Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
ChronicalUsual rangeblock
A few people had voiced support for a rangeblock on CU (including you, I believe). Is this going to be enacted? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- You'll have to ask a CheckUser for an IPv4 rangeblock, but the IPv6 tunnel he used can easily be rangeblocked - see Materialscientist's talk page. I don't know if it'll help though.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly can't hurt, can it? Given his stated intent to return (muahahaha!), shutting off a possible route seems like a good idea to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the abuse has to be that extreme to actually out IP addresses used and there's always the danger of collateral damage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose so. I guess we'll have to wait for new socks to crop up (which they almost surely will). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the abuse has to be that extreme to actually out IP addresses used and there's always the danger of collateral damage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly can't hurt, can it? Given his stated intent to return (muahahaha!), shutting off a possible route seems like a good idea to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding ChronicalUsual's ban, please do not close ban proposals, even if they appear entirely uncontroversial. You are not an admin and only sysops should close those discussions. As a ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges, only a person who has gone through a community review process should be able to impose it. That said, I already imposed a small rangeblock when I first checked Daniel's account; this will probably slow him down, but I'm confident he'll still find ways to edit, unfortunately. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not uncommon for non-admins to close the discussions. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Which doesn't make it any less inappropriate. Ban discussions are a serious matter and should not be used as an easy way to accumulate brownie points for adminship. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not uncommon for non-admins to close the discussions. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Microsoft Security Essentials is now a featured article
We did it! | |
Microsoft Security Essentials is now a featured article. Thanks for your assistance and support in making it possible. Codename Lisa (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
Page Curation newsletter
Hey Jasper Deng. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User HumphreyW's activities on the Intel Atom page
I am sufficiently concerned about Humprey's edits (which he appears to have restricted to removal of other people's information) that I'm writing to you in order to request an investigation of his activities as follows:
- At no point has Humprey stated that he has no affiliation with Intel or related companies
- His dogged determination to remove information regarding the chipset + system's support of 64 bit is at best suspect. He appears to leave no room for other people (including myself, nor you) to hold different views of whether information will be useful to the reader or not. Instead - he has constantly ensured that his own views on information inclusion are the ONLY views that he "permits" to be present on the article page
- His justification for removal of the information due to "no RS" seems at odds with other Wikipedia article (one of which is cited in the talk page regarding these edits). There are many pages which still have information present but for which no citation is present. The sheer number of "citation needed" information sections makes it clear that this is not uncommon.
- I would request an investigation into this behaviour, and that he states for the record any affiliations with Intel or related companies.
Frankly - this is not the "cooperative" model of information development on Wikipedia that I had expected. Instead this appears to be one individual enforcing their own view of "correctness" on an article, as well largely restricting their contributions to undoing the (valuable) work of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noasshats (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally - I've just noticed that some of the information WITHIN the same article has an "RS" that is (for example) a Sisoft Sandra benchmark on Tomshardware. Yet Humphrey has denied my information from a similarly peer-reviewed site: StackExchange. I will be more than happy to remove my information should ALL other information from sites such as Tweaktown, etc are also removed.
I sense a clear bias from HumphreyW on this article. I would ask that he explain this bias - why articles from "Tweaktown" are acceptable whilst articles from "StackExchange" are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noasshats (talk • contribs) 13:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Both of you are edit warring. StackExchange is not reliable per the self-published sources policy, regardless of peer-checking, because what's the reliability of those peers?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigma
Rather than clutter up the RfA, I'll thank you here for your response to one of my questions. One more small bit of ignorance down the drain.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Microsoft Security Essentials
Hi.
They say when it rains, it pours. Keeping a cool head and avoiding comments on the contributor aside (I trust we both know them), do you think it is worth dropping the other guys a note?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Be careful about WP:Canvassing. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I stand corrected: Keeping a cool head, avoiding comment on the contributor and not engaging in canvassing aside (I trust we both know them), do you think it is worth dropping the other guys a {{Please see}}?
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- {{Please see}} might still look a bit uncomfortably too much like canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I tell you what: I will drop them a {{please see}} and you report me to ANI for canvassing! Tell them I am a bad, bad, bad Wikipedian too! Then I guess we will discover whether it is canvassing or not. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- {{Please see}} might still look a bit uncomfortably too much like canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Throwing the baby out with bathwater
Hello, Jasper
Twice so far you have performed massive reverts in Windows Server 2012 to revert minor changes such as removing a single badly-referenced assertion about processors and removing the split between tables. In doing so, you have reverted a lot of good changes such a date style fix, multiple fixes to external links, removal of several unreferenced statements and a maintenance change, which your edit summaries suggest you have nothing against them. Like you said in the past, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, at least not twice in a row.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please re-read WP:POINT, because it does not apply here. To make things easier I ask that you separate each change into its own edit so good changes aren't reverted with the bad ones.
- I really ask that you AGF more with my edits, because I am sick of you accusing me of making reverts in bad faith.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Jasper
- Are you sure you posted in the right thread? We have had only one dispute in the past, which went to MedCab; and none of us have ever accused the other of bad faith editing. For the rest, we just collaborated on a handful of occasions. But actually, you seem terribly out of focus recently. Can I help?
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I consider your initial comment here an accusation of bad faith - I feel insulted when you accuse me of POINT when I did a good-faith revert (notice that whenever I reverted it was to a previous revision by you, and in doing so I was trying to preserve as much as I could). Notice that I also redid your other fixes after each revert.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Jasper
- Well, I consider your initial comment here an accusation of bad faith - I feel insulted when you accuse me of POINT when I did a good-faith revert (notice that whenever I reverted it was to a previous revision by you, and in doing so I was trying to preserve as much as I could). Notice that I also redid your other fixes after each revert.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you are considering my initial comment accusatory, then you are assuming bad faith, not me. But I digress. Your mass revert, regardless of the faith in which it is done, was not the best course of action. That is all. Trying reading my initial message in the previous thread; it might make you feel better.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't wish to discuss this further unless you realize that these were not mass-reverts, and you say I'm doing POINT violations - that's an accusation, unless you want to retract that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
GA review of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
Hello there. I'm the nominator of this article and I am surprised that this got passed so easily. In my opinion this article seems fine except for the lead, therefore I was nominating it to see if anyone can give any suggestion on this. Thank you anyway!--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I feel that the lead does adequately summarize the article. For an article of that length we don't need a very long lead.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Your help at AN3
Your comment here turned out to be right, though I was doubtful at first. I also appreciated your comment to Plasmic about use of rollback. You must know something about chemistry. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I admire both of these users as editors knowledgeable in chemistry (even more than I). To see them edit warring was not a pretty sight to me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)