Not all of these are on Wikidata yet. Could you please add them before removing the interwiki links. —Ruud 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done, though in the future it would likely be easier for you to add the links yourself using the slurpInterwiki gadget on Wikidata. --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's ok Jasper. Sometimes things don't work out. I'm sure if you come back to RFA at a later date the community will be ready to get behind you and support you all the way. Best wishes,★★RetroLord★★ 21:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that while I couldn't be persuaded to support, I think you are doing a great job here. IMO, you have come a very long way in a very short time - and I expect that with a bit more wiki-seasoning that I'll look forward to support in the not to distant future. I know that emotionally an RfA can be very trying; but it can also be an experience that will help with your efforts in the future. It's been a pleasure to get to know a bit more about you, and I look forward to seeing you out there on the project. — Ched : ? 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Your comment was a bit despondent, "I was hoping that my past could be forgiven, but since this has zero chance of succeeding, I am going to withdraw this." But don't take it personally and the experience can help you.--Razionale (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng. Since you are a major editor on Levitsky versus Marshall, I wanted to let you know I have listed this article for Good article reassessment as a community reassessment. I have listed the reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Levitsky versus Marshall/1. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually Monson is an outspoken anarchist :-D [1].--Razionale (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I made that revert mainly due to concerns about WP:BLP. I can't check this source because the link is broken; still, I would have doubts that a single source would be enough to support such a big assertion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strangely, the link is working for me. There's also a well-sourced section describing anarchist graffiti mischief he was responsible for. I agree, however, that the word anarchist in the first sentence is overblown.--Razionale (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the GA, I'm fine if you wish to fail it now. I don't think I am able to meet the new requests posted on the review page a few days ago regarding commercialization and a few other things.
Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 02:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you again for your help, the bot will now ignore the wrong addresses. I also added WMF's 6to4 gateways to fr:User:Proxyblock/Whitelist based on what you say in User:Jasper Deng/IPv6, do you see something else that should be whitelisted ? do you know if the labs IPs are inside the WMF prefixes [2] ? --Akeron (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Labs currently does not support IPv6. 2620:0:862:101:0:0:0:0/96 is Toolserver. Besides that, there are no other IPv6 addresses that are Wikimedia-owned (although Toolserver may have new IPv6 these days, so always be careful).--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I felt inclined to oppose, and moreso if you got the sense that I considered you insensitive to the feelings of editors who were being blocked or banned. It was just the fact that you came off as over eager in your comments at AN/I. I think I'll be much more inclined to support your next bid; you would do a good job. :-) Kurtis (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, explain why you do not want to have a line explaining the existence of an official Microsoft approved web page where users can submit, vote and review missing features. Otherwise I will have to revert your removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.175.48 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not something that's worthy of being included in the text of the article. Almost all software platforms' companies have suggestion boxes, so this is nothing special. The article's purpose is to document the operating system's features, not how Microsoft's website receives feedback on ths OS. In that respect, WP:NOTHOWTO describes how Wikipedia is not for providing a how-to guide for users to submit feedback.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, it seems you misunderstood. It is just an information that Microsoft has a way to submit, vote and browse missing features. There is no problem letting people know that there is such web page. Do you see the benefit of the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.175.48 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. In this article, I feel it's irrelevant - the purpose of it is to document the software itself (and reactions to it).--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
If you sent me a mail, please send it again. As you see from my talk page header, I'm very busy and I may have missed it. I have recently cleared out old messages from my Wikipedia mail inbox. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've resent it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I took so long to reply, I am really very busy in RL at the moment. My comment was what it was, nothing more, nothing less. However, FWIW, Boing seemed to sum things up appropriately. I hope the experience, though unpleasant, will help you with your participation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This user User_talk:Titodutta#Talkback_message_from_Draubb is canvassing badly. I went to Wikiversity to request to quicken an AFD discussion which is pending for 4 months! It is surprising how they are requesting for custodianship without knowing what is edit counter js! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Or does Wikiversity work like that where you need to collect your votes? Seeing my 5 months pending AFD request, I am unsure! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)What really concerns me with that user, as I've said, is not really that, but the fact that he's been apparently socking to try to increase his votes, along with his obvious immaturity (experience is best gauged by other users, for starters, so he shouldn't be saying he has the experience, especially when others say he doesn't).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- He incorrectly attempted to close discussion! This "Done" message means nothing unless he goes forward and deletes the articles. He just added a CSD template in the article (weird process). He is assuring me that he'll help me in that AFD and everytime right after asking for support in AFD. This is another reason to oppose! Should not it be Wikiversity's equivalent of WP:SNOW? --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh boy. However, as far as I know, Wikiversity doesn't really close access requests.... but it's clear that he's unsuited for the role.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Think you could explain your reasoning here? Regards. - Amaury (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's my error. I meant to revert the edit you reverted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
I wrote two paragraphs of FAQ for Microsoft Security Essentials article and I need someone to review it. I'd be glad to have your input.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like a good introduction for new users. For the second question, though, we may want to write a bit more formally.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi.
- I am awfully sorry to bother you again but I really think I need a feedback on this:
- User talk:HonestIntelligence#Microsoft Security Essentials
- Where do you think I go wrong?
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like you made the same mistake as the one I made when I first met you - WP:BITE. Yeah, that edit was of pretty low quality, but with new users, it usually helps to address them with the biggest issues first, so they don't get overwhelmed. He has to make sure that his edit complies with WP:DUE.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again. Thanks. Perhaps I can find someone to offer him some soothing words. Or, perhaps I can make it up. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Normally, a talkback is not necessary but in your case, you might come back a week later... 
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I see you tagged The Game of the Century (chess). Citation can almost always be improved, but there are 14 inline cites in the article now so tagging the entire article is not very helpful in getting your concerns addressed. The neutrality complaint covering the entire article is in many ways even worse, as no one has any way to know what specifically you consider questionable. I invite you to explain your concerns at Talk:The Game of the Century (chess) or at least to use inline tags in the specific areas of concern to assist other editors in addressing the issues. Thanks. Quale (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think I you did not perform the tagging that I was referring to. I don't know why I thought you did. Please ignore my mistaken note, and I apologize for troubling you. Quale (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Since Mediawiki doesn't seem to have any method of requesting an unblock or block review as far as I can tell, I would like you to find some uninvolved people to take a look at your block and the block reasons. Fram (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I found three such people on IRC, one of whom has commented on your talk page there. All endorse the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this. I'll continue the discussion at MediaWiki. I'm highly amazed though at the way things work (or don't work) there. Fram (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- You may also email me or another admin, but I stand by my action.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) You revoked my talk page access? For what exactly? You could have simply ignored me, if I was being difficult in your opinion. But I wasn't impolite, abusive, or whatever reason you want to give for the talk page access revocation. You repeatedly referred to my status "As an English Wikipedia admin", but I can tell you that I would "never" revoke talk page access for the discussion we had over there. And I doubt you would find many admins here who would have revoked my talk page access if we had that discussion here on en-wiki either. "NOTTHEM" may be a reason to deny an unblock request, but not one to revoke talk page access. Thanks to the lack of unblock templates, you could have simply ignored me or let other people handle things if anyone wanted to. But to make your original incorrect block worse by adding revocation of talk page access after the incorrect treatment you gave has been pointed out, is rather beyond the pale.
You said "I feel that you are not listening to what I have been saying; as such, I have disabled your talk page access for the remainder of the block."; stranegly, I feel exactly the same, but of course I'm not even allowd to say that calmly on my own talk page. What have you actually achieved by disabling talk page access? Do you think that will in any way or shape improve the chance of me working together with you to find a resolution? In fact, I haven't seen a single effort from you to find a resolution at all (yeah, you claim to have talked to Rschen on IRC), only efforts to silence me and hide my edits. Very, very poor behaviour from your side.
(I'll not post here anymore unless you post something I need to reply to) Fram (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I did not feel like further access to your talk page for you would be constructive. I don't buy "I'm being persecuted" because as I've said, your edits have firmly established as disruptive and things that had to be prevented, and you show no intention of stopping them if I unblocked you. This is MediaWiki.org, not the English Wikipedia, where you do not actually get to get away with this drama or disrupt developers' workspace.
- I will not discuss this block any more on this wiki - it is not an issue of this wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll continue this tomorrow on the MediaWiki then, if I'm allowed then (which seems dubious from your replies). No one on en-wiki would restrict the talk page access of someone because their questions are "not constructive" in the eyes of the blocker. I have not disrupted "developers' workspace", please tell me which developer had his workspace disrupted by my edits? Furthermore, it is not the developers workspace, it is the workspace of everyone involved with and concerned about Wikipedia (and other WMF projects). It is a wiki, and part of the group of WMF wikis. Seeing the interference of a non-dev as "disrupting your workplace" is enlightening, and again shows the need for the "WMF should be part of the community" thread someone else has started here.
- "You show no intention of stopping"; have you ever tried asking this (not ordering a troll to stop, asking)? Listening to what the problem is and why someone does what he does? Interacting, instead of bullying? Trying to find a solution which is acceptable for both sides? Have you ever wondered if perhaps the VE and the buggy updates are seen as disrupting the workspace of much more editors than my edit of one status page could ever achieve? You treat me as a regular vandal, while instead I have serious concerns, backed up with evidence, which are routinely being ignored by you and everyone at the WMF, without explanation or justification. I hope to find some answer to my questions and concerns at MediaWiki by tomorrow. Fram (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi Jasper, just wondering if you could accept/reject some of the outstanding rights requests over at testwiki? Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe later. I'm a bit busy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Jasper, I really appreciate your comment on the Hobby Lobby Talk page. Between yourself and one additional editor, it seems there is emerging consensus to make the changes. However, 12 hours later, there hasn't been any further action. Assuming no serious disagreement follows, how long would you want to wait before it's updated? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up and fixing it up to meet wiki's standards, I'll be more careful from now on and I'll be sure to hit you up if I got any questions. Scsa20 (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For those who are wondering, I explicitly gave Σ permission to test his bot on my talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Read the full newsletter
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't sure why there was a 1 rather than a 4 there. Thanks for fixing the issue. Minima© (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
For catching my very obvious error at User talk:TCN7JM. I had absolutely no reason to even visit the page. I just assume that I clicked a wrong small button on my watchlist or a history page somewhere. My apologies all round. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
You have more experience than me in topics like Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools § Inclusion criteria. Do you mind pitching in? I could use a fresh opinion or a third course of action.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm about to go to bed now. I'll take a look tomorrow.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jasper, I noticed you commented on this SPI about an IPv6 rangeblock. I just tried to block a range here. Did I do that right? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You did for that range, but you didn't cover any of 2602:30a:2e3e:dff0::/64 (which you can do with a separate /64 block). Unfortunately it seems like this person intends on socking around /64 rangeblocks and then we'd need an actual collateral-causing /48 block (CheckUser would have to clear it).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for taking a look. I can block the DFF0 range if need be, but the 4 IPs from that range listed in the SPI hadn't made any edits since 3 November. If there are more recent edits from that range I could block it though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Double sharp/Chess. It's been quiet there, and I'd like to finish it. ;-) (I'm not 100% sure what the evaluation is. You can help me find out. ;-)) Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- - + - next will come ...Kg2, and the f-pawn promotes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- What about after 42.c4? Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think Black still has ...Kg2, because his pawn is so much more advanced than White's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, if Black just continues like this then White will be in time: 42...Kg2 43.c5 Kxf2 44.c6 Ke2 (the knight can't seem to catch the pawn, so Black has to push) 45.c7 f2 46.c8=Q f1=Q and it seems to be still a draw. Capturing the pawn immediately seems to only draw: 42...Nxc4 takes the knight too far away from capturing on f2 (and 43.Be1 immediately defends that so that the king can help promote his own pawns) and 42...dxc4 43.Bd2 (kicking the knight from defending the c-pawn) 43...Nd1 44.Kxc4 Nxf2 45.Be1 seems sufficient to draw. Double sharp (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I should consider offering a draw... Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Or I could make a blunder for you...--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Would rather not... Anyway, cleared board. Here we go again... (game 3) Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
When you can provide a WP:RS to that effect, I will change the description page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Did you see the article talk page? I wasn't being too specific, but if you go to the link provided there, and download the notes for the recording, you'll see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
