User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Block

Hi!, I wrote History, because I study History in Spain at University, but and I do not like false information.

Tell me how is possible, Caliphate of Cordoba in 1040, is in 1031 disapeared?...

Please can you write you Tachfin: (Undid revision 444646229 by 87.217.106.39 (talk)Bokpasa we've been over this stop you're POV edits motivated by anti-Moroccan sentiment). I do not have anti-Moroccan sentiment, and this is insult to me (and in Spain can be a delit of xenofobia)Bokpasa 22:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the conflict is, please stop edit warring and discuss. Besides, using multiple IPs to continue edit warring is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. If you think the information is false (I do not), please provide a reliable source. If other people are thinking you have an anti-Moroccan sentiment, it's because your edits to those pages imply that you do. You will have to explain to them on article talk pages and I repeat, do not edit war.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

?

Hi Jasper. This edit puzzled me. I don't see an edit war; can you help me understand why you left that message? 28bytes (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an IP-hopper, according to a recent ANI thread, being WP:DUCK of FAIZGUEVARRA. These IPs are block evasion of FAIZGUEVARRA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is a prolific edit warrer on this topic.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
The IP 41.92.85.242 (located in Morocco) isn't included in the range 41.200.0.0/18 (located in Algeria). As I see, this IP wasn't involved in any EW since it only reverted once Bokpasa's edits.
Please read this to avoid, as you did before, warning and reporting the wrong users.
Omar-Toons (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It still looks like block evasion, per WP:DUCK. The edit war here is on multiple pages.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The edit made by IP 41.92.85.242 [1] is the opposite of the one made by FAIZGUEVARRA [2], then it is NOT a block evasion of FAIZGUEVARRA.
Again you intervene in this "dispute" without understanding what is going on: A notorious Pov-Pusher and edit warrior, Bokpasa, making disruptive edits despite the discussions (since 2006) where everybody oppose these edits, using a series of IPs based in Spain, with FAIZGUEVARRA undoing every revert of Bokpasa's edits, and on the other side a lot of users reverting these edits, and as I see the IP 41.92.85.242 is on of these.
I still disagree with you intervention.
Omar-Toons (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
My justification here was a 41.105.* IP I saw earlier, making similar edits. But it does not matter which side of the dispute the IP is on. Edit warring is not acceptable.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
A one revert edit isn't an edit warring. Your interventions are still not neutral.
Omar-Toons (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like you to assume good faith more. My intervention is perfectly neutral. Edit warring violations are independent of whose point of view it is. This isn't the normal kind of edit war, it's one that spans many pages.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue screen article

I do have a source for all of them; I added it as reference 3 in the article (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff542347(v=VS.85).aspx) and as a comment in the page. riking8 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the source, using the {{cite web}} template. I don't really consider those errors very notable, but I may be wrong on those.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Do I need inline for every one, or a "bulk" citation? And if so, how (would I do a bulk)?
Also, some of them aren't really notable, but I think we could put the non-notable ones on a page such as "List of Windows stop errors" or something and keep the common ones. riking8 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
For now, I'll keep adding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riking8 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No, please don't add them unless you use a bulk citation. I think a list would be good, actually.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations

Please do not restore blatant BLP violations and vandalism like you did here just because the user removed categories and part of a PERSONDATA template in addition to the BLP violations. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The categories removed included those of living people. A tradeoff it is.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Jasper - the accidental removal of categories by a brand new editor is absolutely unequal to your reinsertion of the BLP violating material (especially given that the user had explained what they were removing in their edit summary!). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's unequal, but I'm just pointing out that removing the category about living persons can be considered a mild but unintentional BLP violation. Otherwise, I agree with Reaper on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Removal of categories from a BLP may be disruptive (if occurring without consensus across multiple articles, or in WP:POINT situations), but just because the category removal happened within a BLP does not make it a BLP violation. It's your black and white interpretation of Wikipedia policies that keep tripping you up - there seems to be little room for nuance. An unstated but absolutely invaluable trait that can get you far in this huge Wikipedia community is the ability to say "I screwed up" without reaching for excuses. A heartfelt "mea culpa" every once in a while can do wonders. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kinda universal, you know. As shown by the only entry in my block log, it has been an issue in the past.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Quick Note

User_talk:Possesseva is a perfect example of why we have an option on blocks to allow them to simply create a brand new username, rather than the technical rename. He should simply have created a new username, and linked the accounts accordingly :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to leave a more elaborating welcome message (on the previous one), but my internet cut off and I was busy.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi There!

Heya Jasper.

I've had a word with 28bytes, who mentioned he may not be around for a bit. As such, I've volunteered to hang around and poke you when I'm bored. On a serious note, I'm about if you want to chat about anything, otherwise I'll spend a little time getting to know you (reading through your archives and so on) and see if I've got any suggestions. WormTT · (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that you might make a good mentor. As for now, I think I need a reverse-topic-ban (restricted topics only).Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

It won't work because he's burning sock accounts created in 2008 and getting them autoconfirmed with ten edits. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Then let's go with full on the article and semi on the talk page. It's the maximum we can do.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
If he wants to use up his old sock accounts, I'm inclined to let him. Others may have different opinions. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It'll help to restrict that to the talk page only, where it's less visible. It'll get him less attention, and will be less rollbacks per sock. After all, we're trying to prevent disruption.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't declined the requests, so you might want to modify them according to the above and see whether you get any takers. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Full protection requested.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for keeping an eye on DeepFlight Super Falcon and helping remove the incessant promotional material that keeps finding its way back in. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS:STABILITY

Hello, Jasper. I'd like to attract your attention to the stability issue: According to MOS:STABILITY, the only thing that is required for an article is to use one style consistently. Otherwise, the article can use whatever of the multiple allowed forms of style.

In that regard, use of x64 and x86-64 is just a matter of style. As long as the entire article is using only one these two terms, it does not matter which is used. The matter is, once the first major contributor used one of these two, the other users should not change it.

Of course, same does not go for EMT64 or AMD64. EMT64 is x64 in an Intel microprocessor and AMD64 is x64 in an AMD microprocessor.

You surely know this, but I am writing this for people who read this and are prone to misuse it: Use of "i386" and "x86" to refer to "IA-32" is not always okay. i386 is the first Intel microprocessor that used IA-32 and x86 is a superset of IA-32. Yes, metonymy is not banned in Wikipedia, but "supported on both x86 and x64" is hardly metonymy.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We can go with that, but I prefer not to use x86 because it can mean either 32- or 64- bit.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Fleet Command (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Extension:GlobalUserGroups

Hi Jasper. Look to my reply on http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:GlobalUserGroups. Regards, SVG 09:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Semi protected

I semied your talk page for a day as you seem to be attracting attention from some very childish people. Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If I were an admin, I wouldn't be afraid to make difficult blocks, so that's perfect.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks Jasper for reverting the edit on my user page. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting?

I'm a little confused about this. You think that I've got multiple usernames? Where did you get that idea from? This is my first time trying to make an article, ever. I've been up all night trying to figure it out and now I can't publish it because you think I'm a sockpuppet? Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinbow (talk • contribs) 04:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not because I'm accusing you of sockpuppetry, but because your article violates our biographies of living persons policy. I accused you of sockpuppetry based on the fact that you said that person was on a (S**T) list, and that the topic you are editing is currently the target of a long-term vandal.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
How does it violate the biographies of living persons policy? The list is a real thing, very famous. You can find it at http://www.masada2000.org/shit-list.html Or you can read about it ON WIKIPEDIA at the Masada2000 page. So, what policy am I violating? And what do I have to do with some long-term vandal? Does that mean nobody gets to talk about Israel-Palestine?
No, you may write an article. I find it to be a BLP violation because the statement you wrote can be viewed as disparaging by the subject of the article, and also, you have many unsourced statements like the section on "Middle East bureau". Please act civilly (that means don't shout (all caps is considered shouting)).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I won't shout in the future. I still don't understand the BLP violation thing, but the article is published now nonetheless. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinbow (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're writing an article on a living person, you must make sure that everything is cited, and all statements are very accurate.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User boxes

Thanks for the correction on my page and ive got another question i might of asked before but i just want to clarify; For the user boxes templates such as this user uses windows 7 and this user would like to be a admin someday etc , How do you get them? Is there a big list of all the different user boxes which i could use or do you have to make them and how? Goldblooded (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User boxes.Jasper Deng (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks thats the one i was looking for :) Goldblooded (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and also, do you know of a template to sort out user boxes into categories or something because i tried to do it myself but it looks a little... jumbled. Goldblooded (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I simply organized them into a table. I think there's a template, but I don't remember.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think ive figured out how to do it but for some reason they are too far to the right , How did you get them so they are next to each other on the left and the blank boxes to make each colum equal ? Goldblooded (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To make the center one right in the center, use the <center> tag. I don't know much about the left.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Two of the columns are correct but for some reason the 3rd column is at the bottom , even though i arranged them left center and right :S Goldblooded (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The <center> isn't a float. You need to use some <div style="float:center or left or right;">Content</div> tags to float it. I think I had something like that on my page with userboxes, or maybe it was a table. --Σ talkcontribs 01:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey jasper, could i have your opinion on something? Do you think this edit [edit] is grammatical enough to be on wikipedia? Goldblooded (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not since "form" (in most form of attack) is supposed to be plural. In general, too, avoid run-on sentences.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops , that was a mistake. Thanks for pointing that out Goldblooded (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey Jasper, It's been a long time since we've interacted. Welcome back to the SDA world. I know have mentors just like you, only I follow them more than I think Bello ever did. Do you have any suggestions about how I can proceed with the problems at the Southern Talk page, specifically with closing and some sources. I've done decent with the sources( I think) but I don't want to hit 3RR. Thanks for your involvement--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Besides the 3RR warning, I'm not going to be involved in this. Sorry.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good decision, Jasper. Well done. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ReactOS

Hi, there is a reply to your discussion between you and Slatedorg over at Talk:ReactOS. LoneRifle (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jasper Deng! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess again

If it were him the page wouldn't have been reverted to read "fail!" It would have been goatse'd. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 01:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I based the assertion of the presence of words like "cretin" and "nazi" on the userpage.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Quite a few disillusioned users bandy those words around. JA's mainly interested in torquing off the admins enforcing his ban, and blanking TP doesn't do that. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The Userpage Shield
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page 5 albert square (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope that no more admin time is wasted by this guy.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Any advice?

Hey Jasper sorry to bother you again, also im sorry to hear about the trouble you've been receiving lately but i need your better judgement (along with my adoptee)

Basicially i made two posts to Dapi89's page and they were good faith edits and i was responding to a couple of peoples queries abotu what happened to him on the page etc. This is what i said.

Im afriad people move on see Wikipedia:VOLUNTEER and Wikipedia:Retiring From what i gather/believe Dapi had a dispute with one or more administrators which eventually led to him being banned for a week or so. Wikipedia:Banning_policy Although at any rate, he decided to retire due to personal problems/stress. It happens. We'll all experience it from time to time. Theres plenty of other editors anyway, if you want some advice or any quieries/questions regarding modern history (i.e ,1900-1982 although i do know a fair bit about the Napoleonic wars and the german and italian unifcation wars in the 1800s) Then im the guy to ask. Goldblooded (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And the other thing i said was:

Give the guy a break, See WP:VOLUNTEER If he doesn't want to come back then he wont, If he does then he'll come back of his own accord; by the sounds of things he seemed rather stressed and worn out and moaning at him isn't going to help. Goldblooded (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of them were clearly Good WP:Faith edis I was helping out that guy out and directing him to the relevant pages ,Besides i found it unfair that everyone is moaning at dapi to come back, hes probably having a hard time; something that i know all to well myself.

I asked both admins who seem to have some sort of alliance between themeselves and a few others and they didnt give me a clear reply , at fist Ed removed both edits and said (in the chat history thing)

"rm post, people are allowed to put posts like that on this page, no need to attack them"

Which doesnt really make any sense because i honestly dont see how explaining what happened and putting myself forward to help them has anything remotely to do with "personal attacks"

Concerning the other paragraph i was pointing out that if hes gunna come back he'll do it if not he wont , moaning at him wont help. And it wont either.

Its also ironic how they seemd to get defensive (paticulrary Parsecboy who was the other editor involved and he told me politely to "piss off") it irriates me how just because they have admin preferences (which they are using as an exscsue to twist peoples words and threaten them) that they think they are superior than anyone else and dont give the newbies a chance. No wonder 100s of possible new wikipedians get scared away by admins. they should be greatfull that i actually bothered to stay on wikipedia and put up with this.

Then i put it back and i asked him again why he removed it and he grumbled something obscure about that the other persons post was over a month old , even though it was barely 2 weeks old.


Ed accused me of personal attacks and then he changed his tune and said that im hassling month old comments which is ridiculous anyway they cant possibly treat me like this. I was sticking up for Dapi and offering my help to other users , i thought thats what wikipedia and pretty much any good community supports, Guess i was wrong. Then they said i could be banned or "face the consequences"

I tried to reason with them that i remove one of them but nope , Parsecboy backed him up with what came across as a rather smirky remark telling me to politely get lost.

its called good faith and helping out in the community- and indeed i do have better things to do such as college and writing my novels/books among other things. Leave the page as it is, if you must ive removed the first thing since you were grumbling about that. It really isnt no Sudetenland ; Yet they kept making it into a big deal but they STILL didnt fully explain themselves. And it wasnt even a month old , it was barely 2 weeks.

You got a verdict on this? What should i do? Goldblooded (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins are only human, and they sometimes will get stressed. See WP:STICK. Also, Wikipedia is not a social network.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

True. I suppose ill leave it since im the only person trying to ride on the horse although bink put a rather unessary comment

"I saw your comments on Dapi's talk page and I thought they were completely unnecessary, out of line, with too much of the flavor of dancing on the grave after a victory over an opponent. I disagree 100% with your recommendation that people seek you out instead of Dapi. I agree with the removal by Parsecboy. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC"

and as i replied ,

"So was your comment here. Anyway of course your going to agree with him because from what ive observed. Your his best buddy.

Anyway ive already discussed with some people and i was in the right and i put a message on his talk page instead but on regards to WP:STICK I will leave this matter here. And of coruse you would disagree because you dont even know me , dont be so narrow minded and actually a smirky comment like that could be taken as abuse but anyway theres no point seeking out dapi since hes left, So it would be completely illogical on your part to recommend a retired user over me because as i told the other people (whos comments you removed) he probably isnt coming back so take your unessarary comments elsewhere please. Goldblooded (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And how is it possibly "dancing on the grave" of my opponent i didnt even win. I was genuinelly trying to help and redirect that guy, but anywho as ive already stated this matter is resolved. You win. congratulations. Goldblooded (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And actually your comment is rather contradictory since thats practically what your doing. See WP:DEADHORSE Goldblooded (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)"

Anyway i posted the one paragraph that got deleted to the guy in question's appropiate talk page, at any rate i was rather insulted that i was treated like a piece of shit on here by some stuck up admins, paticulary since im one of the up and coming members/newbies. Since a lot of them seem to get scared off by admins such as these. Im surprised i actually waste my time on here trying to help others and improve this site , and on many pages im the only person who actually bothers to edit/improve them.

On a side note Its funny really because even though your not an admin , your probably one of the most genuine and accommodating people on here. How come your getting so much abuse off people as of which i observed via my watchlist? Goldblooded (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the fact that you are bold when you make changes to Wikipedia. Keep it up :) ! Concerning the abuse, I'm one of the people dealing with a long-term and prolific vandal, and I don't really mind it.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh my contribs? Thanks! that means a lot. I try my best :) But yeah sorry i havent been active for the past few days i was up in Derby having a ceremony + a speech for my gran who has recently passed. and doing things such as cleaning out the house with my father and his wife etc. Goldblooded (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)