![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Re "Shows a problem with handling edit conflicts"—I've never been able to figure out how to get comments around edit conflicts, so out of curiosity, do you know how best to handle them? Usually, I have to reload the whole page, but it's frustrating on long pages like ANI, and then the sections disappear due to archiving, etc.—you get the point. So, any tips? / ƒETCH COMMS / 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even notice someone blanked one of my user boxes. Thanks for fixing that:)-- Nyswimmer ( talk) 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There was no vandalism by this user. Not everyone is trying to sabotage Wikipedia, and "The Fuck Off And Dies" is, in fact, an actual project. — anndelion ❋ 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper Deng. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for
speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for
User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion it is propoganda and in no way belongs here because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Concern: Not a valid CSD, please take to
MfD. Please take a moment to look at the
suggested tasks for patrollers and review the
criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering
non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with
proposed deletion,
proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate
deletion discussion.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
03:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jasper Deng.
First, thanks for your recent assistance and your dedicated care for mannerism. I appreciate it. (You still have room for improvements... but I too.)
Second, I have called Mediation Cabal. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. Nothing obliges you to participate if you don't wish; but I had to notify you.
Thanks.
im sorry i dont know wikipedia talk. could i get that last one in laymans terms please 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me if i'm wrong, but that entire article is a joke 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
not that article, this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editcountitis and you also removed a lot of true information, and missed some jokes. id love to continue this conversation but it will have to wait until another day 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 04:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
all im saying is that's a joke article that should be obliged to abide by the same rules as all others 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well now you know :). Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. Thanks for replying to the issue that I posted. I think you misread part of my post. I (we) haven't contributed anything to the Wikipedia articles I'm inquiring about. The same goes for the links to our articles -- I (we) haven't added links on Wikipedia to our site -- they were all given by hundreds of different Wikipedia editors over the years. So, there is no conflict of interest at play on our end. What I'm asking about is a Wikipedia editor's systematic removal of the links on Wikipedia to our site. More detail on that in my post though. Thanks for any help you can give. Vrsti ( talk) 04:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I see you keep deleting Eagles' messages to you. You're perfectly within your rights to do that, per WP:BLANKING, but I recommend that you don't. Eagles is genuinely trying to help you better understand WP policy (he's correct about the COI issue), and it's best to have a conversation on a talk page (that's what they're there for) than through edit summaries, even if you don't like what you're hearing. 28bytes ( talk) 02:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jasper, since I've been commenting on that ANI thread, I thought I would take a time out to let you know that I really do think you're a good Wikipedia editor and I'm not trying to frustrate you or get you in trouble; I'm just trying to help smooth things out. Keep up your good work on Wikipedia - we need good editors. Kansan ( talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I just came across the discussion on WT:RFA and thought this would be a good opportunity to offer some tips.
I have some more thoughts, but I don't want to overwhelm you, so I'll just leave you with this for now. My goal here is not to tell you what to do, but to offer advice, in hopes of making your interactions with your fellow Wikipedians go more smoothly. I can tell you care a lot about the project, and that's great; I'm confident we can work out all the "rough spots" that are currently causing friction.
As I said before, my door is always open, so if you have any questions about these comments, or anything else, feel free to drop by my talk page. Happy editing! 28bytes ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper, I highly doubt that you know me, but I've read through some of the ANI thread, some various talk pages, and some of the threads you've been involved in. To be honest, I'm really not up to speed on any of the specific items that you are working through right now, but I did want to drop by and commend you on your efforts to become the best possible editor that you can here. I really admire your efforts, your dedication, and the work you are putting forth to understand the way things work here. The fact that you are so open minded, and willing to try so hard to take in all the advice you're receiving is truly impressive. I congratulate you on your efforts, and I thank you for all you are doing here. Best of luck in the future. — Ched : ? 07:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? I see a total of one real revert (as in Nikkimaria's revert back to her last version) at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, and that does not qualify as a "mild edit war" (whatever that is). The issues seems to be taken care of, considering the last edit to the page was over a half hour ago. I'm not sure you actually know what a request for comment is, so I strongly urge you to read WP:RFC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that I have the experience to act as a mentor, and I am certainly far from free of fault myself. However, I tend to ask around if I am doubtful about something (eg: dealing with an autistic user 24 hours ago), and I guess that is a part of the function of the mentors whom you already have lined up. I have a group of people I tend to call on when I'm stuck, although I'm not entirely sure that they always appreciate it! Feel free to ask anything you want but don't rely on a quick response: I had a small heart attack (MI) recently & my time here is likely to be in small doses for the next few weeks as I'm having waves of tiredness etc.
Consensus should not be that difficult to determine. In any event, there is no reason why you should be the one who evaluates the situation. You could even just say "Hey, so what is the consensus about this now we've had a discussion?" The ball doesn't always have to be in your court, and asking questions is likely to appear more collaborative than making statements when you are not sure. - Sitush ( talk) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I was just reading AN/I and I noticed that User:Johnuniq told you "I suggest that you seek the advice of a mentor before making any further comments here." And then you went ahead and made a further comment there. Please don't do that. If other editors are asking you to talk to a mentor first, you should do that. So far both User:Kansan and I have offered to help with mentoring, but I don't see any messages from you on either of our talk pages. 28bytes ( talk) 11:06, 21 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Re "Shows a problem with handling edit conflicts"—I've never been able to figure out how to get comments around edit conflicts, so out of curiosity, do you know how best to handle them? Usually, I have to reload the whole page, but it's frustrating on long pages like ANI, and then the sections disappear due to archiving, etc.—you get the point. So, any tips? / ƒETCH COMMS / 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't even notice someone blanked one of my user boxes. Thanks for fixing that:)-- Nyswimmer ( talk) 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There was no vandalism by this user. Not everyone is trying to sabotage Wikipedia, and "The Fuck Off And Dies" is, in fact, an actual project. — anndelion ❋ 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper Deng. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for
speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for
User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion it is propoganda and in no way belongs here because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Concern: Not a valid CSD, please take to
MfD. Please take a moment to look at the
suggested tasks for patrollers and review the
criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering
non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with
proposed deletion,
proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate
deletion discussion.
Eagles
24/7
(C)
03:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Jasper Deng.
First, thanks for your recent assistance and your dedicated care for mannerism. I appreciate it. (You still have room for improvements... but I too.)
Second, I have called Mediation Cabal. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-16/Internet Explorer 10. Nothing obliges you to participate if you don't wish; but I had to notify you.
Thanks.
im sorry i dont know wikipedia talk. could i get that last one in laymans terms please 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me if i'm wrong, but that entire article is a joke 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
not that article, this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editcountitis and you also removed a lot of true information, and missed some jokes. id love to continue this conversation but it will have to wait until another day 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 04:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
all im saying is that's a joke article that should be obliged to abide by the same rules as all others 174.126.191.197 ( talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well now you know :). Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. Thanks for replying to the issue that I posted. I think you misread part of my post. I (we) haven't contributed anything to the Wikipedia articles I'm inquiring about. The same goes for the links to our articles -- I (we) haven't added links on Wikipedia to our site -- they were all given by hundreds of different Wikipedia editors over the years. So, there is no conflict of interest at play on our end. What I'm asking about is a Wikipedia editor's systematic removal of the links on Wikipedia to our site. More detail on that in my post though. Thanks for any help you can give. Vrsti ( talk) 04:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I see you keep deleting Eagles' messages to you. You're perfectly within your rights to do that, per WP:BLANKING, but I recommend that you don't. Eagles is genuinely trying to help you better understand WP policy (he's correct about the COI issue), and it's best to have a conversation on a talk page (that's what they're there for) than through edit summaries, even if you don't like what you're hearing. 28bytes ( talk) 02:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jasper, since I've been commenting on that ANI thread, I thought I would take a time out to let you know that I really do think you're a good Wikipedia editor and I'm not trying to frustrate you or get you in trouble; I'm just trying to help smooth things out. Keep up your good work on Wikipedia - we need good editors. Kansan ( talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I just came across the discussion on WT:RFA and thought this would be a good opportunity to offer some tips.
I have some more thoughts, but I don't want to overwhelm you, so I'll just leave you with this for now. My goal here is not to tell you what to do, but to offer advice, in hopes of making your interactions with your fellow Wikipedians go more smoothly. I can tell you care a lot about the project, and that's great; I'm confident we can work out all the "rough spots" that are currently causing friction.
As I said before, my door is always open, so if you have any questions about these comments, or anything else, feel free to drop by my talk page. Happy editing! 28bytes ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper, I highly doubt that you know me, but I've read through some of the ANI thread, some various talk pages, and some of the threads you've been involved in. To be honest, I'm really not up to speed on any of the specific items that you are working through right now, but I did want to drop by and commend you on your efforts to become the best possible editor that you can here. I really admire your efforts, your dedication, and the work you are putting forth to understand the way things work here. The fact that you are so open minded, and willing to try so hard to take in all the advice you're receiving is truly impressive. I congratulate you on your efforts, and I thank you for all you are doing here. Best of luck in the future. — Ched : ? 07:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? I see a total of one real revert (as in Nikkimaria's revert back to her last version) at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, and that does not qualify as a "mild edit war" (whatever that is). The issues seems to be taken care of, considering the last edit to the page was over a half hour ago. I'm not sure you actually know what a request for comment is, so I strongly urge you to read WP:RFC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that I have the experience to act as a mentor, and I am certainly far from free of fault myself. However, I tend to ask around if I am doubtful about something (eg: dealing with an autistic user 24 hours ago), and I guess that is a part of the function of the mentors whom you already have lined up. I have a group of people I tend to call on when I'm stuck, although I'm not entirely sure that they always appreciate it! Feel free to ask anything you want but don't rely on a quick response: I had a small heart attack (MI) recently & my time here is likely to be in small doses for the next few weeks as I'm having waves of tiredness etc.
Consensus should not be that difficult to determine. In any event, there is no reason why you should be the one who evaluates the situation. You could even just say "Hey, so what is the consensus about this now we've had a discussion?" The ball doesn't always have to be in your court, and asking questions is likely to appear more collaborative than making statements when you are not sure. - Sitush ( talk) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jasper. I was just reading AN/I and I noticed that User:Johnuniq told you "I suggest that you seek the advice of a mentor before making any further comments here." And then you went ahead and made a further comment there. Please don't do that. If other editors are asking you to talk to a mentor first, you should do that. So far both User:Kansan and I have offered to help with mentoring, but I don't see any messages from you on either of our talk pages. 28bytes ( talk) 11:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)