User talk:JesseRafe

Welcome

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:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
• Portal:Africa
• Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics
• Wikipedia:African Collaboration of the Fortnight

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)

Re:questions

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)

Re: Nas

I'll admit I'm not too active on the hip hop wikiproject. Although the plurality of the articles I edit are related to hip hop. I see a lot of crap on these kinds of articles, so I tend to lean twoards editing them (plus I love hip hop). Anonymous users are always screwing up these pages. --Ted87 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kaplan

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

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

Knicks-Nuggets brawl

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 Leong

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

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

Seeking community input re standardizing baseball roster pages

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

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

Phillies standings

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

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

Phillies seasons

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

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 discussion

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

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

Barnstar for the WP

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

WP:PHILLIES question

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

RE: WP:PHILLIES

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

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

Re: Phillies pictures

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

Adam Mansbach

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

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. Nahasapeemapetilons

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

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

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)

Animal Farm in popular culture

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

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 Five

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

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 deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 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. VanIsaac_WS 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. VanIsaac_WS 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 log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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

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)

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)

Things in Common

Didn't know I use Forgotten Hebrew. I dont do language boxes. But good to hear from a serious Wikipedian. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

High and Mighty disamb page

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

thanks for edit

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

Laura Ramsey userfied

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

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)

Removing cited information at Hyperforeignism

Hello JesseRafe. You recently edited Hyperforeignism, removing several bits that you called "mispronunciation not hyperforeignism". Articles like that can be really trying to edit, since many people seem anxious to add their own two-cents worth of knowledge without citing reliable sources. In at least four of the cases that you removed, though, there was a source cited, and the source explicitly says, "For example, there is an awareness based on French that /dʒ/ is an English-type consonant, for which /ʒ/ is the 'foreign' equivalent. But when this leads to raj, Taj Mahal, mah-jongg, or adagio with /ʒ/ instead of /dʒ/ (although the language of origin have affricates in these words), we have what might well be called a hyperforeignism" (Wells 1982, emphasis in the original).

I've restored those four examples, but left out Beijing, Punjab, and various other mispronunciations that you removed. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JesseRafe. You have new messages at Talk:Cooper Square.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A kitten for you!

D

— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    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 Man

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

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

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

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

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

Plcoopr

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

Bowery

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

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)

Neutral notice

As an editor with an interest in New York City articles, you are invited to participate in an RfC at The Dakota. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerard

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

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)

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 Black

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

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)

The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons (2)

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

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

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)

Usain Bolt

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

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 me^{Stalk 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!

		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 1776

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

MF Doom RM

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

Scarface

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

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 NBA draft may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• >{{cite web|url=http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-X.php |title=Article X, Section 1(b)(ii)G)(1) |work=2005 NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement |publisher=National Basketball Players
• * {{flagicon|Croatia}} [[Bogdan Radosavljević]]] – C, [[FC Bayern Munich (basketball)|Bayern Munich]] ([[Basketball Bundesliga|Germany]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, you seem to be under the impression that linking to MOS section that doesn't back up what you have done and then threatening to get the page protected will make the other editor believe they are in the wrong. You are mistaken, and threats are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Your edit has removed characters that many would deem central roles and you can offer no justification. In addition, the cast section is in line with many other TV related articles, very brief info, a section on prose, and a separate article for extensive fan wankery and plot bloat that should not exist. Your actions and your immediate reversion while citing inappropriate guidelines and ignoring WP: BRD are aggressive and uncalled for and I urge you to consider them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"greaser film"

You're an idiot. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (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 ? 210.22.142.82 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Tish James

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

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

G.I. Joe: Retaliation cast list

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

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frame story may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The earliest known frame stories are from [[1st millennium BC|first millennium]] [[Common Era|BCE] [[History of India|ancient India]], when the [[Indian epic poetry|Sanskrit epics]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jordanian footballers of Palestinian origin

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

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Philadelphia Slick may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [http://www.badtapemusic.com/artists/philadelphia-slick

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of talk page antry

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 add another misleading tag, I likewise will remove it again. JesseRafe (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

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

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

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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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 user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

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

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. [[User:JesseRafe|JesseRafe]] ([[User talk:JesseRafe#top|talk]]) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:JesseRafe|JesseRafe]] ([[User talk:JesseRafe#top|talk]]) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:JesseRafe|JesseRafe]] ([[User talk:JesseRafe#top|talk]]) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

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/^2¢/_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?

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

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

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

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

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/^2¢/_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)