Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jasper Deng. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
A tag has been placed on The Cup (2011 film), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: 
which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw it in huggle and then went to the page history to do a rollback and you beat me to it. Nice. Petiatil »Talk 04:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- But what intrigues me is what's revdeleting the usernames in the edit history (which broke my later rollback).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --Jo Shigeru (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Message added 10:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry about the delay. WormTT · (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing the vandalism off my user page. I'm not sure what instigated it in the first place, but it's nice to know there's always somebody watching me. No Rockwell reference intended. --Davejohnsan (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 |
Indeed, that's what I meant to do! —hike395 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC) |
- No worries. If the previous editor objects to my restoration of the large article on the mountain in California, he/she can discuss on the talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I, too, appreciate your help with Mount Shasta. Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This guy is trying to make the article look like a mess. It's a form of vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Shouldn%27t_Be_Alive&action=historysubmit&diff=455410688&oldid=455392365 It's deliberate, he changes IPs very often, it's a form of vandalism. This page has been protected in the past, and I've noticed that as soon as the protection ends, these edits pop up again. It's vandalism.
He's reverted random edits, removed punctuation, basically rewriting it in broken English. He's trying to make us lose credibility.
It's vandalism.--218.186.19.240 (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Forgot to log in--LOLCaatz (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- The edits are not vandalism, in my opinion, but clearly are against WP:MOS. Unfortunately though, we cannot rangeblock the IP editor since it would require a /13 (too big). I'm requesting semi-protection again.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
How do you propose styling an article on a manifesto that i had no hand in creating nor endorsing in another format?Jeremyritzmann (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Paraphrase.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- oh like they do on the humanist manifesto wiki, and the communist manifesto wiki? oh wait, they dont do that. Jeremyritzmann (talk)
- They will now. I am working on the Communist Manifesto as we speak. →Στc. 03:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Simply put, Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not essays or proclamation postings. I don't personally find such a proclamation notable enough for inclusion.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- It frankly amazes me this occurred, that some silly lad hiding behind a computer decides what's worthy of being published on the web, but not to worry, I just purchased a domain and compiled a quick site for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyritzmann (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that. The community decided that it would not belong on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You dropped an email template on me yesterday, but I didn't get an email... WormTT · (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was a direct reply on the same thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Bit of advice - don't feed the trolls. I suggest you give Wikipedia:Deny recognition a read. Don't allow yourself to get baited into arguments with vandals and trolls. Once they've been reported to AIV, just carry on doing something else. — Manticore 02:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was more concerned about not insulting the vandals here, thanks!Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? — Manticore 09:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NOSPADE.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- How is WP:NOSPADE relevant to you telling that particular IP "you'll get blocked soon" or "we'll rangeblock your entire range" or "the more you keep trolling the more likely we'll just summarily block you for 5 years without talk page access"? — Manticore 06:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NOSPADE.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? — Manticore 09:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jasper
I thought perhaps you might be able to help. We have a problem: An anonymous user who is constantly adding linkspam to List of remastering software. The items that he adds neither have evidence of notability nor an article in Wikipedia. So, I think it is pretty clear that it is against WP:LINKFARM (since they are external links), WP:STANDALONE (since the page a standalone list), WP:NOTADVERT (since they are software products) and WP:NOTDIR (for the obvious reason).
So far, his reaction in talk page has been: (1) Calling Wikipedia pillars "crap" and "bureaucracy" and (2) mocking us that we cannot stop him! Although he is an IP, he seems to have a user in Wikipedia as well.
Would you please help? Thanks in advance.
Fleet Command (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a look later.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Canvassing, eh? Man, did you know that canvassing applies to disputes, not disruptive editing? I think you knew that, judging by this conversation on my talk page. And let's not forget that WP:CANVASS does not rule out all forms of canvassing; there are good and bad canvassing.
- Anyway, perhaps I should have been more clear: I will soon be very busy, therefore I thought perhaps you would be so kind to keep an eye on the article, send him the {{uw-spam4}} if repeated his behavior and report him to WikiProject Spam if he repeated. Anyway, you can safely consider yourself relieved. But now the page is edit-protected per my request.
- And I wonder if may ask you for another favor: Please strike that canvassing accusation, especially now that an admin has intervened. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- FleetCommand, this is a content dispute. The IP is only disruptive now if he/she takes it too far (edit warring or IDHT). I will not strike the accusation; SudoGhost and I were uninvolved in your dispute, don't try to rally us to your side. I was actually on the verge of saying that those links were notable. FleetCommand, last time I was involved; this time I was not. Considering your history of wikilawyering and misuse of WP:BRD, I would suggest that you don't try to find loopholes in a policy every time it is brought up to you in a content dispute. I think we need to assume good faith more with the IP, in short.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Inviting uninvolved parties into discussion is what WP:DR prescribes; we even have WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM for inviting uninvolved parties -- but we also know that they are not the only venues, since Wikipedia has no firms laws. Event though an admin has locked the page and you admit that you and SudoGhost were uninvolved parties, you call it canvassing, wikilawyering and content dispute and even so far ahead to offend me ad hominem?
- But say no more. It is perfectly clear whether we should assume good faith on a person who tries to contain the damage to the Wikipedia or a person who openly and deliberately violates Wikipedia policies because he deems them "crap". And the fact the you refuse to see this distinction shows a lot of things. I think I perfectly understand what is going on here: Prejudice and an old grudges.
- Again, thanks for backstabbing me -- I guess. Fleet Command (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and by the way, the 117.201 was without doubt canvassing. You were canvassing, trying gain my support for your case in WP:ANI. As you confessed, I was involved, and therefore more likely to respond favorably to your request. It is time you learned it: Asking uninvolved parties is good, asking involved parties is canvassing. Fleet Command (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I never brought up that IP to ANI, and you were clearly involved in that dispute. If you say this is ad hominem then see the "We need to talk about talk pages" thread in your talk page archives. Canvassing covers uninvolved parties as well; it does not specify involvement/uninvolvement. Because you were involved it is not canvassing because I was continuing a previous discussion.
- At least the IP didn't use swear words and used the correct formatting. He didn't put a load of nonsense characters or highly obvious factual errors. That's enough to assume good faith, especially with communication. FleetCommand, I suggest that you admit that you were wrong and just stop policy shopping - you've had a long history of always thinking you're right in content disputes when it is disputed and then policy shopping.
- I really hated to say that chunk, but I have no choice but to bring it to you.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and by the way, the 117.201 was without doubt canvassing. You were canvassing, trying gain my support for your case in WP:ANI. As you confessed, I was involved, and therefore more likely to respond favorably to your request. It is time you learned it: Asking uninvolved parties is good, asking involved parties is canvassing. Fleet Command (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I find your recent reversion of TurboForce's edits a little harsh. They were actually quite correct and sourced. Not that it matters for the article. :-) But anyway, fair to be fair. Useerup (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rather WP:UNDUE weight to a non-issue right there. The mention it got was all it needed.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jasper, how are you doing? You know I have been working on snake articles and I've especially put in a lot of hard work and research into the Black mamba article. I am now trying to move or change the name of the article to Dendroaspis polylepis, which is the scientific name of the black mamba. If you go and look around, you'll find most snake articles are have their scientific name as the title to the article (ie. puff adder, lancehead, saw-scaled viper, Death adder, sea snakes, kraits, and countless others). I want the same thing for the Black mamba article. So I requested a move at WP:REQMOVE - I'd really appreciate it if you'd just click the link and "support" my request to move. It'll take you a few seconds to do. Please and thanks. Bastian (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can't comment on this, since I'm not familiar with taxonomy. One thing you should note is to not canvass for support too much. This is OK, just a note that you should be familiar with that policy.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. Can I persuade you to take a look at Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Web_clients, please? As I write on the talk page I consider the median calculation as WP:OR. There is no NPOV or UNDUE, this is simply about OR. But I'm hitting a stone wall. I would appreciate advice on how to progress. Thanks in advance Useerup (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Medians? Quite unimportant in my opinion. It may not be OR but it's so unimportant that it's not worth bordering on OR to do this.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I was looking for advice on how to proceed when faced with a situation where the editors refuse to discuss specific points. During the initial discussion they quickly homed in on a single topic ("conclusion") and didn't really (in my view) address the other concerns. That's where I broke it out - to make sure they considered each point. I still see the median as wrong on many levels, but my initial attempt at marking it as OR was reverted, my deletion of the median row was reverted. I was encouraged to open a discussion, but it quickly turned into "been discussed before" and "we have already taken a vote on that". I fear that the resistance to recognize median over multiple sources as OR is due to some of the other editors having invested quite a lot in a "production system" for the article and feel that if the median is going away that their work have been wasted. So, if they now refuse to engage in the discussion, what to do? Useerup (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Accusing others of not engaging in discussion is a sin in my opinion. I don't think it's worth arguing over this when there's my own point anyway.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I was looking for advice on how to proceed when faced with a situation where the editors refuse to discuss specific points. During the initial discussion they quickly homed in on a single topic ("conclusion") and didn't really (in my view) address the other concerns. That's where I broke it out - to make sure they considered each point. I still see the median as wrong on many levels, but my initial attempt at marking it as OR was reverted, my deletion of the median row was reverted. I was encouraged to open a discussion, but it quickly turned into "been discussed before" and "we have already taken a vote on that". I fear that the resistance to recognize median over multiple sources as OR is due to some of the other editors having invested quite a lot in a "production system" for the article and feel that if the median is going away that their work have been wasted. So, if they now refuse to engage in the discussion, what to do? Useerup (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
User 99.90.197.87 repeatedly makes unacceptable changes in the article. I have tried to accommodate him many times by incorporating his suggestions that made sense, but no use. I'm trying to move to an orderly discussion, but he bypasses. I hate to see this important article destroyed. This guy has many misconceptions and presentation problems.
Help!!! Pls advise. Thanks.
PS I misunderstood you re self-reference, but now piece completely removed.
-- Comps (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have requested protection of the page. Don't edit the article during the discussion. But assume good faith. He's not vandalizing the article. You will have to explain it to him. My advice is to try different wording each time and to not inflame the IP user by calling his edits vandalism or otherwise accusing him of being incompetant in the topic.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
A note I have put in User_talk:Thumperward - FYI.
Pls see User talk:99.90.197.87, my comments at the bottom.
Since it is forbidden to use certain words, I want you to look into the behavior of User:99.90.197.87 towards me, and give it any name you would like. The main question is if you think that his behavior is proper, after all the exchanges we went through, and your warning. I can tell you what I feel: Humiliated and abused for publicly repeatedly doubting Comps' honesty and integrity, and accusing him with baseless accusations. I do not care about his reasons for such behavior, and reasons not connected to me may exist, but this should be stopped. --Comps (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think both of you need to calm down, really.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- You mean I have to continue tolerating his behavior quietly, let him spit on me in the face, and pretend it is the rain? Is this Wikipedia policy? --Comps (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- The IP users' comments are not personal attacks. He's only asking you for more sources. He's saying nothing about your personality. Not bolding your comments may also help.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- No. Untrue. It is about me: "user Comps... user Comps... user comps... "
- You mean saying (copied from his source text; his bold letters)
- " The eventual verification will cost some $ since this is closed source (to read one had to pay), is worthless to purchase access to magazine issue instead of one article. Whiteout knowing , (there is obvious difference between: knowing for sure or being pointed in direction), one can just waste money trying to verify the info user Comps put as a ref. So user Comps have all the information, user Comps have on hand the magazine , where from user Comps excerpt the data, why is so hard for user Comps to put: the author, title and page number? . 99.90.197.87 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)"
- is not personal? it means "User Comps has the magazine, but he does not want to show the info". This is a very personal accusation of Comps. It is also an absurd: Why to hide if I have, or just get rid of the ref if false? Beyond me. Absurd, but very personal attack meaning "Comps, you have it and hide it... i.e., you are not honest. You mislead us!" The ref mentioned is partial but is tagged and commented in the ref, with all warnings about incomleteness. No justification for such repeated multiple personal attacks. --Comps (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a personal attack. It is only a strong inquiry for your source. This is not worth making such a big fuss over. Just let it knock off for now.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Strong inquiry is "Comps, a reminder, already 7 day have passed, and no info yet. When do you think you have it?" Not the above. At this point I'm doing nothing, but disappointed. Inaction encourages further rudeness. This is not what Wikipedia encourages, to my knowledge and recollection, without referencing any guidelines. --Comps (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, the IP editor wants you to provide your source when you don't have one and he is the one getting frustrated. He's not attacking you, he's attacking your content.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- He is accusing me of having it and refusing to give it - a lie. It is completely different from just not giving it: You still have not given it - a true fact. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Comps (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go assume good faith more. Take a breather and another look at that comment. Please ignore it. I think you're making too big of a deal of this. Just let it slough off.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- He is accusing me of having it and refusing to give it - a lie. It is completely different from just not giving it: You still have not given it - a true fact. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Comps (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, the IP editor wants you to provide your source when you don't have one and he is the one getting frustrated. He's not attacking you, he's attacking your content.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Strong inquiry is "Comps, a reminder, already 7 day have passed, and no info yet. When do you think you have it?" Not the above. At this point I'm doing nothing, but disappointed. Inaction encourages further rudeness. This is not what Wikipedia encourages, to my knowledge and recollection, without referencing any guidelines. --Comps (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a personal attack. It is only a strong inquiry for your source. This is not worth making such a big fuss over. Just let it knock off for now.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- The IP users' comments are not personal attacks. He's only asking you for more sources. He's saying nothing about your personality. Not bolding your comments may also help.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- You mean I have to continue tolerating his behavior quietly, let him spit on me in the face, and pretend it is the rain? Is this Wikipedia policy? --Comps (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert of my revert... I thought it was another of the half dozen A7 pages the user created in the last 10 minutes. :) -- Tgeairn (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that there was a slight claim of notability, but that claim was rather promotional.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Cashcounter60, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 |
The Userpage Shield | |
| Thanks for quickly catching and reverting the attack on my talk page! Great job! Swarm X11|11|11 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC) |
- Frankly, there are better things to do on the internet than trolling on a site where no-one gets amused by it. Rather lame of that guy to waste his time here.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper, thanks for editing the page on Arista Networks, I realize some of the wording I've used sounded too much like an advertisement and that a couple claims were missing references. I hope I addressed your concerns. If you think there are others things that need to change or be improved, please add more tags in the article and I will try to address them to make the article better. Tsunanet (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Why u want the Documentary article to get protected , I checked recently that there is no vanadalism in the article history , accepting some those IP's who are doing such has been blocked . Please Highlight more about it , or your request could get failed . Please check guidlines at [: Policies & Guidelines !] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmothiya (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- The semi-protection is necessary due to a long-term disruption by a large range of IP addresses. But only administrators can accept or decline the request.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. --Jdm64 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 |
A token of appreciation for clearing the vandalism to my Talk page. Thanks, and don't drop any crumbs! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC) |
The edits that were reverted removed the sister-project link to the text of the error code list, removed from this site's page per mediation agreement.
It also removes a valid video link to a conference that states for reference the comment it followed. As per WP rule WVL, There is no ban as long as they abide by other rules on references. This is not a 'fan video' or 'user video' as such; it's a documentary record 'by a private user' of an actual event, and that event's occurrence. As such, per the policy's discussions, it's reliable for use.
There also appears to be some random moving around of a section title which breaks display on .mobi directed use, (ie Kindle and Android Phone). Lostinlodos (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I appear to have screwed something up; I was attempting to revert back to the last version by Scjessey, and then replace the wikibooks link. Something went wrong. I'll look into it later.Lostinlodos (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Just use an edit summary next time, so others know what you're doing ("Undid revision ****** by User (talk)" is not sufficient, you must add why if it is not vandalism).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper, this person who you recently cautioned for reverting me is a long-term abusive editor who has been repeatedly banned under various socks. She seems to be throwing a hissy fit after being blocked from her primary and secondary targets, at my instigation, so now she's going after every page I've edited lately... --GenericBob (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've had the IP reported to AIV. Wait a few minutes or hours for a block.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! --GenericBob (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Update: IP blocked 31 hours.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! --GenericBob (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
