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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
28bytes asked me to take a look at the situation involving Fountainviewkid and other editors. Since this has ended up on noticeboards such as the COI noticeboard, I think that you can safely say you've done your job here and can probably let other people deal with it, since it appears there are administrators aware of it right now. If it's an issue of tone and not outright vandalism, it's okay to sit back and allow others to deal with it if you're in doubt at all (and you did a good job here asking 28bytes when you weren't sure).
I can definitely tell you're doing a whole lot better AGFing and learning the ropes of being a good Wikipedian. One piece of advice I might give you is that, when somebody else gives a warning, such as how Kuru did here: , it's usually not a good idea to immediately add another warning before the person being warned has a chance to respond. That usually makes them feel like they're being targeted by many people and might make them lash out instead of calmly asking what they did wrong. Kansan (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Great advice. Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is BelloWello canvassing?. Lionel (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})
- Please contact my mentors and ask for their approval first.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have a chance, do you mind looking over this article? I think its ready for mainspace but would like a few more eyes on it to confirm before it is moved. I also plan for a DYK hook out of it. BelloWello (talk) 11:25 pm, Today (UTC−4)
: Usernames are allowed to be similar (and they undoubtedly will be), but only add this template to someone's talk page if you see reason for impersonation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Wikilawyering again. Also, I need your help above even if you aren't my mentor.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not wikilawyering, there was just no real reason to warn. In the case of Jasper Dang (talk · contribs), however, it would be appropriate to warn or take to ANI as clear impersonation. As to the ANI thread, if you legitimately have something very constructive to add (not just restate what has happened and make things more confusing), then go ahead and comment there. Otherwise, don't bother. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thx.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think there's any reason to take this to ANI because it doesn't appear likely that this is an attempt at impersonation. Usernames like DMac are going to be common (it may well mean that somebody's first initial is D and their last name is Mac or Mc something), and the user's edits seem to be primarily to British politics articles, which don't seem to be a major editing area of DMacks. Also, if they were impersonating him, they would probably be posting as if they were an administrator, not a user. This is a time when it seems necessary to AGF. Kansan (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The ANI thread is related to a different matter (see above section). Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I saw the mention of ANI earlier in this section and that's where I got confused. I apologize for the confusion; I wouldn't necessarily have recommended getting involved, but I see that you're already commented there and seem to have done so in an even-handed manner. I'm not going to stop you from commenting in ANI, but I would strongly recommend not making accusations against any users (and I can tell you're going out of your way not to, which is good). Kansan (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- And if I am, please notify me ASAP.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I saw the mention of ANI earlier in this section and that's where I got confused. I apologize for the confusion; I wouldn't necessarily have recommended getting involved, but I see that you're already commented there and seem to have done so in an even-handed manner. I'm not going to stop you from commenting in ANI, but I would strongly recommend not making accusations against any users (and I can tell you're going out of your way not to, which is good). Kansan (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The ANI thread is related to a different matter (see above section). Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't think there's any reason to take this to ANI because it doesn't appear likely that this is an attempt at impersonation. Usernames like DMac are going to be common (it may well mean that somebody's first initial is D and their last name is Mac or Mc something), and the user's edits seem to be primarily to British politics articles, which don't seem to be a major editing area of DMacks. Also, if they were impersonating him, they would probably be posting as if they were an administrator, not a user. This is a time when it seems necessary to AGF. Kansan (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thx.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not wikilawyering, there was just no real reason to warn. In the case of Jasper Dang (talk · contribs), however, it would be appropriate to warn or take to ANI as clear impersonation. As to the ANI thread, if you legitimately have something very constructive to add (not just restate what has happened and make things more confusing), then go ahead and comment there. Otherwise, don't bother. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Please explain this revert. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Seemed to be an attack on me when I saw it.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- In any case, this account seems to be a stale VoA.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- "I dont care" is an attack? I know it's a VoA, but I don't understand why your misuse of rollback could be justified because of that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, "i don't care" often means (to me), that they think I'm unimportant and that they want to continue the disruption.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- What it looks like to me is an editor who was frustrated that his article got deleted, vandalized the deleting admin's page, and said "i don't care" when he was warned about it. You were right to revert the vandalism and warn him, but there's no need to revert the "i don't care". That's just blowing off steam, not attacking anyone. 28bytes (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bingo.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- What it looks like to me is an editor who was frustrated that his article got deleted, vandalized the deleting admin's page, and said "i don't care" when he was warned about it. You were right to revert the vandalism and warn him, but there's no need to revert the "i don't care". That's just blowing off steam, not attacking anyone. 28bytes (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, "i don't care" often means (to me), that they think I'm unimportant and that they want to continue the disruption.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- "I dont care" is an attack? I know it's a VoA, but I don't understand why your misuse of rollback could be justified because of that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- In any case, this account seems to be a stale VoA.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It looked like vandalism but ultimately, it was just letting off steam, as 28bytes said.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you were hanging off patrolling for a while? I've just seen your (very fast) CSD at Matt_shrader. Happen I suspect that you were right to CSD on some of the grounds that you mention - but are you sure about G10 and the courtesy page blanking? Looks like some kids fooling around to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It vaguely meets G10 because it connotates pretty negative things about the subject, which I'm supposing is a person. It doesn't really matter though - it already has two other reasons for deletion.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- So you think complimenting someone on their ability to dance is disparaging? - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't think it connotated dancing-related stuff. The keywords were "mean dougie."Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well it does. The dougie is a dance - Michelle Obama was widely publicised only in the last week or so for doing just that at a school opening or something. Honestly, if you do not know what the words mean then you should not assume that you do. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- The internet is full of slang. However as a courtesy I will remove G10.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is no more slang than "hip hop" or "waltz" or "jive" or "charleston". It isn't even a neologism because it has been around for a while. One minute of Googling would have shown this up.
- The internet is full of slang. However as a courtesy I will remove G10.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well it does. The dougie is a dance - Michelle Obama was widely publicised only in the last week or so for doing just that at a school opening or something. Honestly, if you do not know what the words mean then you should not assume that you do. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't think it connotated dancing-related stuff. The keywords were "mean dougie."Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- So you think complimenting someone on their ability to dance is disparaging? - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think you need to listen to your mentors and quit the patrolling for a while. I've tried to keep my mouth shut of late but it is bizarre when you make a bad call when there were (probably) perfectly good reasons which you also used. It is as if you are trying to prove your knowledge of the WP procedures and, well, it is evident that your knowledge is no better than mine and a lot worse than it perhaps should be for a dedicated patroller. I do not intend offence here but there seems little point in accepting mentorship and then brushing off the comments with what are starting to seem like platitudes. It is great that you admit your mistakes but it would be better if you realised them. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I thought we were on the same page about patrolling? Meaning you were going to take a break from it for a while and instead read up on the manual of style? 28bytes (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I read it up and tried my hand at this again. Clearly, CSD is also a reading list item. It may appear I'm patrolling besides this, but, all of those things were on my watch list.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reading is good, but don't feel like you have to put what you've learned into practice yet. If people are still stopping by your talk page with concerns about your editing, that means more reading, less editing. Don't worry, one of my most "productive" months on Wikipedia was June 2010, when I spent a lot of time learning the policies (and there are a lot of them!) but only made 12 edits. Remember, there's no deadline, so it's OK to wait until you're 100% sure an edit is right before making it. And as always, feel free to stop by my page or Kansan's if you want a second opinion. 28bytes (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just have to resist clicking "Recent changes" again and only revert things on my own watchlist. I just need a plan.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Many years ago I hacked my copy of a BASIC computer language interpreter so that the standard error message "Syntax error" became "Stupid error" - the point being to emphasise when "I should have known better". The wording had to be the same number of letters otherwise the intepreter would have broken. I think that I understand the temptation with Recent Changes here, although I have never used it myself. I wonder if there is a way to change it to read "Reveal nothing" <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, it may be a good idea to take this to the MW developers! :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Many years ago I hacked my copy of a BASIC computer language interpreter so that the standard error message "Syntax error" became "Stupid error" - the point being to emphasise when "I should have known better". The wording had to be the same number of letters otherwise the intepreter would have broken. I think that I understand the temptation with Recent Changes here, although I have never used it myself. I wonder if there is a way to change it to read "Reveal nothing" <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just have to resist clicking "Recent changes" again and only revert things on my own watchlist. I just need a plan.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reading is good, but don't feel like you have to put what you've learned into practice yet. If people are still stopping by your talk page with concerns about your editing, that means more reading, less editing. Don't worry, one of my most "productive" months on Wikipedia was June 2010, when I spent a lot of time learning the policies (and there are a lot of them!) but only made 12 edits. Remember, there's no deadline, so it's OK to wait until you're 100% sure an edit is right before making it. And as always, feel free to stop by my page or Kansan's if you want a second opinion. 28bytes (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Jeez I'm sorry that happened. It certainly wasn't intentional. I was just about to come here and tell you that when I saw your query on my talk. It's not really my style being an inclusionist and all. I am using Opera and when I "saved" my response to the bloke who asked for an apology it came back with a preview page and the text edit box was blank. Foolishly I hit the save page button and the rest you know. I'll test on a test page and see if I can reproduce the error and let you now. Can we keep the discussion here as I'll put your page in my watch list. Silent Billy (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I did a very simple test on my talk page and could not duplicate what happened. But another user has suggest that the blanking may have been caused by an edit conflict. I don't know but I will be cautious about this from now on. I hope you are reassured. 02:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent Billy (talk • contribs)
- Mistakes happen and that was a whopper. Mind how you go, but don't go away :- ) RashersTierney (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Probably a browser bug with such a huge page.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mistakes happen and that was a whopper. Mind how you go, but don't go away :- ) RashersTierney (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
(Template removed)
- Well, this caught my attention. You did a few things right here, Jasper, so let me compliment you:
- When you reverted, you wrote an explanation for it in your edit summaries;
- You told the person removing the image to seek consensus for that on the talk page first;
- You recognized that the person removing the image was not a vandal, but was making a good faith effort.
- All very good things to do when you revert someone. One thing you may consider: that article is likely very heavily watched, so you don't need to be so quick on the draw; since the other person wasn't vandalizing anything, it's OK to wait a couple of minutes to see if someone else will revert him before you do it a second or third time. That way you can avoid getting templated messages like the one above. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I know, I'm actually a registered user, just at the library and not signed in, and it just caught my interest as all the Miami-Dade library computers are still XP, and since I was looking up XP here to see how old it was and stuff, I was surprised so it just seemed most fitting to ask the question here. 169.139.19.108 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- XP was preferred by organizations who cited compatibility issues with Windows 7.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Please double-check any edits you may perform that include numbers, as this may introduce unnecessary characters into the page. Thank you. See . This may be due to Skype or editing via a proxy, I don't know. I think you know more about this kind of stuff than I do. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- My skype toolbar was thought to be disabled, and the edit filter would've caught it. It's a bug that Skype has admitted.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is indeedy, and like many people you have been bitten more than once by it. Darn nuisance, that thing. Is anyone taking bets about it getting sorted out given the recent changes at Skype? Or is it definitely a bug at the WMF end? If it is at the WMF end then there may be a chance for us all ... flameproof suit ON - says someone who nowadays only uses MS products for employment purposes - flameproof suit OFF - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- This one might just be an errant mouse click; I didn't see any Skype-age in the edit, just a couple of deleted characters. But in general, it's a browser-side problem, probably not much the server software can do other than the edit filter we already have in place for it. 28bytes (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The edit filter didn't give me any problems.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, not this time. I don't see any filter triggers for you since April 12, so it looks like you must have it disabled as you thought. 28bytes (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- But I didn't intend any extraneous characters. Probably a browser bug.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, not this time. I don't see any filter triggers for you since April 12, so it looks like you must have it disabled as you thought. 28bytes (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The edit filter didn't give me any problems.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- This one might just be an errant mouse click; I didn't see any Skype-age in the edit, just a couple of deleted characters. But in general, it's a browser-side problem, probably not much the server software can do other than the edit filter we already have in place for it. 28bytes (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Probably.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Agree. Whatever the cause, it is not as if it is happening to you frequently. Don't worry, be happy. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Sunday School Publishing Board, 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 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) 18:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not controversial. Deletion was proper.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, this is a sock situation from some time ago. Myself, SudoGhost & C.Fred saw it through and we're all involved again. My guess is that she'll be blocked before too long. - Sitush (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll stay out of it pending advice from my mentors.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I looked at that IP address's other recent contributions and it definitely looks like they were trolling. I see it has now been blocked for a month so yes, I would say you did the right thing. Kansan (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a little late here. I think it kind of depends on how serious the information is. If it's serious BLP violations, ANI is the place to go. If it's something less serious, it would probably be a case-by-case situation. Could you show me which article it is and what they are putting in? Kansan (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- This concerns Robinlovemusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).Jasper Deng (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, it looks like they've finally started sourcing some of their edits. Thanks for letting them know. Kansan (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me ask though: If a user keeps adding unsourced info disruptively and doesn't stop, what do I do?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, it looks like they've finally started sourcing some of their edits. Thanks for letting them know. Kansan (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Message added 00:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If this guy reappears after his short block expires and takes back up with his edit warring, you probably should refrain from doing a fourth revert yourself. But if you let me know (or I see for myself) that he is back to more of the same, then of course he's up for a longer block. --RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- He was blocked as a sock.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
An old revert by you has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Help desk#error on your page divorce the United States and User talk:Csol222. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I have been warned about reverting in an edit war with our suspected sockpuppet. Any advice? I know you are under mentoring but you seem to know more than me. What can I do? Fountainviewkid 23:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just wait and see.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- He just accused me of creating a sock. This is getting ridiculous. Fountainviewkid 5:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Did he file a sockpuppet investigation?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Here's the link. . It's rather ridiculous too. Please check it out if you can. 12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- BelloWello has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of WikiManOne (talk · contribs) by a checkuser. I guess it was a good thing you stayed out after all. I think now we can achieve some consensus or peace at Southern Adventist University. Fountainviewkid 23:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Here's the link. . It's rather ridiculous too. Please check it out if you can. 12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Did he file a sockpuppet investigation?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- He just accused me of creating a sock. This is getting ridiculous. Fountainviewkid 5:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I knew something was fishy...Jasper Deng (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay so he may/may not be a sock. I don't know what happened, but according to his page all that is merely happening is a "wiki-break". Thanks for your work on various articles here and for working on being fair too all of us in various disputes. Fountainviewkid 3:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The admins are discussing this. See User talk:Jclemens.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The suspected sock is back editing Southern Adventist University. The checkuser couldn't tell if it was Bello or not. The investigation was inconclusive. Any suggestions?Fountainviewkid 1:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wait and see if more evidence appears.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well you've seen for yourself. Whatever this meat/sock puppet is, it has a single mind. Every 5 hours or so it focuses on that one edit. Thanks for reporting, as hopefully this will at least deter that kind of behavior. Donald's been doing a great job adding to the article since the "war" has ended. Fountainviewkid 4:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wait and see if more evidence appears.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The suspected sock is back editing Southern Adventist University. The checkuser couldn't tell if it was Bello or not. The investigation was inconclusive. Any suggestions?Fountainviewkid 1:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The admins are discussing this. See User talk:Jclemens.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It appears that you have had some constructive advice for User:Fountainviewkid in the past. Please see User_talk:Fountainviewkid#Southern_Adventist_University. I am not familiar with the article, but he really needs to cite a reliable source or remove the material. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Edit warring has been a problem for this user in the past. I'll leave him a note.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was responding to Mojoworker. If that's a problem sorry I didn't know. Yes the discussion is over on the Talk page. I also added a section on the Southern Adventist University Talk page so that this issue can be discussed. Hopefully we return to a compromise, as I thought we had. Thanks. Hold on a second. This debate has been brewing for a while as you should know Jasper. Lionel, Simba, and myself were supportive of keeping the label. The source I cited merely shows the obituary which provides the label "progressive". The obituary as you might remember is from Adventist Today, which is a published magazine. Before we take out the whole section I think it would be better to edit the source or at least have a discussion on the Talk page. Fountainviewkid 20:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- We are working on a consensus over at the Talk page of the article. A good discussion has come up and it looks like we may reach a compromise. Assuming good faith is the best way to go as Donald could see. Hopefully the other editors (such as those on here) will come to understand this point as well. Rather than automatically reverting, it seems we have good news that the Talk page once again proved to be a more peaceful mechanism for editing and productivity. Fountainviewkid 6:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was responding to Mojoworker. If that's a problem sorry I didn't know. Yes the discussion is over on the Talk page. I also added a section on the Southern Adventist University Talk page so that this issue can be discussed. Hopefully we return to a compromise, as I thought we had. Thanks. Hold on a second. This debate has been brewing for a while as you should know Jasper. Lionel, Simba, and myself were supportive of keeping the label. The source I cited merely shows the obituary which provides the label "progressive". The obituary as you might remember is from Adventist Today, which is a published magazine. Before we take out the whole section I think it would be better to edit the source or at least have a discussion on the Talk page. Fountainviewkid 20:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, I don't know if you've been following this at Talk:Southern Adventist University and User_talk:Fountainviewkid, but I'm not convinced that the text in contention which is supported by the link to Bluehost.com is a reliable source. This may fall under WP:BURDEN and/or WP:CHALLENGE -- so Tatababy's edit may not actually be edit warring, but a justified reversion. I'm tempted to revert your reversion, but I don't want to step on any toes, so I thought I'd ask you first -- or perhaps you would self revert. I dunno, this whole mess may need to go to WP:RSN or WP:ANI. I'm kinda sorry I got involved in this shitstorm. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- We're discussing this on the Talk page. I've already agreed with the suggestion to remove the "controversial section", but I want to hear from the other editors such as Lionel & Simba who were previously opposed to such an action (as I was). Tata is supposedly a "new user" who likes causing problems through edits and won't discuss on the Talk page. Fountainviewkid 21:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would remove this - we need more sources. BLP does not apply here.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- All right the proper citation is in place thanks to Donald. Now there is no more "unsourced material" being added by Lionel, Simba or myself, though I might add that the source has always been valid, just the format for it's citation hasn't always been. Fountainviewkid 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would remove this - we need more sources. BLP does not apply here.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm bringing this to your attention because of your mostly neutral (although mostly adversarial to me..) position on the Southern Adventist University article. This pov was made because Fountainviewkid canvassed for it. Wouldn't this be gaming the system, and what can be done about it? bW 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- BW you're the one who's removing properly sourced material and making controversial edits. Fountainviewkid 00:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- JasperDeng, walk away from this. Don't get involved any further without reference to your mentors. I know one half of this deal and he's sucked me into stuff before now. It will most likely end up consuming all of your time in unwitting religious POV-pushing ... and probably with him getting another block. Plenty of other things to do here without being drawn into this. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Sitush. 28bytes (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then how do I reply if I'm asked do an action about something I don't want to be involved in?Jasper Deng (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Sitush. 28bytes (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- JasperDeng, walk away from this. Don't get involved any further without reference to your mentors. I know one half of this deal and he's sucked me into stuff before now. It will most likely end up consuming all of your time in unwitting religious POV-pushing ... and probably with him getting another block. Plenty of other things to do here without being drawn into this. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 27 May 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.
