User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

BCD's RfA

Re "Shows a problem with handling edit conflicts"—I've never been able to figure out how to get comments around edit conflicts, so out of curiosity, do you know how best to handle them? Usually, I have to reload the whole page, but it's frustrating on long pages like ANI, and then the sections disappear due to archiving, etc.—you get the point. So, any tips? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hard to explain. Copy your own comments, and insert them in the appropriate places relative to the comment of the person you've had an edit conflict with. Indent properly. Your own comment is in the diff provided.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You so much

I didn't even notice someone blanked one of my user boxes. Thanks for fixing that:)--Nyswimmer (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I patrol recent changes and new users and happened to catch it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback.
Message added 13:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't worry about the above notice, just me being stupid and asking you a question I can find out myself. CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 13:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

There was no vandalism by this user. Not everyone is trying to sabotage Wikipedia, and "The Fuck Off And Dies" is, in fact, an actual project. — anndelion ❋ 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't believe everything you read on Facebook. In other words it isn't a reliable source, and that was what triggered the rollbacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a perfectly legitimate false positive report. Do not roll them back, especially if he provides a source (however weak). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounded like a bad faith edit too, given the vulgar language, which is almost always a red flag.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand you made a mistake. However, when people report false positives, please do not remove them except if the report happens to be solely something along the lines of "You are all gay faggots!!!" (i.e. pure vandalism). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The removal occured as a result of previous removals, like those by you, but the line has to be drawn.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you should slow down a bit and search before deciding an edit is vandalism -- it only takes a moment. For some people, it's a huge turnoff to get "warned" erroneously. — anndelion ❋ 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK then.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD declined

Hi Jasper Deng. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion it is propoganda and in no way belongs here because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Concern: Not a valid CSD, please take to MfD. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal is called

Hello, Jasper Deng.

First, thanks for your recent assistance and your dedicated care for mannerism. I appreciate it. (You still have room for improvements... but I too.)

Second, I have called Mediation Cabal. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. Nothing obliges you to participate if you don't wish; but I had to notify you.

Thanks.

I've completed my observations, you can see them here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:46pm • 02:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I was asked and have closed the case because the original dispute has been resolved and no longer exists as a problem. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:52am • 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

North High School

im sorry i dont know wikipedia talk. could i get that last one in laymans terms please174.126.191.197 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, we don't take any jokes in our articles. Information about living people must be sourced reliably and all information must be in general.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me if i'm wrong, but that entire article is a joke174.126.191.197 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Check again. I removed the jokes.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

not that article, this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editcountitis and you also removed a lot of true information, and missed some jokes. id love to continue this conversation but it will have to wait until another day174.126.191.197 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The message was not in reply to that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

all im saying is that's a joke article that should be obliged to abide by the same rules as all others174.126.191.197 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please indent. We have humorous pages like that; however, they do not exist in the article namespace. The project namespace has exemptions.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

well can i make a humorous page for my school in that case?174.126.191.197 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

why not174.126.191.197 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We cannot accept information that is not verifiable.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's best to be careful of language like this. We as Wikipedia volunteer editors are not qualified to judge whether anything is defamatory or not. Verifiability (which you correctly mention) and the WP:BLP policy are much better starting points. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Refactored. I do not know of a policy specifically prohibiting jokes, but, it's a TW warning option, and I agree it's not allowed.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

why do you guys answer questions on other people's pages (not intended to be rude in any manner, merely inquisitory)174.126.191.197 (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It allows quicker responses. Hard to explain.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TPS. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh i thought he was some sort of mentor or something174.126.191.197 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well now you know :).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

okay no need to get defensive174.126.191.197 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How am I being defensive?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: April 2011

Hi Jasper. Thanks for replying to the issue that I posted. I think you misread part of my post. I (we) haven't contributed anything to the Wikipedia articles I'm inquiring about. The same goes for the links to our articles -- I (we) haven't added links on Wikipedia to our site -- they were all given by hundreds of different Wikipedia editors over the years. So, there is no conflict of interest at play on our end. What I'm asking about is a Wikipedia editor's systematic removal of the links on Wikipedia to our site. More detail on that in my post though. Thanks for any help you can give.Vrsti (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Accounts cannot represent a group-they can only represent individuals. It doesn't matter if you've edited or not. You still have a conflict of interest regardless of whether you've edited or not. Asking about the removal of your site's links constitutes a conflict of interest, for instance. In addition, the articles are not yours - they are the community's, and it will have to go the way the community likes it, not the way you like it.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Jasper. I replied to you here too. I understand and respect your rules on conflicts of interest. Since you're a disinterested party, can you check out what this editor is doing to see if it's appropriate editing behavior?Vrsti (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EL - likely, the links did not go according to that.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Paid" commercial software (talkback)

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Talk:Microsoft Word.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A tip

Hi Jasper. I see you keep deleting Eagles' messages to you. You're perfectly within your rights to do that, per WP:BLANKING, but I recommend that you don't. Eagles is genuinely trying to help you better understand WP policy (he's correct about the COI issue), and it's best to have a conversation on a talk page (that's what they're there for) than through edit summaries, even if you don't like what you're hearing. 28bytes (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge them by deleting the comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A word of encouragement

Hey Jasper, since I've been commenting on that ANI thread, I thought I would take a time out to let you know that I really do think you're a good Wikipedia editor and I'm not trying to frustrate you or get you in trouble; I'm just trying to help smooth things out. Keep up your good work on Wikipedia - we need good editors. Kansan (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I like you and 28bytes' help.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit more cluefully

Jasper, get off Malleus' talk page, get off of WT:RFA, read my summary of your ANI thread, and take it to heart. When a lot of people think you're causing problems, and there is a very long current ANI thread about it, that is a really poor time to intentionally stir up trouble. If you do so again, I'll undo my closing of the ANI thread, and propose there that you be blocked; don't assume that proposal wouldn't find traction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I will get off those talk pages regarding this issue. I hereby agree to mentorship given these events.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested that I offer to help mentor, or co-mentor, you. I'd be willing to help with that. If you'd prefer somebody else, you are perfectly fine to say so and I won't be offended or upset. Kansan (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of 28bytes being my mentor.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. Sure, I'll be happy to help with mentoring. However, I recommend you also accept Kansan's offer; it's perfectly OK to have several mentors; it just means there are more people you can turn to for advice. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the more the better. I will now take down some userboxes.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Some tips

Hi Jasper. I just came across the discussion on WT:RFA and thought this would be a good opportunity to offer some tips.

1. In general, it's best not to scold other editors, especially experienced editors, like you did with Malleus. Take a look at this report. It's the list of the most prolific contributors to a particular page on Wikipedia. You can also filter by date range, for example here are the top contributors for 2011. That should give you an idea of who the "regulars" are on a particular talk page. The spirit behind WP:Don't template the regulars suggests that they probably know what they're doing; when in doubt, you may consider asking someone (like me, in both my role as a mentor and as someone who is an active participant on WT:RFA) if telling someone on that page about WP:FORUM is wise. In this case, I would have said, no, it's better not to, for the reasons above.
2. If someone reverts your comment, like Malleus did here, your first reaction should be to consider why they did so, rather than reverting back. Note that in this case, you not only publicly scolded an experienced editor, but you inserted some markup inside his comment (accidentally, I assume), which is a no-no. Again, rather than re-reverting, consider whether that's wise, and ask if you're unsure.
3. This is more of a general point, but I recommend you don't "act like an administrator." Your comment on Malleus's talk page, for example, comes off as telling someone what to do. Most people don't like to be ordered around; they prefer to be treated as an equal, and with respect. It appeared that you were showing disrespect towards Malleus, which is why he responded the way he did.

I have some more thoughts, but I don't want to overwhelm you, so I'll just leave you with this for now. My goal here is not to tell you what to do, but to offer advice, in hopes of making your interactions with your fellow Wikipedians go more smoothly. I can tell you care a lot about the project, and that's great; I'm confident we can work out all the "rough spots" that are currently causing friction.

As I said before, my door is always open, so if you have any questions about these comments, or anything else, feel free to drop by my talk page. Happy editing! 28bytes (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No Tips

Hi Jasper, I highly doubt that you know me, but I've read through some of the ANI thread, some various talk pages, and some of the threads you've been involved in. To be honest, I'm really not up to speed on any of the specific items that you are working through right now, but I did want to drop by and commend you on your efforts to become the best possible editor that you can here. I really admire your efforts, your dedication, and the work you are putting forth to understand the way things work here. The fact that you are so open minded, and willing to try so hard to take in all the advice you're receiving is truly impressive. I congratulate you on your efforts, and I thank you for all you are doing here. Best of luck in the future. — Ched :  ?  07:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Really? I see a total of one real revert (as in Nikkimaria's revert back to her last version) at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, and that does not qualify as a "mild edit war" (whatever that is). The issues seems to be taken care of, considering the last edit to the page was over a half hour ago. I'm not sure you actually know what a request for comment is, so I strongly urge you to read WP:RFC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, this was my first try at such a RPP. I thought I saw two reverts, but, since the reverting has stopped, no protection or anything like that needed. RfC may be a good idea though.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC why? As for the "war", well, even two reverts doesn't constitute a breach of anything unless the page is under special sanctions etc. I know that you have a bit of a hair trigger form what you posted on my TP a few weeks back, but this seems really over the top. Could just speak to the editors involved on their or the item's TP. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC may have been appropriate as not many editors watch that page. But, I personally try to resolve disputes without being involved, which is something I may need to change.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are few watchers listed for most of the pages from what I've seen, but maybe that just reflects my own idiosyncracies. Yes, I think perhaps you may need to adjust, but I still do not understand why you thought 2 reverts justified full PP. The personal approach has got to be better as a first step otherwise it can look like someone is spitting their dummy out etc. If the dispute continues then you take it to another level. Well, that's how I see it anyway. - Sitush (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see edit warring on policy pages like this. I generally try not to RPP only when the page is at the brink of 3RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, did you read WP:RFC like I asked? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have used it in the past, and have read it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." ? That's pretty much what I was saying using intuition. If you take most stuff to the community at large then often you'll be taking up the time of all the people in the town to resolve a domestic argument about whether to buy Pepsi or Coke, if you can see that analogy. (The answer, BTW, is Coke <g>) - Sitush (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hhm... then simply asking other editors may have been helpful, but, I was afraid of canvassing.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in that case you maybe need not only to re-read WP:RFC but also read WP:CANVASS and WP:Consensus. It is easy to throw these terms about but rather pointless if you do not understand (or misunderstand) their meaning. Maybe your mentors will pick up on this but one suggestion might be that each time you have the urge to use a policy word/phrase over the next week or so then you first read the relevant policy or guidelines before doing so? I know, I know, some of them are horrendously long but a little investment now might go a long way. Best wishes for the mentorship, BTW. - Sitush (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if you're willing to spend time w/ me, you can be a co-mentor. It is very hard to determine what the consensus is on a particular discussion. I am just afraid that I sometimes POV-push and I tend to leave my opinions in my own comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that I have the experience to act as a mentor, and I am certainly far from free of fault myself. However, I tend to ask around if I am doubtful about something (eg: dealing with an autistic user 24 hours ago), and I guess that is a part of the function of the mentors whom you already have lined up. I have a group of people I tend to call on when I'm stuck, although I'm not entirely sure that they always appreciate it! Feel free to ask anything you want but don't rely on a quick response: I had a small heart attack (MI) recently & my time here is likely to be in small doses for the next few weeks as I'm having waves of tiredness etc.

Consensus should not be that difficult to determine. In any event, there is no reason why you should be the one who evaluates the situation. You could even just say "Hey, so what is the consensus about this now we've had a discussion?" The ball doesn't always have to be in your court, and asking questions is likely to appear more collaborative than making statements when you are not sure. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, no-one really asks. I learn from what others do, and, like them, I don't ask.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That no-one asks may reflect the sort of article you are getting involved with, but just because nobody else does is not a reason why you should not. It is a benign act at worst. Take a look at Talk:Churchill_Machine_Tool_Company#Churchill_Machine_Tool_Company for a snowball consensus. If you want to see umpteen attempts to achieve consensus that has caused numerous blocks because of poor understanding of policy then wade through the voluminous archives at Planned Parenthood - what a nightmare that one is, and this is why I walked away from it (which, by the way, is an option always open to you also). You are not the guardian of veracity here, nor the person who has to take a bullet for the team: there are plenty of others who will step in if the issue is significant, and it does not usually required an AN/I notice etc for this to happen. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi Jasper. I was just reading AN/I and I noticed that User:Johnuniq told you "I suggest that you seek the advice of a mentor before making any further comments here." And then you went ahead and made a further comment there. Please don't do that. If other editors are asking you to talk to a mentor first, you should do that. So far both User:Kansan and I have offered to help with mentoring, but I don't see any messages from you on either of our talk pages. 28bytes (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Your talk pages were swamped by ANI on my watchlist. I commented to inform them that I already was doing mentorship.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think the items 28bytes refers to are @ 23:49 20th and @ 02:49 21st, both of which were > 12 hours after you had accepted mentorship per the section above. Furthermore, although your edit summary to this @ 04:41 21st does mention mentorship, the content of your edit is not obviously referring to that.

The gist of what you have been advised is don't comment at all on AN/I, RfA etc for the time being. Sit in your hands if you must ;) - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know that.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll second Sitush's advice. If a point is worth making, someone else will make it; if you're the only person with a particular opinion, there's a very good chance that your opinion is wrong. The number of occasions any given editor should need to post to ANI is vanishingly low, especially for a non-admin (admins by their nature will have a higher ANI post count, since it's one of the places they're summoned when their actions are questioned). The "Are you in the right place?" template at the top of ANI, which most people skim over without noticing, is well worth a close read; the number of legitimate reasons for posting at ANI is (intentionally) much lower than many people think. – iridescent 20:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [1] Jasper, I thought we agreed that you should research all of the facts before getting involved in discussions. You're still wikilawyering a blocked user who has had many users tell him exactly what you have just said. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to get the user encouraged. I tried to say that the user has not lost everything, but evidently, if he/she isn't convinced, I have to let someone more experienced handle it.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Something that escaped my mind. I had thought that ANI was WQA just with admin actions requested. But now I know different, and, I will try to self-ban myself from ANI until my mentors tell me I'm ready to come back or allow me to.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)