User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

o-o

Not good. Don't remove others' comments, esp. not from their own talkpages. If it displeases you so much, just ignore it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I took that personally.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I know; and s/he is indeed provoking you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does it represent trolling? Do we have a policy on it?Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really; I'd say s/he just being a dick. So drop it; not worth it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Seb. Just let it go and unwatch their talk page. 28bytes (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess no good deed goes unpunished -- you step into the fray and try to be a voice of reason and both sides see you as an adversary. I feel for ya bro. Mojoworker (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of us on here actually like Jasper. Sure there was the time he made a sock report out of me or something and we haven't always agreed, but he's been one of the fairest editors in the whole SAU/Bello/Tata dispute. He's even done reverts he didn't agreed with ideologically to try to keep the compromise/consensus spirit going! I definitely don't see him as an adversary. For me he's a lot more referee. Fountainviewkid 19:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper, one last thing. GerardW let me know that it was him, not you, that the "Your unsolicited advice is not needed. Thank you" comment was directed to. Nonetheless, I think it's best you not post on Pangurban1's talk page anymore. I've left Pangurban1 a friendly request to restore your comments, but of course he's not required to, and it would probably be best if you unwatched his page altogether to avoid getting into an argument with him. Best, 28bytes (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out what Jasper is offended at. Because I told BelloWello that people would follow him (BelloWello) around just to undo his POV edits? That's not a personal attack. Kenatipo ^speak! 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not just drop it here? I've seen this go on before between you and BW (under his old identity). You end up covering umpteen acres over umpteen other people's talk pages. Why not keep it on your own and on the talk page of the relevant article? - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush: I never interacted with BW's old account - please give me some diffs. @Kenatipo: Calling someone a POV-pusher can at times be a PA - the key phrase here was "people have to follow you around".Jasper Deng (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not a personal attack. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not digging out diffs, JD, sorry. They are there and admins know that they are there. I've said it before: just walk away from this. More or less anything to do with BW becomes toxic, and from memory Kentipo seemed often to be in there for the other side. Seeking controversy, as your request to me "sort of" suggests, is not The Way Forward. Forget them both, forget their talk pages, and avoid any action on articles that they are involved with. Someone else will clean up any mess. - Sitush (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, I think I'm beginning to understand. You thought I was saying you were stalking BelloWello? Sorry you took it that way. IMHO, agenda-driven editors like BelloWello need to be watched closely by everyone who's interested, so they don't do too much damage to the project. Kenatipo ^speak! 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bingo.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, sorry for rubbing you the wrong way. But, I think we all have an obligation to keep an eye on disruptive editors. And I hope there's no hard feelings. I know there's none on my end. Kenatipo ^speak! 23:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, sorry I didn't get back to this in time, but I'm glad this seems to have been resolved in an amicable way all around. In general, if you're dealing with an established good faith editor, if you take exception to what they say, it's usually better to ask them to strike their comments than to just undo it. Either way, though, this seems to have been based on a misunderstanding so I'm glad we can all move along. Kansan (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Kansan. Everything is fine. Kenatipo ^speak! 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Windows Server 2012 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Windows Server 2012. Since you had some involvement with the Windows Server 2012 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fleet Command (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Chopin Nocturnes in Film

My small edits have been mercilessly and unjustly deleted. If you had an issue with these edits, you could correct them. However, I see the wide specter of articles you administer, and have questions about your competence of administering piano articles. On the other hand, I thouroughly researched before I submitted my edits. What I did was simply refering a piece of music to a film. I suggest before you delete an edit, have a good reason for doing so, otherwice, you competency will be put into question!

Jasper, could try being a little nicer and stop biting the newcomers, please? —Ruud 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard to do that when the user is accusing me of incompetancy.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, that's the trick of being a nice person, staying polite even if the other person is not. And to be fair to that other person, he only questioned your competence after you were a little rude to him. When you seems a new user make a contribution in good faith that might not strictly comply with all the rules around here, which he couldn't possibly be all aware of yet, don't revert him with at to him incomprehensible one-liner. Take a few minutes, go to his talk page first, and explain what he could do to improve his contributions, such as adding a reference, before reverting. —Ruud 08:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the user knew of these policies before - see his/her talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What I contributed were simply a reference to a certain piece of music being played in a certain film, and describing the exact scene in the movie during the music. With all due respect for referenced material, how can one point a source in that, other then seeing (and hearing) for oneself a movie. My edit material cannot be referenced, simple as that!

I have contributed afew small edits on piano works, and I take great pains in researching aforehand, and writing the edit to the best of my ability. I have done small edits as diverse as "fieldstone" to "cadenzas to "Palmas (Tocantins, Brazil)". None of my other edits were deleted, even without a source. How can one sourse bus fare in Palmas Brazil of $1,15 other then being there? How can one sorce that fieldstone is a nemesis of a farmer? How can one sorce that Nocturne sounds like an out-of-this-world bliss to a dying Aron Ralston (127 Hours 210 autobigraphical film)? I am very much hurt that someone has summarily deleted my edit, without having any competence on the subject, not having taken any pains to go through it. It has some similarity with bully cops, who abuse their power in subjugating other people because they can. The particular piece of music I refered to is a popular Chopin Nocturne, 9, 2. I like that piece very much, and piano in general. By making this small edit I thought to make a small contribution to collective knowlege of humankind, by linking a wonderful piece of music to equally great films. As fas as sourcing material, I need tutorial on actual construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I appologise dear Jasper for offence taken. I will try to critique the content, or act, not the actor, or administrators personally. Please fill me in. I was looking for a new term (with a tint of humour)for administrators who do copious amounts of deletes, in the thousands, tens-of-thousands. But I surmise, most do that. Many of these deletes are no doubt vandalism, propaganda or other inappropriate content. Tell me Jasper, is the main function of administrators to 'police' pages raher then contributing to them, and to block users on own discretion? Now, these are formidable powers ought to be used (or threatened with the use thereof)responsibly. And I can assure you that no personal attacts/name-calling will be done in the future. Sharp critique, however, must be allowed. This is Wikipedia, and not a 'People's Daily'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR at Nocturnes, Op. 9 (Chopin)

You have now made three reversions at Nocturnes, Op. 9 (Chopin) within a 24 hour period, thus you are on the cusp of violating the three-revert rule. Reverting unsourced edits not at a BLP is not an exemption from the rule, and I insist that you stop immediately. If you revert again, I will have to block you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of that article, Jasper, I suggest not dropping {{uw-agf1}} templates on people's talk pages. People should AGF, of course, but being told to in template form is probably more annoying to them than it is informative. I think that's one of those cases where a hand-written note (or no note at all, actually) would be better than a template. 28bytes (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is typical for me to go to the brink of 3RR often. I never go beyond that.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's typical for you to go to the brink of 3RR, you're doing something wrong. Keep in mind you can get blocked for edit-warring even if you don't cross the 3RR line. 28bytes (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing I need to improve on is "even if you're right."Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. 'Cause the other guy thinks he's right too. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia started as a democratic forum for a collective knowlege of a mankind where everyone can contribute, in good faith. Just like United States of America started on noble principles, and turned out to be a monster, Wikipedia, with it's new fledging "civil service" doing harm to fledging editors by sticking to the letter-of-the-law.

I have much to contribute, but everytime I edit something, I get put out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the various policies and guidelines? Wikipedia is not in fact the encyclopedia that everyone can edit & never was. It is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit if they follow the guidelines and policies. Now, if you want to ask a serious question of JasperDeng or anyone else about how things work etc then feel free to do so, but please do not keep hounding him like this. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Green Archers United F.C.

I have declined the speedy deletion based on my feeling that the subject was in fact significant, if not notable. That was before I discovered this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 LBC United Football League. As anafterthought, I checked the history, which is what I should have done first. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

Many thanks Jasper. All the best. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

The errors you noted in my edit have been corrected, un-intentional gramatical error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakenath (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

AllanEdwards999

Just an FYI; on second consideration, I decided that an indef block was a bit excessive for a user who has made good faith edits in the past. Maybe a week cool-down period will be enough. If not, I'll reblock. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll go post a note reminding the user that he/she isn't gone forever.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As discussed previously, I recommend not posting to blocked users' talk pages. 28bytes (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I actually say something wrong?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not wrong, exactly, but it was a little patronizing. The key point, though, is that once people are mad about something (whether they're blocked or not), stepping away from them is often preferable to continuing to engage them. 28bytes (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, please do not jump into disputes that you are not directly involved in. Ohnoitsjamie is an administrator and he can handle the situation himself. And Jamie, if the extension of the block of AllanEdwards999 is for cooldown reasons, you may want to reconsider. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I used the word "cool down" here. However, the user continued to make personal attacks after the block. I don't think it's unprecedented to extend blocks for that reason. Maybe the user was just mad; maybe the user is not capable of editing collaboratively and abiding by policies. Time will tell. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll respect your judgment on the matter. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jasper; no disrespect intended by reverting your post to the page, but I agree with Eagles247 that it's unnecessary, given that I already posted that the block has been re-factored. It's necessary to be in the habit of considering (and soliciting) 2nd opinions on any actions that might be considered to be controversial, and as such, I appreciate the involvement of you two in this situation. 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill Slavicsek

Why are you edit warring on this page and why are you misusing rollback in your reverts? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Contentious information about living persons that is poorly sourced must be removed immediately.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the policy I linked to, that is not a valid use for rollback. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it being used as a valid use by other people.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Then they're wrong, too. Quit blaming others for your misunderstanding of policy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It may've been because the BLP was also vandalism.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But it wasn't vandalism, or at least not obviously. Still misusing rollback per the link I provided (I keep hinting at it so that you read it). Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It was the elastic clause, the one saying that it may be used when the reason is clear - "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". Explanations were provided on the user's talk page. This may be gaming the system though.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The key there is "widespread"; I don't believe this case qualifies. You don't have to defend yourself here, or rationalize your action; just agree that rollback should not be used this way (and show that you agree by editing accordingly) and everything will be fine. 28bytes (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me state this: Rollback is for rvv cases only. There are a few and only a few exceptions: Reverting any edits in my userspace, reverting myself, and reverting anything really offensive like on a user talk page that is available on request to you via email (per WP:DENY - it's not any user I've talked about w/ you anytime recently).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for quickly helping to resolve the issue with NekoBot on WP:AN/EW. I've since fixed the problem, so thank you for preventing any further damage to the noticeboard! + Crashdoom Talk // NekoBot OP 02:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Because of this. The user clearly states of Kuru's talk page that they do not, in fact, have a conflict of interest. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there's something for both of us here. Eagles247, the template message was a little generic, and for me, I should be a lot less impulsive.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the point of the template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasoning behind that?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've been misusing warning templates as of late (handing out 3rr warning to IPs who made one or two reverts is unacceptable) and I therefore felt that this template was appropriate. It's alright for you to stalk admins' talk pages, but please only get involved if you feel you must and if a certain amount of time has gone by and no response from that admin. I sense that you are jumping into many disputes or articles that you don't belong in because someone left an admin a message on their talk page. Let the admins handle it, that's why RfA is such a difficult process to succeed in. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(Note:in any case, one the IPs got blocked as a sock of a banned user, and both IPs seemed to be continueing a long edit war). At User talk:28bytes, I think I should actually use admins' talk pages as learning material, not an opportunity for involvement.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't hand out random, irrelevant warning templates to users who have done nothing to deserve them. In this case, the IPs appeared to be sockpuppets, which should be clear when you see that they have one contribution and it's a revert. Regardless, if you see a few IPs undoing your revert within a few minutes of each other, you can safely assume that they are sockpuppets of one another and should be reported to WP:AIV, not issued 3RR warnings. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

AFL Articles

Hi. About these AFL articles you've been nominating for speedy. You've done many of them under A1 for not enough context. They do have enough context as I was able to track down information about them just knowing their names and that they were AFL players. Also, you tagged 1 as A7 using Db-corp. The person is not a corporation. These should be BLPProd's, not CSDs; even as A7. They assert notability as AFL players. Thanks.--v/r - TP 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I found multiple reasons and chose the closest ones when I chose the {{db-multiple}} option that didn't support everything.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Those articles don't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria. They do meet BLPProd, but certainly not WP:CSD as I've explained. They arn't A1 because there is enough context to identify them individually and they arn't A7 (certainly not db-corp) as they assert notability as AFL players.--v/r - TP 03:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really use PROD. In any case the pages have been deleted already. Also, looking at Jeremy Taylor (Australian footballer), I see an admin citing A1 in his/her deletion reason.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Amendment to Canadian Citizenship Act

Dear Jasper. I need your help. I made two contributions on a controvercial subject. One deals with recent amendments to Canadian citizenship rules. It is close to home Jasper, as it may affect this writer and any of the 5,500,000 Canadians who were not born in Canada. In one scenario, lets say a young naturalized Canadian couple takes a hoiliday in Hebei. While there, wife gives birth. Under the old rules, this child would have automatically become a Canadian citizen. Under new rules, this child would be born past first generation limit, and Canadian citizenship would not be confered. To bring this child back to Canada would require a lenghty process of obtaining a Permanent Residency, which may take anywhere from one to four years. Another edit I made to the page of Jason Kenney, a BLP, a minister responsible for new tighter rules. I made these edits siting direct government sourses. I need someone to watch and protect these edits from right-wing editors. So, please Jasper, keep an eye on it, since you have manifested to be an excellent chaperone of mine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed deletion of Mia Talerico (actress) nomination

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Talerico (2nd nomination) was "redirect to Good Luck Charlie". Accordingly, I've redirected Mia Talerico (actress) as well, since it is a plausible redirect, but as the actress remains non-notable the article should not be recreated. If it is, we can get that protected as Mia Talerico is. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked...

[1] It should go without saying not to go post there. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to post there. Your block template was the correct and most explanatory one I think you could've chosen.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you approve! :) 28bytes (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)