User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 6

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 4

→

Collyhurst

For the most part I don't agree with the recent edits of 92.41.203.153 (talk · contribs) and related IPs removing sourced information however the information removed from the Collyhurst article isn't sourced. In the absence of a source I am on the verge of removing it myself, but if multiple IPs continue to remove sourced information elsewhere I will place them under semi-protection. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I can remove the #s as unsourced, but that last paragraph must stay. Put it under semi-protection or rangeblock it for edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The place is just down the road from me. I'll keep an eye on it. Tthe article, that is: I have no desire to keep an eye on the place. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're ok with the raw numbers being removed but think the unsourced statement that "ince the early 2010s there has been a there has been a steady rise on African population in the Collyhurst village area to Monsall , also Vietnamese in the area is on a rise from Collyhurst through out to Miles platting." should be kept? Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be removed as well as WP:SYNTH. There is no evidence of that given. But let's see if a source can be found. If I can't find one I'll revert myself.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The numbers and the statement should go. There are no meaningful sources to prove these statements and there are unlikely to be any until the UK 2011 census results are released. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Jasper. Thanks for keeping an eye out for BLP violations. I've restored parts of his comment so I could give him a proper reply, but you were right to remove it. Happy editing. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Now a question: Don't BLP violations like that typically get revdeleted?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that's necessary in this case. For comparison, the AfD doesn't appear to be redacted in any way. 28bytes (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry I missed that, but it's been fixed now. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guoguo12 2

Thanks for your support. I was just wondering about what you wrote: "His advice to AGF a little more on RFAs a while back to me was right on." Sorry, when was this? I honestly don't remember. Guoguo12 (Talk) 16:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to this.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Interesting. Guoguo12 (Talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting changes to Comparison of Windows and Linux

Did you bother to read any of the sourced material I added before you reverted my edit? The first line of the paper, from the abstract: "Linux has emerged as a widely-used platform for enabling hands-on kernel programming experience to learn about operating system concepts." That Columbia University paper passes the Wikipedia "smell test," in my opinion, and the text certainly indicates that "Linux is taught in many computing university courses in programming and computer science," which was in need of citation. It would be in the spirit of Wikipedia to review cited material before you remove it, or revise the text of the article to bring the wording in line with the number of sources while leaving in the sourced material, or barring all of that, leave the source in the article and simply add a "needs citation" tag to request more citations. Nonetheless, I reverted your reversion, and added two more good sources, which I hope qualifies as "many." It's quick and easy to hit the "undo" button, but it doesn't make Wikipedia better to remove solid references when more are what is needed.

That's not a neutral point of view, and "many" is very vague.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, you reverted the addition of a source for being only one source and not multiple. That is not appropriate. You should have left a note on the user's talk page asking for more references or just remove the word "many." The user here did not add the content, they were just adding a source. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I felt that the source did not fill our requirements. As for the sentence, I will remove it.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you did not think the source was from a reliable source, you should have said so in your edit summary. If there is a source attached to the non-neutral statement, it is allowed to stay for there is support for the content. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For me, it was a ver-failed situation-the source provided did not back up that claim.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you had even bothered to look at the references, you would have seen that they do in fact back up the claim. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it, and no, it doesn't, due to the broadness of "many."Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:WEASEL, if "many" is used, there must be support for the claims. There is support for the claims as evidenced by the numerous references added. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Numerous? The diff I looked at only showed one added - and that one didn't back up the claim.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the current article. When the user undid your edit he also added a few more references. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To avoid, confusion, this is the diff I am referring to. I just see additions to the cite web template.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The user adds two more references here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My bad - it looked like just one reference because of the presence of only one cite web template.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Block Evasion Help

Hey! Can you please explain to me what block evasion is and how to detect it? I am having vandal problems as well. THanks! Elementrider77 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)ElementRider77

Rules of chess

Please point to the consensus at Talk:Rules of chess that my 1 July edit violated. Quale (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We had established that not all of Scott's edits were bad, and, we also established that the pins example should be kept.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

TomPaul67

Hi Jasper, thanks for your revert on my page earlier today. I see that you are now up to speed with events since then but I am not sure why you have redirected the TomPaul67 page. What does "reduce attack surface" mean? I cannot recall seeing anyone do this before. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, don't worry about it. I am going to revert. This is a complicated series of sockfarms etc and people may need to refer back for linguistic evidence etc when the next one (pretty much inevitably) surfaces. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have already reverted the redirection of User talk:TomPaul67, as there is a current restriction on that account and we need to leave it visible for the record. Besides, it is not general policy to blank and redirect the Talk pages of sock accounts - he can't attack any further, as he is indef-blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I presume it makes it harder for other socks or vandals to access the page. The reason why I did it was because it's so common.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between vandals and socks. To identify socks by their behavior, we must have their past comments available. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The history is left over.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, yes, but someone coming newly to a suspected new sock won't necessarily know that and think to search the history - and redirecting sock Talk pages generally doesn't seem to be done when there's valuable duck evidence to be retained -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hi Jasper. It's best to avoid saying things like "obvious troll is obvious" when giving people warnings. My impression is that the user was venting rather than trolling or vandalizing, but even if they were trolling or vandalizing, it's preferred to use more neutral language. 28bytes (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The venting looked to be in bad faith to my fingers but not in my eyes and mind :| . Didn't know about that essay. Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

His follow-up post looked sincere, so I've declined the AIV report. Hopefully he will move away from user talk pages and get back to improving articles. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm the venting was sheer exasperation, not trolling or vandalism as I understand those terms, and I have retracted the incivility (though not the underlying opinion) at the relevant user's talk page. 86.186.8.147 (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw your retraction, thank you for doing so. 28bytes (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft provides security patches to ALL users, not just legit ones

Sources:

Google has used this download as a source for saying security updates are not available to all. But this download is now available to all. Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged. But don't put it in a place that synthesizes something else.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

link broken?

it's not!

http://www.billboard.com/artist/trina/252957#/artist/trina/252957

try again 98.88.209.190 (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

IIS: Extensions section needs more sources

Hi. I believe the extensions section needs more source. I have added enough to prevent its deletion but I think we need secondary sources. I am busy. Could you please give me a hand? Fleet Command (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Useless legal threatening

[1] Yeah I know, but I wanted to give him a bit of irony from his own threat. Hm, I hope that made sense, but it probably didn't. Oh well. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the user has nothing to do now we have him/her in an indefinite block. Look out for socks after the autoblock ends.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Windows Me and HLT

I know a good reliable reference is very hard to find. I found this. I guess it would not suffice. Good thing you reverted it. - xpclient ^Talk 07:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it

... it might be kind to strike it out on Jimmy's page, if you haven't already. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done already.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

More rudeness, consider refactoring. Also, Jasper, if you remember from the last time I took you to ANI, it is best not to respond to a message on your talk page with a removal of the message and a terse reply in the edit summary as you did here and here to two members of the WMF. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That was not rude, or wasn't intended to be.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It comes off as "Well, if you had bothered to do such and such, then you would clearly see such and such." Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to me. I always get this kind of message regarding sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Glass House Warning

Jasper, you just warned User:Bhny with a templated edit warring warning with this edit. You referenced that user's edits at Wikipedia:External links; however, a review of the edit history of that page shows that User:Bhny made an edit to the page at 01.49 today. You reverted that edit with this edit at 01.54. User:Bhny reverted you with this edit at 12.31. You then reverted User:Bhny with this edit at 1658. In all, User:Bhny has reverted you once, you have reverted that user twice. If anyone reverts you and you revert again, you will have made 3 reverts in 24 hours, not User:Bhny. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, I don't want to see you misuse a 3RR warning again. Don't use the template until a user reverts three times. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is not for 3RR, it's for edit warring in general.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, {{uw-ew}} is for edit-warring in general and {{uw-3rr}} is for 3RR warnings. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think your actions were justified, then you need to re-read WP:3RR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I find that template's wording too harsh, and actually, the normal 3rr template has much better wording than that. Uw-ew wasn't available in TW. Eagles, the 3-revert rule itself has absolutely nothing to do with the text of the warning associated with it. The warning associated with it has the correct text to use.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe {{uw-ew}} is in "single issue notices". —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not on the list.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Single issue warnings, first one. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's uw-3rr, not uw-ew.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Scroll down, alpha sort. You'll find uw-ew. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Found. Very obscure.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what edit warring template you used. As Doug pointed out above, the only one close to edit warring is you, not Bhny. Using a template doesn't make you correct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the template does not make me correct. I was not going to make a 3rd revert myself. Is there anything wrong with telling the new user? (Warning: This is heating up and both of us may want to talk about it later).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's recap: A user removes a piece of text with a clear explanation in the edit summary. You revert with a vague "depends, really." The user then reverts you for the first time, asking for a valid reason to revert his edit. Finally, you explain in depth in your next reversion and leave a warning on the user's talk page. Instead of explaining on the user's talk page why you reverted twice, you choose to explain in your edit summaries and leave a warning on the user's talk page. You should be the one starting up a conversation, not the user you are reverting. Now you've gone ahead and requested a full protection of the page to make sure the other user cannot revert you and thereby forcing you to make another reversion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have requested full protection not because of anything in him. Don't assume I'm going to revert him again, since there's nothing terribly wrong with his edit. It could stay if he wants it that much. I tend to explain in edit summaries because I typically don't like to use things like "see talk". But I should've left another note on the user talk.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, excuse me if this makes it looks like I am piling on - not my intention. However, if "there's nothing terribly wrong with his edit" then I do not understand why it was reverted in the first instance. Certainly, if it was a borderline issue then it might have been better to spend some time writing a note rather than slapping a template on a page. Just my opinion, and I do not claim to have always got things right myself. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing terribly wrong, but, there was something wrong, at least in my eyes.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

New user?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

6 years ago! wow time fliesBhny (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, and as for your question to me, I see you as being in a glass house and you are throwing stones, bad idea. I thought it was nicer than "poorly played", "yellow card", or {{subst:uw-tempabuse1}}--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC))

The saying is here. Not sure if Wiktionary is a reliable source (!), but it is ok on this one. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I actually would disagree with them, I chose it over, say, pot calling the kettle black, for exactly the reason that I didn't see it as implying Bhny was at fault.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted again before reading this (woops). I know about the 3 revert limit, I've only done 2. The first time Jasper reverted me the entire reason was "depends, really", after I'd give a fairly good reason. The second time he gave a reason about mobile phones that was actually wrong (I'm a programmer for iPhones if that matters). Anyway no hard feelings, I just don't like to burden the public with unnecessary info about what codecs and plugins their browsers should have. I like to keep wikipedia easy to read. And I'm not editing that page again so no worries about 3 revertsBhny (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's my fault for not telling you.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The result of a discussion with my mentor on this was to be placed on 1RR restrictions with exceptions for obvious BLP violations and copyvios.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unintended revert on Bonsai

I may have messed up one of your cleanups. I was adding a section to Bonsai#Bonsai_styles this afternoon and ran into what I thought was a self-update-conflict: I had two edit windows open so I could harvest existing references from the whole article, and when I tried to save the subsection I was working on, I got the "source was updated while you were editing" error. I thought that I had conflicted with myself, which occasionally happens when I am trying to work in more than one edit window. I just copied my entire block of work back in place and continued editing. When I checked the update history, though, I saw that it was not me but you who had made the changes that caused the update conflict. Would you be so kind as to check the section once more and either re-apply your changes or give me some idea of what you wish to see there? Thanks! Sahara110 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply cite your sources with inline citations.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I am replying to your post you added to my talk page.

Asking someone why they deleted my article isnt a personal attack or vanadlism, Anyone with a brain would realise that. And then i later apolgoised to him if it came out that way he deleted that as well... for vandalism! Goldblooded (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not involved in your dispute and will take no sides on the deletion. You've been having problems with assuming good faith with other editors, as well as civility, two cardinal rules on Wikipedia. Other editors, especially admins, would've been blocked from editing long ago if they had not been trying for the good of the encyclopedia. Don't take deletions personally. Also, that comment on Dr. K's talk page was a strong personal attack, regardless of what you were asking for. Your comments were such serious personal attacks that Dr. K decided to construe them as vandalism. Your comment on Blade's talk page is very concerning.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

On a different note, archiving is not meant for you to simply throw comments by other users under the rug - it's for the prevention of talk page clutter-up.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldblooded (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Have to write it out again since you re edited your page...

What i was saying was , Why get involved then hold your hands up and say im not involved? Anyway ive been bullied on here and unfairly treated (and no its not just because of the deleted articles) so if i dont go on the offensive ill just get trodden on by some of the more "experienced" users since im a relative newbie. Even though i make several edits a day and ive already created and uploaded several articles and pictures. And concerning blade i found it rather discusting that he removed the flags since they are what this men (and members of my family) DIED for. They died for those flags of allegience. And besides if you dont understand that then they have them on the WW1 articles and in articles for example world cup etc. So i believe they should be left there.

Also if you actually talk to be normally and not put down comments then im one of nicest people youll ever meet.

Plus before you cry that i deleted your article that you posted i acutally archived it for you along with some others since i already know what their telling me and they clutter up my page. Thank you for your enquires. Goldblooded (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. Ive seen many other people archive articles that way before. And im not throwing them out since there in the archive. Goldblooded (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Ive been bullied on here and unfairly treated" - I'm sorry that you feel this way, but, going on the offensive will only bring you closer to chastisement by the community. The fact that they're more experienced does not (or should not) give them any advantage. Concerning removal of flags, we have a policy on neutral points of view, which you must keep when editing articles. It all shows that you must assume good faith ← (please click that link and spend 15 minutes or more on that page). Concerning comments, if people are still telling you of certain things, that should be a signal that something is still wrong with your editing. As for archiving, your archiving gives me the impression that you don't want to read or listen to those comments (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad nauseam by Eagles247, Dr.K, and I

Jasper, actually read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before you condescendingly use it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I read it. Please stop accusing me of having an attitude based on it (Hint: Please don't say things like "I don't want to see you..." and "I'm sick of..." when talking about me, and I won't be provoked to think that you're not AGFing with me. Thank you).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stop accusing you of things like that when you link to policies correctly and appropriately. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has nothing to do with removing messages from one's own talk page; it has everything to do with an inability to listen to someone when they repeatedly tell you to do something, such as your refusal to agree to a 1RR restriction after 28bytes told you four times it would be in your best interests. When I brought up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on my talk page, I was referring to the advice given to you several times by users, including me, to stop going for the 3RR warning whenever someone reverts you. I was not referring to your removal of talk page messages from WMF members with a reply in the edit summary. Also, per WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording 28bytes uses is what I like and listen to best.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that. It doesn't mean he probably wasn't thinking the same thing as I was when he suggested for the fourth time that you should go with a 1RR restriction. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I had been trying to make a point for him, but it took time for me to realize that he was right and didn't want to explain it. This doesn't mean that you aren't able to help me. If you think I'm going to not like your comment, you may want to put it on 28bytes' talk page (when he comes back from vacation), which I watch, unless it's urgent like an urge to stop edit warring. The reason why I linked IDIDNTHEARTHAT was because Goldblooded had refused to get the points raised by 2 other editors about his disruptive editing, including NPA.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to be honest here, Jasper, your request that I post a comment on 28bytes' talk page if it is not favorable towards you reminds me too much of your ANI thread from three months ago. I've noticed that you are not responsive, or maybe just not accepting, to any criticism on your talk page (which may be the reason for your removal of WMF member messages here regarding your accusation towards Moonriddengirl). You don't have to like criticism, but you need to understand that it is necessary for growth as an editor and as a person. Further, if you "didn't want to explain" to 28bytes that he was right, you should not have continued to argue with him. In regards to this discussion with Goldblooded, I think you're assuming bad faith on his part and therefore wikilawyering to him instead of getting anywhere. The user is frustrated because he has attempted several times to discuss with Dr.K., who keeps reverting all messages on his talk page as vandalism. Your warning on his talk page is a bit ironic considering Dr.K. has been doing the same with his requests for clarification. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Eacles247 please read the messages of Goldblooded on my talk a bit more carefully before you try to analyse my behaviour any further. I don't want to point to these insults more than is necessary but if you read Goldblooded's comments, especially the last sentence you will see clearly the insult. Or so I trust. So please stop this line of enquiry. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the message and do not feel that your response was appropriate. Yes, of course the new user will be frustrated that the article he has just created is immediately tagged for deletion. Telling the user "Stay off my talk page. I have nothing to discuss with you." is not acceptable. Goldblooded was wrong to attack you, but two wrongs do not make a right, and instead of reverting all messages from him on your talk page, it may have been a good idea to discuss with him the problems associated with the article and how to avoid deletion in the future, etc. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite my best efforts Eagles247 I think you are missing the point here. I don't want to insult you but I will give you a hint. You obviously did not bother to read the insult in Golblooded's last sentence. So I will make it easy for you. I do not accept anyone telling me what Goldblooded told me in the last sentence of his message. Please do not presume to advise me about anything if you do not understand this simple fact. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're both on the same page here, are we talking about this message? You can't tell me that's not out of pure frustration. I stand by my above advice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So you support people calling others by such names? You should not be an administrator. Sorry but my patience has limits. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't believe I ever said that. If you believe I should not be an administrator, feel free to start up an ANI thread. Goldblooded's comments are inappropriate for Wikipedia, but your response made the situation worse than it had to be. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And what frustration would that be on the part of Goldblooded? That he recreated an article which was contributed to by hundreds of volunteers just so as to make it appear to be his alone in violation of GFDL? Or that I followed proper procedure and I asked for its deletion under CSD G4? Are you advocating for copyvios and incompetence? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that three wrongs don't make a right either.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ever the diplomat. Don't sell yourself short. You did the right thing. There is no justification in re-creating an article written by hundreds of selfless volunteers and making it appear as one's own. Add to that PAs and insults and the situation is indefensible. You did the right thing. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure appearing as the sole contributor to a large article was not Goldblooded's MO. "Stop this nonsense" as you say. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

GFDL violations do not depend on a single user's MO as I hope you understand. GFDL violations are a matter of policy. So, if you want to continue this nonsense it is solely up to you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment here (the first sentence). Let's settle it as I suggested below.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K. suggested that Goldblooded wanted to look like the actual article creator, when in reality there were hundreds of editors who helped create the page (Goldblooded found a copy of the article on another user's subpage). I don't believe this to be the case, as Goldblooded stated that he just wanted to see the article on Wikipedia again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no position on this dispute. I think since Dr. K isn't getting your point here, there must be something wrong with the wording you're using.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Goldblooded's intention was is immaterial. It still was a violation of GFDL and CSD G4. This should not be defended especially if followed up by PAs and insults on the part of the transgressor. Especially by admins who ought to know better. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K and Eagles, please stop argumentum ad nausea on my talk page. Let's settle it at this. I have a few problems that I need to work on, Dr. K should be more willing to discuss, and Eagles should try to reword more if it's clear that he's not being understood. All three of us need to not get into argumentum ad nausea.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right is something I'm trying to tell for everyone involved here. I can understand why Dr.K did that, but, we're all human and our patience is limited.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no wikilawyering here. The user has lots of good-faith capacity in him, and he has a lot of potential, just that it's resulted in some disruptive editing. I'm not assuming bad faith with him. Concerning responses, I typically think I don't have to reply at times, or get distracted by other users' comments. I accept all criticism, but I tend to not reply to comments that start with "Jasper, please .... " or "you need". I tried my very best to explain things to Goldblooded.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the ANI thread, I have addressed my problems with COI and assuming good faith. If I had assumed bad faith here, I would've immediately brought this to ANI, or asked you or someone else to block that user.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little bit nervous about discussing Goldblooded here in front of him.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it appears you didn't do too good of a job considering the user is now planning to retire after being bullied here. In the ANI thread, you told me to "try not to talk to me about it until much later." Here, you tell me to post on 28bytes' talk page. I'm still not wholly convinced that you have a firm grasp of AGF either. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been having that in mind, and trying to explain the actions of other editors. I do agree though that those comments do have a hint of WP:HARASS in them, as their tone are half-trollish. Eagles, when I tell you things like that, I do so for a reason. The reason is that arguments with you often are seldom constructive in terms of the way I act without the intervention of other users (especially my mentors). The goal of both is to avoid such arguments. I assume good faith with everyone, and realize much of this is a result of impatience, but, my patience often goes large. As for the ANI thread, I never told you that there, it was here. My patience with AGF'ing may not be enough, I admit, but, it's kind of being worn down if you go into ad argumentum nausea with me. Please see your email for more details. When Goldblooded doesn't understand what I say, I reword.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

Its true. Ive been insulted, called names such as a "snivelling little dog" and been talked down to by some other members and some other things. And they certainly seem to make out that they have an advantage over new users! I do keep neutral, as ive learnt when i created and edited many articles. But i do feel that the flags should be kept as a mere sign of respect and also since it will make it easier to sort out and see what countries they pledged allegience for NOT where they were nessarially born. Ive now changed it from country to allegience, And like i said they have the flags for WW1 vets page and also the world cup page , So come on.

And im not really intending to be rude as you seem to make out since if i didnt do anything then id get trampled on , like they say he who stays in his defences is beaten - Napoleon.

Same case here, I had to fight tooth and nail to keep my case in some of those articles and edits intact (Many of which they did eventually change their minds) And it may give that impression to you , But i can assure you i read EVERY message i get even if it doesnt look that way and i reply or act as i see fit. Goldblooded (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. That said, you can't (and I can't) get your way at all times. I don't see other users calling you anything bad like that. If others aren't civil to you, please do not fight back. Don't fight fire with fire. When other users seem to have an advantage of you, it's often due to their adherance and thorough understanding of our policies. When you're in a dispute, don't revert the other people - that's edit warring and is considered disruptive. In terms of respect, Wikipedia is timeless, and that sort of thing has no meaning to the encyclopedia, sorry.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

They did and have done, on my talk page and on their talk page and most the time im not really doing anything and i always seem to get the finger pointed at me. So what do you expect me to do if someone is uncivil towards me? Goldblooded (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please supply some diffs. If people are incivil to you, it's their mistake and you may want to try to report it to WP:WQA (though I would caution you against that at the moment).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)