This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Funny you say that... All I am doing is raising a possibility... I have asked to debate over and over again with these people, because I have clear evidence that proves what I have been editing into the articles and they wont debate me....Being neutral has nothing to do with it... I'm tired of that myth about snake potency being stated as fact and I want to change it as I have evidence that it is a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Your concern is noted but I'm a bit confused! Sitush ( talk) 11:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Person X can set up a Wikipedia account to impersonate Person Y whether or not Person Y is a celebrity.
The edits made by that account verged on the disingenuous, and so the account got blocked for consistent bad behavior. The subjects edited by that article were licit but relatively unsavory. These, combined with the nature of the userpage, made me suspicious that perhaps someone was attempting to smear a second person by associating the second person's name with inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia.
Some Googling for the name in question revealed that someone has been very determinedly associating that name with.... strongly inappropriate terms, going on to specify the city and state of residence, as well as the place of employment.
I thus concluded that the whole thing was an attempted smear campaign on Person Y, and changed the block log to be accurate. As a corollary, if future employers search for this person's name, they will not find that Person Y was blocked from Wikipedia for misbehavior, but rather that someone else was blocked from Wikipedia for impersonating Person Y.
I have posted these comments on your page rather than mine specifically to decentralize the discussion; I'd prefer to minimize the extent to which Person Y's name is used here. DS ( talk) 02:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Birthdate that i change is correct, look this website: http://search.people.com/TIISearch/people/search/search.html?search=Mariah+carey&bu=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0 Krissakristine ( talk) 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jasper. First, thanks for your work at WQA. Everything you've contributed to that page has been nothing but helpful. However, regarding User:Banana Fingers, who you very politely notified: I think they should have received (level three) warnings. They have 2000 edits, and I think they should know better by now. I replaced your warning with a higher one- something that I should have talked to you about first, so I apologize. However, I'm sure you'll understand where I'm coming from. Finally:
The Userpage Shield | ||
For catching some very subtle vandalism at User:Howard the Duck, which Howard himself admittedly wouldn't even have noticed. Awesome job. Swarm X 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
(sig for whole message: Swarm X 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
I think it's the second one. Oh yeah almost forgot, if you feel the need, message me if you need your talk page protected. Elockid ( Talk) 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. Elockid ( Talk) 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to know what may happen to articles. I am new so I am learning the basics to it. So will there be any way to make it less of a "product" page so it can be submitted? Thanks! -- Gavin Stubbs ( talk) 00:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your edit at Pumi (dog) and wanted to comment, since I don't think that the edit in question warranted rollback -- it didn't seem like vandalism at all to me. In fact, a quick check online is showing me that Pumik are apparently "quite" easy to train, even if this person didn't cite their source: [1] — anndelion ( talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of SDK carbine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article contains sufficient context to identify the subject. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (Talk) 01:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The user whom you accused of racism on the Barack Obama conspiracy theories article has began throwing a fit over being accused of racism, and although I personally suspect racism is a motive for many of those spreading falsehoods against Mr. Obama, unless I'm missing something, I didn't find anything explicitly racist in his edits. In the future, might it be best to try to word warnings as neutrally as possible? The warning against putting unsourced controversial information would have been enough. Kansan ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe you wanted {{ humorous}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, last week you chimed in over at WP:WQA between myself and DailyEditor as he was flailing personal attacks at me and vice versa. Just thought you'd be curious to know that DE messaged me saying their account was hacked by a "teen Roman whack-job" who did all the personal attacks and is now apologizing for any trouble it might have caused. Note DE decided to play around with my name for some reason as well (not sure what that's about). Anyway I'm not really buying it, but whatever. DE seems have gotten into a tussle with another user, Xeworlebi over edits made to White Collar and claimed their account was hacked there as well. I'm not sure what is going on but it may bear investigating. Cyberia23 ( talk) 03:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, is there any way, "for the record," that DE's claims of their account use by an unauthorized user be added to our cases over on WP:WQA? Both cases have already been archived, so I'm not sure if they can be further edited. Incivility on our parts aside, if DE is telling the truth, and we find out later that I was dealing with someone other than him, then I think it should be noted in there somewhere. As you stated to DE on Xeworlebi's talk page, he was responsible for the security of his account, and if it were not for their negligence, none of this would have happened in the first place. Cyberia23 ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Instead of citing WP:SPS, look down one paragraph, to he relevant policy for the Carlos Slim issues, WP:SELFPUB. Please also be careful not to bite the newcomers. Courcelles 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Your warning here, what article did it relate to? The last entry into this user's contribution log is from mid-March. Risker ( talk) 01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper. While all editors are welcome to add their own comments on 3RR cases, please do not use the {{ AN3}} template or try to close cases. For example you did this here. 'Warned' has a technical meaning; it is a kind of an admin action which is just short of a block. Since the case was stale, this is not an appropriate result. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's correct, I'm having a little trouble with the formatting. The last tinme I submitted an RFA was a long time ago. Wikipedian2 ( talk) 04:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng, I'm just letting you know that I just declined your speedy nomination of User:Crlsmrgf, because it appears to be a good-faith editing test: Esta es una prueba para ver como funciona Wikipedia a la hora de editar una página means "this is a test, to see how Wikipedia works when (I try to) edit a page". Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If you are here about why I reverted many of this user's edits, see
User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Roshonamila.
Jasper Deng
(talk)
00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm involved because I accused TheCuriousGnome of canvassing (see the editor's talk page as well as the template's talk page). Thanks, — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate you removing the comments from the "Baby got Back" SPA. I've been dealing with vandalism/OR/etc. on this article for awhile, and there comes a time when it's not worth arguing about it anymore. There was a sudden surge of meatpuppetry there today leading to me semi-protecting it, probably orchestrated from a forum. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the blanking of User:RMHED. This editor left Wikipedia some time ago under unhappy circumstances, and has not engaged in any problematic activity for some time. Experience has taught that when this occurs, blanking the tags on userpages is often helpful in eliminating a possible continued source of grievance by the departed user against the site. In the absence of continuing problems, forcing such tags to remain indefinitely may often be perceived by the former user as an act of harassment or provocation, even though I am sure you had no such intent. Therefore, I ask that you leave this page in its current blanked state. Thank you, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Many of my books use descriptive so that's why used it in editng the article. I don't think writing decripotive move is vandalism at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 ( talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Were you talking about this position?
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 ( talk • contribs)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White could of promoted to a knight to fork, would black be able to checkmate white here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've protected this talk page. It would be advisable to set-up a subpage just for IPs to be able to communicate with you, as there may be some legitimate IP edits. Ged UK 19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jasper, I am sorry. I saw they had been warned multiple times, I read that link, and interpreted that they should not be able to do that with their warnings and all. Sorry. I'll leave talk pages alone if they get blanked... Dont totally understand that. Are my article reverts and anti-vandalism there going well? Thanks VoteDemOut! ( talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
nope totally cool. how did you do that anyway? VoteDemOut! ( talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Fixed the question for you, the template is "Rfa-question" but you had "RfA-question" with a capital A, which is why it was giving you trouble. Incidentally, I didn't mean to cut in front of you with my own question; for some reason I didn't get an edit conflict when I added "my" question 4. The software can be quite quirky, it seems. 28bytes ( talk) 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Don't forget to turn off the Skype toolbar when editing, or else this could happen. Cheers, 28bytes ( talk) 00:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's not a real word when used that way, but it basically means a user has a grudge against you. They seem to have gone out of their way to mimic your editing patterns and comments to implicate you as a sockmaster. Out of curiosity, did you ever have past experiences with any of the blocked users?
Swarm
X
21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's slang. It means to be angry or upset with someone. It doesn't seem to be clear where it comes from..— Kww( talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that your user talk page is no longer semi-protected. Also, any spammers on your talk page should be listed at WP:AIV (not the general noticeboard) after sufficient warnings are given. Finally, I'd advise you to use a bit more caution in !voting on RfAs. Vague statements like "you don't edit talk pages enough" ( BCD's RfA) should be avoided or further explained. I think you should also be less harsh and avoid simply saying, "Where's your understanding of WP:BLP[?]" without indicating what you are referencing. RfA is tough and extremely stressful, so need to make it more so than necessary. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Funny you say that... All I am doing is raising a possibility... I have asked to debate over and over again with these people, because I have clear evidence that proves what I have been editing into the articles and they wont debate me....Being neutral has nothing to do with it... I'm tired of that myth about snake potency being stated as fact and I want to change it as I have evidence that it is a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Your concern is noted but I'm a bit confused! Sitush ( talk) 11:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Person X can set up a Wikipedia account to impersonate Person Y whether or not Person Y is a celebrity.
The edits made by that account verged on the disingenuous, and so the account got blocked for consistent bad behavior. The subjects edited by that article were licit but relatively unsavory. These, combined with the nature of the userpage, made me suspicious that perhaps someone was attempting to smear a second person by associating the second person's name with inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia.
Some Googling for the name in question revealed that someone has been very determinedly associating that name with.... strongly inappropriate terms, going on to specify the city and state of residence, as well as the place of employment.
I thus concluded that the whole thing was an attempted smear campaign on Person Y, and changed the block log to be accurate. As a corollary, if future employers search for this person's name, they will not find that Person Y was blocked from Wikipedia for misbehavior, but rather that someone else was blocked from Wikipedia for impersonating Person Y.
I have posted these comments on your page rather than mine specifically to decentralize the discussion; I'd prefer to minimize the extent to which Person Y's name is used here. DS ( talk) 02:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Birthdate that i change is correct, look this website: http://search.people.com/TIISearch/people/search/search.html?search=Mariah+carey&bu=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0 Krissakristine ( talk) 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jasper. First, thanks for your work at WQA. Everything you've contributed to that page has been nothing but helpful. However, regarding User:Banana Fingers, who you very politely notified: I think they should have received (level three) warnings. They have 2000 edits, and I think they should know better by now. I replaced your warning with a higher one- something that I should have talked to you about first, so I apologize. However, I'm sure you'll understand where I'm coming from. Finally:
The Userpage Shield | ||
For catching some very subtle vandalism at User:Howard the Duck, which Howard himself admittedly wouldn't even have noticed. Awesome job. Swarm X 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
(sig for whole message: Swarm X 18:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
I think it's the second one. Oh yeah almost forgot, if you feel the need, message me if you need your talk page protected. Elockid ( Talk) 02:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. Elockid ( Talk) 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to know what may happen to articles. I am new so I am learning the basics to it. So will there be any way to make it less of a "product" page so it can be submitted? Thanks! -- Gavin Stubbs ( talk) 00:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your edit at Pumi (dog) and wanted to comment, since I don't think that the edit in question warranted rollback -- it didn't seem like vandalism at all to me. In fact, a quick check online is showing me that Pumik are apparently "quite" easy to train, even if this person didn't cite their source: [1] — anndelion ( talk) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of SDK carbine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article contains sufficient context to identify the subject. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (Talk) 01:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The user whom you accused of racism on the Barack Obama conspiracy theories article has began throwing a fit over being accused of racism, and although I personally suspect racism is a motive for many of those spreading falsehoods against Mr. Obama, unless I'm missing something, I didn't find anything explicitly racist in his edits. In the future, might it be best to try to word warnings as neutrally as possible? The warning against putting unsourced controversial information would have been enough. Kansan ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe you wanted {{ humorous}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, last week you chimed in over at WP:WQA between myself and DailyEditor as he was flailing personal attacks at me and vice versa. Just thought you'd be curious to know that DE messaged me saying their account was hacked by a "teen Roman whack-job" who did all the personal attacks and is now apologizing for any trouble it might have caused. Note DE decided to play around with my name for some reason as well (not sure what that's about). Anyway I'm not really buying it, but whatever. DE seems have gotten into a tussle with another user, Xeworlebi over edits made to White Collar and claimed their account was hacked there as well. I'm not sure what is going on but it may bear investigating. Cyberia23 ( talk) 03:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, is there any way, "for the record," that DE's claims of their account use by an unauthorized user be added to our cases over on WP:WQA? Both cases have already been archived, so I'm not sure if they can be further edited. Incivility on our parts aside, if DE is telling the truth, and we find out later that I was dealing with someone other than him, then I think it should be noted in there somewhere. As you stated to DE on Xeworlebi's talk page, he was responsible for the security of his account, and if it were not for their negligence, none of this would have happened in the first place. Cyberia23 ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Instead of citing WP:SPS, look down one paragraph, to he relevant policy for the Carlos Slim issues, WP:SELFPUB. Please also be careful not to bite the newcomers. Courcelles 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Your warning here, what article did it relate to? The last entry into this user's contribution log is from mid-March. Risker ( talk) 01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper. While all editors are welcome to add their own comments on 3RR cases, please do not use the {{ AN3}} template or try to close cases. For example you did this here. 'Warned' has a technical meaning; it is a kind of an admin action which is just short of a block. Since the case was stale, this is not an appropriate result. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
That's correct, I'm having a little trouble with the formatting. The last tinme I submitted an RFA was a long time ago. Wikipedian2 ( talk) 04:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jasper Deng, I'm just letting you know that I just declined your speedy nomination of User:Crlsmrgf, because it appears to be a good-faith editing test: Esta es una prueba para ver como funciona Wikipedia a la hora de editar una página means "this is a test, to see how Wikipedia works when (I try to) edit a page". Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If you are here about why I reverted many of this user's edits, see
User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Roshonamila.
Jasper Deng
(talk)
00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm involved because I accused TheCuriousGnome of canvassing (see the editor's talk page as well as the template's talk page). Thanks, — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate you removing the comments from the "Baby got Back" SPA. I've been dealing with vandalism/OR/etc. on this article for awhile, and there comes a time when it's not worth arguing about it anymore. There was a sudden surge of meatpuppetry there today leading to me semi-protecting it, probably orchestrated from a forum. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the blanking of User:RMHED. This editor left Wikipedia some time ago under unhappy circumstances, and has not engaged in any problematic activity for some time. Experience has taught that when this occurs, blanking the tags on userpages is often helpful in eliminating a possible continued source of grievance by the departed user against the site. In the absence of continuing problems, forcing such tags to remain indefinitely may often be perceived by the former user as an act of harassment or provocation, even though I am sure you had no such intent. Therefore, I ask that you leave this page in its current blanked state. Thank you, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Many of my books use descriptive so that's why used it in editng the article. I don't think writing decripotive move is vandalism at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 ( talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Were you talking about this position?
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 ( talk • contribs)
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White could of promoted to a knight to fork, would black be able to checkmate white here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've protected this talk page. It would be advisable to set-up a subpage just for IPs to be able to communicate with you, as there may be some legitimate IP edits. Ged UK 19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jasper, I am sorry. I saw they had been warned multiple times, I read that link, and interpreted that they should not be able to do that with their warnings and all. Sorry. I'll leave talk pages alone if they get blanked... Dont totally understand that. Are my article reverts and anti-vandalism there going well? Thanks VoteDemOut! ( talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
nope totally cool. how did you do that anyway? VoteDemOut! ( talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Fixed the question for you, the template is "Rfa-question" but you had "RfA-question" with a capital A, which is why it was giving you trouble. Incidentally, I didn't mean to cut in front of you with my own question; for some reason I didn't get an edit conflict when I added "my" question 4. The software can be quite quirky, it seems. 28bytes ( talk) 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Don't forget to turn off the Skype toolbar when editing, or else this could happen. Cheers, 28bytes ( talk) 00:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's not a real word when used that way, but it basically means a user has a grudge against you. They seem to have gone out of their way to mimic your editing patterns and comments to implicate you as a sockmaster. Out of curiosity, did you ever have past experiences with any of the blocked users?
Swarm
X
21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's slang. It means to be angry or upset with someone. It doesn't seem to be clear where it comes from..— Kww( talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to let you know that your user talk page is no longer semi-protected. Also, any spammers on your talk page should be listed at WP:AIV (not the general noticeboard) after sufficient warnings are given. Finally, I'd advise you to use a bit more caution in !voting on RfAs. Vague statements like "you don't edit talk pages enough" ( BCD's RfA) should be avoided or further explained. I think you should also be less harsh and avoid simply saying, "Where's your understanding of WP:BLP[?]" without indicating what you are referencing. RfA is tough and extremely stressful, so need to make it more so than necessary. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)