User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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 10 |
Also
Probably best to leave User:DeadSend4's talk page alone. Since he's asked you not to post there any more, you should respect his wishes. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, he said one of my comemnts was "being too nice" to him, though, I feel he really thinks he's misunderstood. I will let one of you handle it.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Jasper. 28bytes (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales/MartinPoulter articles
Hi, it might be best if you walk away from the disputes on the talk pages for the above articles. Find something less controversial to work with. I'm not passing judgement on your comments to them but it you are getting involved with stuff that you really need not. Sorry, Jasper, but right now you seem to be like a moth to a flame where controversy exists. How about doing some more routine maintenance tasks? I learned quite a lot just sorting out issues for the category of pages with missing reflists etc, and it tends to be less controversial. Throwing yourself into every major dispute is asking for trouble. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've asked my mentors already, and, it will be dealt with without my help.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Although it may have been better to ask before you commented on the pages. I credit you with the ability to understand when something is controversial, but we're back at the "hair trigger" point I mentioned in an earlier section above. WP is timeless - if you do not get a response from your mentors immediately then, hey, it is unlikely to be a big deal as others will be involved. Indeed, someone has responded already in the section below this one. I'm not tracking their pages and (although I accept that it may seem otherwise) not following your every edit. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- The references maintenance category is here. Honest, do some tidying there and over a few days you will see all sorts thrown at you: CSD, AfD, copyediting, POV, weasel, uncited, new articles ... the lot. It is a relatively uncontroversial/low traffic area that nonetheless generates a lot of useful input from those of us who handle it and can improve rapidly one's understanding of what is going on. There is more to WP life that getting involved in every major dispute which appears, but at the same time you will come across instances where you'll find the necessity to check up on policy/guidelines etc and from that should build a wider knowledge of the entire project. I quite enjoy it, although I accept that sometimes it may seem to be repetitive. Someone has to do this stuff and, from what I can gather, much of the work of an admin (which I think is a position you aspire to) involves equally repetitive actions. Adminship is by no means a gilded role. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I already mark a lot of articles for CSD and unsourced info. I sometimes do AfD and tag weasel words. However, I don't understand copy-editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I apologise. Like I said, I'm not watching your every edit. As for copyediting, well, I can understand anyone's confusion with that if only because there are in many respects as many viewpoints as there are editors. I've seen six doctors since my MI and have had five different opinions - that's copyediting! The manual of style is a good start and, although it does change, you are at least citing the right thing at the right time. Am off to bed - go easy, now. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I already mark a lot of articles for CSD and unsourced info. I sometimes do AfD and tag weasel words. However, I don't understand copy-editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- The references maintenance category is here. Honest, do some tidying there and over a few days you will see all sorts thrown at you: CSD, AfD, copyediting, POV, weasel, uncited, new articles ... the lot. It is a relatively uncontroversial/low traffic area that nonetheless generates a lot of useful input from those of us who handle it and can improve rapidly one's understanding of what is going on. There is more to WP life that getting involved in every major dispute which appears, but at the same time you will come across instances where you'll find the necessity to check up on policy/guidelines etc and from that should build a wider knowledge of the entire project. I quite enjoy it, although I accept that sometimes it may seem to be repetitive. Someone has to do this stuff and, from what I can gather, much of the work of an admin (which I think is a position you aspire to) involves equally repetitive actions. Adminship is by no means a gilded role. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good stuff. Although it may have been better to ask before you commented on the pages. I credit you with the ability to understand when something is controversial, but we're back at the "hair trigger" point I mentioned in an earlier section above. WP is timeless - if you do not get a response from your mentors immediately then, hey, it is unlikely to be a big deal as others will be involved. Indeed, someone has responded already in the section below this one. I'm not tracking their pages and (although I accept that it may seem otherwise) not following your every edit. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
"ask" != "sanction"
Regarding the discussion here, where you say "He does not represent the WMF in any way, and, we cannot sanction his off-wiki activities", note I did not see a request to sanction him. The request was "Please ask him to remove these absurd allegations". It is entirely possible to ask someone to behave better, without having the ability to sanction them if they refuse. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to change it. I meant "We cannot take any action". Besides it is now obsolete given the following comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is quite possible to take the action of asking him. It may not be likely in terms of social politics, but it could certainly be done if considered worthwhile. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- (see my note below - I resigned my involvement in this).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Noted now. Sorry, the discussion is outrunning me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- (see my note below - I resigned my involvement in this).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is quite possible to take the action of asking him. It may not be likely in terms of social politics, but it could certainly be done if considered worthwhile. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo's talk page
Jasper, although I know you responded in good faith, perhaps you could contact one of your mentors prior to speaking out regarding possible WMF issues on Jimbo's talk page?. It is a very high visibility page and it would be best to check in with your mentors prior to responding to, or commenting on, issues raised there. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked already.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Struck out my comments. Striking out leaves context, but, I officially resign my involvement in that.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Jimbo's page is very high visibility so there are lots of people with an eye on it. If you're not sure, there's always somebody else who will deal with it shortly anyway. Kansan (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Struck out my comments. Striking out leaves context, but, I officially resign my involvement in that.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Sehr gut
I know it means "very good". That was the point. I thought it was a fair comment. That's why I put it back. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Originally did not understand.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it's you that needs to learn German. Well, my entire German vocabulary would probably fit on an index card, so don't feel bad. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. Unfortunately it is more difficult than the French I'm learning now, given its 3 genders (versus French's 2).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it's you that needs to learn German. Well, my entire German vocabulary would probably fit on an index card, so don't feel bad. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Article promotion
Have you ever gotten involved with the Good Article/Featured Article promotion process? You have a good eye for detail, I think you would be good at it. Kansan (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have looked at it, but, I frankly don't have the willpower to devote all my wikitime to a single article. I am watching well over a hundred articles, and over 2000 pages total.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Trolling
Message from troll
Dear Jasper Deng, I like you. You are a stand-up individual. You know what I like best about you? Your name. Jasper. Jasssssssssper. Deng. Anyway, Jasper. You are fantastic. The other guy, Materialscientist or whatever, kind of came off like a jerk. He threatened me. I do not think my message to him was a threat at all. I simply posted nonsense and then asked him to get off my lawn. Do you know what is ironic about that? I don't have a lawn. I was ribbing him. Not literally. It's a metaphor for joking with someone. Jasper, you know I'm a good guy. We go way back. I heart you. I <3 you. Do you like me? My name is Joe. I am strong. I have lifted two cars at once. Granted, they were small cars. Okay, Matchbox cars but they were still made of metal. Did you know metal does not a melting point?
Sincerely, Joe. Don't forget I love you. That is a command. Notice I am directing you to not forget that I love you. I even ended my sentence with a period. Guess what? I lied. I don't love you.
Can we be friends?
Don't edit this, please. I have made magic with you.
Sincerely, Joe. Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemoc (talk • contribs) 04:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense is not allowed here. I like your sense of humor though :).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Jasper. I will not trouble anyone any more (for now) (probably). I can tell you are man with a plan and good looks to match. Please delete this if you wish. I have documented it on my blog, keyserjose.tumblr.com. Seriously, thanks for having a sense of humor. I am sorry for any grief I have caused you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemoc (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
- Jasper, there is no use in responding to trolls. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Was AGF'ing. Perhaps it's time I learn when and how to know when to ABF.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Don't forget I love you. That is a command." C'mon! (But seriously, I've never seen trolling quite like this, as it isn't a very typical way to troll here. Read the page above to identify a typical troll here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now how should I actually deal with him? AIV?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good question, and I can't say there is a real policy for this. I would recommend, after seeing nothing but unconstructive editing from an account, that you report it to AIV as a vandalism-only account. If there are a few good-faith edits (the user above's edits were definitely not in good faith), you should wait and see with the account. If the vandalism gets out of control, or they've been given a final warning and persistly vandalize, then report to AIV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. By the way, this troll is asking for an unblock. Declining it would be relaxing.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Blocking admins can't review unblock requests.
:)Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Blocking admins can't review unblock requests.
- Thanks for the advice. By the way, this troll is asking for an unblock. Declining it would be relaxing.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good question, and I can't say there is a real policy for this. I would recommend, after seeing nothing but unconstructive editing from an account, that you report it to AIV as a vandalism-only account. If there are a few good-faith edits (the user above's edits were definitely not in good faith), you should wait and see with the account. If the vandalism gets out of control, or they've been given a final warning and persistly vandalize, then report to AIV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now how should I actually deal with him? AIV?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Don't forget I love you. That is a command." C'mon! (But seriously, I've never seen trolling quite like this, as it isn't a very typical way to troll here. Read the page above to identify a typical troll here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Was AGF'ing. Perhaps it's time I learn when and how to know when to ABF.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? I think I've seen that happen.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's against policy for a blocking admin to decline an unblock (blocking admins may accept unblock requests, which may be why you are confused). See WP:BLOCK#Block reviews: The blocking administrator should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked; someone else has to decline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is it the same reason as the one not allowing involved admins to use admin tools in a dispute?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in both cases the admins would be considered involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose it is punishable by desysopping. By the way, User:Ohnoitsjamie was recently blocked, and they say blocks of admins like him are controversial. Can you explain that?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is controversial anytime an admin is blocked. Admins are trusted by the community to know most policies and not abuse tools. Ohnoitsjamie could be desysopped, but that would have to gain some sort of consensus via recall or ArbCom intervention. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose then it only occurs after repeated incidents then.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think you will find that most blocks only occur after repeated incidents, whether involving admins or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose then it only occurs after repeated incidents then.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is controversial anytime an admin is blocked. Admins are trusted by the community to know most policies and not abuse tools. Ohnoitsjamie could be desysopped, but that would have to gain some sort of consensus via recall or ArbCom intervention. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose it is punishable by desysopping. By the way, User:Ohnoitsjamie was recently blocked, and they say blocks of admins like him are controversial. Can you explain that?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in both cases the admins would be considered involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is it the same reason as the one not allowing involved admins to use admin tools in a dispute?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Sifler
I blocked him for two reasons. He made a criminal accusation and created a username which is now hidden from everyone (suppressed). It is a clear harassment account. Why the heck would I email a user I have blocked? I rarely even use Special:Emailuser. --Bsadowski1 01:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Was AGF'ing, but, feel free to just revdelete the whole thing.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- You assumed good faith for a blocked user? Please slow down and think before you make decisions like that. 28bytes has already suggested that you don't comment on blocked users' talk pages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'll repeat it now: Jasper, please don't comment on blocked users' talk pages, even if you have interacted with them before. 28bytes (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Being involved to me justifies that, but, I will try to refrain from that in the future.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'll repeat it now: Jasper, please don't comment on blocked users' talk pages, even if you have interacted with them before. 28bytes (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually involved in this user's actions, having warned him for personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- But the user remarked "Wikipedia is politically correct and full of no-life stalker admins." I think that statement alone should have let you know that the comment was not made in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is, many users I've interacted w/ have said comments like this. Take for instance the user who was blocked for editing and civility recently (See your talk page).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you should have interacted with either user. You didn't really help the situation with DeadSend4 (in fact, you made him more frustrated in the process), and this one is no better. You are not required to comment on talk pages of blocked users, and I strongly suggest you refrain from doing so, even if you are involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then how can I get someone else to deal with it?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- My point was that users often make these sorts of comments while blocked but then return to constructive editing afterwards.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- DeadSend4 was a unique situation, and I've never seen one like it before. I recommend you don't rely on that experience for future situations, as most, if not all, will not be like that. Had DeadSend4 not made positive contributions over the years with the one article being an isolated incident, he would have been indefinitely blocked for his comments. You should have notified Bsadowski about the comment (who was watching the page anyway), or if you seriously believed Sifler's story, notify an uninvolved admin/user who you trust. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- My point was that users often make these sorts of comments while blocked but then return to constructive editing afterwards.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then how can I get someone else to deal with it?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you should have interacted with either user. You didn't really help the situation with DeadSend4 (in fact, you made him more frustrated in the process), and this one is no better. You are not required to comment on talk pages of blocked users, and I strongly suggest you refrain from doing so, even if you are involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is, many users I've interacted w/ have said comments like this. Take for instance the user who was blocked for editing and civility recently (See your talk page).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- But the user remarked "Wikipedia is politically correct and full of no-life stalker admins." I think that statement alone should have let you know that the comment was not made in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- You assumed good faith for a blocked user? Please slow down and think before you make decisions like that. 28bytes has already suggested that you don't comment on blocked users' talk pages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not know the admin should be notified, and, I thought that his story just might have merit to it, but ultimately I didn't believe it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you...
... for clearing the vandalism from my Talk page. 
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. That user needs a ton of revdeletes, just to let you know.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Research before deletion and warning, please
Might I suggest you do a bit of research before you give out warnings for vandalism. I recently added Dan Marsala's side project to the Story of the Year page, which you promptly deleted and warned me for despite the fact that I even provided a source proving it wasn't made up (which I figured was necessary given the fact that it was a controversial name). I only ask that you don't jump to conclusions next time. Boneh3ad (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- The source was not reliable. I had to remove it per WP:BLP - next time, cite a better source.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't even see a source in the edit history. Weird. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake, I cited the source when I appealed the system flagging my post as the work of a troll. I don't see how the band's webpage is not sufficient to prove that I didn't just make them up. My point was to prove that they were a real band since it was pretty clear that the name of the band is... controversial and troll-like. However, that is relevant because of the fact that in the warning originally given to me, it cited my appeal as well, so all information was available at the time. - Boneh3ad (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well the info was in there from your revert earlier, so you seem to have by-passed the filter now. I see no reason why an official website for the band cannot be used as a source, although it would be nice to have an alternative.
- I'm not sure why JD thought that you needed a better source, assuming that he did see what you saw. Maybe he was just mistaken and actually saw nothing at all. Anyway, feel free to add it.
- Sorry for hijacking this thread, JD. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- No it's OK, I actually appreciate TPS's lightening my workload. I saw the link, and I think it was a FB or Twitter link, which is not reliable.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for hijacking this thread, JD. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- But in an instance where a band's official page IS a facebook page, I don't see how there is an alternative. Sorry for keeping this going, but I am fairly new to this so this is all being stored away for future reference. -Boneh3ad (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Facebook links aren't allowed, as anyone can make a Facebook page for anything.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jasper. Just a note, Facebook is usually not allowed, but there are exceptions: for example if a Facebook page is the article subject's official homepage and they have no other site to link to. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Facebook, MySpace for details. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. Which is why I bolded "official" above. I've got to be honest & say that I don't fully understand why notable bands haven't got the wherewithal to have a "proper" official site, even though they may also have a presence on Facebook, MySpace or whatever, but that isn't the issue here. Go ahead and do it Boneh3ad, if you are sure that there is no alternate official site. I'd still prefer to see an alternative reliable source also but there is nothing in WP policy/guidelines that insists on it. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Jasper. Just a note, Facebook is usually not allowed, but there are exceptions: for example if a Facebook page is the article subject's official homepage and they have no other site to link to. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Facebook, MySpace for details. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Facebook links aren't allowed, as anyone can make a Facebook page for anything.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- But in an instance where a band's official page IS a facebook page, I don't see how there is an alternative. Sorry for keeping this going, but I am fairly new to this so this is all being stored away for future reference. -Boneh3ad (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick Question
You said my article needs a neutral point of view. How exacly do you do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike28968 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have to not include market terms like "patented" and "exclusive," exclude marketing stats like those of the TOP500, exclude the (R) sign, and add neutral and 3rd-party sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a pretty good summary. It reminds me of the following. Almost every cheap restaurant around here advertises themselves as "exclusive". For example, one place where I enjoy eating, titles itself "exclusive Indian restaurant". I am always hugely tempted to ask them, "if this place is exclusive, who do you exclude?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks :).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a pretty good summary. It reminds me of the following. Almost every cheap restaurant around here advertises themselves as "exclusive". For example, one place where I enjoy eating, titles itself "exclusive Indian restaurant". I am always hugely tempted to ask them, "if this place is exclusive, who do you exclude?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey!
Come on man, I was just saying I am a Tennessee fan! People on Wikipedia need to lighten up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.3.57 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not in others' comments you're not.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Indigenous peoples
- Done. This seems to be User:JarlaxleArtemis, the Fred Phelps of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:DUCK seems to connect Jasper Dang with User:Ajdkj - from the transitive property, we can conclude Ajdkj is a sock of that user too.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
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.— —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: 71 IP
Thanks for the heads up. – Zntrip 04:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Good job
You handled the situation with the disruptive IP editor very well. Kansan (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Was looking for competancy in this IP.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Article on Nous Infosystems
Hi Jasper, thanks for your suggestions regarding the article. As a consultant in the Outsourced Product Development domain in India, during my research I came across many companies with articles on Wikipedia. Nous has been active in the above domain for over 14 years and is considered a key player in this domain but no details were present about it on Wikipedia. Hence the article on the firm. I will be adding further articles on other players in this domain as well and will ensure a neutral point of view by including verifiable facts only into these articles. I hope this is fine. I would definitely appreciate your comments in further improving my contributions. Thanks. Jayanth2011 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Jayanth2011
- I'm sorry, but, if you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit articles on your company at all. You will have to show that your company is notable, and, insert criticism, which I believe is hard to do. If you have no interest other than publicizing this company, I suggest you move on from Wikipedia or edit something else.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jasper, our conflict of interest policy says nothing of the kind; we have no prohibition on people editing articles on their employers or their competitors, providing they do so neutrally, and we have no obligation that any article "insert criticism". This is not the first time you've been warned about this; please familiarize yourself with what policies actually say before you cite them. – iridescent 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Criticism, in this case, was the NPOV and tone issue in that article - the tone was ultimately not neutral, and I did not believe this user was going to be able to write neutrally given what was in the article already, but, I should've done better. In this case, I should've reworded the comment - even if the tone is neutral, criticism and controversy is part of any fully article.
- No, criticism and controversy is not "part of any article". A criticism section is appropriate where the criticism is notable. If you want a criticism section added, it's up to you to demonstrate that one is warranted. – iridescent 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen controversy and criticism on most corporation articles, like those of Intel Corporation and Microsoft, but, thanks, I was wrong on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, criticism and controversy is not "part of any article". A criticism section is appropriate where the criticism is notable. If you want a criticism section added, it's up to you to demonstrate that one is warranted. – iridescent 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Criticism, in this case, was the NPOV and tone issue in that article - the tone was ultimately not neutral, and I did not believe this user was going to be able to write neutrally given what was in the article already, but, I should've done better. In this case, I should've reworded the comment - even if the tone is neutral, criticism and controversy is part of any fully article.
- Jasper, our conflict of interest policy says nothing of the kind; we have no prohibition on people editing articles on their employers or their competitors, providing they do so neutrally, and we have no obligation that any article "insert criticism". This is not the first time you've been warned about this; please familiarize yourself with what policies actually say before you cite them. – iridescent 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm not sure that it is necessary to "insert criticism", I'm not even sure that the contributor is COI (is Outsourced Product Development a department within the company or what?) However, the article as presently written is pretty much gobbledegook to me: I've seen articles on pharmacology, bontany etc that have made more sense ... and that is quite amazing! But there are several citations in there and they are not all from the company itself, so unless they are mostly press releases and other ephemeral stuff, I guess that notability has been proven. Just my thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Jasper, Iridescent and Sitush for your comments on the article. Firstly, I am not associated with the company in discussion and can share more details about myself, if necessary. Outsourced Product Development refers to the practice of outsourcing development of IT solutions to firms while retaining the IP over the products developed, and is not a department within the firm. With regard to the references, I have tried to collect external and neutral sources and believe that press releases by the company itself have not been used. I have limited the information in the article to verifiable facts but will try and include more sources and appropriate material to the article. Jayanth2011 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Jayanth2011
- OK, I redact the COI accusation.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Jasper, Iridescent and Sitush for your comments on the article. Firstly, I am not associated with the company in discussion and can share more details about myself, if necessary. Outsourced Product Development refers to the practice of outsourcing development of IT solutions to firms while retaining the IP over the products developed, and is not a department within the firm. With regard to the references, I have tried to collect external and neutral sources and believe that press releases by the company itself have not been used. I have limited the information in the article to verifiable facts but will try and include more sources and appropriate material to the article. Jayanth2011 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Jayanth2011
- (edit conflict)I'm not sure that it is necessary to "insert criticism", I'm not even sure that the contributor is COI (is Outsourced Product Development a department within the company or what?) However, the article as presently written is pretty much gobbledegook to me: I've seen articles on pharmacology, bontany etc that have made more sense ... and that is quite amazing! But there are several citations in there and they are not all from the company itself, so unless they are mostly press releases and other ephemeral stuff, I guess that notability has been proven. Just my thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. You may want to get a second opinion from Kansan, me, or another trusted editor before you tell an editor you think they have a conflict of interest. We don't want to scare away new editors, and a "false positive" accusation can often have that effect. 28bytes (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jasper, did you forget about this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I've been thinking about this. I wonder if JD got confused with the unacceptable username policy, eg: if a user turns up with the name NousInfosystemsPR then that name would be unacceptable and a potential COI issue. The name would have to be changed & further edits to the article using it would be viewed in a pretty poor light. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. The user sounded like a COI, and I wasn't confused about the username policy. I personally thought the user should not edit articles related to his/her organization (which turned out to be false given that that wasn't the case), and did not believe the editor's message about neutral writing since the tone of the article to me was clearly not really a neutral one.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I've been thinking about this. I wonder if JD got confused with the unacceptable username policy, eg: if a user turns up with the name NousInfosystemsPR then that name would be unacceptable and a potential COI issue. The name would have to be changed & further edits to the article using it would be viewed in a pretty poor light. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
And more…
Jasper, can you also explain how this could possibly be described as "spam", and why you warned the editor for "adding inappropriate links" when every link was already in the article elsewhere? (Yes, their addition was incorrectly formatted, but new editors can't be expected to know Mediawiki markup.) I know it looks like we're ganging up on you, but you really need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies if you're going to try to enforce them; Wikipedia thrives on new editors, and the kind of thing you're doing has the potential to drive them away. – iridescent 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I purely think it is spam. The reason was because it undid my previous revert, which I marked as spam too, and, that revert was of a user called Local800admin, which added links to a site with Local800 inside its name.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Someone reverted an erroneous tagging of mine, so I restored it" is not a valid excuse. Please actually read WP:COI and WP:EL, rather than assume you know what they mean and that everyone else is wrong. You're clearly here in good faith, but your repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude regarding unilaterally deciding to enforce what you think Wikipedia's policies ought to be, rather than what they are, is well over the line into disruption, given the number of times you've been warned about this. – iridescent 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me summarize both: COI means that editors should not edit subjects related to their organizations unless they exercise the most extreme caution in order to adhere to NPOV, while external links should be links to additional info for the topic (that is neutral and sourced), and in the correct places (the most common mistake I supposedly saw). Probably the last point is what I'm being confused about. I did not think my tagging was erroneous in the first place, but, now it is.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- (bangs head against wall) No; will you please read the policy pages instead of making up what you think they ought to be saying? External links should be links which are useful for further information on the topic but inappropriate (generally on grounds of length or copyright considerations) for inclusion in the article itself. There is absolutely no neutrality requirement; indeed, the most common external links are to the subject of the article's own website, which pretty much by definition is always non-neutral. – iridescent 23:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The WP:ELYES section says the information should be neutral, but, I realize this is only ideal and can be rarely if ever achieved - butthere are exceptions like the official page of an article's subject and others.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)- Misread.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- (bangs head against wall) No; will you please read the policy pages instead of making up what you think they ought to be saying? External links should be links which are useful for further information on the topic but inappropriate (generally on grounds of length or copyright considerations) for inclusion in the article itself. There is absolutely no neutrality requirement; indeed, the most common external links are to the subject of the article's own website, which pretty much by definition is always non-neutral. – iridescent 23:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me summarize both: COI means that editors should not edit subjects related to their organizations unless they exercise the most extreme caution in order to adhere to NPOV, while external links should be links to additional info for the topic (that is neutral and sourced), and in the correct places (the most common mistake I supposedly saw). Probably the last point is what I'm being confused about. I did not think my tagging was erroneous in the first place, but, now it is.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Someone reverted an erroneous tagging of mine, so I restored it" is not a valid excuse. Please actually read WP:COI and WP:EL, rather than assume you know what they mean and that everyone else is wrong. You're clearly here in good faith, but your repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude regarding unilaterally deciding to enforce what you think Wikipedia's policies ought to be, rather than what they are, is well over the line into disruption, given the number of times you've been warned about this. – iridescent 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerning these policies, I think I need a mentor to draw me a line.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jasper, I think we're going to need you to take a break from patrolling for a while. Many of these policies are a bit tricky to understand, and though you're trying hard and are obviously working in good faith, I don't think you've got the level of understanding to where it needs to be for you to continue patrolling at this time. Let's discuss what other areas you might focus on instead. What areas interest you? Don't hurry with an answer, feel free to give it some thought before answering. 28bytes (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that I should actually try to learn the MOS more - I am very good at determining an article's tone, but am not so sensitive about other details. That'll help me understand all of these policies more easily.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that would be great. Dive in, there's a lot to read. I'll be happy to answer have any questions you have. 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now, I'm having questions on exactly how a good lead looks like.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look through the featured articles and see what their leads look like, that should give you some good examples. 28bytes (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Beginning to get it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late, but I do agree with what 28bytes said about looking through featured articles. They are the best place to look for how a lead (or anything else about an article). Of course, they're not all the same, but every article is different. Kansan (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Beginning to get it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look through the featured articles and see what their leads look like, that should give you some good examples. 28bytes (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now, I'm having questions on exactly how a good lead looks like.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that would be great. Dive in, there's a lot to read. I'll be happy to answer have any questions you have. 28bytes (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that I should actually try to learn the MOS more - I am very good at determining an article's tone, but am not so sensitive about other details. That'll help me understand all of these policies more easily.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)