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 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Discussion

Windows Vista

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

neutral point of view?

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion contested: Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Impersonation

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

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

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

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

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

Hey

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

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

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

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

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

You've got mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Thanks for the help!

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

Pumi

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

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: SDK carbine

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

Talkback

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

Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DailyEditor

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

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

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

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

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

SPS

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

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

Which article was that on?

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

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

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

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

Non-admin actions at WP:AN3

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

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

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

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

My RFA

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

Courtesy notification

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

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

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

Absolutely, an exception. WP:DONTBITE.

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

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

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

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

Using Rollback on Roshanamila's edits

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

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

1RR

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

Thanks

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

WP:WQA, WP:SPI, and Lar

I saw your posting to WP:WQA (and then subsequently to WP:SPI) regarding Lar. I've removed the WP:WQA posting for now. First off, I'd like to let you know that calling you are being foolish isn't really so much a personal attack. If you take a look at Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, you should see an explanation of what would qualify as an attack. Secondly, regarding the SPI, Lar is vastly unlikely to be using any sockpuppets (particularly for something as trivial as that user's edits), he has been a Wikipedia editor for 6 years, is identified to the Wikimedia foundation, and is extremely trusted. You should take that into consideration before deciding he is a sock puppeteer. Mistakenly editing while logged out is not against any rules. Prodego ^talk 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, take a closer look at the SPI. I consider it a personal attack, and harassment, because his tone was trolling like. And no, he did indicate he was intentionally logged out to disrupt.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you consider it, calling you foolish isn't at the level where any rule is being violated. Such comments are within the realm of what is allowed on Wikipedia. As for the second part, could you indicate where Lar said that he intentionally logged out with the intention of causing disruption. I did not see that anywhere. Prodego ^talk 03:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See [3]. I consider that comment to be rather defamatory and trollish. In the end though, we have different interpretations, and after all, none of Wikipedia's rules are set in stone except NPOV, which isn't relaven

To be fair, I did say I intentionally logged out. But since the original material was libelous and needed to be removed, it wasn't to cause disruption, per se. Jasper Deng: you need to reconsider what you're doing. And take a lesson that in future you should not jump to conclusions so hastily. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop gaming the system. It is clear that comment you put there was purely disruptive (the one you put as an IP), as you intended to provoke me.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jasper: One important thing I think you should keep in mind is that we want to avoid incorrect information on Wikipedia at all costs. No content at all is better than false or misleading content, particularly in articles about living people. If someone is removing information from an article, regardless of if they are registered or not, you should always look at what the reason they are giving for the removal is. If they are saying the information is wrong, you need to investigate instead of just undoing their removal. Ask them for more information. You do not want to accidentally restore libelous information to Wikipedia.

@Lar, I see why you logged out, namely to try to show Jasper Deng why it is important to think before reverting. But really you probably shouldn't have after you already involved yourself with your own account. Prodego ^talk 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is @whom? In any case, that is not especially relevent given that the comment I linked to is the issue here, especially with Lar's intention to provoke me. Also, at Wikipedia Review, lots of personal against Wikipedians including me are occuring ([4]; Lar also supplied this link on my talk page with that comment).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarified. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@JD: Judging intent is always dangerous at best. You continue to mischaracterize my intent, which was to get you to think and act more carefully. Perhaps that's not actually possible and I should stop trying. But I'd prefer to think that you can draw some valuable lessons here and change your future behavior (a review of WP:AGF might be instructive)

So you redact your intent to provoke me?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it isn't so much he intended to provoke you as it is he intended to demonstrate to you why it is important to assume good faith - sometimes edits that look like vandalism are not, and you have to have an open mind to any explanations being given to you. I'm sure you didn't indent to add false information to the article. But rather than being upset about that happening you would do better to use this as a guide on how to avoid such a thing happening again. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I take everything literally, and, I did not even think of that possibility.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@P: The logged out edits were the first involvement I had. I then took ownership of them, which resulted in JD deciding I was RHMED. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry missed that. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)