User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I am awarding you this The Barnstar of Diplomacy for your valiant work improving Wikipedia even when dealing with some rather difficult users. Wikipedia is a better place because of your efforts. Guy Macon (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

GoldenGlorys0ck

Sigh. I always forget; revoke talk page access, then remove the nonsense. Kuru (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. What's one more click of the rollback button?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Read {{BannedMeansBanned}}, nonsense edits from JA (aka Grawp) are to be remove on sight, no questions ask! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Win 8 Editions

It's not my article, so I have no issue with people editing it substantially; collaboration is what Wiki is all about. I do think it's kind of pointless to replace the entire article, assuming the content is basically the same- not to mention a little presumptuous to assume that any one person's version is the end-all-be-all best way to do things. So long as the article accurately and thoroughly describes the content, full speed ahead. Assuming you do end up overwriting most of it, I would hope you have no issue when "your" version is inevitably improved and likely overwritten as well. --Resplendent (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: After seeing the AfD request, I'm really confused why you couldn't just merge the two versions. What is the purpose for deleting the article when you want to replace it with an almost identical version? --Resplendent (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Mine is cited much better than your's;
2. I have more links in the edition comparison table, and my tables are slightly less cluttered.
3. There is no need for individual sections for each edition until far more details are released.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Je n'ai pas besoin
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mine is cited much better than yours - *chuckles* Salvidrim! 05:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:81.178.38.169

On User talk:81.178.38.169, that insolent editor threatened you. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  08:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought that if he didn't really care, then he wouldn't be on this site in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New Request

Please do not try to canvass my support.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Jasper: I have seen your comments on Mike Wazowski’s talk page, as I have tried to get in contact with Mike myself. Mike (as well as others) had serious concerns on a Wiki page titled “Jay Jason” that I initially developed. I received quite a lot of help on this page, and made considerable changes during the discussions in Jan through March regarding this article. I am still somewhat of a newby (as this was my first time I joined the Wiki community in an effort to make a contribution) and have made about every mistake that is possible, but have been learning a lot in the past few months. I had been communicating with Deryck Chan, who worked with me on multiple problems on this “Jay Jason” Wiki page. I was very pleased when I saw this note Deryck posted in March, as Deryck wrote on the Jay Jason “view history” page: 21:50, 18 March 2012‎ Deryck Chan (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (12,335 bytes) (-92)‎ . . (remove header tag. not really relevant anymore after 3 months of improvements by various editors.) A few days later, MikeWazowski re-attached this note on the Jay Jason page: “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (March 2012)” When Mike put this note up, I tried to contact Mike to discuss this issue, but did not hear back from him. Recently, I wrote: “There have been over 10 comments posted on the talk page for Jay Jason. I wonder if you might be able to give me any feedback about how this process is going?--Jaytribute516 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)” I am not sure whether he is blocked from responding or not, as there is some text at the bottom of his talk page that I am not sure I understand as it says that he has been “ blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring.” As I mentioned, Deryck Chan had helped me in the past for a variety of issues including providing better references, but when I contacted him about this matter, he wrote back to me: “I think what the article needs is for someone else to brush the article over. I'm very busy recently, and I recommend that you go find help at WP:EA. Deryck C. 16:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)”. Others have been very helpful such as Alansohn, who on 18:01, 27 January 2012‎ Alansohn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,386 bytes) (+34)‎ . . (copyedit and wikify; more work is needed, but notability is established based on the sources provided; this is a perfect example of an individual who was well known in his day but for whom online sources are sparse). Alansohn also found and added this reference to the article as well: "My Favorite Jokes", Parade (magazine) in The Modesto Bee, November 10, 1963. Accessed January 27, 2012.</ I have also tried contacting Alansohn on the matter above, but this editor might also be too busy as I have not heard anything back. I was wondering if you might have time to take a look at the community response on the Jay Jason talk page to the issue of neutral point of view on the Jay Jason wiki page, and see what others have said on this issue. I would appreciate any advice you might be able to offer. If you do not have time, I will understand.--Jaytribute516 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion contested: User:Fdssdffgfghfghfghfgh/sandbox

Hello Jasper Deng. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:Fdssdffgfghfghfghfgh/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Osarius Talk 22:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Spell it backwards. Then see it again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppeteer for User:Xylon Draganthus

Hi, regarding your edit summary comment in this edit [1]: "we should only apply this to indeffed users, right?" - that is not my understanding, per Template:Sockpuppeteer. In fact, {{sockpuppeteer|timeblocked}} would have been even more appropriate, but that which I entered was acceptable, AFAIK. If you do come to agree with me, consider self-reverting your removal of the tag. If your understanding differs, I apologize if I've misread policy in that regard. Please let me know. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not really policy, but 1:think about how angry the user could get when he/she finds out about this and 2:the user is not 100% bad faith.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I defer to your position - my inclination is to tag per the templates. Regarding "think about how angry the user could get when he/she finds out about this", we want them to find out (hence the notice on their talk page). Regarding "the user is not 100% bad faith", let's hope they don't wp:sock with a WP:ROOMMATE excuse again. Happy editing! JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's always painful to be blocked for any reason when you're a good-faith editor. Let's not give the user any more than he/she needs. Other than that I agree with you on that last comment. Thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi, I just wanted to leave a note saying thank you for partcipating in my RFA, and your comments will be taken on board and acted upon. Hopfully, I will be of a level you can support in a future RFA. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 12:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for the vigilance, Jasper! I appreciate you helping keep my talk page free of vandalism. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking, "Which LTA did that resemble? Either way, obvious troll is obvious." No problems!--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

wow -- ok then you fix that garbage page then cos im not contributing to it at all -- good job wish people had more intelligence

so much easier in excel than this crappy wiki editor with awful formmating it's like you had a purpose on this site -- not improving it. A+ for you.

Ugh. I was frustrated myself from the start. If you could link a screenshot of what you were trying to achieve in Excel, that would greatly help me fix it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons of free web hosting

Jasper, having taken a look at said page as the result of the ANI thread, I'm wondering why it's even there. It's not only wholly unsourced, but it appears that the article editors are the ones gathering the data, not utilizing sources which have already done the data work. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty excusable for a new user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the article itself is over two years old, IIRC. MSJapan (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pondering sending it to AfD, on that note.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Something else to think about is that we have a lot of "Comparison of X" articles that are simply using sources to aggregate data into a chart. That to me indicates that WP is doing the implicit research, not the sources. In short, we are drawing a conclusion for the reader. As I see it, there's potential NPOV (because a comparative article simply isn't objective) and OR violation (since the sources are drawn on for spec sheets, even if it is a product review) on a lot of these articles, and many of the so-called "comparison" articles are just (out-of-date) lists of items, many of which are superseded by the lists of "item by manufacturer." Would there be some way to pull a list of the "Comparison(s)" articles (there are singulars and plurals), vet them, and blanket nom appropriate ones for AfD? MSJapan (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be appropriate to go ask the community's opinion of this, because the implications of such a large purge would be huge.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What would be the appropriate forum? MSJapan (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), perhaps.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added it here. MSJapan (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel I have much to contribute to the discussion, thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit to my talk page. Cheers! - Zhou Yu (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis and GoldenGlory84

Given your recent categorization of GoldenGlory84's sockpuppets, perhaps you could contribute some information to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Community ban for GoldenGlory84. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: ANI notice

Thanks for letting me know. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Leannemarketer

Yes, the common troll. Bunt I don't know if we should move it to AN/ANI, but if s/he continues, s/he will be blocked soon. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

See his/her talk page. I think it should go to AIV right now, or AN/ANI right now, given that I was pretty clear about what would happen on further trolling and the follow-up comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that that is enough. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarify.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I filed an AIV report. No need for an AN/I on this case. If they think he's as useless as we do, he'll be blocked. Doc talk 05:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

NuttX Summary

Hi Jasper, about your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&diff=prev&oldid=493409158. I wanted to ask you to please reconsider the summarized description that I added to the NuttX_RTOS page, and that you deleted. I am not interested in heating-up the discussion already going on in that article, I actually find myself very privileged of being able to contribute directly to Wikipedia for the first time, as this article is in my domain of expertise.

There are many RTOS's out there and each has its own domain of expertise, and the main goals that each has is what drives their architecture and design. In the case of NuttX, it has been driven by the main two reasons as exactly as I put: standards compliance and small footprint . That is an emphasis that is very similar to, for example the Git_(software) emphasis on speed (specified in its article), that differentiates it for its homologous Subversion_(software). I find it very reasonable to include that in a software description as it is not only a mere statement, but for engineers it provides a lot of implicit technical context.

In addition, I found that the range of micro-controllers environment I specified, 8-bit to 32-bit, is not trivial in the embedded software context. When embedded software engineers look for an RTOS to their hardware, they care about the environment. For example, Linux, in its Embedded Linux variation only works for 32-bit environments. There are very few RTOS that supports 8-bit environments, NuttX is one of them.

Again, please consider me as a positive and profession contributor, as I also respect your professional role as a positive Wikipedia Editor. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpcarballo (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A better description is the OS architecture, who develops it, and architecture. Not everyone is a developer - you need to write for all of our possible audiences. "scalable" is a bad word to use on Wikipedia and I detest the use of such vague wording as that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That is good feedback, I will add more information about the OS architecture , and re-word to avoid using "scalable". I'll add that information in matter of days (very busy at the moment). Thank you. Jpcarballo (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was just about to go put the notice on their page- thanks for doing that for me! I had moved from the ANI page to the "request for protection" page to request protection until the AfD is over. Regardless of whether or not the group is notable, vandalism before the AfD has run its course ifs pretty bad, especially given the type of stuff they'd been doing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not 100% vandalism, but blatant POV-pushing and advocacy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, Jasper Deng. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving sections

Just a quick heads up, normally you don't want to archive a discussion that you started. Someone pointed out the one at ANI on the ban vote. I'm leaving it alone as I'm trying to just let it die down, considering it a "withdraw" but normally it is better to just ask someone to close the section in a comment, and an uninvolved person will boldly do so. We have to be really careful to not be too quick at ANI, in starting or closing sections. Remember, we want to minimize drama, so we move a little slower when we can. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm mostly new to handling ANI; thought it was a routing socking incident.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, please hold back on the proposals just a little. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and you are obviously a smart guy, but you jump a bit quick to want to take action. Sometimes the best thing we can do there is just cool down, think it out, be patient. Remember: The goal is to seek peaceful resolution with the least amount of drama. If you are new to ANI, by all means, offer your opinions, but proposals generally cause more problems than they solve. Usually, people express opinions, and one of the admins will just boldly take action. Proposals are better for long term disputes that are so complicated, they have to be thought out, and usually aren't made until an ANI is open for a day or so. Patience is an asset at ANI, and in short supply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I see why. This thread is quickly degenerating into what people hate about ANI. Though, shooting the messenger was appropriate here. I'm actually surprised that there have not been many other socking cases stemming from an ultimately unjust ban.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the most important things to remember is this: When dealing with a "bad doer", be it a sockpuppet, vandal or edit warrior, you have to remain calm. Cool. Collected. If you ramp up the drama, you make it more likely that they will retaliate even more, so now you have more vandalism, more socks, more problems, and (sigh..) more work. Failure to handle a situation in a calm manner leads to more problems, more drama. You might notice, for instance, that if someone calls me an "asshat" or is otherwise insulting, I breeze over it and focus on the issue. At ANI, anything that is not related to directly finding resolution is a distraction and isn't helpful. This is why we focus on one problem at a time only, and don't introduce other problems when possible. It is all about being calm and staying focused. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Focused on what? Of course, you don't want a cold war to become hot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Focused on whatever the problem is. And not allow it to get sidetracked by side issues. For example, calling out Raul in that ANI, that isn't "the problem" and wasn't a good idea. The ANI wasn't about Raul, and ANI is the wrong forum to bring up that topic anyway. Had you compiled a list of diffs and evidence that he was abusing his admin or bureaucrat tools, you would take it to AN or ArbCom, not ANI ANI is only for "incidents" that require immediate action, and nothing else. You don't have access to the redacted edits to see why Raul blocked him, admins do, so in this case, you kind of have to leave it to admins. Sometimes that is just how it is, most of the time, not that way. But calling out an admin/bureaucrat isn't something you should ever do without evidence, as it undermines the trust we put in them. If you have diffs and evidence, then yes, you should at the right venue. But a fishing expedition is not appropriate. "I'd like to see how close Raul is to being desysopped, or the possibility of an RFCU" I know you didn't mean it badly, but doing that without providing evidence looks like terribly bad faith and was likely to get your head bit off. It was also the wrong venue, ANI is not for this kind of stuff. Anyway, the user wasn't forced to sock, he chose to sock. There was no doubt he was indef blocked, and those with access knew why he was. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, forced is the wrong word. "pressured" is a better one. Well, there were blocks, so it wasn't nearly as much about diffs, but I get your point. At least he apologized.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• You know I love ya, right? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • huh?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Just a phrase of endearment. I just didn't want you to think I was yelling or ragging on you above. I wasn't hitting on you :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No, I'm used to this. Did I mention that I'm under mentorship?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Nope. Did I mention that I am, too? And I'm providing mentoring to someone else? I'm a fan of mentoring, and people helping people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
          • An admin under mentorship?!--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, an admin under mentorship. At my RfA, many people were concerned with my ratio at nominating speedy deletes. Someone said it was 91% (it turns out it was actually higher, an honest mistake). 92-94% is plenty high for an editor, but an admin. I was asked that if I was given the mop, if I would be willing to accept mentoring on CSD policy, I said yes. User:Boing! said Zebedee had offered to mentor, so I set up User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD so that he could. Now, technically, once I got the admin bit, I could have blown it off as it was unenforceable, but that isn't the type of person that I am. If I'm nothing else, I am a man of my word. I voluntarily will not enter the CSD area to delete articles until he signs off, likely in a few months. Some people might have felt insulted, or wouldn't have agreed, but their concerns were in good faith and I'm not so prideful that I can't take advice. I passed my RfA soundly and got the mop. Mentoring is a good thing. We all excel at some things, and could use work in others. There is no shame in that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
              • • Until that comment, I've always thought of mentoring as a "you have to learn from me and listen to me" set-up; now I know that it's far more pleasant than that! Thanks for your comments here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say there are two kinds of mentoring: "passive mentoring", in which the mentor is more of a resource than a teacher; the mentored editor simply goes to his mentor for any and all questions. In a way, it is more an adoption than true mentoring, and is done mostly with newbies seeking a "go to helper". "Active mentoring" on the other hand is more of an actual teaching experience, where both parties are pro-actively involved in the learning process; this is often done for more experienced editors seeking help with a specific area of their work, like Dennis with CSD. :) Salvidrim! 03:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm under passive mentoring, except when I get in trouble.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say you "get in trouble". You just let your good intentions get the better of you! :) Salvidrim! 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • A great way to think about it. Thanks for that comment!--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Very good way to put it. Mentoring isn't always official either. I've always considered DGG a mentor, even though I've never asked him to be so, I simply observe his demeanor and methods, and have adopted those that work for me. He and I differ in many ways, he is an inclusionist, I'm centrist (former leaning deletionist). We have different ideas on the importance of cultural events to the encyclopedia, etc. But I've always looked up to his style of discussing. I don't emulate, and I have a very different style of engaging than he does, but I have incorporated lessons learned into my way of communicating. In a way, several admins now are mentors, even without asking, helping me learn accepted methods. Again, mentoring should be viewed as a positive thing, as the goal is personal growth, which carries into the real world as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, have you read my recent comments at the Administrators Noticeboard? 28bytes (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No. You haven't been making many recently.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This and this are the comments I'm referring to. I won't belabor what Dennis says above (though I agree with every word) except to point out that it's really inappropriate to toss around the idea of desysopping someone (as you did here) without talking to them first to try to understand why they did whatever action(s) they did that you found objectionable. You wouldn't want someone to start a "should Jasper be blocked?" section on AN/I without them trying to talk to you first, right? You should give Raul654 the same courtesy. People are way too quick to start threads or sub-threads about sanctioning (desysoping, banning, whatever) their fellow editors without the crucial first step of trying to talk out their differences first, and I hope you will take Dennis's advice and try to avoid that in the future. 28bytes (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

All agreed. These are all untold rules of ANI, rules not in policy, and I was completely unaware of them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page, then. :) 28bytes (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)