User talk:Jasper Deng

User page Talk page Permissions talk page Permissions What I do on Wikipedia

Note: My user page is protected from new users because of several spates of vandalism.

Spammers on this page will be put on the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you are here to notify me about permissions-related things, please go to my Permissions talk page. This page is archived to User talk:Jasper Deng/Archives every 30 days.
I reserve the right to remove any talk page comments on this page without any notice to you.

RFA status

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 115 11 1 91 22:18, 21 September 2024 3 days, 22 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 23:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The chart at right lists the status of current requests for adminship, and is updated hourly by SoxBot.

Discussion

Windows Vista

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

neutral point of view?

Funny you say that... All I am doing is raising a possibility... I have asked to debate over and over again with these people, because I have clear evidence that proves what I have been editing into the articles and they wont debate me....Being neutral has nothing to do with it... I'm tired of that myth about snake potency being stated as fact and I want to change it as I have evidence that it is a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to edit in your own point of view into that article. It will have to stay out if you cannot convince our editors of that. Do not edit war, as Materialscientist (an editor with the power to block you if you violate our policies) told you.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My point of view... lol and whose point of view is in the article.. It s surely no fact that venom toxicity to mice means anything for any other animals... So why is that in the article... That is clearly a point of view aswell as their is no proof that the ld50 means anything for anything but a mouse( and even for mice it has limitations and doesn't mean that much which I will point out if someone would debate me) So why is that in the article when its clearly a point of view aswell.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's your point of view. Other editors are not buying it. Please keep civil or you will be blocked from editing. I hope you realize what consensus is. Also, do not reply in new sections.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946

Hello Jasper Deng, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel it is not notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not the right place to go when you feel that an article is not notable. A7 is only for articles that do not make any claims of significance or importance. On the other hand, AfD is good for articles that do not establish notability. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's make one then.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 11:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your concern is noted but I'm a bit confused! Sitush (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Impersonation

Person X can set up a Wikipedia account to impersonate Person Y whether or not Person Y is a celebrity.

The edits made by that account verged on the disingenuous, and so the account got blocked for consistent bad behavior. The subjects edited by that article were licit but relatively unsavory. These, combined with the nature of the userpage, made me suspicious that perhaps someone was attempting to smear a second person by associating the second person's name with inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia.

Some Googling for the name in question revealed that someone has been very determinedly associating that name with.... strongly inappropriate terms, going on to specify the city and state of residence, as well as the place of employment.

I thus concluded that the whole thing was an attempted smear campaign on Person Y, and changed the block log to be accurate. As a corollary, if future employers search for this person's name, they will not find that Person Y was blocked from Wikipedia for misbehavior, but rather that someone else was blocked from Wikipedia for impersonating Person Y.

I have posted these comments on your page rather than mine specifically to decentralize the discussion; I'd prefer to minimize the extent to which Person Y's name is used here. DS (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

The Birthdate that i change is correct, look this website: http://search.people.com/TIISearch/people/search/search.html?search=Mariah+carey&bu=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0 Krissakristine (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Jasper. First, thanks for your work at WQA. Everything you've contributed to that page has been nothing but helpful. However, regarding User:Banana Fingers, who you very politely notified: I think they should have received (level three) warnings. They have 2000 edits, and I think they should know better by now. I replaced your warning with a higher one- something that I should have talked to you about first, so I apologize. However, I'm sure you'll understand where I'm coming from. Finally:

		The Userpage Shield
		For catching some very subtle vandalism at User:Howard the Duck, which Howard himself admittedly wouldn't even have noticed. Awesome job. Swarm X 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(sig for whole message: Swarm ^X 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Thanks!Jasper Deng (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to associate myself with this shield. Thank you, Jasper. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Do you mind if I delete the sock investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mouse from Mars? The explanation is mostly in the email. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a link to the arbitration case.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not an arbitration case (long-term vandal though), but the person who is aware is also a CU. Do you want me to email you the master? Elockid ^(Talk) 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sent. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're dealing with two types of socks (or a single kind using different edit summaries; that edit summary used by the user you just blocked (who vandalized my talk page) was used many times by other blatantly obvious socks).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the second one. Oh yeah almost forgot, if you feel the need, message me if you need your talk page protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Glad to know what may happen to articles. I am new so I am learning the basics to it. So will there be any way to make it less of a "product" page so it can be submitted? Thanks! --Gavin Stubbs (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pumi

Hey, I saw your edit at Pumi (dog) and wanted to comment, since I don't think that the edit in question warranted rollback -- it didn't seem like vandalism at all to me. In fact, a quick check online is showing me that Pumik are apparently "quite" easy to train, even if this person didn't cite their source: [1] — anndelion (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I usually consider unsourced dramatic edits to be vandalism, as it is very common for this kind of refactoring to occur.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but in this case it wasn't vandalism, so I thought I'd let you know. Dog breed traits can be muddy in some cases, especially when the breed is rare. — anndelion (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: SDK carbine

Hello Jasper Deng. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of SDK carbine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article contains sufficient context to identify the subject. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (Talk) 01:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
Message added 12:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barack Obama

The user whom you accused of racism on the Barack Obama conspiracy theories article has began throwing a fit over being accused of racism, and although I personally suspect racism is a motive for many of those spreading falsehoods against Mr. Obama, unless I'm missing something, I didn't find anything explicitly racist in his edits. In the future, might it be best to try to word warnings as neutrally as possible? The warning against putting unsourced controversial information would have been enough. Kansan (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits in question[2] can reasonably be construed as racist in nature. Whatever may or may not be in the editor's heart, the content they added to the article is misinformed, racially insensitive, and possibly offensive at the very least, and their subsequent behavior seams to bear this out. I agree that it's best not to escalate things because raising the heat just inflames tension and lowers the chance of an errant editor's ever becoming productive, but I'm not sure what difference it would make in this case. - 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That seemed to me like a fairly uninformed attempt to describe liberation theology as preached by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. However, based on this user's edits as a whole, I do tend to agree that it's unlikely that much difference would be made in this particular case.

In any case, I am not an admin, and this user clearly violated BLP on that article.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google (3rd nomination)

I believe you wanted {{humorous}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DailyEditor

Jasper, last week you chimed in over at WP:WQA between myself and DailyEditor as he was flailing personal attacks at me and vice versa. Just thought you'd be curious to know that DE messaged me saying their account was hacked by a "teen Roman whack-job" who did all the personal attacks and is now apologizing for any trouble it might have caused. Note DE decided to play around with my name for some reason as well (not sure what that's about). Anyway I'm not really buying it, but whatever. DE seems have gotten into a tussle with another user, Xeworlebi over edits made to White Collar and claimed their account was hacked there as well. I'm not sure what is going on but it may bear investigating. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe him/her either.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. If you go to White Collar Nielsen Rating on Xeworlebi you can see the badgering that DE started there. Looks to me like they're getting scared of being blocked so now they're lying to make themselves look better. It seems very underhanded. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, is there any way, "for the record," that DE's claims of their account use by an unauthorized user be added to our cases over on WP:WQA? Both cases have already been archived, so I'm not sure if they can be further edited. Incivility on our parts aside, if DE is telling the truth, and we find out later that I was dealing with someone other than him, then I think it should be noted in there somewhere. As you stated to DE on Xeworlebi's talk page, he was responsible for the security of his account, and if it were not for their negligence, none of this would have happened in the first place. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WQA is appropriate.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

SPS

Instead of citing WP:SPS, look down one paragraph, to he relevant policy for the Carlos Slim issues, WP:SELFPUB. Please also be careful not to bite the newcomers. Courcelles 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to cite WP:BLP but forgot to do so.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Which article was that on?

Your warning here, what article did it relate to? The last entry into this user's contribution log is from mid-March. Risker (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AN/EW.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding me. Reverts over two months don't really count, especially when NOBODY has explained to this editor what the problems are with his edits. Perhaps you should go and do that, as it is more likely to have a positive outcome than leaving a templated message that didn't even identify the problem. Risker (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well didn't know it was stale. Thought it would've been archived.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin actions at WP:AN3

Hello Jasper. While all editors are welcome to add their own comments on 3RR cases, please do not use the {{AN3}} template or try to close cases. For example you did this here. 'Warned' has a technical meaning; it is a kind of an admin action which is just short of a block. Since the case was stale, this is not an appropriate result. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not try to close the case.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

An admin reading a case who sees that anyone has used the {{AN3}} template will assume that an admin has already given their opinion, and no further review is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know. Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My RFA

That's correct, I'm having a little trouble with the formatting. The last tinme I submitted an RFA was a long time ago. Wikipedian2 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hello Jasper Deng, I'm just letting you know that I just declined your speedy nomination of User:Crlsmrgf, because it appears to be a good-faith editing test: Esta es una prueba para ver como funciona Wikipedia a la hora de editar una página means "this is a test, to see how Wikipedia works when (I try to) edit a page". Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand spanish though. Isn't it that no pages should be in something other than English here?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically, yes. As a matter of courtesy towards fellow editors, people should try to only write in English. In this case, however, I believe that an exception could be made, as the user was trying to learn Wiki markup on his page, so as not to mess up, when editing an actual article and was using Spanish because it would make it a little easier for him (I'd wager he expected nobody would be paying attention to his page)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, an exception. WP:DONTBITE.

Please, Jasper Deng - be very lenient regarding user pages - and other userspace areas - especially for new users. Instead of slapping a big "THIS WILL BE DELETED" template, try talking to the user - ask 'em if you can help. Make 'em welcome. Discuss your concerns.

A page in foreign isn't a real concern - unless it is something nasty - and Google Translate will give enough to not worry, usually.

I appreciate your vigilance, but... in return, please recognize the necessity to be super-friendly with new users. See User:Ironholds/n.

Sorry...I hope this isn't seen as complaining...it's not. Just advice.  Chzz  ►  20:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Using Rollback on Roshanamila's edits

If you are here about why I reverted many of this user's edits, see User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Roshonamila.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm involved because I accused TheCuriousGnome of canvassing (see the editor's talk page as well as the template's talk page). Thanks, — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you removing the comments from the "Baby got Back" SPA. I've been dealing with vandalism/OR/etc. on this article for awhile, and there comes a time when it's not worth arguing about it anymore. There was a sudden surge of meatpuppetry there today leading to me semi-protecting it, probably orchestrated from a forum. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Restoring tags

I have reverted the blanking of User:RMHED. This editor left Wikipedia some time ago under unhappy circumstances, and has not engaged in any problematic activity for some time. Experience has taught that when this occurs, blanking the tags on userpages is often helpful in eliminating a possible continued source of grievance by the departed user against the site. In the absence of continuing problems, forcing such tags to remain indefinitely may often be perceived by the former user as an act of harassment or provocation, even though I am sure you had no such intent. Therefore, I ask that you leave this page in its current blanked state. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

By way of update, I've now seen the thread above this one, and taken a look at the offsite thread that you cited there. I still think it makes much more sense to leave RMHED's userpage alone, but I do now understand what led you to think of restoring the tags there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Chess notation

Many of my books use descriptive so that's why used it in editng the article. I don't think writing decripotive move is vandalism at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's convention to use algebraic notation, and that's the way you should write chess articles here, period.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

checkmate?

Were you talking about this position?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is checkmate.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there is any series of legal chess moves that would lead to the above position. Two kings are en prise at the same time. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Promote to queen?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White could of promoted to a knight to fork, would black be able to checkmate white here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, White probably wins after 1.f8=N+ as he will be a knight up.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this talk page. It would be advisable to set-up a subpage just for IPs to be able to communicate with you, as there may be some legitimate IP edits. GedUK  19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: removing comments

Hey Jasper, I am sorry. I saw they had been warned multiple times, I read that link, and interpreted that they should not be able to do that with their warnings and all. Sorry. I'll leave talk pages alone if they get blanked... Dont totally understand that. Are my article reverts and anti-vandalism there going well? Thanks VoteDemOut! (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

sandbox

nope totally cool. how did you do that anyway? VoteDemOut! (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:USERSPACE.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RHM22's RfA

Hi there. Fixed the question for you, the template is "Rfa-question" but you had "RfA-question" with a capital A, which is why it was giving you trouble. Incidentally, I didn't mean to cut in front of you with my own question; for some reason I didn't get an edit conflict when I added "my" question 4. The software can be quite quirky, it seems. 28bytes (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Skype

Hi there. Don't forget to turn off the Skype toolbar when editing, or else this could happen. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ctrl+F did not find that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Some more information about the issue can be found here. 28bytes (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Torqued...

I'm pretty sure it's not a real word when used that way, but it basically means a user has a grudge against you. They seem to have gone out of their way to mimic your editing patterns and comments to implicate you as a sockmaster. Out of curiosity, did you ever have past experiences with any of the blocked users? Swarm ^X 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, according to Wikt:torqued off it is indeed slang (a synonym of "pissed off"). Strange. I've never heard it used before. Swarm ^X 21:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Have had no past experiences with this user, but harassment on my talk page has greatly increased after my incident with Lar - see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wawawaer.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"torqued off"

It's slang. It means to be angry or upset with someone. It doesn't seem to be clear where it comes from..—Kww(talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A few notes

Hi, just wanted to let you know that your user talk page is no longer semi-protected. Also, any spammers on your talk page should be listed at WP:AIV (not the general noticeboard) after sufficient warnings are given. Finally, I'd advise you to use a bit more caution in !voting on RfAs. Vague statements like "you don't edit talk pages enough" (BCD's RfA) should be avoided or further explained. I think you should also be less harsh and avoid simply saying, "Where's your understanding of WP:BLP[?]" without indicating what you are referencing. RfA is tough and extremely stressful, so need to make it more so than necessary. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BCD's RfA

Re "Shows a problem with handling edit conflicts"—I've never been able to figure out how to get comments around edit conflicts, so out of curiosity, do you know how best to handle them? Usually, I have to reload the whole page, but it's frustrating on long pages like ANI, and then the sections disappear due to archiving, etc.—you get the point. So, any tips? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hard to explain. Copy your own comments, and insert them in the appropriate places relative to the comment of the person you've had an edit conflict with. Indent properly. Your own comment is in the diff provided.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You so much

I didn't even notice someone blanked one of my user boxes. Thanks for fixing that:)--Nyswimmer (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I patrol recent changes and new users and happened to catch it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback.
Message added 13:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't worry about the above notice, just me being stupid and asking you a question I can find out myself. CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 13:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

There was no vandalism by this user. Not everyone is trying to sabotage Wikipedia, and "The Fuck Off And Dies" is, in fact, an actual project. — anndelion ❋ 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't believe everything you read on Facebook. In other words it isn't a reliable source, and that was what triggered the rollbacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a perfectly legitimate false positive report. Do not roll them back, especially if he provides a source (however weak). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounded like a bad faith edit too, given the vulgar language, which is almost always a red flag.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand you made a mistake. However, when people report false positives, please do not remove them except if the report happens to be solely something along the lines of "You are all gay faggots!!!" (i.e. pure vandalism). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The removal occured as a result of previous removals, like those by you, but the line has to be drawn.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you should slow down a bit and search before deciding an edit is vandalism -- it only takes a moment. For some people, it's a huge turnoff to get "warned" erroneously. — anndelion ❋ 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK then.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD declined

Hi Jasper Deng. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion it is propoganda and in no way belongs here because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Concern: Not a valid CSD, please take to MfD. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal is called

Hello, Jasper Deng.

First, thanks for your recent assistance and your dedicated care for mannerism. I appreciate it. (You still have room for improvements... but I too.)

Second, I have called Mediation Cabal. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. Nothing obliges you to participate if you don't wish; but I had to notify you.

Thanks.

I've completed my observations, you can see them here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:46pm • 02:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I was asked and have closed the case because the original dispute has been resolved and no longer exists as a problem. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:52am • 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

North High School

im sorry i dont know wikipedia talk. could i get that last one in laymans terms please174.126.191.197 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, we don't take any jokes in our articles. Information about living people must be sourced reliably and all information must be in general.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me if i'm wrong, but that entire article is a joke174.126.191.197 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Check again. I removed the jokes.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

not that article, this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editcountitis and you also removed a lot of true information, and missed some jokes. id love to continue this conversation but it will have to wait until another day174.126.191.197 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The message was not in reply to that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

all im saying is that's a joke article that should be obliged to abide by the same rules as all others174.126.191.197 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please indent. We have humorous pages like that; however, they do not exist in the article namespace. The project namespace has exemptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

well can i make a humorous page for my school in that case?174.126.191.197 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

why not174.126.191.197 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We cannot accept information that is not verifiable.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's best to be careful of language like this. We as Wikipedia volunteer editors are not qualified to judge whether anything is defamatory or not. Verifiability (which you correctly mention) and the WP:BLP policy are much better starting points. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Refactored. I do not know of a policy specifically prohibiting jokes, but, it's a TW warning option, and I agree it's not allowed.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

why do you guys answer questions on other people's pages (not intended to be rude in any manner, merely inquisitory)174.126.191.197 (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It allows quicker responses. Hard to explain.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TPS. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh i thought he was some sort of mentor or something174.126.191.197 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well now you know :).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

okay no need to get defensive174.126.191.197 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How am I being defensive?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: April 2011

Hi Jasper. Thanks for replying to the issue that I posted. I think you misread part of my post. I (we) haven't contributed anything to the Wikipedia articles I'm inquiring about. The same goes for the links to our articles -- I (we) haven't added links on Wikipedia to our site -- they were all given by hundreds of different Wikipedia editors over the years. So, there is no conflict of interest at play on our end. What I'm asking about is a Wikipedia editor's systematic removal of the links on Wikipedia to our site. More detail on that in my post though. Thanks for any help you can give.Vrsti (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Accounts cannot represent a group-they can only represent individuals. It doesn't matter if you've edited or not. You still have a conflict of interest regardless of whether you've edited or not. Asking about the removal of your site's links constitutes a conflict of interest, for instance. In addition, the articles are not yours - they are the community's, and it will have to go the way the community likes it, not the way you like it.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Jasper. I replied to you here too. I understand and respect your rules on conflicts of interest. Since you're a disinterested party, can you check out what this editor is doing to see if it's appropriate editing behavior?Vrsti (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EL - likely, the links did not go according to that.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Paid" commercial software (talkback)

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Talk:Microsoft Word.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A tip

Hi Jasper. I see you keep deleting Eagles' messages to you. You're perfectly within your rights to do that, per WP:BLANKING, but I recommend that you don't. Eagles is genuinely trying to help you better understand WP policy (he's correct about the COI issue), and it's best to have a conversation on a talk page (that's what they're there for) than through edit summaries, even if you don't like what you're hearing. 28bytes (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge them by deleting the comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A word of encouragement

Hey Jasper, since I've been commenting on that ANI thread, I thought I would take a time out to let you know that I really do think you're a good Wikipedia editor and I'm not trying to frustrate you or get you in trouble; I'm just trying to help smooth things out. Keep up your good work on Wikipedia - we need good editors. Kansan (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I like you and 28bytes' help.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit more cluefully

Jasper, get off Malleus' talk page, get off of WT:RFA, read my summary of your ANI thread, and take it to heart. When a lot of people think you're causing problems, and there is a very long current ANI thread about it, that is a really poor time to intentionally stir up trouble. If you do so again, I'll undo my closing of the ANI thread, and propose there that you be blocked; don't assume that proposal wouldn't find traction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I will get off those talk pages regarding this issue. I hereby agree to mentorship given these events.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested that I offer to help mentor, or co-mentor, you. I'd be willing to help with that. If you'd prefer somebody else, you are perfectly fine to say so and I won't be offended or upset. Kansan (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of 28bytes being my mentor.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. Sure, I'll be happy to help with mentoring. However, I recommend you also accept Kansan's offer; it's perfectly OK to have several mentors; it just means there are more people you can turn to for advice. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the more the better. I will now take down some userboxes.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Some tips

Hi Jasper. I just came across the discussion on WT:RFA and thought this would be a good opportunity to offer some tips.

1. In general, it's best not to scold other editors, especially experienced editors, like you did with Malleus. Take a look at this report. It's the list of the most prolific contributors to a particular page on Wikipedia. You can also filter by date range, for example here are the top contributors for 2011. That should give you an idea of who the "regulars" are on a particular talk page. The spirit behind WP:Don't template the regulars suggests that they probably know what they're doing; when in doubt, you may consider asking someone (like me, in both my role as a mentor and as someone who is an active participant on WT:RFA) if telling someone on that page about WP:FORUM is wise. In this case, I would have said, no, it's better not to, for the reasons above.
2. If someone reverts your comment, like Malleus did here, your first reaction should be to consider why they did so, rather than reverting back. Note that in this case, you not only publicly scolded an experienced editor, but you inserted some markup inside his comment (accidentally, I assume), which is a no-no. Again, rather than re-reverting, consider whether that's wise, and ask if you're unsure.
3. This is more of a general point, but I recommend you don't "act like an administrator." Your comment on Malleus's talk page, for example, comes off as telling someone what to do. Most people don't like to be ordered around; they prefer to be treated as an equal, and with respect. It appeared that you were showing disrespect towards Malleus, which is why he responded the way he did.

I have some more thoughts, but I don't want to overwhelm you, so I'll just leave you with this for now. My goal here is not to tell you what to do, but to offer advice, in hopes of making your interactions with your fellow Wikipedians go more smoothly. I can tell you care a lot about the project, and that's great; I'm confident we can work out all the "rough spots" that are currently causing friction.

As I said before, my door is always open, so if you have any questions about these comments, or anything else, feel free to drop by my talk page. Happy editing! 28bytes (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No Tips

Hi Jasper, I highly doubt that you know me, but I've read through some of the ANI thread, some various talk pages, and some of the threads you've been involved in. To be honest, I'm really not up to speed on any of the specific items that you are working through right now, but I did want to drop by and commend you on your efforts to become the best possible editor that you can here. I really admire your efforts, your dedication, and the work you are putting forth to understand the way things work here. The fact that you are so open minded, and willing to try so hard to take in all the advice you're receiving is truly impressive. I congratulate you on your efforts, and I thank you for all you are doing here. Best of luck in the future. — Ched :  ?  07:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Really? I see a total of one real revert (as in Nikkimaria's revert back to her last version) at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, and that does not qualify as a "mild edit war" (whatever that is). The issues seems to be taken care of, considering the last edit to the page was over a half hour ago. I'm not sure you actually know what a request for comment is, so I strongly urge you to read WP:RFC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, this was my first try at such a RPP. I thought I saw two reverts, but, since the reverting has stopped, no protection or anything like that needed. RfC may be a good idea though.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC why? As for the "war", well, even two reverts doesn't constitute a breach of anything unless the page is under special sanctions etc. I know that you have a bit of a hair trigger form what you posted on my TP a few weeks back, but this seems really over the top. Could just speak to the editors involved on their or the item's TP. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC may have been appropriate as not many editors watch that page. But, I personally try to resolve disputes without being involved, which is something I may need to change.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are few watchers listed for most of the pages from what I've seen, but maybe that just reflects my own idiosyncracies. Yes, I think perhaps you may need to adjust, but I still do not understand why you thought 2 reverts justified full PP. The personal approach has got to be better as a first step otherwise it can look like someone is spitting their dummy out etc. If the dispute continues then you take it to another level. Well, that's how I see it anyway. - Sitush (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see edit warring on policy pages like this. I generally try not to RPP only when the page is at the brink of 3RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, did you read WP:RFC like I asked? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have used it in the past, and have read it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." ? That's pretty much what I was saying using intuition. If you take most stuff to the community at large then often you'll be taking up the time of all the people in the town to resolve a domestic argument about whether to buy Pepsi or Coke, if you can see that analogy. (The answer, BTW, is Coke <g>) - Sitush (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hhm... then simply asking other editors may have been helpful, but, I was afraid of canvassing.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in that case you maybe need not only to re-read WP:RFC but also read WP:CANVASS and WP:Consensus. It is easy to throw these terms about but rather pointless if you do not understand (or misunderstand) their meaning. Maybe your mentors will pick up on this but one suggestion might be that each time you have the urge to use a policy word/phrase over the next week or so then you first read the relevant policy or guidelines before doing so? I know, I know, some of them are horrendously long but a little investment now might go a long way. Best wishes for the mentorship, BTW. - Sitush (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if you're willing to spend time w/ me, you can be a co-mentor. It is very hard to determine what the consensus is on a particular discussion. I am just afraid that I sometimes POV-push and I tend to leave my opinions in my own comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that I have the experience to act as a mentor, and I am certainly far from free of fault myself. However, I tend to ask around if I am doubtful about something (eg: dealing with an autistic user 24 hours ago), and I guess that is a part of the function of the mentors whom you already have lined up. I have a group of people I tend to call on when I'm stuck, although I'm not entirely sure that they always appreciate it! Feel free to ask anything you want but don't rely on a quick response: I had a small heart attack (MI) recently & my time here is likely to be in small doses for the next few weeks as I'm having waves of tiredness etc.

Consensus should not be that difficult to determine. In any event, there is no reason why you should be the one who evaluates the situation. You could even just say "Hey, so what is the consensus about this now we've had a discussion?" The ball doesn't always have to be in your court, and asking questions is likely to appear more collaborative than making statements when you are not sure. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, no-one really asks. I learn from what others do, and, like them, I don't ask.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That no-one asks may reflect the sort of article you are getting involved with, but just because nobody else does is not a reason why you should not. It is a benign act at worst. Take a look at Talk:Churchill_Machine_Tool_Company#Churchill_Machine_Tool_Company for a snowball consensus. If you want to see umpteen attempts to achieve consensus that has caused numerous blocks because of poor understanding of policy then wade through the voluminous archives at Planned Parenthood - what a nightmare that one is, and this is why I walked away from it (which, by the way, is an option always open to you also). You are not the guardian of veracity here, nor the person who has to take a bullet for the team: there are plenty of others who will step in if the issue is significant, and it does not usually required an AN/I notice etc for this to happen. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi Jasper. I was just reading AN/I and I noticed that User:Johnuniq told you "I suggest that you seek the advice of a mentor before making any further comments here." And then you went ahead and made a further comment there. Please don't do that. If other editors are asking you to talk to a mentor first, you should do that. So far both User:Kansan and I have offered to help with mentoring, but I don't see any messages from you on either of our talk pages. 28bytes (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Your talk pages were swamped by ANI on my watchlist. I commented to inform them that I already was doing mentorship.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think the items 28bytes refers to are @ 23:49 20th and @ 02:49 21st, both of which were > 12 hours after you had accepted mentorship per the section above. Furthermore, although your edit summary to this @ 04:41 21st does mention mentorship, the content of your edit is not obviously referring to that.

The gist of what you have been advised is don't comment at all on AN/I, RfA etc for the time being. Sit in your hands if you must ;) - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know that.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll second Sitush's advice. If a point is worth making, someone else will make it; if you're the only person with a particular opinion, there's a very good chance that your opinion is wrong. The number of occasions any given editor should need to post to ANI is vanishingly low, especially for a non-admin (admins by their nature will have a higher ANI post count, since it's one of the places they're summoned when their actions are questioned). The "Are you in the right place?" template at the top of ANI, which most people skim over without noticing, is well worth a close read; the number of legitimate reasons for posting at ANI is (intentionally) much lower than many people think. – iridescent 20:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [3] Jasper, I thought we agreed that you should research all of the facts before getting involved in discussions. You're still wikilawyering a blocked user who has had many users tell him exactly what you have just said. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to get the user encouraged. I tried to say that the user has not lost everything, but evidently, if he/she isn't convinced, I have to let someone more experienced handle it.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Something that escaped my mind. I had thought that ANI was WQA just with admin actions requested. But now I know different, and, I will try to self-ban myself from ANI until my mentors tell me I'm ready to come back or allow me to.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also

Probably best to leave User:DeadSend4's talk page alone. Since he's asked you not to post there any more, you should respect his wishes. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he said one of my comemnts was "being too nice" to him, though, I feel he really thinks he's misunderstood. I will let one of you handle it.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper. 28bytes (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales/MartinPoulter articles

Hi, it might be best if you walk away from the disputes on the talk pages for the above articles. Find something less controversial to work with. I'm not passing judgement on your comments to them but it you are getting involved with stuff that you really need not. Sorry, Jasper, but right now you seem to be like a moth to a flame where controversy exists. How about doing some more routine maintenance tasks? I learned quite a lot just sorting out issues for the category of pages with missing reflists etc, and it tends to be less controversial. Throwing yourself into every major dispute is asking for trouble. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've asked my mentors already, and, it will be dealt with without my help.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. Although it may have been better to ask before you commented on the pages. I credit you with the ability to understand when something is controversial, but we're back at the "hair trigger" point I mentioned in an earlier section above. WP is timeless - if you do not get a response from your mentors immediately then, hey, it is unlikely to be a big deal as others will be involved. Indeed, someone has responded already in the section below this one. I'm not tracking their pages and (although I accept that it may seem otherwise) not following your every edit. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The references maintenance category is here. Honest, do some tidying there and over a few days you will see all sorts thrown at you: CSD, AfD, copyediting, POV, weasel, uncited, new articles ... the lot. It is a relatively uncontroversial/low traffic area that nonetheless generates a lot of useful input from those of us who handle it and can improve rapidly one's understanding of what is going on. There is more to WP life that getting involved in every major dispute which appears, but at the same time you will come across instances where you'll find the necessity to check up on policy/guidelines etc and from that should build a wider knowledge of the entire project. I quite enjoy it, although I accept that sometimes it may seem to be repetitive. Someone has to do this stuff and, from what I can gather, much of the work of an admin (which I think is a position you aspire to) involves equally repetitive actions. Adminship is by no means a gilded role. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I already mark a lot of articles for CSD and unsourced info. I sometimes do AfD and tag weasel words. However, I don't understand copy-editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I apologise. Like I said, I'm not watching your every edit. As for copyediting, well, I can understand anyone's confusion with that if only because there are in many respects as many viewpoints as there are editors. I've seen six doctors since my MI and have had five different opinions - that's copyediting! The manual of style is a good start and, although it does change, you are at least citing the right thing at the right time. Am off to bed - go easy, now. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"ask" != "sanction"

Regarding the discussion here, where you say "He does not represent the WMF in any way, and, we cannot sanction his off-wiki activities", note I did not see a request to sanction him. The request was "Please ask him to remove these absurd allegations". It is entirely possible to ask someone to behave better, without having the ability to sanction them if they refuse. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. I meant "We cannot take any action". Besides it is now obsolete given the following comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite possible to take the action of asking him. It may not be likely in terms of social politics, but it could certainly be done if considered worthwhile. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(see my note below - I resigned my involvement in this).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted now. Sorry, the discussion is outrunning me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

Jasper, although I know you responded in good faith, perhaps you could contact one of your mentors prior to speaking out regarding possible WMF issues on Jimbo's talk page?. It is a very high visibility page and it would be best to check in with your mentors prior to responding to, or commenting on, issues raised there. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have asked already.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Struck out my comments. Striking out leaves context, but, I officially resign my involvement in that.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's page is very high visibility so there are lots of people with an eye on it. If you're not sure, there's always somebody else who will deal with it shortly anyway. Kansan (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sehr gut

I know it means "very good". That was the point. I thought it was a fair comment. That's why I put it back. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Originally did not understand.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's you that needs to learn German. Well, my entire German vocabulary would probably fit on an index card, so don't feel bad. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Unfortunately it is more difficult than the French I'm learning now, given its 3 genders (versus French's 2).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Article promotion

Have you ever gotten involved with the Good Article/Featured Article promotion process? You have a good eye for detail, I think you would be good at it. Kansan (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at it, but, I frankly don't have the willpower to devote all my wikitime to a single article. I am watching well over a hundred articles, and over 2000 pages total.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Trolling

Message from troll

Dear Jasper Deng, I like you. You are a stand-up individual. You know what I like best about you? Your name. Jasper. Jasssssssssper. Deng. Anyway, Jasper. You are fantastic. The other guy, Materialscientist or whatever, kind of came off like a jerk. He threatened me. I do not think my message to him was a threat at all. I simply posted nonsense and then asked him to get off my lawn. Do you know what is ironic about that? I don't have a lawn. I was ribbing him. Not literally. It's a metaphor for joking with someone. Jasper, you know I'm a good guy. We go way back. I heart you. I <3 you. Do you like me? My name is Joe. I am strong. I have lifted two cars at once. Granted, they were small cars. Okay, Matchbox cars but they were still made of metal. Did you know metal does not a melting point?

Sincerely, Joe. Don't forget I love you. That is a command. Notice I am directing you to not forget that I love you. I even ended my sentence with a period. Guess what? I lied. I don't love you.

Can we be friends?

Don't edit this, please. I have made magic with you.

Sincerely, Joe. Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemoc (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense is not allowed here. I like your sense of humor though :).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jasper. I will not trouble anyone any more (for now) (probably). I can tell you are man with a plan and good looks to match. Please delete this if you wish. I have documented it on my blog, keyserjose.tumblr.com. Seriously, thanks for having a sense of humor. I am sorry for any grief I have caused you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemoc (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Jasper, there is no use in responding to trolls. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Was AGF'ing. Perhaps it's time I learn when and how to know when to ABF.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Don't forget I love you. That is a command." C'mon! (But seriously, I've never seen trolling quite like this, as it isn't a very typical way to troll here. Read the page above to identify a typical troll here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Now how should I actually deal with him? AIV?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question, and I can't say there is a real policy for this. I would recommend, after seeing nothing but unconstructive editing from an account, that you report it to AIV as a vandalism-only account. If there are a few good-faith edits (the user above's edits were definitely not in good faith), you should wait and see with the account. If the vandalism gets out of control, or they've been given a final warning and persistly vandalize, then report to AIV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. By the way, this troll is asking for an unblock. Declining it would be relaxing.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking admins can't review unblock requests. :) Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I think I've seen that happen.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's against policy for a blocking admin to decline an unblock (blocking admins may accept unblock requests, which may be why you are confused). See WP:BLOCK#Block reviews: The blocking administrator should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked; someone else has to decline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it the same reason as the one not allowing involved admins to use admin tools in a dispute?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in both cases the admins would be considered involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is punishable by desysopping. By the way, User:Ohnoitsjamie was recently blocked, and they say blocks of admins like him are controversial. Can you explain that?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is controversial anytime an admin is blocked. Admins are trusted by the community to know most policies and not abuse tools. Ohnoitsjamie could be desysopped, but that would have to gain some sort of consensus via recall or ArbCom intervention. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose then it only occurs after repeated incidents then.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that most blocks only occur after repeated incidents, whether involving admins or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sifler

I blocked him for two reasons. He made a criminal accusation and created a username which is now hidden from everyone (suppressed). It is a clear harassment account. Why the heck would I email a user I have blocked? I rarely even use Special:Emailuser. --Bsadowski1 01:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Was AGF'ing, but, feel free to just revdelete the whole thing.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You assumed good faith for a blocked user? Please slow down and think before you make decisions like that. 28bytes has already suggested that you don't comment on blocked users' talk pages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll repeat it now: Jasper, please don't comment on blocked users' talk pages, even if you have interacted with them before. 28bytes (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Being involved to me justifies that, but, I will try to refrain from that in the future.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually involved in this user's actions, having warned him for personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But the user remarked "Wikipedia is politically correct and full of no-life stalker admins." I think that statement alone should have let you know that the comment was not made in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, many users I've interacted w/ have said comments like this. Take for instance the user who was blocked for editing and civility recently (See your talk page).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should have interacted with either user. You didn't really help the situation with DeadSend4 (in fact, you made him more frustrated in the process), and this one is no better. You are not required to comment on talk pages of blocked users, and I strongly suggest you refrain from doing so, even if you are involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Then how can I get someone else to deal with it?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My point was that users often make these sorts of comments while blocked but then return to constructive editing afterwards.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

DeadSend4 was a unique situation, and I've never seen one like it before. I recommend you don't rely on that experience for future situations, as most, if not all, will not be like that. Had DeadSend4 not made positive contributions over the years with the one article being an isolated incident, he would have been indefinitely blocked for his comments. You should have notified Bsadowski about the comment (who was watching the page anyway), or if you seriously believed Sifler's story, notify an uninvolved admin/user who you trust. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not know the admin should be notified, and, I thought that his story just might have merit to it, but ultimately I didn't believe it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for clearing the vandalism from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. That user needs a ton of revdeletes, just to let you know.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Research before deletion and warning, please

Might I suggest you do a bit of research before you give out warnings for vandalism. I recently added Dan Marsala's side project to the Story of the Year page, which you promptly deleted and warned me for despite the fact that I even provided a source proving it wasn't made up (which I figured was necessary given the fact that it was a controversial name). I only ask that you don't jump to conclusions next time. Boneh3ad (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The source was not reliable. I had to remove it per WP:BLP - next time, cite a better source.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't even see a source in the edit history. Weird. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I cited the source when I appealed the system flagging my post as the work of a troll. I don't see how the band's webpage is not sufficient to prove that I didn't just make them up. My point was to prove that they were a real band since it was pretty clear that the name of the band is... controversial and troll-like. However, that is relevant because of the fact that in the warning originally given to me, it cited my appeal as well, so all information was available at the time. - Boneh3ad (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the info was in there from your revert earlier, so you seem to have by-passed the filter now. I see no reason why an official website for the band cannot be used as a source, although it would be nice to have an alternative.

I'm not sure why JD thought that you needed a better source, assuming that he did see what you saw. Maybe he was just mistaken and actually saw nothing at all. Anyway, feel free to add it.

Sorry for hijacking this thread, JD. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No it's OK, I actually appreciate TPS's lightening my workload. I saw the link, and I think it was a FB or Twitter link, which is not reliable.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But in an instance where a band's official page IS a facebook page, I don't see how there is an alternative. Sorry for keeping this going, but I am fairly new to this so this is all being stored away for future reference. -Boneh3ad (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Facebook links aren't allowed, as anyone can make a Facebook page for anything.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. Just a note, Facebook is usually not allowed, but there are exceptions: for example if a Facebook page is the article subject's official homepage and they have no other site to link to. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Facebook, MySpace for details. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Which is why I bolded "official" above. I've got to be honest & say that I don't fully understand why notable bands haven't got the wherewithal to have a "proper" official site, even though they may also have a presence on Facebook, MySpace or whatever, but that isn't the issue here. Go ahead and do it Boneh3ad, if you are sure that there is no alternate official site. I'd still prefer to see an alternative reliable source also but there is nothing in WP policy/guidelines that insists on it. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick Question

You said my article needs a neutral point of view. How exacly do you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike28968 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to not include market terms like "patented" and "exclusive," exclude marketing stats like those of the TOP500, exclude the (R) sign, and add neutral and 3rd-party sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary. It reminds me of the following. Almost every cheap restaurant around here advertises themselves as "exclusive". For example, one place where I enjoy eating, titles itself "exclusive Indian restaurant". I am always hugely tempted to ask them, "if this place is exclusive, who do you exclude?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

Come on man, I was just saying I am a Tennessee fan! People on Wikipedia need to lighten up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.3.57 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in others' comments you're not.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples

• Done. This seems to be User:JarlaxleArtemis, the Fred Phelps of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:DUCK seems to connect Jasper Dang with User:Ajdkj - from the transitive property, we can conclude Ajdkj is a sock of that user too.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: 71 IP

Thanks for the heads up. – Zntrip 04:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good job

You handled the situation with the disruptive IP editor very well. Kansan (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Was looking for competancy in this IP.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on Nous Infosystems

Hi Jasper, thanks for your suggestions regarding the article. As a consultant in the Outsourced Product Development domain in India, during my research I came across many companies with articles on Wikipedia. Nous has been active in the above domain for over 14 years and is considered a key player in this domain but no details were present about it on Wikipedia. Hence the article on the firm. I will be adding further articles on other players in this domain as well and will ensure a neutral point of view by including verifiable facts only into these articles. I hope this is fine. I would definitely appreciate your comments in further improving my contributions. Thanks. Jayanth2011 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Jayanth2011

I'm sorry, but, if you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit articles on your company at all. You will have to show that your company is notable, and, insert criticism, which I believe is hard to do. If you have no interest other than publicizing this company, I suggest you move on from Wikipedia or edit something else.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, our conflict of interest policy says nothing of the kind; we have no prohibition on people editing articles on their employers or their competitors, providing they do so neutrally, and we have no obligation that any article "insert criticism". This is not the first time you've been warned about this; please familiarize yourself with what policies actually say before you cite them. – iridescent 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism, in this case, was the NPOV and tone issue in that article - the tone was ultimately not neutral, and I did not believe this user was going to be able to write neutrally given what was in the article already, but, I should've done better. In this case, I should've reworded the comment - even if the tone is neutral, criticism and controversy is part of any fully article.

No, criticism and controversy is not "part of any article". A criticism section is appropriate where the criticism is notable. If you want a criticism section added, it's up to you to demonstrate that one is warranted. – iridescent 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen controversy and criticism on most corporation articles, like those of Intel Corporation and Microsoft, but, thanks, I was wrong on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure that it is necessary to "insert criticism", I'm not even sure that the contributor is COI (is Outsourced Product Development a department within the company or what?) However, the article as presently written is pretty much gobbledegook to me: I've seen articles on pharmacology, bontany etc that have made more sense ... and that is quite amazing! But there are several citations in there and they are not all from the company itself, so unless they are mostly press releases and other ephemeral stuff, I guess that notability has been proven. Just my thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper, Iridescent and Sitush for your comments on the article. Firstly, I am not associated with the company in discussion and can share more details about myself, if necessary. Outsourced Product Development refers to the practice of outsourcing development of IT solutions to firms while retaining the IP over the products developed, and is not a department within the firm. With regard to the references, I have tried to collect external and neutral sources and believe that press releases by the company itself have not been used. I have limited the information in the article to verifiable facts but will try and include more sources and appropriate material to the article. Jayanth2011 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Jayanth2011

OK, I redact the COI accusation.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. You may want to get a second opinion from Kansan, me, or another trusted editor before you tell an editor you think they have a conflict of interest. We don't want to scare away new editors, and a "false positive" accusation can often have that effect. 28bytes (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, did you forget about this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've been thinking about this. I wonder if JD got confused with the unacceptable username policy, eg: if a user turns up with the name NousInfosystemsPR then that name would be unacceptable and a potential COI issue. The name would have to be changed & further edits to the article using it would be viewed in a pretty poor light. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The user sounded like a COI, and I wasn't confused about the username policy. I personally thought the user should not edit articles related to his/her organization (which turned out to be false given that that wasn't the case), and did not believe the editor's message about neutral writing since the tone of the article to me was clearly not really a neutral one.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And more…

Jasper, can you also explain how this could possibly be described as "spam", and why you warned the editor for "adding inappropriate links" when every link was already in the article elsewhere? (Yes, their addition was incorrectly formatted, but new editors can't be expected to know Mediawiki markup.) I know it looks like we're ganging up on you, but you really need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies if you're going to try to enforce them; Wikipedia thrives on new editors, and the kind of thing you're doing has the potential to drive them away. – iridescent 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I purely think it is spam. The reason was because it undid my previous revert, which I marked as spam too, and, that revert was of a user called Local800admin, which added links to a site with Local800 inside its name.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Someone reverted an erroneous tagging of mine, so I restored it" is not a valid excuse. Please actually read WP:COI and WP:EL, rather than assume you know what they mean and that everyone else is wrong. You're clearly here in good faith, but your repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude regarding unilaterally deciding to enforce what you think Wikipedia's policies ought to be, rather than what they are, is well over the line into disruption, given the number of times you've been warned about this. – iridescent 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me summarize both: COI means that editors should not edit subjects related to their organizations unless they exercise the most extreme caution in order to adhere to NPOV, while external links should be links to additional info for the topic (that is neutral and sourced), and in the correct places (the most common mistake I supposedly saw). Probably the last point is what I'm being confused about. I did not think my tagging was erroneous in the first place, but, now it is.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(bangs head against wall) No; will you please read the policy pages instead of making up what you think they ought to be saying? External links should be links which are useful for further information on the topic but inappropriate (generally on grounds of length or copyright considerations) for inclusion in the article itself. There is absolutely no neutrality requirement; indeed, the most common external links are to the subject of the article's own website, which pretty much by definition is always non-neutral. – iridescent 23:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The WP:ELYES section says the information should be neutral, but, I realize this is only ideal and can be rarely if ever achieved - but there are exceptions like the official page of an article's subject and others.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Misread.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning these policies, I think I need a mentor to draw me a line.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, I think we're going to need you to take a break from patrolling for a while. Many of these policies are a bit tricky to understand, and though you're trying hard and are obviously working in good faith, I don't think you've got the level of understanding to where it needs to be for you to continue patrolling at this time. Let's discuss what other areas you might focus on instead. What areas interest you? Don't hurry with an answer, feel free to give it some thought before answering. 28bytes (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)