User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 18

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)


 * 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)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. 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 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)

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


 * 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)

Djathinkimacowboy sock tagging
I have read your edit notice about watchlisting, saying there is no need to inform you here of answers on other pages. However, I thought that, since it's taken me a while to get round to answering your last post to my talk page, I thought it might help to let you know that I have done so at last. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov
Thanks for reporting the additional edit warring at the Garry Kasparov article. Even though it wasn't 3RR, I've blocked for a further 48 hours, since it's pretty blatantly an attempt to continue the edit war. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI
WP:ANI might interest you, so here's the link as you requested. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For others who see this: for transparency purposes, yes I did request this notice on IRC, as I consider myself somewhat involved.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

MfD
DeltaQuad blocked Eseki 01:54, 5 November 2012 with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Nstm). For Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eseki, usually, malformed, incomplete RfAs are not deleted at MfD. The only reason I can think of deleting RfA/Eseki would be WP:DENY. However, RfA/Eseki was posted 13:54, 23 August 2012 and merely shows the subst of Template:RfA and nothing specific to Eseki. I don't think WP:DENY applies. The seven day MfD discussion will give more recognition to Eseki than that malformed Requests for adminship. Would you consider withdrawing the MfD request? Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You might try a speedy delete request as a more common way to delete such pages. SeeSpecial:PrefixIndex. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt that deletion was completely proper as things like this are characteristic of the user's cross-wiki disruptive behavior. In addition, being completely incompetent in English, Eseki won't understand what's going on. Speedy deletion G6 might've applied, but I was unsure, hence the MfD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over FA status Microsoft Security Essentials
I have opened a dispute over the decision to award this article FA status which you were to some extent involved. You may wish to comment on the case here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I suggest that you drop the stick on this for at least 2 months.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)
Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. Tuntable (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Levitsky versus Marshall
The article Levitsky versus Marshall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Levitsky versus Marshall for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 12:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war?!
Why are you giving me the warning of an edit war? I was just reverting the edit. I did that with good reason and said it too, so this is NOT an edit war. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, edit warring is edit warring - the definition of an edit war is any revert, regardless of whether you think you're right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Orbital hybridisation
Hmm. I saw your citation needed tag on the orbital hybridisation article and the method for determining hybridisation as according to natural bond orbital calculations was put on the page (by me) to update the page away from the conventional "VSEPR-like" usage to the more MO-like usage. In hypervalent molecules in this model, we don't use d-orbital hybridisation for main group compounds as modern calculations have shown that they are not involved in the hybridisation. The confusions in orbital hybridisation largely stems from the mixing of equivalent bond/lone pairs according to VSEPR with orbital hybridisation, which in my opinion should be more advanced. Cheers.--Officer781 (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see what I wrote on the article talk page. If this article is about explaining using hybridization, I feel it should use d-orbital hybridization to be consistent, and explain what's wrong with it. If you invoke MOs, you must say all molecules aren't hybridized in the sense that the MO model is more close to reality, even for molecules for which hybridization works well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, according to my reading of the book "Valency and bonding: A Natural Bond Orbital Donor-Acceptor Perspective" as well as numerous papers on the net speaking of replacing d-orbital hybridisation with the 3c-4e model, the 3c-4e model is more consistent because it allows all main group compounds to utilize only p-orbitals while removing the notion that a bond pair has to be "completely bonding". That and of course, the fact that in MO theory d-orbital involvement is completely removed early on. VBT has yet to "catch-up" in this sense.--Officer781 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that notion. However, I disagree that we should even include hypervalent molecules in the article, as hybridization does not adequately explain them. I feel that it's not appropriate to include them without a discussion of 3c-4e, because I think readers get confused by a MO example in an article about hybridization.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the notion of being "inconsistent" is due to inequivalent bonding pairs. but bond pairs need not be equivalent, and indeed in square pyramidal, trigonal bipyramidal and subsets of it, etc all show inequivalent bond lengths.--Officer781 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, those concur with VSPER; "inconsistent" meant the model used - use one model consistently throughout the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship
Hi Jasper Deng, hope you are well! I have reviewed your contributions to the English Wikipedia, and saw that you stated that administrative rights would be helpful in your work here at Wikipedia. Well, I believe you would be a good candidate, and was wondering if you would like to be nominated by me and/or others. I'd certainly be willing to nominate you, and I'm sure a team of other editors would also be willing, as you are a very good editor. I think you would probably certainly pass per your contributions, and some bonuses are that you already some user rights here, and serve as an administrator at other Wikimedia projects, there's also more. And, for your information, thanks for the notice regarding my global rollback request, I'm on that team you suggest sometimes. Happy Holidays, TBr  and  ley  02:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for the encouragement, but I don't plan to run until next spring at the earliest, when I've accumulated more content work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply. Good luck. TBr  and  ley  02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Spectrum (band)
Hello Jasper Deng. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Spectrum (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is about a different band named Spectrum. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A second opinion needed
Hi

I have been looking at these edits: And, before I do anything, I'd like to know what you think.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 TheGeneralUser  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello Jasper Deng! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  14:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrolord
Hi. I see you're having a very frustrating time with this guy. He doesn’t seem to know how to conduct a review. He tried at Archie McKellar. It was so inept I thought it was a troll. His suggestions to me as an experienced editor and one with an avid interest in WWII articles are contrary to how G.A's are handled in relation to WWII fighter pilots. I left a message on Good Article Nominees asking how best to get a competent editor to take over. Dapi89 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he needs to slow down and review according to the criteria. His review of Injection molding is another example of that. However, there is no need to call him "incompetent" which I view as a borderline personal attack.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you see it. But it is an observation. One who tries to do something that is beyond his experience ends up editing......Dapi89 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you are now blocked you can't immediately reply to this, but for future reference it's best to be patient and AGF with users... especially new users.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep Calm
Hi Jasper,

I noticed this today, and as there's a GA discussion going on I've left a couple of notes on the article's talk page - there's what feels to me like some key gaps. The review is entirely your call, of course, but I thought I should let you know! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with the content, so whether the coverage is broad will have to be your call. --Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New Messages
King Jakob  C2 16:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Chalcogen
Hi,

I haven't seen you in a while at Talk:Chalcogen/GA1, so I was wondering if the GAN passed? Thanks,

King Jakob  C2 22:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is wrong to assume that I passed the GA until I say that I did - I think Double sharp brings up a valid point here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was simply wondering if there were any more issues with the article (haven't seen you at the review page in a few days). Anyway, the discussion Double sharp started appears to be over, at least for the time being. Anyway, isn't the issue of what a group really is supposed to belong at Group (periodic table) (which is why there's a link there).King Jakob  C2 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Double sharp's concerns seem to be about factual accuracy here. I think the article is fine, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On Review
its been about 19 days since you last made an edit at the review page a far as i can ascertain from the page history. In the meantime you have made other edits to wikipedia. Do you intend to complete the review?  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  11:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I have been very busy recently - I'll go take a look (but first I must take a look at the above one).--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
I left you a message on your WD talkpage concerning something that I screwed up there; can you take a look when you have time? Thanks,  Acroterion   (talk)   21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

IPv6 blocks
Thank you very much for bringing this issue to my attention, and for linking to your guide (which should really be more prominent somewhere). I'm pretty unfamiliar with how IPv6 addresses work and how they will affect the logistics of blocks/usernames, etc.—deployment was still 6 years away when I got the tools—so it was a welcome read. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)