User talk:Jasper Deng

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.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jasper Deng, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Windows 7

Jasper: Please note that comments on talk pages are added to the bottom of the page, not the top. Please read the talkheader on the page which explains this. I have moved your original comment to the bottom of the page and removed the duplicate comment that you posted. You can also note that if you think the article is out of date that you are free to find a reliable reference and update the article yourself. In general leaving complaints that an article is out of date will not result in any action - you have to update it! - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Jasper, I saw you trying to add an RfA. There are a couple of things you should know.

• Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. You would need to create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jasper Deng before adding it to the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page.
• However I strongly suggest you not do that. With 81 edits, there is no way it would be successful. I cannot remember the last time someone with less than 2000 edits passed an RfA. If you take a look at some of the links at the top of WP:RFA, and read some recent successful and unsuccessful ones, you'll get a better idea what's expected, what's involved, etc. You might also take a look at WP:NOTNOW.
• We're very glad you want to help out, and look forward to the time you've gained a lot more experience and offer to help out again.

Let me know if you have any questions. --barneca (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. To second what Barneca wrote, and please read the advice at User:Dlohcierekim/not now. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Piling on, I strongly suggest you wait. I'd be looking at a few thousand article-edits spread across a few hundred articles, along with significant participation in policy and maintenance discussions. In the alternative, I'd be looking at more than a few thousand article-edits and a few hundred article- or user-talk edits that showed both excellent editing and excellent communication skills and a good knowledge of policy. In the latter case though, I'd want a clear-cut need to use the tools - most editors who are not involved in project maintenance do not need access to the tools, and I don't support granting people access as "a reward" if they don't have a demonstrated need to use them. Adminship is not a "reward," it's just another opportunity to serve the project, one typically given to people who have already demonstrated service to the project over a long period of time across a wide variety of areas, including editing, project maintenance, policy discussions, etc. etc., without major mishap, or if they've had a major mishap, with a clear demonstration that it was a learning experience not liekly to be repeated. Other editors have suggested waiting 3 months. I usually look for 6 months minimum and I give anyone with less than a year a much closer look. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I see you did this again. You really need to stop. In my experience, twice transcluding a red-link page to WP:RFA would likely lead to an unsuccessful RFA. I know of no RFA that succeeded in which the candidate had fewer than 200 edits. Current consensus generally requires a minimum of 500 to 1000 edits per month for at least 5 months for a likelihood of sufficient experience and knowledge for a successful RFA. Just my opinion. Dlohcierekim 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Which of you are administrators? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Go to Special:ListUsers and type in the name of the user you want to check. I am not an administrator. You can also list all 1600+ administrators by leaving the name blank and choosing "administrators" from the group pull-down. In the context of RFA and almost everything else at Wikipedia, administrators are treated the same as any other editor: RFA discussions are for all editors, and the final decision is made by a bureaucrat. In almost everything you do at Wikipedia, administrators deserve no more or less respect than any other seasoned editor who can be civil in discussions, and the few administrators who can't should be given respect or not in accordance with their edit history as well, not their access level. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Barneca and I are admins. Dlohcierekim 03:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Josh the Nerd always resolves conflicts. I think he should become an admin.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-signing?

Why do you keep replacing your signature with your signature (like here?) - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Help, Josh! I need your help on the Windows 7 page. I am having an edit war with Warren.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. You need to come to a mutually acceptable agreement or seek consensus as to the content. Dlohcierekim 20:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you even know what an edit war is? Read Wikipedia:Edit War if you don't. This is not a war, nevertheless, it is a conflict between two or more users who want their way on a page. What you want is what I want too, but Warren won't budge.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added comments on Talk:Windows 7 and User talk:Adambiswanger1, and given Warren a more formal warning at User talk:Warren#Incivility. By the way, please stop referring to Warren's edits as vandalism. Assume good faith. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. His earlier edits were considered vandalism by me because they had no reason, and to me it ruined the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This should help: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Warren. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only person who has unwanted dealings with User:Warren. I'm getting the same treatment from him in another article, the Sunday morning talk show Meet the Press. As a result, the article has been locked because of this unwanted edit war between me and him.S3884h (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

TV

this isn't relevant to WP so I deleted it.

Windows 7 editions

Can you please respond to Resplenders comments at mediation please. Resplender is saying that there are reliable sources, what do you see different about what Resplender is saying? --  Punk Boi 8  talk  02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Enterprise Colour

Hi! I noted about your edit to Windows 7 Enterprise colour. Although I have nothing to do with any of the edits there, I just want to let you know that it is coloured blue, but not the exact same blue to Professional Edition. It is dark blue as per before your edit. Please refer to the download here: [1]. Thanks. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

yes, but it IS NOT BLACK like you wrote it as.

Your recent edits

X - 4 for you SineBot SineBot I did sign!Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection Requested

The Yelena Dembo biography needs to be reverted back to its original state and protected from a misinformed child, or children who continue an internet campaign of defamation, which had been otherwise silenced last week. The history of their hateful and baseless Wiki-allegations is showing up on Google searches for this woman, one of the top Women Chessplayers in the world.

The allegations center on her being banned from an amateur website called chess.com. While she may have been banned for suspected behavior, subject to interpretation, there is no means that exists to determine whether a player is "cheating". So there is no rational to include this incident in a professional player's biography. Furthermore, the initial method to screen her games was called "Top 4 matchup-analysis", in which the Top 4 choices of a player are matched to the Top 4 choices of a computer chess program. The method was misused by persons who were not trained in statistics to understand the design or interpretation of results (e.g. Yelena scored 100% from the Top 4 batch-analysis on a live tournament game at the ongoing Chess Olympiad).

• Statement 1: "I selected Yelena for batch analysis...now unreservedly apologise for any inference that WGM IM Yelena Dembo may have used an engine to suggest moves at any point in any of her chess.com games. I don't know why chess.com closed her account, but the top 4 matchup methodology as outlined by me is totally flawed." - User:Zygalski (See discussion at Yelena Dembo chessgames.com)

• Statement 2: "I am the owner of Chess.com (see my status: http://www.chess.com/members/view/e...). I have no comment about Yelena other than that her account on Chess.com is no longer active and I wish her the best in her continued chess career." User: wwwchessdev Statement made Sep 20

The flawed results from this misguided approach unfairly biased subsequent analysis with other methods, tainting Chess.com against her as "guilty before proven innocent". While chess.com may ban any player they so choose, fairly or unfairly, they have no legal basis to label persons of 'cheating'. To continue this campaign is defamation. This is why her page needs protection.

Bartonlaos (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jasper Deng -

Do you plan to follow through with this necessary action?

• "03:50, 25 September 2010 Jasper Deng (talk | contribs) (5,498 bytes) (Undid revision 386850978 by 76.235.33.226 (talk) You two need to stop edit-warring or else I'm going to tell the admins to protect this page."

If not, then will you kindly tell me who is the Administrator? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartonlaos (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Bartonlaos (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:List of administratorsJasper Deng (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: We need to talk about talk pages

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Palin Quiz

I don't mind and I appreciate your contacting me. I meant no offense toward you with my note at the Palin page. I understand propriety. I just feel that sometimes the rules need to be stretched a bit. I'm an old hippy. Buster Seven Talk 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about it somemore. I know you mean well, but I have been editing the SP article for over two years. I don't need you to tell my what is allowable. Its like telling your parents they left the lights on. Or poking a bear. It just irritates the bear. Keep your own counsel. Buster Seven Talk 07:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandals

Looks like somebody likes you. Do you want semi protection or should I just keep blockin'? m.o.p 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for offering. I'd like semi protection.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your userspace is protected. If you ever want it unprotected, let me know. Cheers, m.o.p 07:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a message

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Adamfinmo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have my apologies mate. Cheers and happy editing. [2] per WP:TPO--Adam in MO Talk 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert on Comparison of Platform Virtual Machines

You reverted my edit on the comparison page, stating I had no source. I think you misunderstand RemoteFX's operating method, which exposes a virtual graphics processor supporting DirectX 9+ (9c?) to a virtual machine, in addition to improvements in the RDP protocol. I correctly cited that the accelerated graphics feature was only for guests that run *certain* editions of Windows operating systems, which is backed up by my citation. If you believe me to be in error still, please let me know and why, as I do not want to get into a revert war and understand the negative impact it has on Wikipedia. (Posting anonymously.)

RemoteFX is not a direct part of Hyper-V. Hyper-V itself doesn't support 3D acceleration. RemoteFX concerns remote connections, and by your argument all virtual machine software supports 3D acceleration, which is obviously incorrect. RemoteFX is technology to do 3d acceleration on remote connections; the virtual graphics adapter does not itself support 3D acceleration.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are plainly incorrect, as found here: [3]. Where are you getting your sources? Do you have experience with, or have you deployed Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1? (Which, by the way, is not yet available via retail channels, but is available to volume license customers.) Where is *your* source that I am wrong? If you cannot cite sources, and you will not revert my sourced edit, I will take you to dispute resolution.

Addendum—I will be restoring my change to the article some time tomorrow evening if you cannot back your argument up, probably around 2200 UTC.

You don't seem to be getting this-Wikipedia lists 3D acceleration as per local support, and RemoteFX is just that-remote, and that doesn't count under Wikipedia's article. Once again, please sign your comments!Jasper Deng (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that supports anonymous contribution, and I prefer to be anonymous. Moving on, you do not understand RemoteFX, obviously. There are two components to RemoteFX, and even a cursory reading of the Technet Library, Microsoft's blog posts on this issue (the Remote Desktop Services Team Blog, the Virtualization Team Blog) and other sources would provide you with this information. Simply put, there are two components to RemoteFX. First, there is a software stack improvement with Remote Desktop Services allowing hardware accelerated graphics to be sent over the wire, with optional hardware accelerated compression. Second, there is a hypervisor stack improvement that allows virtual machines to be given a virtual 3d graphics adapter, to allow non-physical operating system environments to access hardware accelerated 3d graphics. These are *separate* features under the same name, collectively termed RemoteFX. The former and the latter are separate technologies implemented separately in the OS. Were you to install Windows Server 2008 R2 with SP1, you would be able to test this out yourself and find that upon enabling the Hyper-V role and the Remote Desktop Services Role and the RemoteFX role service, you would find that under the Hyper-V management console you could add a RemoteFX virtual graphics adapter, and configure how much graphics memory, roughly, should be allocated to the virtual machine. It is not my fault that you do not understand these things and will not cite a source to back up your claims, and I will be reverting your unwarranted and unsubstantiated change now. If you revert my addition to the article again I will take you through dispute resolution.

First, concerning signing, please read WP:Sign your comments. Second, please do not make threats. Third, the 3D acceleration occurs remotely, not locally. It's local graphics that Wikipedia is doing there.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your edit summary, I'd like you to know that you should not revert while discussing as per Wikipedia guidelines.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't edit my comments in the discussion to you. And please stop citing policy incorrectly. Re: your claim, the graphics acceleration is happening in the guest operating system, via a paravirtualized graphics adapter. If you dispute that, please cite an article to that effect.

How am I citing policy incorrectly? The graphics acceleration is only happening remotely, and remote connections have always been a way to get 3D acceleration in VMs; thus, local graphics are the only ones that count. Concerning policies, you don't seem to be getting WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith, WP:3RR and most importantly WP:Consensus, which you aren't achieving here.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am taking this discussion to Talk:Comparison of platform virtual machines and undoing your edit to my comment. I am additionally requesting dispute resolution assistance from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing.

Protection

I would, but it seems that the editor has a valid interest in discussing - I'm afraid I can't stifle that. If there's any blatant vandalism, feel free to call me back. Cheers, m.o.p 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I noticed you recently edited India (diff) with edit summary "WP:MOS. Civilization is spelled with a Z on Wikipedia", and you changed a link to "Indus Valley Civilization". It is true that the target article uses "z", but your edit summary and reference to WP:MOS are not correct. See WP:ENGVAR where the procedure is explained. Essentially, we do not change an established article from one style of spelling (or anything) to another. Johnuniq (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

do not modify other editor's comments

Please, do not modify my ([4] [5] [6] [7]) or other people's ([8]) comments. This is severely frowned upon and if you're going to continue I will block you. —Ruud 00:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You could've told me earlier!Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be implied :/ you shouldn't edit what other people say, because then you're putting words (or text, rather) into their mouth. If someone says something objectionable, remove it or reply to it, don't edit it. It's not nice. Pseudonym 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.86.157 (talk)

I don't see how this is an edit of a comment. I don't see how deletion is any better either.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for having to do this, but how do you feel about me striking through a bit of your text that I disagree with, and saying it contradicts WP:Civility? It's just plain rude, and I don't think you understand that :/ Psuedonym 08:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think deletion is worse. That's why I didn't use it. I don't think Ruud Koot (the original poster of this discussion) approves either.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're discussion something on Wikipedia, you're almost by definition having a disagreement with someone. Reply to other editors' comments if you disagree with them, don't delete, strike through or alter them in anyway. —Ruud 19:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why is the IP suggesting deletion? I'm not doing either again!Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Because if you find someone's remarks reprehensible and it's your talk page, I'd rather you delete those remarks than edit them. It's a scale. Altering what someone wrote is rude, which is why I'm undoing my strikethrough of your comment that I placed earlier, and deleting a discussion is also rude, but like I said, if you don't want the discussion to occur, I'd rather you just delete the whole thing. That's just me though. Psuedonym 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Npov?

[9] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

[10]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

for keeping an eye on my talk-page! I don't generally give out wiki-cookies, but if I did, you'd definitely get one--visualize eating a cookie:) DMacks (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome!Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu

Why did you "undo" my post at "Ubuntu" page at 5 march ? İ did gave the source, "http://www.ubuntu.com/testing " Best RGRDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cenk Manisalı (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of the page as per talk page guidelines. You should head all your threads with a second-level header. Your source was not entered into the reference list.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment...

You left some comment on my talk page claiming I have advertised WMWare under Talk:Windows Virtual PC and that I was using Wikipedia as a tech support forum. How can I locate the edits you are referring to so I can read what I wrote? Perhaps you could provide me with some links? -Andreas Toth (talk)

[11] where you said lots of things promoting VMWare.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

IP/ "Vandalism Only"

Technically, I guess you could argue that it doesn't apply. In practice, I use it when I have looked through all recent edits from an IP and believed them all to be vandalism.—Kww(talk) 03:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

References from forums, blogs, etc.

There is no single Wikipedia policy to say that citing from a forum, blog or such sources is entirely not allowed or entirely okay. Given WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS, citing from a blog or forum is okay as long as you have a way identifying the person from which the quotation comes as a notable person.

Identifying notable people in blogs and telling them out from non-notable is sometimes easy: Employees of a certain company are usually distinguished by status messages which a normal member of a forum cannot attain, such as "Support Team", "Employee", "Owener", etc.

In term of blogs, citing from the blogs of notable people is okay. For example, citing from the weblog of Mark Russinovich is okay (since he is a famous Windows engineer) while citing from my personal blog is not. (We both write about computing topics related to administrating Microsoft Windows, but I'm not a distinguished person.)

Fleet Command (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

I noticed the flurry on your talk page, and thought I'd drop a note of explanation. You've made a very common mistake, and I assume that is all that it was. No one is required to keep anything on their talk page with only one exception: a rejected unblock request. People can remove any level of warning, and even block notices. That seems weird, but what it comes down to is that there's no good way to write a policy that requires people to keep them that works when there has been a mistake. Admins have a responsibility to look over a talk page history to look for earlier warnings that have been deleted.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Futbol Club de Real Bigone vandalism

Jasper, these records (longest celibacy & smallest number of bollocks) on Futbol Club de Real Bigone are clearly examples of vandalism. These things are not relevant to a football team & should be removed. Indulgent Author (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, could you explain why you re-added this and this? I strongly urge you to read WP:EDITWAR, and WP:BLP. Your response on Indulgent Author's talk page makes me think you don't understand where you went wrong. Do you even know what bollocks are? Please explain why "smallest number of testicles" would not be vandalism? Thank you, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved already.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, can you point me to where? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Indulgent AuthorJasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but do you now understand WP:BLP and what sort of information should not be re-added by blindly reverting others' edits? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I clearly understand; however, it was not clear that article was under WP:BLP guidelines. I understand it perfectly and am ending this discussion now.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)