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.

RFA status

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Discussion

re

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page.

Hey, Jasper. Would you mind if I put your offer on hold for awhile? I'd like to finish the projects that I'm already working on before undergoing something like that. Not talking about a long time, just a few extra days. I'll let you know. Regards, Swarm ^X 17:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Username warnings

Please familiarize yourself with our username policies before leaving warnings on other editors pages. There's nothing in Special+Utilizator+$ that even approaches a violation.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

sock puppetry counter claim

I have reviewed prohibited uses of multiple accounts you and the purposes for using this do not appear to be listed. Your accusations my my use of sock puppetry are unwarranted in my opinion. Due to the controversial nature of my nomination I prefer not to have it tagged to my regular account. --Fedebea (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA offer

Hey, Jasper. Thanks again for offering to nominate me for adminship. I appreciate that you think me up to the task. However, I've given it some additional thought and I've had a change of heart. I would like to serve the community as an admin. At this point, though, I really just don't want to go through an RfA because, quite frankly, I'm disgusted with the recent RfA climate of open incivility and personal attacks, and I really don't want to subject myself to a process where Wikipedia's principles are commonly ignored. Hope you understand. Maybe I'll ask you to nominate me sometime in the future, but for now, I'm happy with what I'm doing. Best regards, Swarm ^X 06:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Carlos Slim

Thanks for your recent intervention on the above article - you beat me & (probably C.Fred) to it! I've been trying to knock the article into shape recently but have become distracted and at present am mostly monitoring. C.Fred is monitoring probably because I referred a couple of issues to him. Unfortunately, we need this constant attention because the article is frequently vandalised/disrupted/corrupted, so if you fancy adding it to your watchlist then I'd be most grateful.

The article still needs a lot of work, mostly in the areas of developing the content but also in providing more independent citations (difficult, because a lot are based on press releases). I intend to return to this soon, once I've taken Paravar as far as I am able. Again, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's already on my watchlist, as all articles I edit are so by default. Protection may be necessary in the future for that article.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Futbol Club de Real Bigone

Thanks for removing the obvious vandalism to my comment on this page: I have just done the same. On the other hand, I posted my comment twice: once on the AFD page and once on the article talk page. I posted to the article talk page because I had tagged the article as a hoax and I believe it is good practice to always follow up such a tag with a comment on the article talk page. Per WP:TPG you should not have deleted my comment, although your request to follow up the discussion at AFD seems sensible, of course. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

On the same lines, it is conventional not to modify AFD pages after closure as you did here. Of course I agree that the comment in question was not helpful. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

Fine, whatever. What previous warnings are you referring to, by the way?—Chowbok ☠ 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Strikerforce's talk page.
Message added 07:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many thanks

Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

tyvm

Thanks again for the barnstar! Regards, Swarm ^X 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome!!Jasper Deng (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcoming vs. warning

Greetings. With all the hubbub about new users and the welcoming they receive when starting to edit (or lack thereof), it would be a good idea to welcome them rather than slapping them with a COI template as you did here. Having an ancestor is not a clear COI, and I'm frankly appalled that she received a warning rather than being welcomed as a possible new editor. Also note that your editnotice is really off-putting...

• "Discussions with me can become heated."
  • Why? Perhaps you should work on staying calm in discussions?
• "Accusing me of something that is not a clear violation of policy"
  • Not everything is codified to a tee...
• "Quitting discussions without any compromise "
  • Huh? What does this even mean?
• "I will vigorously ask for you to explain your interpretation of your source if I'm not convinced. "
  • Great. What purpose does this serve? Nearly all editors will do the same in a similar situation.
• "I will often accuse you of incivility if you do not follow these guidelines, so you will have to know to ignore it."
  • So an editor posting here has to watch for your bad attitude? No, you need to learn to stay calm and be civil yourself.
• "Do not call any of my edit habits "irritating". Instead, be polite when you ask me to refrain from the habit(s)."
  • Well, some habits can be irritating, but most editors are polite about it. And by the way, this post (hopefully) fulfills the second sentence. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanations:

1. Arguments with me can be very stressful and people have quit discussions without compromising (not making consensus), explaining the first and third statements you put here.
2. Users frequently give me faulty edit warring notices and other warnings for no reason at times, expalining the second statement.
3. Some editors don't get it, explaining the 4th statement.
4. In the past, editors have given me lots of stress. I remain civil, posting a statement like "Please be WP:CIVIL", and often, it proves to be faulty, explaining the 5th statement.
5. The 6th statement is in relation to what happened here.

Yes I do agree however that I am biting editors with false knowledge of COI.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to reply though, that's the nature of WP. Re edit warring, just quote WP:DTTR at them. Re sources, I don't see why you have to explicitly say this though, it's just off-putting.. obviously you will continue questioning someone if you aren't satisfied. Re incivility, this is another thing that doesn't need to be stated – just stop replying or walk away from the computer if need be, but you can't expect other people to not get heated if you can't handle yourself. Re 6th statement, there's no need for preemptive action when it happened once. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know of those policies. Going to refactor when I have time.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! If I can say I was personally off-put by these, I'm sure many others have been too. Being welcoming and friendly right off the bat tends to illicit more positive responses than negative. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Refactored. How does it look now?Jasper Deng (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it much more. I made a few more changes, feel free to revert them. I removed the bit about editing the editnotice because I semi-protected it. :-) You could also add an image to break up what is just a list of text, but that's just me thinking out loud. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Followed your notes.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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)