Gerard was the US Ambassador to Jamaica and a Montana state senator and minority leader. Completely notable. So i undid your removal of him from those articles. Jgefd (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would a United States ambassador be not be considered notable? Please explain. Jgefd (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I kind of understand why you may have wanted to remove a red link for not being notable, so I added it back to the article and added a link to his New York Times obituary (clearly establishing notability). Now there is now reason why Gerard's name should be removed from that article. In addition, there is no reason to resort to personal attacks as you did on my talk page. Jgefd (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Pritzker familyEdit

The intro for the Pritzker family describes them as an American Jewish family, then concludes by reiterating that they are of Jewish descent. Isn't this repetitive? Wouldn't one mention be sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Those instances are multiple paragraphs and many sentences from each other and the wikilinks go to different pages, so no, I don't find those two disparate iterations redundant at all. JesseRafe (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There are 4 sentences. Seems unnecessary to mention one defining feature in 50% of the sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randle el (talkcontribs) 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

New To EditingEdit

Hello JesseRafe,

I contributed to Philip K. Dick page earlier today. I have now created a userpage and went through a tutorial. I'm not sure what I need to do at this point to be able to post the information on the Philip K. Dick page.

Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmputt (talkcontribs) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barry,
I'm responding here and on your talk page - I'm unsure if you are following the conversation here. First of all, welcome again, and thanks for writing me about this question. The problem with your contribution to the Dick page was that 1) you wrote about yourself and 2) you added a non-notable item to the list of adaptations.
Wikipedia has strict notability requirements for articles themselves and for additional information included on those articles there are further requirements that they not be self-serving or promotional or have any other conflict of interest or non-neutral point of view. Information about all of these can be found in the links generated in my previous welcome message.
As you have identified yourself as the same individual who recorded these radio dramas there is an inherent conflict of interest there as you are not neutrally included this info but serving yourself. This isn't ipso facto a problem, but the additional rub is that these radio dramas which you recorded are not notable either. If Ridley Scott were to make an account to add Blade Runner to the list, that would also prompt warnings that the editor should disclose they have a conflict of interest and eschew writing/editing subjects close to them personally. So it's a combination of writing about yourself and also including a non-notable adaptation that was the problem which prompted me to undo your edit.
Let me know if you have any other questions, and please don't be discouraged from being bold and making further edits elsewhere, JesseRafe (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bill Samuels ArticleEdit

I made a few minor edits to the Bill Samuels article today to try to put more neutral language in the piece, with the ultimate goal of having an article that is up to spec and not in need of qualifications. So my questions are:

a) Are these changes in the right direction? b) What other changes or sections should I focus on?

Thanks. Crgullman (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just saying hello and sorryEdit

Hi, Mr. Jesse! I just thought I'd say hello over a few months after joining Wikipedia and also to apologize for some of my first edits. I'm still a bit of a beginner when it comes to editing Wikipedia.... And plus I was only trying to remove vandalism some hooligan added to articles for many Three Stooges and Laurel & Hardy shorts.

Anyways, I hope you have a nice day! CheyTheHuman (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Move requestEdit

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

President of the United States in the 2016 Democratic primaries listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect President of the United States in the 2016 Democratic primaries. Since you had some involvement with the President of the United States in the 2016 Democratic primaries redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Input at talk:Universal Monsters (2017 film series)Edit

There is currently an RfC opened at the above stated talk page, for a retitling of the article. As you have been engaged in the conversation before I thought you'd like to know. Your input, as well as any other editor's is valued for the case of the argument - just follow the link provided above. Have a nice day.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi JesseRafeEdit

Hi User:JesseRafe, can you make an edit (when your not busy) to Maiorana surname article, because you've made great edits to surname pages in past:

  • "Daniel Maiorana (born 1977), leader of the criminal network Fucked For Life" -
  • And there's a new source on page ([14], saying famiglia francese) for French origin at the bottom of "references" section that User:Narky Blert kindly added, you'd just have to turn into a proper reference and change the top sentence to "Maiorana is a surname of french origin". That's it, I'd just rather a surname user do it than myself. All best.--Theo Mandela (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Theo, and thank you. Looks like Agricolae beat me to it. I made a few further tweaks. I'm also going to suggest merging the two because the names are obviously related and it's not uncommon for minor variations being discussed in the same article. Cheers, 15:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jesse for the improvements you made and for replying 👍 Appreciate it.--Theo Mandela (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejectedEdit

The request for formal mediation concerning User continually edit warring vital sources., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Nas and Scarface are friends. They worked together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:14EC:9300:ECBB:B206:6F76:DBFF (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi there, re: this and this, is there a reason why you're silently removing the whitespace from the infobox? Aligning the = makes it far easier to find parameters than having an uneven jumble of characters, and the spaced version is prevalent across tens of thousands of film articles. Captain America: Civil War, St. Elmo (1914 film), Tank Girl (film), etc. Though the spacing is certainly not mandatory, I and other editors find it useful, so I'm curious as to your rationale. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Simple answer, I abhor two spaces between sentences. While it doesn't show up on the published pages, it's annoying (to me) to see when I'm editing an article. I don't waste bandwidth to make essentially dummy edits and just remove invisible spacing -- I do edit to remove spaces before ref tags, etc. Whenever I am making an otherwise full page edit, such as ReFill, I find and replace the duplicate spaces at the same time. The second diff there was a random division sign thrown into the mix so I reverted. For me, having the =s in a line makes it nigh impossible to read or find what I'm looking for, and from a graphic design perspective such formats is solidly eschewed. Maybe people with a programming background like it? I think it makes the page more difficult to work with, and also the file larger by however many bytes don't even contain content. JesseRafe (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the response, Jesse, thanks. I wonder if there's not a better approach, like perhaps requesting at WP:VPT that someone create a simple script to remove spaces after periods? Since people do go out of their way to manually set up the infobox like that, and since some infoboxes, like Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox musical artist are formatted that way by default, I think that demonstrates some element of preference, even if there may not be a codified rule either way. Your point about byte size is noted, but I think it's somewhat negligible. The graphic design point I don't think is relevant here since there is no visible result on the rendered page. Anyhow, I'm yielding on the Space Jam issue, but if you might please consider in the future that some editors strongly prefer this format, I'd be appreciative.   Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Frenchie vandalEdit

Do you think it would be helpful to have a page describing the disruption caused by the Frenchie vandal, a page much like this one? The person appears to be using IPs that geolocate somewhat west of London. We can compile a list of them if you wish. I find it helpful to link to an LTA page when reverting and when asking for administrative actions against vandals like this. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be great! How do I go about starting that? I can probably get about 100 IPs from this user, at least 60-70. I used to update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ when I remembered to, but just to keep track of them more than anything, didn't do any good. In my experience Widr was able to block this user right away and I guess "Frenchie Vandal" evolved as shorthand for that admin as I knew he/she would block the IP instantly. Appreciate your help! JesseRafe (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Here we go – Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Frenchie vandal. Was there ever a registered account? Did a rangeblock ever get set? Please feel free to list more IPs and you can also add more descriptive information. As always, giving away too much information may allow the vandal to shift his tell-tale habits (see WP:BEANS). Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Question, is there a template or any kind of automation that can assist in filling this out that I'm just not seeing? Seems like adding the dates and the block logs etc will be quite a project. I'll try to systematically do it later. Should it be chronological or alpha-numerically ordered? JesseRafe (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of a way to ease the drudge work of listing a bunch of IPs. Let's list them chronologically, with the most recent one at the top. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I expected as much and for the time-being just pasted the above SPI. Will refer to this in any future ARVs though, and complete it when I can. Thanks, again! JesseRafe (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not a Frenchie Vandal when I edit Frenchie leave it alone.

Cuny public safety officersEdit

JesseRafe You keep stating that cuny peace are somehow armed or can obtain a firearm license as if they have a right or Authority. First ... l work with the Cuny administration and i can tell you for a fact that NO uniform cuny officers is armed with a firearm. If i am wrong tell me where you seen a cuny officers armed. Second ... for a cuny officers to get a firearm permitted he or she must be authorized by the broad of trustee which does not happen. Third ... the cuny officers must have a background check performed by the New York City Police Department and the agency must approve such a request without do cause.

Comma chameleonEdit

I believe the user who's doing the Baywatch changes is a sockpuppet, but I can't think of whom. I remember there was one that was obsessed with the Oxford comma. --Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 05:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, found him. --Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I reported the IP in the EW board as this one seems pretty static. He obviously followed me to AZ out of spite, thank you for following him/her there! That page is a target of a completely different mobile IP vandal. What a strange species of troll, unless he/she really believes that "commas go everywhere". A serial/Oxford comma is a matter of taste/preference/ambiguity, but just making sentences into pieces of shit like "released on, May 25" is inexcusable. I'll be on the lookout for him/her further, thanks again for the note. JesseRafe (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Fredro StarrEdit

Fredro Starr was born on January 1, 1970 not April 18, 1971

thanksKylorenvader2019 (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
Hello, dear User:JesseRafe, hereby this badge is awarded to you in recognition of your more than 11 years of tireless editing here in Wikipedia. thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 13:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


I posted on the talk page. Can you discuss the genres with me? Statik N (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel buriezEdit

Hello. I would like to contact you for a question about one of my articles: Emmanuel Buriez, currently the notability guideline for biographies banner is displayed. If I just delete the chapter filmography then I can remove the banner without this problem? Thank you for your answer and thanks for your participations on all my articles Medhi89 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. That notice needs to stay up until the matter of the notability is settled. As it stands now, Buriez might not be notable enough to have an encyclopedia article about him and the page may be deleted. While you have sources up, none of them establish actual notability. JesseRafe (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

additions of sources and questions in the page discussion page. Do you consider that the problem is solved for this article? Medhi89 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Medhi89, unfortunately no. The sources and content of that article do not meet the criteria needed for an article on Wikipedia in my opinion. I have nominated the page for deletion as there has been ample time to find more and better sources. He does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean?Edit

What do you mean "disruptive editing"? Wizymon (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Icelandic Grammar and King of the Hill??? Wizymon (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons stated in the edit summaries. JesseRafe (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the Icelandic grammar: your reason was "word choice"; its a linguistics issue. A "lexical item" is one word or a series of words which function as a member of a language's lexicon (≈ vocabulary) whereas a "constituent" is one word or a group of words that function(s) as a single unit within a hierarchical structure. Simplified: A "lexical item" refers to a language's dictionary entries whereas a "constituent" refers to the major elements within a clause or sentence. If you look at and research other Germanic and non-Germanic languages with V2 word order, you will see that they are based upon and V2 concerns the constituent, not the lexical item; they are two completely different terms with completely different meanings.
That's why I changed it: because it was false information. So would you please change it back?
Regarding King of the Hill: your reason appears to have been "Rvv. ". Have you ever watched the show? The guys is mental retarded; he is not intentionally mean; he just lacks intelligence.Wizymon (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Because you're wrong about that usage of lexical item vs constituent and it is unnecessary to randomly throw in euphemisms for the intellectually disabled into encyclopedia articles, which add nothing to the understanding of the episode summary and are unsourced. Unless you're an accredited cartoon psychologist. JesseRafe (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"Because you're wrong about that usage of lexical item vs constituent" Do explain: how exactly am I wrong on that; what evidence do you have for that? Wizymon (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrew AndrewsEdit

There are a slew of G League signings that are expected to happen but have not yet - including Andrews. The move needs to be announced by an official source - the 76ers, the 87ers, the NBA or the G League. The source you linked was Andrews signing with Philly, not Delaware. It is likely this was done to retain his affiliate rights for Delaware, but the deal has yet to be completed. Please wait for official announcements. Rikster2 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Onyx againEdit

I brought an administrator to the talk page for the Onyx (hip hop group) article. The administrator says there needs to be sources for each genre and that instead of arguing over Onyx's genre, we should stick to sources. Statik N (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Abram Petrovich GannibalEdit

Greetings! Thought you might like to know that a wikipedian just tried to switch the neutral Gannibal statue for the questionable Zakomelski portrait that you mentioned on the talkpage. I fixed it, but you might want to keep an eye on the infobox. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone, thank you! Still on my watchlist, but I'm usually not on on the weekends. I see that a Ctrl+F for "strawman" on that talk page would yield two results, both of us arguing with the same editor. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


Re My Cabaret Law Edits which you deleted. You stated "Non-encyclopedic tone, please start your blog with OR and Synthesis and legal examples, stop flooding this page with them." I do not understand what you mean by "OR and Synthesis"

Anyway, this article is about "LAW" and accordingly, it invites a discussion of the law and regulations. The Article as written is very misleading as to the Cabaret Law. The other regulations are much more onerous than the Cabaret Law when it comes to laws affecting dancing. Obtaining a Cabaret License is not so hard - what is hard is complying with the other regulations and assuming the Cabaret Law is repealed, then the other regulations remain in place.

If you discuss this with anyone familiar with the topic, I think they will find my changes to be very useful and a very good contribution. The links to the Department of Buildings document is something most people involved in the repeal of the law have not seen and do not understand. I did not want to wholesale reorganize the article, for I feared another of your comments. So, I left things where they are. I am not flooding the page with irrelevancies. I would ask you to edit rather than wholesale delete. And, please, i am trying to make Wikipedia better, not worse, it takes a lot of time to write up something like this and to be accurate and would appreciate thanks and respect, and not explicit and implicit derision. I want help on this, not just criticism.

Also, I would want to delete the link to the Vibe article written by an unpaid intern with major misinformation (lies to some) but fear your reaction if I delete the citation. But, it is exactly the type of authority that Wikipedia disdains.

Alan Nysugar (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You have links on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia wherein there is information about what is and is not appropriate to include. "OR" is "original research", which you have already been warned about enough times I thought you'd be familiar with the abbreviation. You say "it invites a discussion". No, it absolutely does not. It is an encyclopedia article, it should only contain bare neutral information. Not your pontifications. Please take any further edits you may have to the article's talk page first. Every other editor on the page has reverted you. JesseRafe (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You were correct...Edit


See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor battles in The Lord of the Rings. The Transhumanist 08:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Twin Peaks contributionEdit

Hi, thank you for the information, I've already written on Wikipedia, I'm not a new user and know the rules, but my contribution to Twin Peaks seemed to me to be a good news, and it's not promote, and it's real news, and I also put some real and reliable sources (and the Facebook page that I put in as source, is the official page of the Altipiani di Arcinazzo and shows some news and posts about this similarity with Twin Peaks). And it is an encyclopaedic news, which is also written on the Wikipedia page of this place. And is a relevant news that speaks of a landscaping feature of a place that is resembles Twin Peaks and this contribution may be of interest. So please do not delete my contribution. --L0a0i0r (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Adam DeVine photoEdit

I am quite offended by you referring to the photo as ‘terrible’. In the very least, can you change it back to the previous photo?

Next time, perhaps treating others with decency and respect will allow for less mistakes to be made. If you further clarify exactly what you want me to do, it will allow me to get it right the first time.


Jonty1 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay duly noted! Thankyou but you shouldnt doubt the matter given as everything is backed with referennces then I dont get it how content can be exaggerated?? Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding Maintainance tagEdit

When the matter stated in the article is not backed by one or two citations but by more than a dozen citations, how can possibly term the info as biased, exaggerated or vague? Kindly look into this. Labeling a page, backed by solid references, with maintenance tags is extremely wrong! Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

What about the other two maintenance tags?? You are a registered user, how about you look into this?? Having these tags is something extremely disrespectful to the contributions made that have been backed by sources mentioned. Thanks would appreciate if you can do something! Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Guerard etc.Edit

Guerard is a DAB page - it is correctly tagged tl|Disambig|geo|surname. Please read WP:INTDAB, noting especially 'the community has adopted the procedure of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects' (emphasis in the original). Narky Blert (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to NISTEdit

The changes I did were to mention the joint institutes NIST has with Stanford, CU Boulder and UMD, and also added more research areas to the ones present now as I personally think the present list is not exhaustive. Another was to change the name of the current director. And for almost everything, I included the relevant source(s). Let me know which of these you consider as spam or vandalism. Be specific in the responses. Also, I edited the intro to focus on the fact that NIST is just not a measurement standards laboratory, it is much more than that and it is better to refer it as a physical sciences laboratory with specialization in developing measurement standards. Check the intro here from DOC National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one of the Nation’s oldest physical science laboratories. At NIST world class science connects to real-world applications.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yo JesseRafe, why did you cite me for writing what this other person posted? Also, isn't it just a little idiotic to disqualify people who work there from updating the info? Precisely where are you going to get the arcane details about a little known government agency? (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no way to tell you apart, you seem to have interchangeable IP addresses and I don't care one whit about the two (or "two") of you's back-and-forth. Take any discussion of the article to the article's talk page, not a user talk page. If you like to contribute to Wikipedia, but don't want to be confused with other editors who may be using the same or similar IPs, consider making a username. JesseRafe (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
JesseRafe, if you are maintaining the NIST page ond wikipedia, I suggest you to do some more (re)search on what NIST does. Clearly NIST is not a "measurement standards laboratory" as indicated now; it does much more than just metrology since it was renamed to NIST from NBS. Take a look at the ongoing research and you'll understand that most of the well-known work from NIST in the areas of cybersecurity and a lot more (can give you a list if you want) are not related to just measurement standards. I understand your concern about possible bias in views of NIST workers, but I think moderators like you should check and allow reasonable additions to the page (like the one I mention) as long as no sort of advertisement is done. It is foolish to block edits for NIST employees which are useful, as they are well qualified to judge if the wikipedia page does indeed present the correct facts and suggest edits. And it is your responsibility to check if they are presenting incorrect facts intentionally rather than just painting them with a wide brush and blocking all edits from them just because of a wikipedia rule.
If this is the same person, please take your specific concerns about the article to that talk page. By no means was anybody blocked or were any edits wiped out because someone worked for NIST, two different editors removed them because they had no basis being on Wikipedia. Please read the dozens of links about policies and guidelines widely available. JesseRafe (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Added suggested edits to the talk page. 2601:147:8300:EFD0:ACDE:8423:2EB5:F8F9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

None of my edits for the NIST page can be called as "disruptive editing", because all the edits are factually correct and appropriate sources/citations have been provided (and none are based on my analyses ). Instead of just stating vague statements, try to be provide precise comments, i.e. exactly which statement(s) you find "disruptive". I can argue that perhaps you have limited knowledge on the topics related to the edits and hence fail to understand them. If you had anything to say, you could have commented on the NIST talk page where I had suggested the edits much before I made the actual changes. So, understand your limitations, and act accordingly. Any constructive criticism is welcome. Any further comments you have can be posted on the talk page, and if your arguments are found to be appropriate I'll take those into account sincerely and accordingly change my edits, otherwise I'll move forward with edits which I find to be accurate 2601:147:8300:EFD0:ACDE:8423:2EB5:F8F9 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Thank you very much for starting Touro College and University System -- and for adding all of those schools. You've made a super-big job a lot easier. Now I need to sort out the difference between the two pages and the two properties and which content should be on both and which should only be on one of the other. Again, thanks! Brnobaud (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this next step! I got kinda burnt out with all those pages (and they're all of quite varying quality to boot), good luck! I'm still watching most related pages, but if you need any further help, please ask! Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Should I add these missing countries( to this page:

Kylorenvader2019 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not unless you have a more reliable source than imdb. --Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 05:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Also I am making edits to the list of horror, sci fi and fantasy tv programs pages, it is messy at first but give me a few days and I will straighten it out so please try not to delete all my work.

I have another problem, how do u link a bunch of pages at once rather than do it individually? Kylorenvader2019 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Kylorenvader2019 (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean. You'd have to add the [[s to each term you'd want to make a "Wikilink" if that's what you mean, no shortcut or automated way to do it. Also, I think you might find quicker (and even better!) responses here: Wikipedia:Help desk. There's directions there as well. JesseRafe (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page ReviewingEdit

Hello, JesseRafe.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dolly CollinsEdit

I suggest that you make your argument at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Criteria for "common" hypocorisms. Currently, there is no support there for your opinion that Dolly is a common hypocorism for Dorothy. . Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


I don't know how i'm vandalizing pages, especially aesop rock's, I cited a reliable source. it is also a well known fact he is a rapper as it says in his occupations and on other pages that mention him PoofooP (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to show I'm right he's cited as a rapper on the page for bushwick and in his occupations, rapping is an occupation after all, someone who raps is a rapper just like how you are an editor, they should be considered that. This is the same for El-p, he is cited as a rapper on the pages run the jewels (duo) and run the jewels 3 (album) PoofooP (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The same goes for MF DOOM, on pages for all of his solo albums he is cited as a rapper — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoofooP (talkcontribs) 04:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course they're rappers. But they're also producers. All three of them produce hip hop tracks, making "recording artist" more apt than just "rapper". Are you done, now? PS, on Wikipedia talk pages we make links using [[wikilinks]]s, not <ref>references</ref>. JesseRafe (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I get your point but it's still pretty flawed for a few reasons, one is the fact that all three are called "hip hop recording artist" and producer on their pages, you are saying that being a producer is included in being a recording artist, if that were true none of these pages would have producer as well as recording artist. Another reason is that All three are constantly mentioned as rappers in every place they are mentioned that is not wikipedia, seriously search any article by any other source that mentions them, they will say that all three are rappers. Not to mention the countless rappers and producers simply called rappers and producers on their pages (Kanye West, Earl Sweatshirt, Pharrell, etc.) the majority of pages about rapper/producers are like this, which means recording artist is not the rule but the exception. Also it's a very unclear term, most people do not realize producer is included as an occupation using that term, rapper and producer is more specific and gets the message thoroughly. You are also missing an important point, producers are not recording artists, producers oversee the recording and possibly use software to design a beat but they never actually record anything. It comes down to whether or not you would rather an unclear umbrella term or a more specific term.

On an unrelated note, you said originally I was violating terms by not citing sources but when I actually cited a source you said I vandalized the page and could be banned, I understand your point now but If you have a problem with my editing in the future just explain the problem thoroughly so I don't have any confusion and repeat a mistake

PS thanks for the linking advice, appreciatedPoofooP (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to that you said I put my own opinion into el p’s page, I didn’t it’s a well known fact he’s a rapper PoofooP (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I realized you also said I purposefully put incorrect info onto aesop rock's page, like I said before it is a well known fact that he is a rapper PoofooP (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

unattested brandEdit

All three brands do exist. I did not want to put a link to each website. That would be spam. Not well known brands are still okay to include. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think in that case it starts to become listcruft, no? Where is the line between "not well known brands" and "made-up companies", if we don't draw the line at notability? JesseRafe (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I checked each one. They do exist. The inclusion criteria is not notability for lists. QuackGuru (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I tagged the entries without a citation. If no independent source is provided by the end of the year they can be deleted. I don't want the unsourced entries to get out of control. QuackGuru (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hip Hop recording artistEdit

I figured this was the best way to get your attention since you have responded to my questions on the el p and aesop rock talk pages without reading my responses on your own talk page, I understand you are probably very busy, but I have not yet gotten an answer from you addressing my concerns, thank you PoofooP (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

May I also add, I have not heard community census on this issue (which is why I created those questions on those talk pages in the first place) I have only heard yours, and you have not yet adequately addressed my claims or provided evidence of community support PoofooP (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not responding because you the bore the daylights out of me. I answered in full above. You're being an WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor. Multiple other editors have undone your spurious edits. Give it a rest and move on. Find other ways to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia project. Bye! JesseRafe (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The Vanguard GroupEdit

The Vanguard Group — это частная компания privately held company.

The Vanguard Group is a Pennsylvania corporation that is wholly and jointly owned by 37 registered investment companies that offer, in the aggregate, more than 150 distinct funds.

Vanguard Group Inc - Financial Services Firm Vlad1802 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Touro Touro TouroEdit

Hello JesseRafe I am pulling my hair out! I want to make sure it's awesome over at Touro College but I don't know how to appease you (pl). So I'll try to explain it here. I think that Touro College is just ground zero of the Touro College system, which now includes real and virtual (online) campuses. So, the greater network is called the Touro College and University System, which is now a new page someone else created (I was super-surprised to see all that work I didn't want to do myself) so now was I guess somebody or maybe I need to make sure that this page is pared down to just being the once NYC campus -- can you help me do that? Can you guide me since it seems that you have the issue. Oh, and sorry about that date thing. I had never see it before. My bad. Thank in advance! Brnobaud (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't, really; I have to defer to subject matter experts on the topic as Touro's own website is not that good at distinguishing where the main campus ends and where other affiliated ones begin. The maintenance tags don't mean the page is bad. They're a signal for other editors to come through and improve it. If you want the article to be the best it can be, then that's one of the best ways to draw more eyes to it. And I made the TCUS page to help in this process, but ideally there should be a brightline split between content (with only the 70s and 80s history and info about the flagship TC on both articles, everything else should be clearly delineated). But I'm at a loss for what goes where because my interest and knowledge and the fruits of my brief research all only go so far. JesseRafe (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I can't agree more. I'll do better. I'll try to do better. Thanks! Brnobaud (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


I see you have been tidying up after this editor - well done! I'm quite concerned about them. They seem to be part of some sort of educational project; they are editing, I think, for course points or similar; I haven't liked a single edit they have done so far and they seem to be somewhere between incompetent and careless in some of their word choice, ENGVAR issues, gratuitous "explaining" of things that were already clear, etc. What to do next? I'm sort of hoping they will finish their project and go away. But if this is an educational use of Wikipedia, I'm not all that impressed. Yours glumly, DBaK (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I came across one edit on my watchlist and as they were new I checked them out and almost every one of them was bad. Didn't get the impression that he/she was a student, but maybe. I issued a level 3 warning because their first dozen edits were all at one go and largely undone by me or others who got there first, and I left an MOS notice, but they continued with the exact same "year of" nonsense. Will look out for them more. Thanks for the reminder! JesseRafe (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Yes, it was this edit on this page that makes me think "studentness". But it does have a defined end date of this month, so maybe that is it and we're done. I've hoping that the course leader is having a look at their edits and giving them guidance. I'm trying to be kind but I'm not yet convinced that the points system is working all that well for Gianarvespertino and their relationship with this encyclopaedia. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, duh. Yeah, I'm not as charitable as you and it wouldn't irk me one iota if she got a zero for her class. Or maybe 5 points for the synonym replacement at Ostinato. JesseRafe (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

3RR blockEdit

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule on Kazakhs. Normally I would just leave a warning for such a violation, but given your involvement in the edit war at Star Wars Holiday Special and history of edit warring, I felt the need to enforce the three-revert rule. After the block expires, we would be happy to have you back. In the future, please make an effort to avoid edit warring and to seek discussion on the talk page. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JesseRafe (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Malinaccier, I made 3 total reverts, and I requested page protection on that page, all to stop an IP from deleting sourced material. There's vandalism all over my watchlist that can't be fixed now, this makes Wikipedia better? JesseRafe (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm seeing a clear 3RR violation with 4 reverts in less than 24 hours - [15],[16], [17], [18], and edit warring short of 3RR would still be edit warring anyway. This is a content dispute and so there's no vandalism exception, and the two of you need to discuss it on the article talk page and not in revert-revert-revert edit summaries. I appreciate your previous edit warring blocks are old, but there have been three of them and you really should know better by now than to engage in two edit wars in the space of a week - and I'd need to see a firm commitment to never engaging in an edit war again before I'd consider unblocking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

JesseRafe (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

I firmly commit to not engaging in any more edit warring. I had no reason to even suspect I had made that edit a whole day prior; I fight a lot of vandalism and restore a lot of sourced material on contentious but often overlooked (in the West) material. Please look at the whole history of that page, there's a lot of agenda-driven removal of sourced material about race, ethnicity, and religion quite frequently (such as scholarly publications about genetic results being deleted). I requested page protection but it didn't come in time. I RPP all the time, because I do not want to edit war either, but I do not want the wrong facts to be disseminated on the encyclopedia as I feel since it is always live, there is always that one person looking at something for the first time and thinking the incorrect article is proof "Wikipedia can't be trusted". About 80% of my watchlist is not stuff I care about and about a third is names I don't even recognize what or who they are at a glance, but because I came across them and saw them rife with errors, puffery, non-notable alumni, and obvious COI or spam links, I added them to my watchlist to monitor them for just such that. There's a tremendous amount of formatting fixes in addition to the vandalism that is still not being fixed and not improving the encyclopedia at all right now with this block. I will not revert more than once on any article ever. I'm giving myself a 2RR rule. I hope this is enough. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I do understand your points, and your frustration over issues of race, ethnicity, and religion - I've seen a fair bit of it myself, especially in non-Western contexts where articles don't get too many watchers. I also understand why you want Wikipedia to be correct at all times - I'd love to see that too myself. The problem with that is that the parties in a dispute pretty much always see themselves as being right and the other side wrong (and they're usually very much convinced of their own opinions, especially in these sensitive subject areas). The very nature of community editing via consensus means that we really do sometimes have to accept the wrong version being live while we discuss it.

Having said that, I'm happy that you understand the issue, and I've unblocked - traditionally I'd consult the blocking admin first, but with only a few hours of the block left anyway, I hope User:Malinaccier will understand. So get back to editing, and thank you for your many contributions! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Thank you! JesseRafe (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I support the unblock, given the renewed commitment to avoid edit-warring in the future. I value your contributions to Wikipedia and look forward to interacting with you in more pleasant situations. Malinaccier (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and welcome!Edit

Dear Jesse,

Thank you for your comments on my work and on my talk page, pleasure to be introduced to you. I'd like to point out the following:

-I have referenced all my work on page Fawad Hasan Fawad, and would like to point out that most of the information provided theirein is taken from the following article: -All images are taken from the official webiste of the Prime Minister's Office of Pakistan: -I bear no personal relation and donot obtain any monetary compensation from the subject. -The subject is a prominent government official, that has an impact on the lives of 200 million+ of the worlds citizens.

Your points are duly noted and I shall improve my writing skills as I continue to work on Wikipedia, in-line with the norms of the medium!

Best, ElChapo007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elchapo07 (talkcontribs) 11:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However, concerns about your edits and the neutrality of that page remain. There is no call for such a surfeit of images on such a short article. The MOS has more information on the matter, links found on your talk page. Thank you for your attestation, but if you do not have COI, some of the wording and the sheer volume of photos still suggests a non-neutral POV push on that article to aggrandize the subject. See also WP:Peacocking. JesseRafe (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Style conflictsEdit

Could you please discuss style changes on the associated "Talk" page before or concurrent with such an edit? I'm particularly concerned about your recent edit on Mayor of New York City, reverting "the [[Government of New York City|government of the United States' most populated city, New York]]" to "New York City's government"?

If I understand correctly the edit history for that article, user made what appears to me to have been a minor stylistic change. Maybe it deserved to be reverted, because it was excessively verbose or for some other reason. I don't know. I just know that I want to encourage others to become regular Wikipedia editors, and I think it would help to show more respect for this anonymous user's contribution by posting comments to the associated Talk page citing reasons for the change. It's more work, but it's also more consistent with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, your suggestion is unnecessary. The language was unwieldy and complicated and has only tangential bearing on the article. If a reader were curious they are more than welcome to click the wikilink to New York City to see how its population compares to other cities in the country. The IP could, if they chose, start a discussion on the Talk page (again, per BRD). It is silly to need to discuss every single change to an article, conversations which should occur on the article's talk page anyway. Perhaps you should also engage in welcoming new users with helpful templates, as I did for 24... if welcoming IPs to make meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia project is your intention rather than assume any contrary motivations on my part. JesseRafe (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources in Madeleine MantockEdit

Hi JesseRafe. I noticed that you used and as sources for information in a biography article, Madeleine Mantock. I am unable to find any evidence or discussion indicating that meets reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. articles appear user submitted and edited, so shouldn't be considered reliable. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz, thanks! Sorry for the slow response. I don't care a whit about those sources, and they looked dubious from the jump, but that actress gives almost zero interviews and there's very little about her, despite her medium-level profile career. I just added them to have more sources, if not better sources, to get the article past new page review. Thanks for the note and the upkeep! JesseRafe (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adeel SafiEdit

Hi Jesse, I've noticed you have dealt with accounts mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adeel Safi and had good interaction the past few months. Do you have anything to comment there? --Saqib (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Commenting now. JesseRafe (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The Silver BellesEdit

Hey Jesse Rafe, How did you switch up the idem citations on The Silver Belles website so I can do the same as I edit other pages? Is there a feature or button that I am missing? If so, could you kindly point it out?

Also, I looked up some of the "wiki talk" that you cited where external links are not a depository but all the secondary links contain broader information on tap culture, African American history from the era, and even direct information from the organizers' foundations/memories. It seems exactly what the external links should contain. I understand that it's not a "catch-all" but if visitors to the page wanted to learn more, those are the exact sources that a library catalogue, a a tap dancing association, or even an amazon search would point them too (hence the three to five varieties). Thanks Jesse Rafe, Copyeditor100 21:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyeditor100, I think you mean the refill tool? There's a link to it in my edit summaries that use it. Or you can hard-type repeated references using <ref name="" />, which is a clickable option in the "wiki markup" field. Experiment with how it words in the sandbox, or copy-and-paste from an article that uses the repeat references and paste that in your sand box to play around with. As to the External links, no, those don't belong there. And even if so, they can't just be dropped in without context. JesseRafe (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jesse, Thanks for the "wiki talk" explanation. As for the second comment on the external fields, I disagree. They have the context, and with the help of my trusty librarian friends who specialize in wikipedia posts, the external links will be up in no time!

Hi Jesse,

Before issuing the "last warning" -- wouldn't it have crossed your mind that maybe the time sequence of reading this message HAPPENED after I had already done it and therefore no such warning was needed. I mean, at any rate, you can continue to throw out "last warnings" but those external citations will return by Tuesday. Wikipedia warring is quite odd but enjoyable. Happy Friday Jesse, until Tuesday!

--- Hi Jesse,

My goal for this page was to no longer be an orphan page. After meeting up with the librarian, I found links to both the Cotton club and this other page mentioned. Do you know how to remove the Orphan page memo in the toolbox? You removed my edits from the Cotton Club, but now that I have TWO citations to that, I can LINK it directly back. So do you know how to remove the orphan stub?

You may delete whatever you like from your user talk page (even though it doesn't remove the fact that the warnings were given), but do not ever again delete anything from mine. Please refer to the reasons explicitly stated in my edit summaries and any other questions to the talk page of the articles you are talking about. Because I have no idea. JesseRafe (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

--- BOTH the TEMPLATES/ "Further Reading"/ See Also/ Chart/ Citation formats were modeled after:

This takes care of your: "per BRD I'm going to be bold and remove what appears to be a malformed wikisource template" As well "See Template:Cite book, or the tool above the edit field (bold, italic, so on) to help with citation formats, or just google it)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyeditor100 (talkcontribs) 00:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


I am sorry to have made disruptive edits on the page of 'Rizwan' by writing my viewpoint on edit history. I have now taken the subject to the other edit's talk page. Thankyou for the guidance SohailTanveer91 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentEdit

Hi JesseRafe, I was wondering do people like Rajive Kumar and Sanjay Mitra qualify to be listed as notable alumni? I understand that your knowledge about subjects related to India is quite limited, but both of them are officers of the Indian Administrative Service and are of the rank Secretary to Government of India/Chief Secretary (India) and hence, rank 23rd on Indian Order of Precedence. If they do, will you be ever so kind to add them?

PS: I noted that quite a few alumnis are listed over there, and some of whom, I perceive to be equal or lower in status to the aforementioned duo.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 21:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. As far as I understand the rules at the junction of WP:PEOPLE and WP:LISTCRITERIA, blue links are always notable and thus acceptable for inclusion on lists of alumni, residents, bearers of names, etc. As long as they don't have puffery or overly-long bios, usually their name and 3-8 words about who they are, and refs if necessary. If I recall the format of the KSG list, just a bullet and a blue linked name, the graduation year, the degree, and the simple description of their title is the standard -- not the stuff about order of precedence, but "Secretary of XYZ". The tricky part is whether they actually received any of the master's degrees there or just went to the extension school, and that's a whole different polemic on whether they're "alumni" or not. But, on the face, yes, it would appear they're suited for inclusion just based on them being blue link alumni. Off-topic, I've unfollowed a lot of the pages about those Pakistani bureaucrats, but do hope those articles are just improved rather than deleted, don't know if that's in your wheelhouse or not. JesseRafe (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification!
I don’t actively follow any Pakistan-related topic, as people on Wiki assume that I may have an inherent bias against the nation. Of the pages, I only have Federal Secretary (Pakistan) on my watchlist, and I have noticed that two-three blue links turned red. I would try to salvage some articles if and when I get the time, finding sources adequate enough for WP:GNG would be the big issue. By the by, don’t they automatically qualify through holding a federal-level office? I mean agency heads in the States and UK do, why not them?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely and argued as such on the SPI, which was probably not the appropriate venue. If only that knucklehead weren't sockpuppeting his contributions would still be on the encyclopedia and we'd have more Pakistan-related coverage. Rather counter-productive, made more so by now the babies seeming to be thrown out with the bath water. JesseRafe (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I know, right? The throwing babies out with the bath water aptly describes the situation. But there’s nothing much that can be done but to cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at the relevant AFDs, but I don’t think that the argument would hold much water. Why was he sock puppeteering, anyway?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 22:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
No way to know, now. Sometimes he took advice and reformed sometimes (especially as CabSec), he didn't. But it seems it was his plan to make those alternate accounts all along because he wasn't ducking blocks or getting final warnings. Don't think he even used them to skirt 3RR, either. But oh well, I gave it middling attention for a few months, think at least a few of the articles are still good enough to remain indefinitely. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentEdit

JesseRafe, I have added the names of aforementioned people to the list of alumni, do let me know if I did anything wrong. Also, apparently Rashid Gafoor is back, for further info, see; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rashid Ghafoor.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, saw both things and responded on SPI and did quick cleanup on HKS. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Partners & SpadeEdit

Hi Jesse! I really appreciate your helpful response on my request to add companies to the P&S page. I'm unsure what you mean by 'anything substantial' regarding adding Target. If it were to be worded as something like 'created Target's children's clothing line Cat & Jack, a $2.1 billion brand', and cite the fastcompany article that number is sourced from, is that adequate? I'm generally trying to learn and do this the correct way. I've heard from numerous friends who edit Wiki that just outright asking what is correct is the best way to go. Thank you! Caitlindonohue (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Caitlin. Thanks for writing, and I'm glad you've changed your approach. By "anything substantial" I meant content like "Target- Developed numerous private labels" is devoid of substantive content, it's completely vacuous. Would you read that sentence in an encyclopedia? It sounds like mere puffery and tells the reader nothing about Target or P&S or about anything that happened. Now, "created Target's children's clothing line Cat & Jack<ref>link to fast company article</ref>" would be perfectly acceptable as the relationship of what P&S did and for whom is obvious in just a couple more words. Notice that Target is a notable enough brand though Cat&Jack is not enough if they had made it on their own, not partnered with Target. Also, notice that there is no mention of trade talk about the value of the brand. The Hims thing is just simply not notable, as the list of clients has to have some semblance of a bright line rule about what's included and what's not. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, got it. So I'm going to go forward and request an edit of adding that Target sentence, worded that way with that reference. I hope you're not adverse to me asking more questions in the future, this is very helpful. Thanks!Caitlindonohue (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem! JesseRafe (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Land Before Time pageEdit

Please, help me comprehend the reason you reverted the content I edited. My position is that the language in the movie better explains the movie's content then do the locations it was made. The place the movie was made doesn't have any bearing on the fantasy and imagination in a child's movie. That imagination allows the movie to transcend space (and time). The person who watches the movie is better informed by the language in the move then by the place the movie was made.

Obviously, I'm new here. I'd be glad to know more about the Wikipedia policies from someone familiar with them. I'm currently relying on Wikipidia Pillar #2: "We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." in the reason for editing The Land Before Time page. The current content about it being an "American-Irish" film is not a mojor point of view for the movie, it's irrelevant to the remaining page content. Liberty5651 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

For the reason I expressly stated in my edit summaries. Please read the links left for you on your talk page and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia protocols and procedures, rather than entertaining the notion that your opinion alone trumps that of thousands of other editors who have made these standards to prevent exactly this kind of opinion- and agenda-based editorial brinksmanship. JesseRafe (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the chance to have a discussion about this. I'm am well aware that I am not the only person in the world, and I sometimes find myself trying to explain the same thing. Please, realize, that I'm not familiar with Wikipedia editing, and up to about an hour ago I thought I had 255 characters with which to explain the changes. I took a look at some other movie pages to comprehend when nationality is included in describing it. I noticed it is not in any "American" movies. You wount see "American film" in these descriptions: Star Trek Into Darkness, Tombstone, WALL-E, Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies, Mr. Nobody. You will see the nationality listed in the descriptions for these films: Amer, Amélie, Run Lola Run, In Order of Disappearance. This second group were very influenced by place. You can comprehend a bit more about Belgian, French, German, or Norwegian ethnicity from these movies. That influence isn't reflected in the fantasy in The Land Before Time. It is also not reflected in the fantasy Mr. Nobody and Mr. Nobody has no mention about the film's place in the leading description. Removing the phrase "American-Irish" would be consistent within Wikipedia, but that this list is only eight movies long and only four are science fiction or fantasy. No science fiction or fantasy movies from this list are described by their nationality. In fact I think it is important to Sci Fi/ Fantasy as a genra to transcend national borders. I'll be glad to read your opinion. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

After researching further it seems as if I stumbled across the only foreign fantasy movie that doesn't note it's nationality: Mr. Nobody. Both Akira and Pandorum are described by their nationality. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a strong argument. I know you're new, that's why I told you to read up and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia polices. Please direct all conversations to the articles themselves on their talk pages, which you have already done, and where you've already received responses which echo the rationale already presented to you in why your edits were not helpful. You seem to be on the verge of acting in bad faith with your continued insistence. Good day! JesseRafe (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
At an attempt at consistency I hope we base evidence on the fact that other things exist.  I apologize if I have offended you or anyone else.

Liberty5651 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please effing read the link instead of assuming its contents. JesseRafe (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I get it. Consistency is based on the fact that other things exists. It's valid sometimes and not valid other times. I'm not sure that typing pejoratives like "effing" are useful, but I must have somehow offended you. Please, try not to take it personally. Have a good day. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of tag from Rizwan pageEdit

Hey Jesse, the notability tag from this page (Rizwan Ahmed) should be removed. Notability guidelines of wikipedia are met by the subject. Subject holds office of national importance, more than 20 citations (primary and secondary) attached. If you agree, please remove the tag as you can do so as you are an established wikiuser. Thanks ( (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC))


Please do not leave inappropriate template warnings. If an editor is making what is clearly an effort at a constructive addition, just because you in your personal view don't like it is not reason to plaster a warning-you-may-be-blocked template on their page. Really - it is that sort of hostility that drives people away. Is that your goal? I hope not. Anyway, please stop. Maybe User:Bagumba can help sort this out.--2604:2000:E016:A700:8DFF:2984:6957:DE54 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? You're the only one being hostile here. That message was wholly appropriate, please see the edit summaries on the pages, as there should not be the same person on the Nate and Nathaniel pages, just one article listed once on one or the other list. You piped the article the second time to make it look like it belongs, but those lists should contain no piping. You were sour that your inappropriate addition was reverted so you reverted back. On your second reversion you got a "Caution" template which does not anywhere say "you may be blocked" at all as it is one level below "Warning". Your rush to assume so suggests you've seen those block warnings before, and one of your many previous identities were blocked following such. Maybe even reported by me? Is that why you're so aggressive to my wholesome edits? And so quick to know the name of an admin who seemingly has it in for me? The 2nd level warning template was appropriate given your history. The 3rd level warning was appropriate given this blatant lack of assumption of good faith and open attack. JesseRafe (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey Jesse -- One can assume good faith. But .. when an editor proves that they are not engaging in good faith -- as when you left that completely bizarre message -- they wipe out that assumption. The assumption doesn't live through bizarre, non-good-faith accusations. Like "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nate (name). Your edits appear to be disruptive... please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. " That can't be seen as good faith under the circumstances. If I call you bad names, and you say "hey, that's not nice," do i get to say: "Well, how about this, let me throw an "please assume good faith" card at you." Of course not. It's ridiculous. Can an administrator please look into this? Maybe User:Bagumba or User:Malinaccier? I cant handle this bully alone. 2604:2000:E016:A700:8DFF:2984:6957:DE54 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This is WP:HARASSMENT. You're clearly not a new editor, but probably someone who I hand in reporting who was blocked and is now out for blood. The facts are incontrovertible, you made an edit that was unconstructive. I reverted it with an explanatory edit summary and welcomed you to Wikipedia, not the "problem user" welcome but the "helpful links" welcome. And moved on with my day. This miffed you and you decided to get revenge: you reverted it. I changed it back and reminded you with a caution template, because this time the assumption of good faith was mitigated by the account not being "new" anymore, and you were being purposefully unconstructive. This, then somehow framed your narrative that I'm a bully? Because you didn't get your way? If I had the energy or the time, I'd look up who you are, your phrasing and gaslighting is very familiar, probably your content is already on this very page. JesseRafe (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Fictional charactersEdit

If they're mentioned at the linked article, then they should be listed. Minor, irrelevant characters won't be mentioned at the target article so they are curated in that way. They do not require a redirect, it makes no difference whether the link is via a redirect or a link to the article or character list that covers them.

Also, your talk page slows my PC to a crawl. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the plain meaning at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list, only blue links should be allowed lest the whole page become Wikipedia:Listcruft, to wit:
  • "Embedded (within-article) lists may also be crufty, especially when they are indiscriminate collections of unimportant or irrelevant miscellanea (trivia)."
  • "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group."
  • "such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability"
All the entries I removed were not to even a list of characters from a production, just random irrelevant non-notable characters who do not belong on the lists for the above stated reasons. JesseRafe (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at some of your other edits. Why did you remove Carlos Brooks from Brooks (surname)? His entry was perfectly valid per MOS:DABMENTION. This wasn't even a dab page so red links are absolutely fine. I'm sure this applies to most of your other removals too but I don't have the patience to look at them all. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I see you removed two valid Jacobs from Jacob (disambiguation) as well. Where did you get the idea that they were invalid entries? How many of these have you actually removed? —Xezbeth (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
There was no one notable named Carlos Brooks. QED non-notbale. Which two? I removed three completely non-notables. JesseRafe (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I see. I'm going to have to revert you on a lot of article it seems. I'll raise it at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation first since you're clearly not going to listen to me. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am listening to you. I've quoted the MOS, you haven't. Please look at the substance rather than blindly revert out of personal animus. What good does it do to revert to "*Cassandra Cassie Ainsworth" when I made it say "*Cassie Ainsworth"? If you want to add minor non-notable characters back, then do so without undoing other valid edits. You're not addressing any of my points. JesseRafe (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You also were incapable or disinclined to answer direct questions above. JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits to J. J. RedickEdit

Sorry, I don't understand why you reverted my edits.

I describe Redick's "chink" incident with "In February 2018, Philadelphia 76ers guard J. J. Redick used the racist term "Chink" in the video which aims to send NBA players' blessings to Chinese fans. His word of gross insult has aroused strong antipathy from Chinese.[53] In February 19, 2018, Redick responded to the controversy and apologized, describing what is heard in the video as an especially unfortunate case of fumbled speech.[54]" in my edits. From my points of view, it's just a statement of the incident itself with sources and there's no radical opinion.

The incident has aroused so broad attention worldwide and abroad that it should be added to Wikipedia. So, can you show me how to describe the incident and edit it? 佛祖西来 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Because you were already told several times that the way you presented the information is undue weight to a minor topic (hence the first 2 reverts, mine and Classicwiki's saying "WP:Undue" in our edit summaries), and the phrasing you are employing is well beyond the pale of neutral encyclopedic phrasing, which you also were already warned about on your user talk page by Classicwiki. Even in your presentation here you use inflammatory language. Nothing significant has or will happen from this one flub, and if you can't describe it without prima facie non-neutral (and borderline non-English) terms like "gross insult", "Redick used the racist term" which are also probably BLP vios, then, no, it just simply doesn't pass muster of notability. Also see WP:NotNews for minor newscycle incidents like this. Lastly, your interest in introducing the subject on his own page with his full name and occupation suggests your primary purpose with these edits is to paint him in a broad negative light as a sort of exposure crusade, rather than an interest in, or knowledge of, the subject, and maybe even copied and pasted from elsewhere. JesseRafe (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


Same IP address removes tag constantly from this page since the past month or so [19]. Pls look into it. Thankyou! (Regent007 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

I don't see anything that significant on that page or from that IP. In the future, please discuss pages at an article talk page. I may be watching it, or, if necessary, feel free to tag me, such as by typing "{{u|JesseRafe}}" and I'll get a notice. There's also the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistan, which, in retrospect I should have mentioned a long time ago. I don't know any editors there or anything, but maybe introduce yourself there and explain that you're undertaking this expansion of Pakistani politics, and you'll probably find a lot of help -- from editors both experienced and more interested in the topic than I am. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes okay I guess I'll do that but I was just trying to bring to your knowledge that the COI and other tags you had restored have been reverted by that user. (Regent007 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

Thanks for the heads up, I do take fiddling with maintenance tags seriously. If I have time I'll investigate the situation on Fawad further. In addition to adding your name to the roster (which I think really only means every so often they'll put a message on your talk page), you should post something on the Project's talk page if you have anything in particular you want more eyes on or even just to introduce yourself as someone who has spent a lot of time creating and improving Pakistan-based articles. JesseRafe (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Reversion on GothamistEdit

Hey there. Help me understand this reversion... the comment you left was "Covered more fully and clearly above, this contradicts that from a not as direct source.", but nowhere else on this page is there a discussion of the acquisition of Chicagoist or SFist's assets, and the citation has direct quotes from representatives of WNYC, WBEZ, and KQED on the matter. This seems to be an important addition to the relaunch story. Thanks. Danielanewman (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the mixup. I thought it was saying WNYC bought the archives of the two other sites just identified as being bought by other radio stations, not the other cities unmentioned previously. JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries; glad I wasn’t missing something obvious. Thanks! Danielanewman (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


Re this: it's a rare day when I interpret BLP more strictly than someone else around here, but I do think that the wording of that request, with no source or even mention of the article, was a problem. (If not for the article's decent sourcing, I'd have requested a RevDel.) Maybe I'm being overly cautious. Anyway, thanks for the edit summary noting good faith. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the way it's phrased in the request should not be how it is in the article, i.e. "AJ claims to have verbed" rather than "AJ verbed someone", but think the topic ought to be discussed on the talk page and the film ultimately included as it's quite a famous instance of the article's subject and I was surprised it wasn't already listed, as such I restored that editor's content in full -- rather than refactor it. If you want to RevDel, feel free, but it should be restored in a less direct way in that case. I don't personally feel like dredging into those particular sources to add it to the main article myself. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Judy Garland article.Edit

Hey I don't want to argue or fight over this, but what I want to know is what do you have against her vocal range being on the article? It clearly said she was a contralto. I do think it should be on there.


(IP editor, since I don't have a name yet lol). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:2C40:E18E:1218:4365:E5D9 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem with basic English is, but as stated again and again, what does that have to do with her legacy? That has been asked of you in at least 4 edit summaries, and you have yet to answer. The article is locked to new editors (such as you) for now, and should you resume your disruptive and uncooperative editing you'll find yourself working your way to a block. JesseRafe (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
She was known for her beautiful contralto singing voice at one time. Trying to find the article stating that. And just so you know, no one was disruptive or uncooperative. And please don't treat me (or others) like we're stupid. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:2C40:811D:CA88:AE0B:579E (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
And that has literally nothing to do with her legacy. JesseRafe (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Now you're just being rude and kinda stuck up. Her voice was part of her legacy like I've been trying to say. But you want to contradict everything.

I won't bother you again. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:2C40:A42E:2934:ECA2:4CAD (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

German ShepherdEdit

Hi, Jesse. I'm new on Wikipedia, and I would like to know why the information I added to the German Shepherd article was removed and links reported as spam? Thanks.Nellytagrank (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it was context-less nonsense and presumably your own website, not to mention entirely unnotable. There are many helpful links on your talk page about how to contribute to Wikipedia in a meaningful way. JesseRafe (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Definition of "Nominal Democrat"Edit

I just posted some comments regarding caucuses in the New York Senate here. I wanted to make sure user:JesseRafe saw it. East Flatbush Live (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)East Flatbush Live

East Flatbush Live I’m questioning your accusation, user:JesseRafe, of me violating the “neutral point of view” on NY Senator Jesse Hamilton by objecting to your phrase “nominal democrat” on my talk page. Jesse Hamilton is registered member of the Democratic Party and a Secretary of the Kings County Democratic Party. Those two facts are neutral and verifiable- his registration is easily available at the New York State Board of Elections. The use of the phrase “nominal democrat” is value-laden and not fact-based. I was hoping to continue this and related discussion, but you didn't respond on my talk page, though I see you've been active here. East Flatbush Live East Flatbush Live (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)East Flatbush Live
I think you are using a different definition of "nominal" than I am, as obviously he is a registered member of the party, I don't see how "nominal" can be taken as assertion otherwise. In any event, the facts that I laid out still stand. Hundreds of reliable source newspaper articles identify Hamilton and the IDC in the way currently listed on the Wikipedia articles. What you are suggesting be done is take a primary source (Senate voting records) and interpret it in your own subjective way. That is not allowed. Please refer to the links on your talk page about Wikipedia policies and sourcing protocols. JesseRafe (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
You say that there are "hundreds of reliable source newspaper articles" that identify Hamilton as listed. Can you list one that uses those exact words? One place that uses the phrase "support Republican leadership once elected" is the website of his opponent here:[1]. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to lift language from the opponent's website?
Are there any reliable news articles that call him a "nominal Democrat?" When I did a quick web search, I only found partisan websites that used those words, and none from the New York Times. Can you please give an example, because your language closely mirrors that of Cynthia Nixon, who uses the phrase "Real Democrat.[2]" My web search found the term "nominal Democrat" used to describe Simcha Felder, not Jesse Hamilton[3].
Can you give one example of a vote the backs up your description of him as a "nominal Democrat?" Can you give one issue where he sides with the Republicans and against the Democrats? He's pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-criminal justice reform, a co-sponsor of the single-payer healthcare bill, pro-LGBT, he has committed to support Andrea Stewart-Cousins for Senate leader, today she appears to have endorsed him over his challenger for re-election[4], he's pro-union, supports Brad Lander's Bag Fee bill in opposition to Simcha Felder's opposition... I could go on. Can you give ONE example from the public record that supports your position? To paraphrase you, What you are suggesting be done is take a "hundreds" of news articles and interpret it in your own subjective way. East Flatbush Live (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)East Flatbush Voice
Last ever reply: What is wrong with you??? The phrase support for Republican leadership once elected is in the fucking source! Right there, just click it! We don't have to list every source that continues to make the same point, that makes the encyclopedia look like shit. We source it once (if reliable) and move on. Where does the fucking 'article say "nominal democrat"??? What does Cynthia Nixon have to do with anything? Where is she mentioned on the page or any of the sources? I don't need to cite random turns of phrases I use on talk pages. I don't know or give a fuck who his primary opponent is and again, like Nixon, this article is older than either of their campaigns. Comment on my talk page again and I'll escalate this as harassment. I explained it to you patiently and clear as day on your talk page already. You're choosing to ignore the plain dictionary definition of words, step off. JesseRafe (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't put references on talk pages. JesseRafe (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Decatur articleEdit

Hi User:JesseRafe. Thanks for your thank your notice, however, my last edit was reverted again, so I restored the article back to its original version one again. I brought this to the reverting editor's attention on the Decatur talk page, so any opinions you may have would be welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, beware canvassing charges! Yes, I saw the big removals on my watchlist, but as they were rewrites on top of large deletions, I needed more time to fully engage. I thanked your restore as a low-cost sign that I agreed, but don't have time or inclination right now to do a line-by-line audit. JesseRafe (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Certain types of canvassing are appropriate users who expressed an interest, and if done in a neutral capacity. Yeah, I'm inclined not to embark on a line-by line audit, but was just hoping some general opinion would help things move along, instead of a prolonged debate between just two editors. I can say this much, that every sentence is well sourced and virtually all prose ties in with Decatur, directly or indirectly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not true. Not every sentence ties even indirectly to him, c'mon now... The causes of 1812? The list of other ships? No, the article can be culled a bit, don't hyperbolize or I may see the merit in the other side... JesseRafe (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bumpy JohnsonEdit

Your recent edit on Bumpy Johnson is incorrect, Johnson served two prison terms for conspiracy to trafficking narcotics. One for 10 years the other for 12. He was never caught selling the narcotics himself, only his underlyings so that is why he received a drug trafficking conspiracy charge. Not a drug trafficking charge and a conspiracy charge, that is false. You are spreading false information. Please stop thank you. Madeguy1931 (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong on two fronts. I hadn't edited that article in weeks, genius. But while you're here, please stop edit warring. Make your case on the talk page of the article about why you want it changed, and if you get concensus for your incorrect understanding then we can change the article, but until then the factual version shall be left up. JesseRafe (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beat the WorldEdit

Hello, JesseRafe. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Beat the World, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Hzh (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Kshama Sawant BirthdateEdit

I do not understand your problem. I have included a Footnote that cites the official, publicly available, Washington State Voter Registration Database that lists Sawant's birthdate as October 17, 1972 (not 1973). The footnote includes a hyperlink to that state website which will download the complete database. Go there, get the database, search it for her name, and see for yourself. It is not a secret document. If you can produce her birth certificate from India, or her passport, then perhaps you will have better information. In the meantime, why can't you accept this official government document, in which Sawant herself applied for voter registration? I assume that she knows her own birthdate. In case you cannot figure out how to use the footnote and the link, here is the listing excerpted: KSHAMA SAWANT 10/17/1972 F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck Reptile (talkcontribs) 05:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Go ahead, I give up. Who the heck are you? Are you better than me? Do you have a vested political interest in making Sawant appear a year younger than she truly is? I don't give a rat's rear end. Have it your way. I thought that Wikipedia was a user-edited resource. I have accurately added information and corrected errors for years with no problems, no challenges, no mistakes, and I am not in error about Sawant's birthdate as it shows on her voter registration record. In my opinion, you are the one who is hostile and disruptive. But go ahead, have it your way, I just don't care anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck Reptile (talkcontribs) 16:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who has been shouting and disruptive. You've refused to go on to the talk page to make your case. And, yes, I for one am not going to download an unknown zipfile from an angry person on the internet. Maybe someone else will. Either way, that's not the best source. But since you're so sure of it and you have so much information on her (and a seemingly vested interest in her birthdate), I'm sure you could find another source and change it again, citing it properly. JesseRafe (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey - Just an FYI since you seem to be altering everyones information on the City Point / Fulton Mall pages. This is for a class project, and we would appreciate if you could hold off with your little edits until after May 26th. This is a graded assignment. Be considerate, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyc12345678910 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Kew-Forest School PageEdit

I'm a student attempting to update and expand upon my school's Wikipedia page with the permission of administration and the marketing department. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify what about my preliminary edits to the page was objectionable/merited removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KFSeniorProject (talkcontribs) 23:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions and for writing to me. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not run by your school so permission from them to edit doesn't give you permission to make the page reflect their wishes, in fact, quite the opposite, because since you are working for their marketing department and based on your username, it seems like you have a conflict of interest with this subject. There are helpful links on your user talk page about how to get started editing Wikipedia, but to give you a brief rundown of why your edits were objectionable and undone wholesale: You added no citations for any of your claims; you went out of your way to violate the MOS, changing already existing sentences and punctuation/capitalization patterns to suit your whim; you used unencyclopedic tone and prose that read like a press release (something a marketing department would write) as opposed to a basic fact-based neutral description. In short, none of what you had contributed made the article better as an encyclopedia entry. It might have made it better as a marketing page to get people interested in the school, but that is not what encyclopedias are for. That's what the school's website can do. Please review the links on your talk page about ways you can contribute in a collaborative manner. I'm going to give you another template with a few more links and how-tos as well as explanations. You may even need to change your username, due to the COI concerns noted above. JesseRafe (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Fulton Street and City Point articlesEdit

Hi JesseRafe. I noticed the large number of recent edits to Fulton Street (Brooklyn) and City Point (Brooklyn) articles, which you have edited a lot. First of all, thank you for your improvements to the articles, especially to the City Point article. Second, these edits seem to be part of a Wiki Ed course from the New York City College of Technology. As a college student myself, I think it might be frustrating to these students to do a wholesale revert of their edits. I'm not criticizing you, but blanking entire paragraphs like this can be quite discouraging. I think what can probably be done instead is to trim these paragraphs to a reasonable size. Thanks, epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that sentence you highlighted is nothing but weasel words and unsourced claims, it has no business in an encyclopedia. We can't have two sets of rules, one for students, one for the rest of the population. If anything they should be held to a higher standard, because unlike other novice editors they were expressly instructed how to make constructive edits. JesseRafe (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Even though that particular edit wasn't the best example, I'm just stating that some of the content may be salvageable. For instance, maybe The Offerman House is notable, as would the mention in An Open Letter to NYC; it's just that more sourcing and better tone would be needed. Again, I don't mean this as a criticism of your edits. I am just saying what I'm noticing. epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just my misfortune to have all of those locations (above two, plus nearby like Junior's, Dime, etc) on my watchlist because they don't infrequently attract spurious trivia. I did save or rewrite a few bits across the half-dozen articles the class seems to be doing (that I'm aware of), don't have the diffs ready to go. Just from the top of my head, about why I removed somethings: The Offerman House bit was written like a sales pitch for the condos (probably where they lifted their wording) and I'd agree could be workable with non-condo sales refs. The Beastie Boys song, I removed because the source was just a lyrics site, but it had nothing to do with History (which I believe was the section it was in). If there were at least one other mention, then I think an "in popular culture" section would be a good add. However, there is nothing to stop these students from asking for help. One of them yelled at me in all caps, so I see they're frustrated, but I also see vandals get frustrated. I just don't think contributions that spell Macy's wrong (!!) or go on and on about McDonald's lease are encyclopedic. There was some good content about Albee Square, but it just had nothing to do with City Point. They're wholly separate entities that just happen to be near each other. JesseRafe (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


What is misleading about my edit summary? I removed Trump because I don't think something that needs a quote of 3 rows of text for an explanation could be quite called an aptronym. I added an IPA for Weiner because I didn't get it at all until I went on his page and realized his name is pronounced "wiener". I thought that might be useful to those of us expecting it to be pronounced like Rob Schneider. (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Brewery name conventionEdit

I'm contacting you as an active contributor on brewery articles and/or member of WikiProject Beer. There is some discussion going on as to how we should name our brewery articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Change_brewery_titles? and Talk:Greene_King_Brewery#Requested_move_10_May_2018. If you are interested, please comment. SilkTork (talk)


Hello Jesse,

Please stop changing or reverting the Splendor wiki page. Current revert is ambiguous and may cause confusion to somebody new.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohit jain bpl (talkcontribs) 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your revertsEdit

Your edits on so-called "hound reverts" were due to the insufficient support for such new edits and I'm reverting them back to the original version. The image in Boom barrier doesn't seem to fit well in the section of the article and in HMS Ocean there is no support that the ship will be transferred to the Brazilian navy, the only thing I ever heard related to this is the possibility of the ship being sold and nothing more. Evaluate before you judge, a decision I should've made before reverting your post on my talk page but I reverted myself after seeing your edit post on the article Stephanie. (N0n3up (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

Look, mind my previous somewhat compulsive response, it's been a long day. The reason I reverted the IP in the articles it edited was because some were not constructive while others didn't seem to add value to the component of the articles the IP was editing. In regard to a previous post of your, I never did say that the IP had to go through me before making the edits, I said (repetitively) that he/she must use the talk page when there is a disagreement. The IP keeps adding contents to an article, and when reverted, it reverts back constantly rather than taking it to talk despite being warned by multiple editors to use the talk page, resulting in the IP being blocked twice within a week. If you want, we can go over the reverts I did on the IP in detail. (N0n3up (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC))
There is no disagreement! Only you attacking that IP for no reason when they made valid edits, and now attacking me. Yes, you clearly were insisting they go to/through you before making any changes. It was clear you were bullying them for no reason and now you are trying to bully me. JesseRafe (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks, you clearly don't see that the IP has refused to use the talk page when it got reverted. I only revert edits that seems unreasonable or redundant addition to an article. Please stop making up stories of me attacking you or the IP. The IP has previously been very troublesome with many other editors, many asking it to use the talk page, then you come here with stories of me picking on an IP and playing the victim as a Wikipedia sjw, and now you're reverting my reverts without reason which is disruptive, and if you do that I'll report you. (N0n3up (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC))

Boots RileyEdit

Just wanted to let you know I'm going to revert the Boots Riley page back to my infobox edit. I understand that he's primarily part of a group, but the background field "solo_singer" for the musical artist template means he's primarily a singer, not an instrumentalist or composer. It's used for any singer/rapper, whether they typically perform solo or in a group. Thanks! Bonnie (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert HoldenEdit


Why did you revert my corrections in the New York City Council? You request sources for Robert Holden being a Democrat. It's right there in the article: Council Members & Districts, and on subsequent pages: District 30, Robert Holden. Even his campaign website says he's a Democrat.

Also (re: your edit summary), you have it backwards: the image is not what determines Holden's party affiliation. (If that were the case, there would be only 50 council members.) It's the party affiliation (of all council members) that decides what the image should show.

I find it rather strange that you request from me that I should present sources that are already abound, yet you provide no sources at all for a claim that he caucuses with the Republicans, something that is far from natural. Strange, no? It's not even mentioned in the article on Holden. The only source I can find regarding whom Holden caucuses with is this one, How Holden beat Crowley – and why he’s not loyal to either party, where he says “I’m not even planning caucusing. I guess I’ll have to – I’m going to have to get a course in how to get around the City Council.”

Now, will you provide sources to your claims? Or are they purely anecdotal? You can start adding them in Holden's article.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You're willfully misrepresenting the plain meaning of my comments. He unambiguously ran as a Republican, while he is registered as a Dem, sure, he nevertheless was elected as a Republican. So, as I clearly stated, please provide a source that he is now caucusing with the Democrats. I have no idea what image you are referring to, and honestly didn't read your whole inane rambling post. I never once claimed anything you are suggesting, such as who he caucuses with one way or the other, merely that either way is not sourced, please learn to read [carefully]. I know full well that the article on him does not currently say whether he caucuses with the Democrats or the Republicans, I did, after all, write the damn thing. JesseRafe (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, he ran as a Republican (among other affiliations), and was elected as such, but as that is not exactly the standard practice among registered Democrats, it definitely needs some prose – and sources. I have not claimed he caucuses with the Democrats, so I don't need to back that up. I just changed his party affiliation as per the official sources. If there are better sources, then add them, don't just change the party affiliation to say the opposite of reliable sources.
How ironic that you respond to a post that you, per your own statement above, didn't even bother to read properly, but still can call "inane", "rambling" – and "whole"! Is your attention span so short you can't read four short paragraphs?
(Shit, I structured this post into paragraphs too, hope that doesn't make it too hard for you to read. The purpose is the exact opposite.)
HandsomeFella (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Bumpy JohnsonEdit

Edits don't become "disruptive" merely because you're unwilling to read and understand the edit summaries that explain them. Please read my summaries (including the one where I restored text that you removed), and then raise any objections that you have to those reasons on the talk page. Discussion isn't a one-way street. Reading the remarks about "pop-spotting" on my talk page might provide useful context. (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The topic was previously discussed and resolved where? Get consensus with whom? Your demands are completely obscure! (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I had thought there was a Talk page discussion already, but it was apparently just through edit summaries a few months earlier. You get consensus on Wikipedia from the other editors. That's how this whole thing works and always has. There's links on your talk pages that can guide you to the policies. Per BRD cycle, your bold edit was reverted and rather than war over it, discuss it and reach consensus. JesseRafe (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Just wondering why my addition to If is no longer showing when it’s the most relevant of all the media references?

Thanks (Spikey58 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC))

As stated in the edit summary, it was not cited. Whether it is the most relevant is a matter of opinion, not of fact. But to my eye it seemed not very relevant as it was a seemingly non-notable work. I assumed it didn't even have a Wikipedia page, but after googling it does, and you just didn't bother linking to it. It's not even mentioned on that page, so I don't imagine it's terribly relevant at all, especially given the other examples. JesseRafe (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my entry?Edit

Hello. Why have you deleted my entry on IF regarding it’s full use in Mike Bassett? It’s the most relevevant of all the films mentioned? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikey58 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with my edit of Thelema?Edit

What about my edit to Thelema could possibly be construed as editorializing? Several months ago I added "Scientology" (with the reference) to the list of religions/philosophies that have been influenced by Thelema. I thought it would be an improvement to add the word "arguably," as, although it is documented fact that L. Ron Hubbard was involved with Thelema before founding Dianetics and Scientology, it is more speculation that he incorporated elements of Thelema into Scientology, although it is certainly speculation with much evidence, but there are those who would argue otherwise, hence why I thought it to be an improvement, and more neutral, to add the word "arguably", although I personally believe that Scientology was definitely influenced by Thelema in many ways. I also thought it would be more pertinent to link to Scientology and the occult rather than to Scientology, which is what I linked to when I first added Scientology to the list. I also found some of the wording to be bordering on being a run-on sentence, thus I tried to change the wording a bit to make it flow better. What is your objection to my edit, specifically? (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

merge of DTPa to DPT vaccineEdit

DTPa has been merged to DPT vaccine as there was a proposal on talk page to mergeDPT vaccine#Merger proposal

The only thing that happened was you deleted the article at DTPa to redirect to DPT and removed the discussion notice. I don't see any discussion on the talk page about the merge proposal, nor do I see any evidence you (or anyone) merged the two pages, just a wholesale deletion. There's not a single mention of DTPa on the DPT article outside of the merge templates. JesseRafe (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

information now added


The reason I deleted the description was because the NBC reporter did not define or source how she came to the conclusion about the Jealous platform. It seemed to be offering an opinion rather than reporting a fact, though she may have been correct by some measure. I read her lengthy article and finally found the source of the cite in the second-to-last line. I got a call yesterday from an old reporter friend who long ago described another's writing as "a nickel a word." Actually, I thought the guy was a pretty good reporter and he gathered in considerable awards from the state press club. When I went to drop you this note I noticed your edits and wondered who might be writing about Herb Caen who's been gone for two decades. I loved his description of Edsel Ford Fong who was a treasure. I'm not going to contest your reversion. I also wondered about the primary, so looked up the results and was surprised to see the spread that Jealous had opened in what was expected to be a tight race. He got 11,000 votes more than Hogan, who is very popular and unopposed, and I expect it was because the uncontested primary kept Republicans unmotivated. Anyhow, thanks to all your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to delete these comments. I would have sent them to you by email but there's no contact info for you. Activist (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I felt that it was phrased in such a neutral way that the voice of Wikipedia was saying that the reporter described him as such, not that Wikipedia was making the assertion. The fact that it was someone from NBC rather than some blog or something made it seem notable, or at least not crackpot/fringe. Thanks for reminding me about the existence of Edsel Ford Fong! JesseRafe (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
And thank you. I noticed that you also had edited Cooper Square and that got me thinking and reading a bit, much like the Caen piece. I'll do some edits about the historic neighborhood. Activist (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I shouldn't have paid any attention to the titles of articles you edited, given that just noticing a couple have taken me off my tasks for the day. You might have continued to pique my curiosity: I've got places to be, people to see, and I'd better get to it. I was just looking at Wilt Chamberlain recently, but didn't leave any edits and only read a fraction. :-) Activist (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that's an accurate summary of Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks... and sorry! JesseRafe (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't be. It was a nice trip down Memory Lane. Also, I went to Wilt's article recently because JaVale went to the Lakers and the subject of wingspan came up. I am reminded now that I corrected that article because Wilt's was substantially underestimated, and did some research on it. Activist (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Middle names vandalEdit

This guy is spamming. (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Voting Records for PA legislatorsEdit

Hello, Jesse I am an intern for Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania. We wanted to let the people know how legislators were voting on environmental bills. While these score were taken down for having the same citation, we feel that it is important for the public to know how their legislators voted on important bills, which is a matter of public record. We sent them to a link where users could download the entire scorecard to learn more. We are about to release a new scorecard and intend to put these new score cards back up. Do you have suggestions on how to do that in a way that complies with Wikipedia's rules?

Hi, responding here and on your talk page to make sure you see it. One of the biggest rules Wikipedia has is verifiability and notability. For this reason, one of the generally-accepted best practices is finding third party sources that mention the fact you are trying to add, usually from reliable news sources. If there is no news coverage, then it is usually considered not particularly notable. On the other hand, if you only have the website about the fact you are trying to add, that is a primary source and not objective. Furthermore, if you only use your account to push links for an organization that you identify yourself as working for then that is considered spamming, even if it is for non-commercial purposes. There's more info about these policies on your talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Lee CarterEdit


Would you care to check out the talk page Talk:Lee Carter (politician)? I've tried to address your concerns.

TIA, FNAS (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike BassettEdit

Well if you’ve discovered there is a page for Mike Basset why not add my reference back to the If page.

As for the most relevant being matter of opinion, I’d say it’s quite clear when stated examples like mission Impossible state the first line was used. In Mike Bassett the entire poem is recited, word for word at s pivotal moment of the movie. None of the other references or films have it stated it ins entirety thus I would say is as close to fact as you can get for being the most relevant of any of the currently listed pop culture references. Spikey58 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. JesseRafe (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Persistent vandalEdit

Hi Jesse. I noticed that you posted a warning recently on the user page for anonymous editor It looks like they're at it again: I've reverted a lot of their recent edits, which were mainly adding unnecessary job titles etc. to cast & character lists in films. Either they haven't seen the warnings on their user page, or they're choosing to ignore them - either way, do you think it's time to get them blocked? Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the note. Yes, I remember undoing this jabroni's hundreds of edits adding "Special agent" to every cast list and other cast/filmography changes to 80s action icons. I will look out for it again, but feel free to ARV them yourself, and if you do you can mention I previously warned them and undid them with cause and they are clearly a ICANTHEARYOU editor. Will probably bounce to a new IP, but having one blocked will make it easier to block the next one as a duck. JesseRafe (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I reported them, FYI. JesseRafe (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks: you beat me to it. They've been temporarily banned, but I'll try and keep an eye out for any further similar behaviour. Not all their edits have been unconstructive, but they seem to be on a mission ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Big LEdit

YoungJuvenile How is what I did disruptive? I put multiple sources because it seems if I put one small thing without a source, I can't edit anything. All I did was add sources and all of them got deleted. This is not right - YoungJuvenile

Hypnotize MindsEdit

Hypnotize Minds was started in 1997. Their original label Prophet Entertainment was started in 1994. They left the original label to start Hypnotize Minds in 1997.

Rocky De La FuenteEdit

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Rocky De La Fuente, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please note how we discuss the subjects of articles, in particular BLPs. Also note, "if ain't broke, don't fix it". Nothing new or informative is being added by your disruptive editing to the above article's lede.

Brad LanderEdit

The sentence "Lander was a key leader in forming a coalition that repealed the 421-a tax break for luxury housing and required that new development set aside affordable housing units." is categorically untrue. That's why I keep removing it. This isn't vandalism or a difference of opinion. The source is a dead link to a Daily News article. I'm not sure why the burden of proof at this point is on me to prove that a unsourced claim is true. You are not engaging constructively, and your threats to block my ability to edit are inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Brooklyn Navy YardEdit

Hi JesseRafe. Regarding the text that I removed from Brooklyn Navy Yard, it was in a hidden comment. I added it in this edit two hours ago, but then I had second thoughts about adding it. It was my own edit I was reverting. I might add it back later once the article is more developed. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi EG, thanks for your edits and this note. I feel they really ought to be included, especially given the diversity in the sources (not all from the same) and given that one of them has their own article. Thanks again for the attention given to BNY, a lot of it was very outdated and it was long on my to-do list, but was such an undertaking I was putting it off. JesseRafe (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Almaty HistoryEdit

Hello, thanks for your welcoming information. My modification is undone by you just now. I have modified the cite source to another website rather than from wikisource.

Hello, dear JessRafe, I don't quite understand "Sorry, there's still other problems with your edit, please read the MOS on style and tone and what type of information is encyclopedic and how to write in clearer English". It's already quite clear since the dzungar war and the treaty is already included in the website. The description is 100% obvious there.

Could you tell me which part is not clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetazhi (talkcontribs) 18:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, my edition is undone by you again. I don't quite understand what you mean actually. The former version : During the eighteenth century, the city and region was roughly on the border between the Khanate of Kokand and Qing Empire. It was then absorbed as part of Russian Empire in the 1850s. The version I modified: In 1758, Qing Empire defeated Dzungar during the Dzungar–Qing Wars. Since then, the city and region belonged to Qing Empire. It was then ceded as part of Russian Empire in 1864 after Russian signed Treaty of Tarbagatai with Qing Dynasity. It used almost the same grammar with the last one but provided with more exact information. The last one don't have any cited sources at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetazhi (talkcontribs) 03:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Quetazhi (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have added the comments for your kind information. Could you please check it from the talk page of Almaty? Quetazhi (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Justina ValentineEdit

Hi, its easy to confirm. This here confirms 2 of them, Will add with refs for all of them tomorrow, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

New Page ReviewingEdit

Hello, JesseRafe.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor.
Would you please consider applying to become a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jesse! If it's of any importance to you, they don't make you solemnly affirm to this abomination anymore.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 10:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


I've run into the Nsmutte problem before. They're a troll who looks for conflicts on Wikipedia and then creates obvious socks that look like a party to the conflict just to stir up shit. But yeah, that's legit something that 3RR/N lurkers have seen many times over. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

User starting an edit warEdit

Hello JesseRafe

I've noticed on this page that this user has been repeatedly reverting our reverts, attempting to add poorly worded unsourced information using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, in general causing a distraction from work. He just reverted another one of my reverts, I reverted this revert but I doubt they'll stop anytime soon. So far he's re-added his work 7 times without really changing it, and because I'm still relatively new I'm not sure how to go about this. Are they breaking a Wikipedia rule? Should we continue reverting their reverts? I guess I'm just looking for your professional opinion seeing I'm still learning from experiences. Thanks, RussianAfroMan (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@RussianAfroMan:, thanks for the note. In my amateur opinion they are being disruptive, and they know it. As long as you do not violate 3RR you are not doing anything wrong reverting their edits as they have a clear agenda and don't care about Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, so quoting them doesn't lead to discussion or recognition. I've left them a template level 3 warning, which they'll probably delete from their talk page, but will give one the pretext to give them a level 4 (final) warning, after which they can be more effectively reported for administrative action. Another thing that could be done to keep the page safe is write up a short bit on the talk page about why those additions don't belong in the lede. I don't have the inclination at this time myself, and usually see those efforts as "feeding" the trolls, but will weigh in if they respond. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to continue reverting the work until either one of you can clearly demonstrate as to how my changes are 'disruptive'. Stay off my page with impotent threats and emotional rhetoric, please. Thanxs. shiznaw (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  Administrator note Eh, Shiznaw I wouldn't continue reverting, as you're already sanctionable for edit-warring. In May 2018 you resubmitted this content apparently aware that discussion is possible and useful, yet you didn't bother to open a discussion, instead shifting the burden to others. That's bogus. That said, in that time JesseRafe and RussianAfroMan, either of you could have opened a discussion as well. It would be nice if one of you did. In the interim, the current version of the lede should remain until a consensus is formed for inclusion/exclusion. Shiznaw, this is a temporary "victory" only because you edit-warred last, (and there could be consequences for that) but there is no guarantee that the content will remain. Perhaps a smart concession would be to self-revert your last edit to show good faith, open a discussion, and hash it out in a respectable fashion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

What's bogus Cyphiodbomb, is to lob broad and ambiguous claims of being 'disruptive' as a catchall for expressing their dislike of another's perspective. I cited my sources. I didn't start this kiddie editing war, but yet here we are. That's what's bogus. And please don't lump me in with these kids @JesseRafe:,@RussianAfroMan:. I don't do kid and I don't care about 'playground victories'. I do Wikipedia, when I can, in pursuit of conveying the truth. That's it. It's that simple. If I hurt another's feelings in the process, that's not my problem. I proved that the term White Puerto Ricans is more malleable when one self-identifies than it is strictly framed by lineage or familial boodlines. If you guys can't understand that, then again, not my problem.shiznaw (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • JesseRafe and @RussianAfroMan:, I've blocked Shiznaw for 3 weeks (or until they agree to discuss the changes without disrupting the status quo) for resubmitting the content again, but you both do not appear to be in a much stronger place as I don't see a material discussion being started by either of you, despite the urging above. The "Additions to the lede" post I see at Talk:White Puerto Ricans seems more like a general complaint rather than an earnest attempt to discuss changes. Shifting the burden to Shiznaw to cite policy to overcome your "tangential and heavy-handed content" hurdle seems oddly impossible. But where's the argument for how the content is tangential and heavy-handed? Where's the earnest criticism of the information? Or the criticism of the reference(s) used? Without this detailed discussion, neither of you have a strong standing for preventing the content from being added, so, once again, I urge you both to start talking if you care about this subject, because either or both of you could get sucked up into an edit-warring case. Note that there is also the Request for Comment option. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I don't understand why I would have to rewrite the MOS on the talk page. The purpose of the lede section is defined and can be debated on some other policy/guideline talk page, not on one article among millions. As said in edit summaries again and again, does not belong as one of the first sentences in the article. It's terribly written, it's not a summary of the article as it's never mentioned again, it is distracting, it compares and contrasts two different historical racial quantifying systems of other countries that have nothing to do with the rest of the article which is modern, and it just doesn't fit in the lede. I also don't see how shifting the burden to that user is impossible, as that's exactly what BRD suggests the burden should go to. Further, not once has the other user suggested or tried to put this information where it would (stipulatively) properly go in the article, but is only interested in his race-baiting nonsense being one of the first few sentences or nothing. Another reason why I find it hard to assume good faith regarding him, especially considering a lot of people have edited this and similar demographics articles with clear agendas, and I think this user is one of them. JesseRafe (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Joel Embiid's name pronunciationEdit

I saw that you reverted the spelling of his name and surname. I am not sure what "different system" you are referring to, but I am sure the NBA's sources (added another official source with same spelling) show how it should be correctly spelled out. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn about phonetics then. Aside from the IPA, which is absolute, different phonic respellings are relative and inconsistent, and what was written as "jo-ell" or "em-bead" are nonsense in the system used by Wikipedia, helpfully linked in my edit summary. jo-EL and em-BEED are correct. JesseRafe (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I am not a native speaker of the English language so I am not familiar with different IPA systems. Secondly, I added two official sources from the NBA itself, but you did not really took any effort to explain anything. Thirdly, I wrote here and asked you in good faith, but looking at your "nice" edit summary, I believe that this will have to be asked somewhere else. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
What is your problem??? English has nothing to do with either this issue or the IPA. I left a clear edit summary, "per Wikipedia's rules on the respell template". Just click the damn link and learn something instead of edit warring or aggressively wikistalking onto my talk page. Re-spelling phonically is for people who do not know IPA, and they'll just pick random letters they think their audience will understand. NBA choose "BEAD", but Wikipedia's standard mandates this be spelled "BEED". What's hard to understand about the need to use Wikipedia's rules on Wikipedia rather than the NBA's? JesseRafe (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I am not edit warring or stalking as you are trying to imply. All I did was check if you replied. Secondly, this hostile attitude toward me is not helping anyone so I advise you to lighten up since no harm was done with wanting clarification. Thirdly, I am not going to discuss anything else here due to your rudeness. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

African CategoryEdit

I took it over to the “American people of African descent” talk page and it seems that two people, one from 2015, and one from 2017, share my same view that it’s simply too ambiguous to know whom is whom and what goes where. I say someone should put it to a vote.Trillfendi (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Heads upEdit

Some edits you reverted had false information. There is no way there will ever be a Tom and Jerry: WWE Grand Smackdown film. These editors don’t know what they’re doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B069:ADF8:D045:9169:1182:A900 (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also despite not having a source Black Lightning is gonna appear as a playable character in Lego DC Super Villains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B023:E03E:C1A1:1391:FE12:43DF (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearing up on Thomas DiNapoleEdit

I want to clear this up lest it become a dispute. My primary problem with the phrasing on the article was the usage of "He's" which is a contraction that are generally considered poor quality to use. I was rushing when I put my prior edit up and I can see where the view on it is, which is why I want to make sure my follow up edit is acceptible to you, of merely removing the contraction and replacing it with "He is". I would rather not end up in some sort of edit war drama and get us both in trouble or something. Regards, Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Both of them commonly are called plain "Jim Mora" in real life. They are not Sr/Jr since their middle names are different. About the only time they are called by their middle initial in sources is to disambiguate them. Since we are using WP:NATURALDIS, spelling this out is common sense for readers who would otherwise think they always go by their initial. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy to require every exception be spelled out. See quarterback sack, which just has plain ol' "sack" bolded in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dime Community BankEdit

We've had a fair amount of back and forth on the Dime page. One additional edit I am struggling to figure out how to make is to add onto the products and services paragraph which leads off the article. Dime offers business banking and commercial loans as well as the personal banking items called out. I don't really have any sourcing for that outside of Dime's own website where they have three sections for their main areas of service. The current paragraph isn't really sourced now, any concerns with adding on a sentence or two calling out business banking and commercial lending. Bpressman (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Follow up discussion on NewsRx talk pageEdit

Hi there! Thank you for taking a look at my edits to the NewsRx page, and also I understand your issues with the source. What about the source? This source is an interview with the CEO of NewsRx. The information that I pull from the interview is the explanation of how their software works. NewsRx software works by "automating the process of research, writing, editing, formatting, and distribution"; "Artificial intelligence and computational journalism technology writes and edits NewsRx articles". This can be verified by multiple sources: the interview, the NewsRx website (!/about), and press releases. Is information that comes from directly the company automatically invalid? As a newcomer to Wikipedia, pardon my persistence.

Thank you!

Silogramrice12 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Silogramrice12

Hi, Silogramrice12, thanks for writing to me. I'd post these on the talk page and ask again. I personally have zero inclination to listen to audio or video to verify sources, maybe another editor would? Primary sources from a company are mixed, not automatically invalid. For instance, "We were founded in 1776 in Philadelphia" to "We have 12,345 employees" to "Our revenue in 2017 was $1.2B" to "We are a record-setting paradigm-shifting new dynamic in our industry" shows the spectrum from perfectly OK data to get from the company's website to completely unacceptable content, with items like the middle two kinda iffy but could probably easily be corroborated by some business trade journal, but perhaps one is more objective than the other. Those are just my examples, if there's a specific directive about using a company's site (other than primary sources in general) I am unaware of it offhand. For completeness sake, I also did not "close" your request, intentionally leaving the parameter empty so another editor could consider the remaining items on their merits, but maybe my comment made it seem like I was dismissing them. I just did't feel like doing a deep dive and sussing out the usable info from the PR stuff, other than the clear cut changes. Either way, back to the talk page is the place to go. You have a good attitude about this process. Good luck! JesseRafe (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Why do you keep doing this revert?[20] Not the "Jamican" misspelling, the addition of the Martin Gardner entries. The first time I thought it was an accident but now I wonder if there is an issue. Your edit summaries are uninformative. Thanks. (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do I keep saying "per the Talk page"??? Maybe because that discussion already took place... on the talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You wrote "As for Fox and Robin, see discussion on the Talk page" but the reversion was about Lionel Tiger and W. L. Edge, not Fox or Robin. Your earlier revert[21] edit summary said "we are limiting the list to only those that sources specifically call out for meeting the definition (if not using the word itself" and the source I gave for Tiger and Edge did exactly that. The talk page says nothing about Edge. There was an earlier discussion (August 18) on the talk page where you wrote "I don't believe that Tiger and Fox is apt" (in discussion regarding the book "The Imperial Animal") but the Gardner book/column that I cited says otherwise. So either you didn't notice that they are not the same book, or you are trying to substitute your opinion for what the source (Gardner) says.

It just now occurs to me that maybe you meant "Tiger" when you wrote "Robin", but the same issue still applies. And Fox wasn't even in the reverted edit. (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank YouEdit

Hello JessRafe Your kind welcome note is much appreciated. Sharling (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Kerik edits you continue to makeEdit

JesseRafe: Regarding the Kerik edits you continue to make... for the final time, there was no "interest free" loan (interest was paid on the personal loan), there was NO bribery charge or conviction. The only charge relating to the loan was the failure to disclose the loan on a federal financial disclose. The indictment and plea agreement are public documents on the federal PACER system that you intentionally ignore. You continue to use newspaper and tabloid sources, that are knowingly wrong. The newspapers claimed Kerik never paid taxes on the $236,000. yet that too, is untrue. The actual tax fraud, was that he paid the taxes on that income in 2004, instead of 2002/2003 respectfully. Your representation that he failed to pay taxes is FALSE, yet you intentionally and willfully continue to enter false and misleading edits on the page, and have done so on three separate occasions, knowing that the facts are false and misleading. Please cease and desist. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so you knowEdit

Re: these edits – The IPA by design encodes not a specific articulation but an abstraction of phonological concepts, especially in phonemic representation, which are usually enclosed in slashes. /oʊ/ does not necessarily represent a diphthongal articulation but a phoneme that is analyzed in the relevant analysis as prototypically such a diphthong, which may have various other realizations than [oʊ], such as [o], [oː] and [əʊ]. Likewise, [a, e, i o, u] in our IPA for Spanish represent not exactly their respective values defined in the IPA chart but abstractions deduced based on phonological analysis of the language, which may be phonetically closer to [ɑ], [ɛ], [ɔ], etc. in realization. (See Handbook of the IPA, pp. 27ff.)

In our IPA for English, each letter or letter combination represents something even more abstract—a diaphoneme—which accounts for differences not just between speakers and utterances but also between dialects of English. /oʊˈkɑːsioʊ kɔːrˈtɛz/ is a correct and faithful representation of the usual way English adapts Spanish words as well as of her pronunciation. As for [s] in the Spanish notation, it is correct because the realization of Spanish /s/ is variable and it is consistently realized as [z] only when preceding a voiced consonant, so our IPA key chooses to show it as [z] only in those contexts. Nardog (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Unlinking thoughts and prayersEdit

I reverted most of the rest of the reverts you did of my edits. I was going to space them out to give you time to respond to each, but then I decided to just get it over with. I have left the link in Cory Gardner#Gun law as the political controversy is implied in the section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Gabbie HannaEdit

Greets. Enjoyed your user page. Just a question and I apologize for not digging through the corners of WP for the current answer (links appreciated). I thought it was a pretty hard requirement (insert appr. wikispeak) that the title of the article exactly as in the title MUST appear in bold in the first sentence of the lede. I was under the impression there were several reasons, possibly including the reader for those who can't see to read (totally not sure, foggy memory, old consensus etc). So I was thinking for this edit, diff instead of removing Gabbie it is SUPPOSED to be moved with a wonderfully clunky phrase such as "known as Gabbie Hanna". I dunno, wadda you think? (note all caps words are to be intoned in crisp wp bureaucratic tone). Best MrBill3 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @MrBill3:, thanks for the message. What you're looking for is at MOS:HYPOCORISM. Obvious nicknames/hypocorisms like Gabriella/Gabbie are an exception to the rule you state: The full name is given in bold, even if the title of the article is not found anywhere in the lede, because as you said it's needlessly clunky and we have to give the readers benefit of the doubt over all the obvious "Daniel "Dan" Surname" etcs. In the cases where the common name is something completely different than any part of their full name, then the full name is first given in bold and the commonly known is also given in bold in the same sentence and is much less clunky because it's less obviously derived. Note, my interpretation extends to given middle names as well, as a lot of people go by their middle name or a hypocorism thereof, as it states "a given name", which to me means there is no special rule about only the "first name". Let me know if you have any questions or qualms with my edit on Hanna's page, I think the above section of the MOS gives a pretty good selection of examples and counter-examples. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks much. I should have been able to find that myself. I have no issue with your edit, just sparked a question when I saw it on my watchlist. MrBill3 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Julia SalazarEdit

You deleted about two-dozen edits that I made on the Julia Salazar entry. I hope that you acted in good faith, and I would like to give you the opportunity to reverse your action before moving this back to the Salazar entry.

The part of the entry dealing with the identity controversy, as it now reads, is factually incorrect, materially misleading according to the sources it cites, and severely POV. My edits were aimed at correcting these flaws. It was both unfair and inaccurate for you to accuse me of "intentionally phras[ing matters] in non-neutral ways” — you cannot possibly know my intention, and even if you find one or two of my edits to have been poorly executed, it should be clear to you that they intentionally sought to correct non-neutral phrasing in the current entry to neutral phrasing.

On the assumption that you were acting in good faith, I will explain:

First, there's a real need for edits to fill in information from existing sources whose omission makes the entry misleading or outright false. For instance, the entry now states that Ms. Salazar has said "her father was a Colombian Sephardic Jew descended from the medieval community that was expelled from Spain." None of the sources cited say that Ms. Salazar has ever made such a claim, and the sources cited in the entry that claim to have discussed the matter with Ms. Salazar and other members of her family acknowledge that both sides of her family were Catholic for several generations, and that Ms. Salazar claims that her father was descended from one or more Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain several centuries ago and Ms. Salazar's mother defers to the claim on the grounds that her daughter looked into it, while other family members deny that or claim no knowledge of it.

Second, the entry currently misleads the reader into believing the controversy and the allegations came from two sources only, whereas the multiple sources already cited in the entry show that the controversy and allegations came from many reputable sources. For instance, the entry now says "Rosen also raised questions about Salazar's immigration background, which were picked up in an article a week later in City and State New York. They said that Salazar (who was born in Miami) has sometimes given the impression that she herself was an immigrant, rather than being born to an immigrant family." But it's not disputed that, as the New York Times reported, "Ms. Salazar said that she 'immigrated to this country with my family when I was very little,' at a campaign event captured on video." The Vox piece cites Ms. Salazar stating in an interview with Jacobin magazine "My family immigrated to the US from Colombia when I was a baby." ( Numerous sources (many cited by the entry, and/or listed on the talk page) discuss Ms. Salazar’s claims to be an immigrant and the attendant controversy. It's POV and misleading to say that Salazar "has sometimes given the impression that she herself was an immigrant" when the sources agree that Salazar has said point blank that she herself was an immigrant.

Third, the entry now gives insufficient weight and context to the controversy. For example, the entry is non-neutral by stating in the lede that Salazar "attracted national media attention for her support for sex workers rights and other views" but not due to the controversy. Even major media outlets that were sympathetic to Ms. Salazar, such as the Nation, stated that while the "merits of the accusations have been contested, [] the fact is that Salazar said things that simply were not true on many occasions during the campaign. Versions of her biography contained claims that were found to be inaccurate." ( The New York Times' Bari Weiss was much harsher, accusing her of "fabricating [her] life story" and being "to put it gently, allergic to the truth." The controversy is quite possibly the most famous aspect of Ms. Salazar's political career. It’s hard to find any recent articles about Ms. Salazar and her victory that do not reference the controversy.

Reviewing the history of the entry, I can see that you have been very protective of it, and have fought hard with more than one editor to exclude descriptions of the identity controversy that shed an unflattering light on Ms. Salazar. I haven’t reviewed all the back and forth, and I will assume that you were acting in good faith, and deleting material that deserved to be deleted. But the election is now over, and I would hope that the partisanship could take a step back. It is important for editors without a partisan agenda to prevent partisans from bowdlerizing the entry on disengenous claims of “non-neutrality.” I have given my shot at restoring the entry to NPOV. If you have an improvement to make, instead of using a hatchet, make your corrections. If you are simply interested in keeping the entry POV to suit your political preferences, please consider stepping aside.

I do not want to engage in an edit war. Please reacquaint yourself with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign website for Ms. Salazar. Knowitall369 (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and have noted the dispute at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. JesseRafe clearly has an agenda when it comes to protecting Ms. Salazar's reputation, and I encourage administrators to allow edits without interference from this user, unless it is for a very good reason.ODDoom99 (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


You never heard of WP:BRD? I'd check it out if I were you. And by the way, you're in breach of it right now, so I suggest you self revert. (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio CortezEdit

Thank you for completely disregarding the content of my edit and condescending to me as if I'm just a kid playing in a sandbox. There is a section of the AOC article called "Israeli Palestinian conflict" where you conveniently omit that one time she literally said "I have no idea what I'm talking about" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I'd expect more of a child. "although at the time noted that she was not the expert on the geopolitics of the conflict.[132]" is clearly in the article. I will continue to ignore you, unless you continue to track your sand into the house where the adults are keeping things tidy. Bye. JesseRafe (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The Hypocorism IssueEdit

User:JesseRafe, the hypocorism (or the name that an article's subject if much well-known as) being completely omitted from the article's lead section (and sometimes even the whole article) is the reason why I wasn't willing to support the MoS rules regarding hypocorisms. The truth is, I've been removing hypocorisms from the lead sections of a few articles myself, but it's often the substring ones that I've been removing.

There is an article on substrings on Wikipedia. A substring is like a short word within a longer word. An example of a hypocorism that is a substring is "Doug" (short for "Douglas"). An example of a hypocorism that is not a substring is "Judy" (for "Judith"). Also, "Steve" is a substring of "Steven", but not "Stephen". And "Jen" is a substring of "Jennifer", but "Jenny" is not.

On what pages can I appeal the policy regarding hypocorisms? Jim856796 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's clear in the Manual of Style, so you would have to change the rules of the whole English encyclopedia. I would start on the Talk page of the MOS? I don't know, I've never tried to change the policy before. That's the procedural part, on the other hand your deal with "substrings" has no basis in the MOS (or grounds in the history of the English language as to how nicknames propagate) so it sounds like a mere personal idiosyncratic preference and I doubt policy will bend to accommodate it. There's lots of personal preferences I feel strongly about that aren't in the MOS, such as to me it is completely uncontroversially correct to write "James's" but many prefer "James'" which to me is beyond comprehension, or the typewriter legacy of using two spaces after a full stop. Bonkers. I may change such things when I come across them, but don't do wholesale reverts or edit-war over them because their personal peccadilloes and not worth the hassle to make a sweeping change beyond what I personally encounter. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ocasio-Cortez and "better source needed"Edit

I must confess I'm a bit confused. I had not encountered that particular tag before, so when I clicked on it, I saw that it redirected to a Wikipedia policy on "Sources that are usually not reliable". But, if as you say the problem is that the source has already been archived in the Wayback Machine, I don't think that's a problem either, since the original IS still available, and I see no reason why it would not be available in the future. Someone, at some point, added the archive link to the citation, but I didn't think anything of it since it seems two copies of the same source are even better than one. In either case, it seems to me that tag is not needed. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(tps)@Ewen Douglas: Sorry. The tag was added by me originally. The source appears fine on first glance,but I wasn't very confident in using a source that is not very much used on Wikipedia to support a (slight) change on a politician's position. Perhaps I was just being overly cautious. I didn't mean to confuse you. I find us agreeable on many things and I hope we can work well collaboratively. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Help: My edit of "Who Goes There?" was inaccurately reverted using feeble speculative rationale rather than based on evidence.Edit


I corrected a detail on this page ( and based it on independent online evidence I found and "Sir Rhosis" reverted it saying "think about it" to make his rationale rather than citing evidence. I am not very experienced doing edits here, but being a 63 year-old program/project manager and book editor, I am a fanatic about accuracy and do not employ emotional assumptions such as the one used by the above-mentioned "contributor.

At the time I made the edit, I had just finished reading about the subject matter from independent sources; the reasoning I used besides the citations was because it made sense that in 1938 there simply were not that many (if any) science-fiction "novellas" (if any) and I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the publications I had referenced prior to making this edit.

How can I revert the reverted edit at this point? Thanks! DeadMailAccount (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Not done You don't. The SFWA had no reason to vote for something as one of the first of its kind, whereas they had every reason to vote for something as one of the finest of its kind. (And the novella length, in fact, was quite a common one in the industry at that time.) While the "think about it" edit summary may have been a trifle snarky, it is also understandable under the circumstances. Your (unsourced) edit was gibberish. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!Edit

I might need your opinion and help on (sensitive) articles in the future :-) Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ersan IlyasovaEdit

No detail has been removed. Please read the full paragraph. What's been removed is clear POV language, such as claiming "other biographies" to give the impression that it is a commonly repeated sentiment, when it is literally one source...and it's a dead link. Even if you add in a few other sources, it is redundant. The point of the nationality dispute by Uzbekistan was already presented and described in a neutral manner. It doesn't need to be hammered to push a pov. That is a clear DUEWEIGHT issue. DA1 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: Can we have a discussion about this or not, since you reverted it? How do you not see the issues with language? Using plurals backed by singular sources on two instances ("media outlets"). Referring to "other biographies...maintain" when it literally isn't the case. Please share with us the other biographies. Bios are supposed to be up-to-date, you cannot use a pulled bio from the past to make a present-tense claim. How do you not see the clear NPOV issues here? DA1 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Shall we open an RFC? DA1 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


I'd like to thank you for the surprising welcome you gave me, it really means a lot to new guys like me and I'm surprised I got it after only 5 edits. I'm going use the links you gave me while also editing to improve any articles. I'm going to stay as long as possible because I love Wikipedia and the values it has.WhatOnWhat (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

My edit to the LinkNYC pageEdit

Hi JesseRafe: I wanted to follow up with you about my edit to the LinkNYC page. I am trying to understand the proper way to add new information to the page so it is up to date. In the Tracking section, there is a quote from the Village Voice. I was trying to mimic the format and syntax of that quote in my addition of the NYCLU quote. Why is the quote format appropriate for the Village Voice quote, but not the NYCLU quote? Thanks for helping me with this edit. LM-IxN (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


The claim in the DSA constitution is materially the same as the Republican Party. I presume you would support adding anti-racist to the list of ideologies of the Republican Party? Or should we revert back the the unreliable source tag until someone can find a better source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll give you some time to consider it. During that time I'll compile a list of other parties that would benefit from being listed as anti-racist per their constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I already added a third-party source, genius. But compile your list if you want. Also, read WP:OTHERSTUFF while you're at it. And, also-also, the DSA isn't a political party. Bye! JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No reason to use insults. I just saw your addition and it seems satisfactory. While one source you added is a bit shaky but, the other is fine. Together they make a reliable reference.
I hope that in the future you will understand that the road to a a bias free Wikipedia is not paved in double standards.
I also hope that in the future you will not insinuate that a person is of below average intelligence for raising concerns that standards are not being applied equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The fuck are you talking about? If you saw the addition then why did you make your follow-up comment? Go away. JesseRafe (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm conflicted as to whether to answer as you are simultaneously asking me two questions while telling me to go away. Regardless, when ",genius" is applied to the end of a sentence it's intent and effect is to insult intelligence. That's what I was talking about.
I had not seen your edits at that time. I saw them during my research. At which point I came back to clarify that. And that's when I read your insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Then you're acting in bad faith as you were commenting about "why did you do X without doing Y" a significant amount of time after I had done Y, and you are continuing to act in bad faith with your naif routine. If you respond again it will be harassment. Bye. JesseRafe (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I never asked why you "did x without doing Y". I simply used an illustration. Any time that passed had to do with time I was doing something else and is irrelevant to whether or not I am acting in good faith. I'm unsure what you mean by naif, I treat everyone with dignity and respect. If not also becoming belligerent makes me naif, then sure.
You cannot lodge accusations while declaring that a rebuttable or denial of those accusations constitutes harassment.
"If you respond to my accusations, it is harassment" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hypocorisms againEdit

Please don't accuse me of edit warring. My edits were made in good faith, and I have to assume yours were too. Can you point me to anything in MOS that prohibits hypocorisms in the lede entirely? It is very definite against having them in any but a few well-defined cases in the first mention of a name in a biographical article. I disagree with your interpretation of the MOS here. Not about the first mention, which I agree is clear enough. But I think there are cases where mention of alternate names in the lede is justified, and I don't see anything that prohibits them. --Alan W (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with Berserk on Thelema?Edit

It's the second time you undo an edit of mine on Thelema, in which I add Berserk as an example of Thelema in literature. I improved the structure of the sentence that I admit was a bit "rusty" at first, but what's wrong with the second one?

  • It's difficult to find a source on this, but no other literature example on that page as one either
  • I explained why Thelema is an important theme in Berserk
  • Is a manga not an example of literature? Is this why you removed the edit?

I stand by what I wrote, so please explain to me why you're reverting so that if I'm wrong I can learn why, thanks Merckill95 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer. I'm going to revert it tomorrow if you don't explain to me what's wrong with my Berserk contribution. Merckill95 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Because it struck me as patent nonsense, get a source if it's so obvious. JesseRafe (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Still can't see the difference between my reference and The Neverending Story just before, for example. Neither has a quotation, but both are correct. Why are you so obsessed with it? The Berserk wiki explicitly confirms what I wrote, using as a source the chapter in which this is stated. Not an outsider source then, but again, no single literature reference as a source. Can you trust me on this? This is the article from Berserk wiki -- you'll find the reference at source [4]. Now can you let my edit be? Merckill95 (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dime Community Bank edits being revertedEdit

Please stop reverting edits on Dime Community Bank.

"I will not revert more than once on any article ever. I'm giving myself a 2RR rule. I hope this is enough. Thank you." -JesseRafe

Since the last COI edit request that I made, in response to your last revert, was declined due to apparent edit warring, I have a direct request. I ask that you make the following change instead:

“Dime also offers personal insurance products provided through their subsidiary company, Dime Insurance Agency, Inc.”[1]

change to instead read:

“Dime stopped offering personal insurance products around March 2017, through their subsidiary company, Dime Insurance Agency, Inc.”[2]

The added citations are mine, and not from the current version of the page.


-Brenton (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have no idea what those words you're using mean. Please refer to the links on your talk page to what 3RR and other Wikipedia policies mean. Your removals have already been appropriately addressed. Either edit according to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines or see your edits be reverted for failure to adhere to them. It's rather simple. The words in the sentence "Since the last COI edit request that I made, in response to your last revert, was declined due to apparent edit warring" have no basis in reality, so I will ignore them. All further discussion about the article should take place on the talk page of that article, where discussion is already taking place. I also refactored your comment as ref tags don't belong here because this is a talk page. Bye. JesseRafe (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that you have chosen to respond that way. After reading through your history of edit warring, I have decided to escalate this through the normal channels. -Brenton (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Furkan Korkmaz edit + reading reccomendationsEdit

Hi there! I see you reverted my edit on Furkan Korkmaz. I don't think listing the same honours twice in such a short article is necessary. But OK, if you insist, no problem. It is important it is listed. Thank you for your reading recommendation, I will consult the MOS on how to properly capitalize section headers. Since we are giving each other reading recommendations, I strongly recommend Wikipedia:Civility to you. According to your edit summary, I am sure you will find a lot of useful information. Regards Boba 99 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation NeededEdit


You claim I, I created an account, that I didn't cite anything. I didn't. Very few of the hours are cited. The incorrect hours are not cited either. You did see a reference in the edit summary. If you were acting in good faith, and REALLY felt that it needed a citation. You would either add "citation needed" or you would add it yourself. But all indications point to you being vindictive.

Please don't be vindictive to the point of lowering the quality of an article.

And if you insist ensure that you fully understand the rules that you cite.

Deuceboise (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary was ",_secondary_and_tertiary_sources this source is allowed. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."" which I took to be a passive-aggressive assertion that WP policy allows for primary sources, assuming that there was an allegation I made that said that primary sources were unwelcome -- there wasn't. And, you didn't use a single source at all, primary, secondary, or tertiary. Just nothing. So what was the point of your copy-and-pasting an irrelevant section of WP policy? You claim that I saw a reference in the edit summary? Bullshit. I saw what I quoted in the edit summary, there's no links or anything there, aside from which a link can be in the edit summary, but never a reference, which by definition has to be in ref tags and in the article. JesseRafe (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I assumed that you would gather from context that when I said I created an account that I was the same editor. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Your edit summary was "Rv OR" or similar in your first revert. I explicitly did not make the citation on purpose in order to avoid over-citing as many similar assertions within the article did not cite. I did, however, list a reference in the edit summary so that it would be readily available if needed. You reverted that on the basis of original research. After pointing to the fact that it was not original research, you reverted on the basis of no citation. And by reference I mean the English language reference. Not Wikipedia specific or a citation of a reference.
Deuceboise (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dancer73Edit

I tried to ping you in a discussion about a GWAR IP you identified as a Maria sock, but wasn't sure if it worked. If you have any input, it would be appreciated. Thanks! - SummerPhDv2.0 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It worked. Thanks for the followup anyway. JesseRafe (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


I didn't mean to irritate anyone.Temuera (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Temuera

No problem. Also, keep conversations in one place, no need to write on others' pages if the conversation is on yours or an article's, it's confusing. JesseRafe (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert onEdit

Could you explain your revert on ? I wasn't able to understand your reasoning from your edit summary alone. (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Indoor RowerEdit

Re: Your revert of "Multiple Issues" template (ie; "may contain original research" and "more citations needed") at the top of the "Indoor Rower" article, with your explanation that it is "self-explanatory". I don't find it so. On the Wikipedia page "Template: Original Research" under the sub-heading "Usage", it states that, "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." Neither you nor "Buffaboy", who originally placed the template, have provided any explanation on the Indoor Rower talk page. (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC))

The original research IS readily apparent, therefore the tag should not have been removed. The page needs a lot of work and has been more thoroughly tagged now. JesseRafe (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou JesseRafe for explaining the "Multiple Issues" of this article. You certainly have "thoroughly tagged" the article haven't you? May I suggest however, that your new multitudinous insertions of "citation needed" throughout the piece are overdone, silly, and hint at petulance (petulance: the quality of being childishly sulky and bad-tempered). For example, in the section "Damper Type" sub-heading "Air Resistance" you add that citation is needed for the statement, "As the flywheel is spun faster, the air resistance increases." This phenomenon is universally understood. What should the citation be? The applicable laws of physics? Regrettably, many, many of your "citations needed" additions which now riddle the article are of the same character and will do nothing to improve the piece. (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

For your consideration, I have found a peer reviewed paper published in "The Deep Thinker's Journal" which supports the statement, "As the flywheel is spun faster, the air resistance increases." Please see Indoor Rower talk page for the specific reference. (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

Removal of contentEdit

Hey, can you explain the removal of large amounts of sourced content at Faiz Shakir? For example, here you removed content that was sourced to six different sources. If you didn't think it was lead worthy you could've moved it lower.VR talk 14:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see that that content is partially present lower, i.e. the part about him being the first Muslim campaign manager. But the part about him being the first Pakistani-American is not there.VR talk 14:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand your "citation needed" tag here. The source at the end of the paragraph says "He holds a B.A. degree in government from Harvard University".VR talk 14:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Thank you for your edits to Armpit fart

Hashar (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Faiz ShakirEdit

 On 13 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Faiz Shakir, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Faiz Shakir is the first Muslim and first American of Pakistani descent to manage a United States presidential campaign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Faiz Shakir. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Faiz Shakir), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Qajar dynastyEdit

Thought it was Kajar Oglu who reverted, my bad. Anyways, there are no pages on those sources whatsoever (hence they are not properly cited and could be bogus for all we know, not to mention two of them are duplicates). One of the other sources regarding the 'second capital' is a obscure Russian cyrilic source from 1912. What I did was changing the article back to its original state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah I am a bit quick on my keyboard which sometimes results in a bit of gibberish English. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Yiddish grammar?Edit

Can you explain to me why you removed all the data I wrote about the Hasidic dialect? It is totally uncalled for, especially after having spent many hours on it. And above all, you did not even explain with not even one sentence why you reverted it all. Also, just because I do not have a book on my dialect, as it is obviously not one written about, nothing "new" can ever be written about it? That doesn't seem to make sense. How do all these Native American languages have these conjugation tables other than from native speakers? Not all of it has books written about it.

Discuss these issues on the appropriate talk page, please. It's telling that your problem is your personal vanity of "your" work being erased and not Wikipedia procedures as you yourself did not even write a single word in your reversion edit summary, despite your claim that I [allegedly] did not even explain with a sentence (though I did).
There are links on your Talk page about how Wikipedia works. Some of its central tenets are verifiability, reliable sourcing, and no original research. You are free to write about whatever you want, if you speak an understudied dialect then start a blog, or contact Linguistics departments at local universities. Grad students at NYU, CUNY, or Columbia would be more than happy to do field research on your dialect as it would help them with your studies. There's no limit to what you can write about on your dialect -- except on Wikipedia, which is neither a blog or an academic journal for new research. After it gets reputably published, then it can be linked here as a reference for the content that you wished to add. Cheers. JesseRafe (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi JesseRafe! I'm getting in touch about some references I added to the page on Kropotkin yesterday. These have all been removed but I am not entirely clear why - you mentioned they were inadequate for an encyclopaedia but they were mostly the most recent and relevant academic publications on the subject (esp. Kinna's book). Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwydion 1991 (talkcontribs) 13:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for your very kind welcoming message! (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


I'm a little new to this, so sorry if this shouldn't be here but thanks for your kind welcome. Cheers! - IoniCkWar (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Rick FugiyamaEdit

You also stated I contributed to Rick Fugiyama (may be misspelled)'s page without explanation. That was not an contribution, it was an edit. There was information(the exact same information) mentioned twice so I removed the repetitive information. Pardon me for not specifying my actions. Again, thank you for the welcome CHollywood (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with DisputeEdit

Hello. I am having a dispute with another editor, user:Binksternet and I need some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicksfromvenus (talkcontribs) 06:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time In ShaolinEdit

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 PlazaEdit

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 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

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)

Big L questionEdit

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 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian SimsEdit

JesseRafe - I notice that you had some concerns about a number of users (notably Slugger O'Toole) in terms of their edits in relation to Brian Sims. I want to draw your attention to discussion on the administrator's noticeboard here. I apologise if I have misrepresented the facts and feel free to correct them if you think that is the case. Kind regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you. Yes, I noticed that this user and another registered account had a distinct favor to editing pages about Catholicism and were POV pushing, but given Sims' new infamy on the right wing (and the run-of-the-mill IP trolls), I think anti-choice (or however these people identify) editors would find the page organically, so I can't speak to any hounding. I do have no qualms with your representation of my concerns, and as far as the page itself, I think it's acceptable, though still a little newsy and casting light aspersions. I do think, separate from Sims and the Hounding you are discussing, that SOT seems to me to be a problematic POV editor and only complies with our standards when "caught". I don't know if I'll weigh in on that ANI but I will check it again later today if I see any room for pertinent additions. Thanks for the message, JesseRafe (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious editsEdit

Hi. Could you please look at Red-baiting, there are some deletions going on that may not be justified. Thanks.TheDoDahMan (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Special hazard listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Special hazard. Since you had some involvement with the Special hazard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Sims: Unmarried long-term partnerEdit

Sorry, I might be a bit thick, but I just was unable to follow your reasoning. Can you expand? El_C 19:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the parameter is that it's for long-term unmarried partners, not "boyfriends". There's no current source that they are still together, there was a piece in the article that said they were engaged and that was edit-warred a few times over whether they were broken off the engagement or not, in either event no new sources were added for either view, so in light of BLP seems best to remove. JesseRafe (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Princess BrideEdit

Hi, why did you delete my entry about availability on Netflix for this film, but left in the note about iTunes availability? Kermywermy (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, all of the above listed items were methods that the film was released for home viewership, i.e. to own. Whether it's streaming on Netflix or on Channel 3 at 2pm is irrelevant and listcrufty, this is, after all an encyclopedia. But if it makes you feel better, you can delete the iTunes bit, it's probably expired anyway. JesseRafe (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Districts in New York CityEdit

Just as an F.Y.I., in reference to the NYC Emergency Management article edit you made recently, there are Community districts in New York City. The lead of the Community boards of New York City article begins with

"Community boards of the New York City government are the appointed advisory groups of the community districts of the five boroughs. There are currently 59 community districts: twelve in Manhattan, twelve in the Bronx, eighteen in Brooklyn, fourteen in Queens, and three in Staten Island." 

At some point I'm going to get around to proposing that Community boards of New York City be moved to Community districts of New York City, unless someone beats me to it. --HugoHelp (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


I wasn't Vandalizing anything you fool I was only trying to improve the page. As a Nigerian from the Yoruba tribe I know the name Oludara is one word instead of Olu Dara but I dont have time to explain because I know your probably too stupid to understand. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmoYoruba45 (talkcontribs) 16:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think am wrong and you're right? Do you know where he got the name from? are you Nigerian or Yoruba for you to say am wrong. I can tell you're not because any Nigerian will understand what I was trying to do. A block from Wikipedia is the last thing I care about. Wikipedia is not my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmoYoruba45 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Nobody gives a damn about your, or anyone else's, opinion about how the subject of the article SPELLS THEIR OWN NAME. Yes, I know precisely where he got the name from. His father. Being Yoruba means nothing, being Olu Dara or Nasir bin Olu Dara Jones is all that matters and they chose to spell their name "Olu Dara". Whether that's prescriptively correct in the Yoruba language or not is completely irrelevant. Good day! JesseRafe (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Undoing Revision to TJ McConnellEdit

Jesse, I understand why you undid the revision to TJ McConnell. However, by undoing it, it's now an incorrect entry due to it being outdated. Suzie McConnell is no longer the head coach of the University Of Pittsburgh. She was terminated in 2018. The entry should be re-written in some way to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


Many of your edits show a serious misreading of this. The section does NOT say you just remove the short name, it gives examples of how it should be worked in, which you are not following. In addition, if you claim MOS justification for a change, you should provide a link, as many readers and even editors won't know what you are talking about. For example Suzi Leather met MOS:NICKNAME perfectly well already, but you removed the common name completely, which is certainly not what MOS says. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is my interpretation that you are reading this completely wrong. Suzi is a commonly understood nickname if you know the given name is Susan, and Leathers is already her last name as given. As the article is currently, it is overly wordy and unnecessarily pedantic, as well as (in my reading) not in compliance with the MOS. JesseRafe (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A word of adviceEdit

As someone who has some experience closing discussions on Wikipedia, I'd suggest that if you want admins to pay attention to your case, stop writing paragraphs indignantly demanding that admins pay attention. Any admin that might consider closing the case will take a look at it whether or not you write those pleas. However, writing these extra statements invites other editors to reiterate their complaints against you, and the combined added text is going to discourage admins from wanting to read through everything that has happened, thus narrowing the pool of people who might consider actually intervening. Admins are short in supply, please have patience. signed, Rosguill talk 04:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosguill, I didn't see this in all my notifications last week. It is indeed frustrating, and I am glad "some" resolution was reached, but I think this is part of a longer multiple-account (meat or sock) attack on me based on a few articles of my interest, that is damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole. But more to the point of why I added on in the ANI, it felt that the IP being allowed to say obvious untruths without check for more than one day was an implicit endorsement of those statements. They have been blocked now, but instances of their attacks are still extant in dozens of article history edit summaries and article and user talk pages. Is there any recourse for this? They're going to come back undoubtedly in ~29 hours (if they're not back already, see below). JesseRafe (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If they continue hounding you, eventually their refusal to drop the stick will result in a site ban. If they open new accounts to continue harassing you after being banned, you'll at least be able to report them through sockpuppet investigations, which tend to be more open-and-shut than ANI cases. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


You are invited to take part in the discussion pertaining to you.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 19:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

New message from DisillusionedBitterAndKnackeredEdit

Hello, JesseRafe. You have new messages at Talk:Northern Lights (novel).
Message added 11:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well, I've tried. The IP is pretty keen on this (see their contribs) ... it would be nice if they showed up to talk. I find these single-issue crusaders very difficult at times. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: FYI, this too now. I'm not sure what more can be done but a discussion might ensue, who knows ... at least there's an actual account to engage with. Tbh I could run out of energy on this, sooner or later. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes, sorry for the delay. SPAs are a hassle, I agree, and thank you for the reverts. I am glad to see the situation is on its way to being worked out, e.g. the user is being confronted with policies and templates. I don't always go to the talk page of an IP because it's hard to tell how fixed an account it is, but if they refuse to come to talk and continue to revert, the only real choice is to by the book escalate the template warnings until you can ARV them, which often gets them to notice their talk page for the first time. If they're very fluid IPs, then usually the only course is RPP. But it looks like here they settled onto a logged-in account and have some admin notice. Should take care of itself given their behavior on other pages than Pullman works'. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for this. Yes, I think we will get there – one way or another – eventually. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

New West Side Story movieEdit

I agree that we don't need to list the ensemble, but you deleted the source used for the principal cast too. I've re-added it, but please don't delete refs that apply to a whole cast section when you delete non-notable names. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi. Before you mass remove the article title names from the lead, MOS:FULLNAME clearly shows an example: "(from Tina Fey) Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey", which is the same situation as we have with Alphonse Gabriel "Al" Capone. Perhaps there is some contradictions between the guidelines, nonetheless, it would be ridiculous not to have the actual title of the article in lead, either in quotes or in prose as I had done in a previous edit which had also been removed by you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of MOS-compliant biographies are "ridiculous" by your standards, then. Responded on the article talk page. Your example is poor and you are quoting the irrelevant section. JesseRafe (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I shall be launching an Rfc in due course to clarify the policies and make it clear that Jesse's personal interpretation of them is not what the community intends. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi talkpage stalker. Please do. Last time I interacted with you, as regrettable as it was, you were explicitly told that your interpretation of the MOS was wrong at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Being_wiki-hounded,_disruptive_edits_from_24.47.152.65. It's a plain reading of the text in the MOS. Sorry you have so much trouble with it. JesseRafe (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Jack Zuta‎Edit

Hi, the usual procedure for a difference of views between editors is WP:BRD, not just reverting to what you think is correct. --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hopper vs HooperEdit

Regarding the Al Capone talk page, you seemed to have queried Tom Hopper instead of Tom Hooper, which shows that you did make an edit there.—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I know the difference between Tom Hopper and Tom Hooper. Maybe you are confused about who is confusing the two on the Capone talk page? Any edits I made to Tom Hooper are irrelevant to the discussion about the MOS (because the MOS uses Hopper) as Vaseline is trying to insinuate that I am using being biased by using Hopper to make a point, when I never edited Hopper. The fact that Vaseline has the diligence to dig up sixteen-month old edits surely indicates that they have the capacity to have the diligence to tell two common English words apart. Seems like a bad faith accusation that they made, counting on others to not discern the distinction and then put the blame on me. JesseRafe (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why they changed the subject from Hopper to Hooper. I was only commenting on their claim about Hooper. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my bad, sorry about that, I must've typed it into the search bar, and typed it with a double p instead of double o, you can see how easy it is to do seeing as you did not provide a link in your edit. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


I know you are aware of MOS:NOPIPE because I see discussions going back several years on this page about it. Nevertheless, a number of your recent edits directly violate it, for no obvious advantage. I'm certainly not going to go around reverting them, but maybe don't do that? --JBL (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see a single reference to "NOPIPE" anywhere on my talk page, and I've never heard that term, but I do agree with WP:NOTBROKEN (also not on my page, curious what you're referring to) and advise others to not make unneeded fixes. However, I was following WP:POSTMOVE and cleaning up references to a no-longer existing City agency, that did use a different name extemporaneously, so it seemed an obvious place to pipe, as the DCWP was still the DCA at those times I assume your diffs are referring to. Have a nice day. JesseRafe (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Editorialising and OREdit

Hi there, I've recently entered a couple of things that have been undone for "editorializing and OR" (not sure what OR stands for, but anyway) I just want to let you know my point of view. The gangster pages in wikipedia are already full of editorializing that has not been picked up or undone (I've been deleting some of it myself) So I'm not clear you were so quick to jump on mine? Or why quoting from a book that contains editorialzing by the author is considered more valid than direct editorialzing by a contributor who has read most of the available source material? Or why you would prefer quoting the lies of a self serving gangster, who happened to have his views recorded in a book, to an honest attempt to assess the various available, often conflicting, sources and provide a better overview and understanding of the events and why they happened, rather than just facts about isolated incidents? As I've become older I understand that part of the historians job, when the facts are incomplete or conflicting, is to try and piece together the jigsaw puzzle of what actually happened and why, which inevitably involves some personal subjectivity. Good historians I have read will to present the different interpretations, along with the evidence backing each viewpoint, and then make a conclusion as to what they believe is the most likely, but I understand that a Wikipedia page is not the place for such volume of detail, however surely there must be some middle ground? Regards Steve Bryce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seveb007 (talkcontribs) 03:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Seveb007:, Hi Steve. Thanks for the comments. OR stands for WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. There are links on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia and have beginners' guides and so forth, worth a few clicks. One of the rules we have here is that pointing to something else that is bad is not an allowable rationale for adding new things that are bad, more info at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
So some of the "editorializing" that I removed was like what you added at Ciro Terranova, Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to say something is a myth without a source saying it's a myth. If it's not true, guess what? Don't say it. Everything has to have a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Saying things like "No Mafia leader in his right mind would participate in a hit on another leader" is your personal opinion. Outside of talk pages, anyone's opinion has no relevance to encyclopedic articles.
For another example, at Dutch Shultz, "The sequence of events around the shooting of Schultz himself have never been clearly established, as he was only hit once and the wound need not have been fatal, so from the point of view of an assassination, the task had not been performed in a professional manner." which is both 1) if it's not established... don't say it! and 2) pure conjecture.
Lastly, don't remove cited information without a valid reason. If you don't think published books by authors are valid sources to quote and cite from, then discuss it on the article talk page and offer a different source, not a simple deletion or no source at all with your personal analysis. Hope this was helpful and you take a look at those welcome links on your user talk page, they'll explain a lot. Thank you for your interest, as you said, a lot of the mafia articles do need some additional attention. JesseRafe (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I take your points, but Schultz was killed, so anyone reading the page will wonder about a gap between the established part;- that the shooters surprised the rest of the victims in the back room of the restaurant and shot them multiple times, many of the wounds being in the back, with all the bullets being .38 caliber... and the next established part;- Schultz staggering out of the bathroom with a single .45 caliber bullet in him. The gap is where the conjecture comes in, and surely it is not editorializing to at least mention that the events in between have been a matter of debate, rather than just leaving a hole in the article? I would have thought so anyway. The thing with gangster "history" is that, like Wild West history, most of it has been generated with an eye for providing entertainment or self aggrandizement, not factual accuracy. There really aren't any "reliable" sources in the normal sense of the word. Pretty much all the books and articles I've read on the subject have as much myth, lies and BS as they do facts or truth in them, and if you don't try and read between the lines, cross reference between the various, often conflicting, accounts of events that are available, in order to get a feel for the parts that ring true and the parts that don't, you might as well remove those pages altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Steve, but your comment shows you still don't understand Wikipedia's policies. What you are doing is both suggesting OR and conjecture be phrased in Wikipedia's voice, which is a big no-no. Of course a reader can wonder any number of things, but if we don't have sources for them, we don't add them -- especially if they are contentious. If it is the case, as you say, that the events are a matter of debate, then perhaps someone at sometime (other than you) wrote that down somewhere. If so, it can be cited to back up the sentence saying it is a myth. Some of the books and articles that you've read I've no doubt are full of myths, lies, and BS... that's why we say reliable source, not just any crank's blog or unvetted author's musings. Numerous articles, probably in the thousands, detail events that have differing accounts -- but they cite the two accounts, or cite a source saying two or more accounts differ on the events, that's what would be needed here. Again, not picking on you, I just happened to have those articles on my watchlist because they need a lot of help, and if I may, I feel I've made numerous improvements over the years, but I am not made of infinite time nor wisdom, so I only do what I can to keep them passable. If you really think the articles should be deleted, there is a mechanism for that in the top ribbon where you can make your case. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that sometimes, by reading several different sources (and by that I mean published books, not blogs or similar) none of which are entirely correct in themselves, the reader may have a moment of insight, which might be more plausable than the conclusions drawn by any of the individual sources. Alas you are saying that, even if all the sources were noted, the insight or conclusion drawn would still be inadmissible in Wikipedia. Funnily enough, I have written such things in Wikipedia in the past, without drawing negative attention to them as I seem to have managed to do on this occasion, and have later found excerpts with the exact same wording quoted on other internet sites, indicating to me that some readers found it more persuasive than previous interpretations. I'm only trying to shine some light in an area where there is far more inaccuracy and falsehood than truth and understanding. But it's just a bit of fun for me not an obsession. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sunrise MovementEdit

Hi JesseRafe, I'm not understanding this edit, maybe you can help me? Your initial edit summary was terse given the amount of content you changed and removed. Unfortunately I didn't find your post on my talk page helpful on the question of the edit. In my view it is very relevant that the DNC decided to vote on a climate change debate the day after a three day protest that garnered national media attention. Whether or not the vote was held specifically because of the protest is unknowable, however in my opinion not including the information about the decision to hold a vote is misrepresenting the history of the events and not allowing readers to have all the facts before coming to there own conclusions. Mistipolis (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Jesse, Thanks for the welcome. I'm actually a long-time student of New York government and was trying to improve his page. I noticed you also reverted several other edits I was trying to update. Will be more focused on neutrality but would appreciate your advice on if I need to be especially sensitive on political posts. Thanks, SamAmerican1900 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC) SamAmerican1900

Hi there, thanks for your contributions. Replying to both places as the conversation is a little bit hard to follow, it's best to have them in one place, and its further muddied as your edits on David Greenfield were the ones I reverted wholesale, but your subject line in your talk page post to me was "Simcha", but the edits you made to Simcha Eichenstein I did not undo (except for restoring a ref). But yes, on the whole, it is advisable to tread more lightly on potential neutrality concerns or seeming conflicts, especially regarding political figures who, as a class, tend to garner those with non-neutral interests to their pages. There's some links above on your talk page about how to best edit BLPs and other sensitive areas. One bit that might get people's attention for potential COI concern is referring to subjects by their first name, especially when they're not overwhelmingly known as such. Hope this helps and you find further contributions to make, local government articles can always stand to be improved! Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Germantown notables deletionsEdit

Heya - I agree with the removal of detail and a few of the deletions but for those who have been deemed notable enough to merit their own pages - shouldn't the case for non-notability be made there? -23:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what the question is, but if you want to discuss an article, do so on that talk page, please. JesseRafe (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Exit WoundsEdit

Always a pleasure to see good work on bad films. Thanks. (Most of my edits are 109.something). Was a pleasure to restore your edits from 2012 and have you jump back in. -- (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Jesse!

You have reverted my addition to the Aptronym article, on the basis of a disagreement as to the meaning of the source I cited.

However, the citation in "Anonyponymous" which I based my assertion on was the following:

"Scottish-American botanist Alexander Garden (an aptronym if ever there was one)" (emphasis mine).

This case seems pretty open-and-shut for me, but of course I'd be happy to discuss if you'd like.

Have a great day! --El clemente (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy to discuss articles on article talk pages. JesseRafe (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
done, looking forward to hearing your position! --El clemente (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: joewendtEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Test thingyEdit

Hi. All I did was remove a double spaced line and an out of place <br> marker that didn't seem to serve any purpose. If it was there on purpose, I really don't know what it could've been used for.--SupermanFan97 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @SupermanFan97:, no worries. It wasn't an accusation of vandalism or anything you did wrong. There were a flurry of edits, from IPs and new users (like your account seemed to be) and when I see new accounts making superficial changes to the markup, I tend to err on the side of thinking they appeared like they were tests. Some of the surrounding edits were disruptive, so it was unclear (Sometimes new accounts aren't always signed in.). You are correct that in the current state of the article, the line break served no purpose, it may have at one point or it may have always been extraneous. Also, going forward, please use edit summaries for all your edits, even if you think they are self-explanatory. Thanks for your contributions! JesseRafe (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


You're invited to this section of MOS:FILM about the issues with the current format of 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Benevolent DictatorshipEdit

Hi, I wanted to say, you reverted to a version an admin removed because the guy added wasn't an example of benevolent dictatorship, wanted to let you know Damien Swann (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

Hello, JesseRafe

Thank you for creating Metropolitan Council on Housing.

User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job on this article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 02:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Randy CredicoEdit

Hello, JesseRafe, I regret my harmless (maybe helpful) edit to a page about a character who is involved with Roger Stone. Since I choose not to re-emerge from editor burnout, I must decline your pasted invitation to become one. As an anonymous, I'll also attempt in the future to refrain from correcting any remotely controversial page. That's sort of a promise, since no good deed goes unpunished. - (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Berengar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ramon Berenguer and Berenguer Ramon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Kurds in TurkeyEdit

Hi there, I saw you readied a source about the ban of the words Kurds and Kurdistan. It doesn't say so on page 63 as mentioned in the source. At least I couldn't find it. Maybe you wanna have a double-check? It says so tough in my source.[1] Just search for census in the article and you'll find it. BestParadise Chronicle (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I can't access the source, but it looked legit and was removed by you without comment. I only restored the source and improved the syntax of the article for the changes you made. If you feel it doesn't belong, then please discuss that on the article talk page. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fine you can't access the source, but reinsert it anyway. I found the mistake/equivocation. The source was used twice, and in the second source the page number was correct. I guess the editor used the source twice but changed the page number the second time. I started a discussion there now, too. Just so you can respond on it if you want. I asked there on the 4th of December for a double check on the Bahar source, and no-one replied until today. Best, Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest acusationEdit

Dear JesseRafe,

Just to clarify, I have no connection to Helen Rosenthal. I have never met or spoken with her or--to the best of my knowledge--anyone who works for her. Similarly, I do not work for Mr. Lander. It is true that I am new to Wikipedia, so if you believe that the information belongs elsewhere in Mr. Lander's page, I would welcome that input. Claiming that an objective, non-partisan and sourced ranking of his performance in office is not relevant to an article that is almost entirely about his role as a politician seems odd.

CampaignZippy (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)CampaignZippy

Non-notable listsEdit

Hi, I read your user page and this 'hate' of yours caught my eye. So you are saying that everyone on a list within another page needs to be notable as well? I'm think how this applies to galleries, which often have a list of all the artists with links back to the gallery website. Advice on this? Cut, cut, cut? Thank you. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen:, If you'd like to be bold, then yes, I'd cut. Current exhibitions are probably on the gallery's own website and an external link to the gallery is probably on the page of the gallery, right? Or, if it's the artist and the gallery isn't notable, then that shouldn't be listed either, just the notable galleries. More info can be found at WP:LISTCRITERIA, but if there's a notable gallery that has a WP page, the notable artists should be listed that exhibited there. Or, if there's a very notable exhibit but the artist doesn't have a WP page, then they shouldn't be listed -- but that would be expounded in prose in the body with adequate references. But lists that stand alone, e.g. notable alumni or the like should always be blue links. Hope I understood your query correctly! JesseRafe (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is useful. You are just the first to write explicitly about it so I cobbled together a comment/question of sorts. I will look at the link and develop a game plan. There's just so much advertising/puffery yet admittedly are significant galleries or exhibitions. Thank you! Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?Edit

Why was this edit of mine reverted on Joe Lo Truglio? Because usually someone’s birth name isn’t added into the infobox unless we know their full name. R71B (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to point to that policy that says that, but that sounds to me like it's an impossible standard: look up "proving a negative" for the fallacy you've deemed a requirement. Also, please discuss articles on article talk pages. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I’m sorry, that’s a mistake on my part, I just thought it was part of some kind of policy because I’ve had admin revert my edits like this before. My bad, sorry. R71B (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
No worries, sorry if I came off cross, but there's no reason not to believe that that's his birthname, it probably depends on specific context, and I think birthname with the common name being a hypocorism is still different enough, so that triggers inclusion of that parameter.

Bumpy johnssonEdit

Hi. I edited the Bumpy Johnsson Wikipage but recieved a message that i broke the rules somehow. I will read up before doing it again. But still. It was Denzel Washington that played Bumpy in 2007 American Gangster? Boragglan (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You were warned for "breaking the rules" by intentionally writing incorrect statements, such as the above. Washington played Frank Lucas. Witherspoon played Johnson. JesseRafe (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gennady, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gennadius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sara Innamorato articleEdit

Hi Jesse, I'm just curious as to what suggestions you would make regarding changes and edits to this article; particularly in the disappearance of committee and caucus memberships, and the note left that it required a "trim". The formatting a followed pretty closely matched that I have seen on other political articles. Please advise as I intend to make additions and updates in the future. Thank you. --KeystonePol (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, I just saw an SPA with likely NNPOV if not COI issues who was brand new and unfamiliar with standards and how to even format a section heading adding a ton of material to the page, the majority of which seemed to be routine coverage and not encyclopedic, but just passing news articles. Didn't invest the time to line-by-line it, just did what needed to be done to make it not need be deleted out of hand. Just because there's a ref doesn't always mean it belongs. 19:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That reply seems a bit glib, if I am being honest, my sincere intent was to seek advice on the matter. However, I understand that there is a lot to do any little time. I was a wikipedia editor many moons ago (clearly a lot has changed since you had to type out all the html by hand), and I am also a personal friend of the person in question and offered to do her a favor by bringing her page up to roughly the same standard I see for other political figures; and as I said, I based the formatting off what I saw on those article. That's including how I managed the issue stances, and how I used the outside sources. However, I appreciate your attentiveness to this matter, and if the current format is up to "not get deleted" standards, then I will accept that and leave it alone from there. KeystonePol (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, if I am being honest, the edits in question seemed strongly like they were from an SPA (a WP:single purpose account (you only edited Innamorato with this account)), with likely non-neutral POV if not conflict of interest issues (you are a friend of the subject, there are protocols for such things). Not every politician is as notable as every other. Usually a first term state rep's accomplishments aren't as detailed as a 15-term Congressmember, if that's what you were basing them on. You made a thousand subheadings for different policy positions, some of which only housed a direct quote from the subject like it was a PR presser, others seem to just be routine coverage. WP:NOTNEWS applies too. It's not a throw-the-spaghetti-on-the-wall type of process, notable accomplishments and coverage are what goes in, it's an encyclopedia article not a resume. JesseRafe (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


No. You discuss on the Talk page. WP:BRD. You did the bold edit, I reverted, now you discuss. You take it to the talk page (I'll respond there). I'll take this to the edit warring noticeboard if you don't self revert. And no. It wasn't sarcasm. Arcturus (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My edits to Mahershala Ali were legit, and i explicitly say that in my commentsEdit

Cool, thanks for deleting your idiotic comment, but leaving the heading here, champ! JesseRafe (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Mahershala AliEdit

youre misusing admin privileges

How much should we put up with?Edit

[22]? Doug Weller talk 19:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. My vote would be no more unless he changes his tone and demeanor entirely. I see he's gotten a warning ban for now, surprised it took this long given how odious he's been. But he's had no single infraction that in my eyes were worth reporting, and given how many admins have their eyes on him (self-brought by his RfCs, much like how DSAkey and I can easily undo his edits because he's always tagging us for some reason). I see him clearly heading for a longer-term or permanent ban, especially if he's apparently doxxing editors. Silver lining is his future socks will be easy to identify as he uses 300 words when 12 will do. JesseRafe (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I was going through history backwards. Indef block, but the silver lining still stands. JesseRafe (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


I see you reverted an IP who had redirected BSSST...Tišinčina! to the artist page. Do you have evidence that this album is notable because that notability is not clear from the articles itself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those two IPs seemed to be first trying to speedy-delete and then adding AfDs when all of their speedy-deleting tags were reverted by multiple editors across their broad and seemingly random array of articles. I don't know anything about the subject, but I saw that there were refs