User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 7

number
Hi. I just saw you had 6171th place in most edits (7714). Good job! Probably went up by the time you read this. Here: PS: you had an argument with User:71.146.19.240, a few months ago. I sincerely apologize for arguing with you (that was me). I'm sorry :(  A  user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010.  21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? This IP has no contribs related to what I do. Can either of you elaborate more?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP address and Since 10.28.2010 (me) are the same person. I am not saying I am sockpuppeting, I only am editing from Since 10.28.2010, and am not doing block evasion. Anyway: I forgot exactly what subject we were arguing about, but I sincerely apologize. It was actually quite a while back, maybe about, mmm, eight months? I apologize for what I did, even though you probably forgot, and it was obviously wrong. Also, I just remembered it was User:74.109.36.248, and again I apologize. I've changed, and I'm also currently under mentorship with User:Worm That Turned. Thanks again,  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, when I click edit, there is edit tabs (If you are here for permissions..., Replies, and Mentors) that link to sections 1, 2, and 3 on your talk page. You can click it yourself.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  05:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tip
Thanks for the tip :) Goldblooded (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not happy
I am not happy about this edit. I thought we'd already covered this. An IP editor asks an admin to unprotect an article that was protected with a so-far-unexplained reason of sockpuppetry, and you remove the request with the edit summary of "troll"? What am I missing here? 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "I think it's extremely rude to ignore the question." The trigger ultimately ended up being "You can't just protect pages on a whim and claim fictional reasons." That looked like trolling to me, or just a frustrated IP editor.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been dealing with LTA with similar IP addresses recently, so there's that too. The IP ended up being blocked for 10 days.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See, that's the key bit right there: "or just a frustrated IP editor." If he was just a frustrated IP editor (as I think he is), and you just called him a troll, do you think that would increase or decrease his frustration? The whole point of this is to avoid pushing otherwise reasonable people into disruptive behaviors. Unnecessarily (and incorrectly) calling someone a troll or vandal will quite often have that effect, and that's not an effect we want. 28bytes (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what ES should I use? Any of the possible explanations I could've used would've been equally bad (such as rvv).Jasper Deng (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't revert it at all! It's not your talk page, and it's not vandalism, so let HelloAnnyong remove it if he wants. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great point considering that a similar edit on another user's talk page wasn't reverted. Also, I had reverted it because of an incident long ago about me commenting on a blocked user's talk page (assuming good faith with a blocked user. Don't remember when). Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

re edit war
No, my man, I have been cooperating with the other editors, and we had to do multiple reverts on an disruptive editor, who chnages citations from what sources say and sprinkles unrelated content into agreed edits. He has been warned for edit waring, and you got the wrong man. Look more closely, then you see. Look at the talk page (Alprazolam) Please remove the warning from my page. Thanks. 70.137.153.193 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is disruptive regardless of who is right.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I told you to look at the corresponding talk page, then you see that this was an agreed edit and consensus, which was disrupted. I have resored it. Not edit waring. Now look at the talk page, finally. 70.137.153.193 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked. While you're discussing you should not continue reverting the other IP editor. In fact, you're already beyond 3RR right now. If you think the other user is going against consensus, it's time for a WP:AN/EW report. I don't really see complete consensus, though, on that talk page, though I would side with you on this content dispute. The other IP can't just put unverifiable original research in.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You see what the other user 67.x.x does is sprinkle changes in without discussion. When reverted he reverts back. He gives no ref for his changes. He misrepresents refs, by stating what is not said in the ref. He changes citations to the opposite of what the ref says. He does not react to whatever arguments. He is a vandal, disrupting the integrity of the article. The temazepam article needed a deep revert to rid it of such misrepresentations by an editor with the same pattern, who is now blocked. Look there, and then look at the deep revert by Fvasconcellos there, which was needed to weed out countless nonsense citations. Almost half of the volume of this article was nonsense, misrepresented references, when we noticed it. Then you see. It is a new method of insidious vandalism. Besides, he should now have more reverts, but he continued to revert. What to do then, let him go on and massacre the whole article by a long series of edits, which can not be reverted due to 3rr, and which cannot be discussed, because he does not discuss? 70.137.153.193 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandalism doesn't include those edits. However, he's also been warned about edit warring and if he continues, he will be reported. 67.x.x.x, BTW, hasn't edited the article for a while. I think that IP is on his last thread. One more revert and he will be reported.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Misrepresentation of sources is vandalism. If the source says "X is true", and I cite it as "X is not true" and then do not react to any discussion on that it is obviously willful disruption of the integrity of WP. I have now spent a dozen hours on weeding out nonsense of exactly this kind from several articles, by proofreading against the given references. There is no other way to find that, but to open the ref and compare against the statements little by little. Very tedious. 70.137.153.193 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:Vandalism - vandalism has a specific definition, that does not include good-faith attempts to add information. This isn't vandalism, but WP:Disruptive editing. The IP seems to have stopped. If you see him come back, report it. I understand his factual errors, but I want you to understand that he's already on his last thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The edits after that are by 174.x.x and continue the previous edits of 67.x.x. Also this guy cites no refs and does not respond when directed to the discussion, except by claiming to be a doctor. He has been reverted by me and Dmacks and the Xlinkbot for that, as he is using a clone of Wiki at mahalo.com as a reference, which is braindead. You cannot use copy of an old version of the Wiki article as a ref for Wiki. This has been told, like talking to an ill horse, but he just doesn't respond to the matter at hand.

Good faith edits are characterized by willingness to discuss the matter. Insofar, as I have seen no attempt to ever discuss facts (I don't count I'm a doctor as an argument) I really doubt good faith here. Besides he does not add to the article, but reverts earlier repairs which have been done due to inconsistency with the cited references. You have to go further back in the history, then you see. 70.137.153.193 (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, he's on his last warning. I understand he's being disruptive. But I'd rather not report yet. In any case, he'll now be forced to discuss because the page is protected.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is besides not really a content dispute. he has been reverted in series first by the bot, then by me, then by DMacks, wo is an admin. Then he has reverted the admin, always without any explanation. His edit is a revert to an earlier version, removing a series of edits which have been done on the article. 70.137.153.193 (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still a content dispute. Reliable sourcing is not an exemption to 3RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
Ok I won't troll, I was just trying to respond to his accusations of me. I never ment to be in a war with him. I was trying to run a discussion on the issue of the British airman, pointing out that official sources and international media regard him as a casualty of the NATO campaign against Libya and trying to point out that his personal oppinion on the matter couldn't be taken into consideration if official sources say otherwise. I was trying to point out Wikipedia policy. He accused me of making threats by pointing out policy. o.O EkoGraf (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do when he makes accusations like that is to remain calm. Don't aggravate him more. I won't participate in your content dispute. I've been helping Goldblooded for some time.Jasper Deng (talk)
 * OK, I am just of the oppinion that personal POV has to be checked at the door when you want to edit on Wikipedia. It has no place here because Wikipedia has to stay neutral above all else. EkoGraf (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bring it to him in a nicer way. He did add that in good faith. Bad faith edits are vandalism and other serious offense.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That blog...
Yep, it's great, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Message
Hey there Jasper, i replied to your comment. "Return Fire" simply means reply i saw it when someone posted it on my page i think it might of been scout or Σ its instead of the "talk back" link. Eko is just trying to twist it so ill get banned. I dont know why he doesnt like me probably because we disagreed on something but judging by his talk page hes stirred up quite a storm. Thanks for your comment anyway. Goldblooded (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another situation where you had to assume good faith. No-one wants someone else on Wikipedia to be blocked (banned is a very different term). If you're dealing with someone like that it's best not to get provoked.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I know! I even told him on the talkpage to WP:assume good faith And im not; im putting my hands up and walking away im not falling down that trap again. Although smell foul play since why else would he send deogratory messages to me and then try and twist my words? Goldblooded (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already told him to not troll you.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright thanks :) Goldblooded (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh...
Doubly/triply protected. That ought to fix 'em. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the revert. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reponse
Alright i wont from now on, But i got that idea from my wikipedia adoptee as Zscout openly uses it... Goldblooded (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing I've learned on Wikipedia, it's best to look before you leap, or in this case, look before you copy and paste. If you've been accused of WP:BATTLEGROUND in the past, don't you think it's best to not give editors the impression you're still continuing it?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but i was trying to followin in Zscout's example. Besides, Ekograf was just stirring up trouble; Anyways no harm done ive learnt my lesson i wont use "return fire" anymore. Goldblooded (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can you explain...
...the policy basis for this since its common for editors to replace accidental IP edits with their signature. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This user account was made after he/she made that IP comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, not heard of that before. And the policy basis of your revert? Please don't use the talkback. I'm capable of following my watchlist. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a policy against impersonation. I took the cue, really, from a recent revert at ANI of someone who editted while logged out there, and got reverted for similar reasons (signing comments made as an IP).Jasper Deng (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think in this particular case its reasonable to revert since the edit was made before the account was registered but we would not routinely prevent an editor replacing their ip with their signature. I would strongly advise you not to do this kind of revert again. Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Won't. Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

how to delete my account?
You wrote to me "I believe you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide a free, neutral, and verifiable encyclopedia"

No I am exactly clear on that. I provided that.

Now I am getting "Gang" mail from you and others about a personal attack, when I made a comment that is TRUE about removing the truth from an alleged "encyclopedia"

Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.

I do not need to devote my time to this - I will get more hits and higher search engine rankings using my own websites - and make money and revenue by not being bothered with this wiki - or emails from ANY of anyone here associated with wiki.

Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.

2bobburns (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For legal and technical reasons we can't delete accounts. As for the truth, what you believe to be the truth is not the truth according to others, and you must cite your sources. You may also want to assume good faith more.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can vanish from Wikipedia, but we can not delete accounts. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 04:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:2bobburns
User talk:2bobburns, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:2bobburns and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User talk:2bobburns during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

delete my page and account
I do not care how you do it - I want nothing else to do with wiki

Delete my page and account - not interested in wiki at all

OR learning all these little nuances to not be pestered further

2bobburns (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User talk page deleted, I've emailed the user explaining, so nothing you need to do here Jasper. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional Vandalism By 24.36.132.108
FYI, 24.36.132.108 did additional vandalism at David Ben-Gurion. Dimension31 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reported at WP:AIV.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoneful
It wasn't obvious to me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem :) . You're not the only admin.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack?
What personal attack? Tbhotch requested a discussion regarding Rio Ferdinand's height, so I started one on his talk page, but he immediately deleted it. Am I not allowed to question that? – PeeJay 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is this. You are calling his action childish and hypocritical. That's a personal attack - please comment on the content and not the contributor.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning the dispute, I've watched this before and have reverted others on this, but, you must keep in mind WP:BLP.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) – PeeJay 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, please refrain from making comments on Tbhotch himself. He may be stubborn, but, you have a serious policy violation going on. Changing Rio's height is a violation of our biographies of living persons policy if you don't have sources. If Tbhotch doesn't want to talk about it, back away.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that was not a personal attack. I am not commenting on Tbhotch's character in any way, only his conduct in this situation. Furthermore, I do have sources for Rio Ferdinand's height, including two published sources that are extremely well-respected in British football circles. I respect that the sources Tbhotch added may be reliable in most cases, but in this case they are wrong, and I have sources to back that up, as well as my own eyesight. Finally, when a user threatens me with being blocked – as Tbhotch did – I believe I should be given the right to question their motives for making that threat. – PeeJay 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you were - commenting on a user's conduct can be considered a personal attack, especially when you use strong adjectives like "childish." Tbhotch had reasons for saying you could be blocked - you were edit warring, and over a BLP. I know things like this come up from time to time, since I know different sources report different things. I believe if you want to discuss and Tbhotch doesn't want to, make the case on the article talk page first.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe it is necessary, I will start another discussion about Rio Ferdinand's height on the article talk page. There are, however, already similar discussions on that page, in which most people appear to have agreed that Rio Ferdinand is between 6'2" and 6'3", except for those who are blindly following Manchester United's erroneous measurement that has subsequently been copied from Wikipedia by such unreliable websites as Goal.com. – PeeJay 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then do it. It's all part of the bold,revert,discuss cycle.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

International Student Senate
Dear Jasper Deng, Thank you very much for your explanatory note, the first note that showed constructive criticism, even help and support. The notes of DGG and Bearcat are of such character I now understand why Wikipedians have such a bad name, which is really unfortunate as I thought the whole purpose was to build a worldwide encyclopedia together. I might have made mistakes in an honest attempt to ad content to the WP project, but seen from the reactions it might be better to turn away from all of it. As an entree such as the International Student Senate doesn't have a place on WP so be it. I guess that is the difference between the live world where people build and create and a virtual WP-world where courtesy and diplomacy seems to have lost all meaning. But if it takes that kind of attitude to build a good encyclopedia, we'll accept it. Peter Vonke (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of Sock Puppetry
Hi Jasper I just wanted to comment on you accusing me of sock puppetry. It seems like the case will be closed soon. I am not sure how this all works. Do you comment on the closing and or apologize? DouglasCalvert (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Jasper, I spotted this SPI case while looking for one that I had reported myself (completely unrelated, no worries on that score). I am not getting into the rights and wrongs of your nomination and, yes, I recently filed a "bad" SPI - my first. However, I do think that you could have responded a little more generously than "no big deal" when it was all over. has made 19 edits, including quite a few at the SPI. That user deserves a little more sympathy/apology & perhaps some advice regarding their concern about the sockpuppet template staying on their page, ie: they are allowed to remove it. You will not believe how many errors I am making at the moment with regard to one particular editor but in my case it applies in both directions; in your case it does not.


 * And, for what it is worth, in the one instance where an SPI filed by me turned up with no connections I did apologise to all concerned. Not a "no big deal", but a "sorry, I got that wrong". - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for patrolling my page, and reverting that little smirks's edit i dont even know how he found me since ive never had any contact with him ; Unless hes a sock puppet of that Ekograf or somthing. Anyway long story short, i appreciate the help- Sorry i havent been on wikipedia as much as i should of been ive been busy with a lot of things, ive been down the archives searching for local history to write in my book im currently writing. Goldblooded (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RFPP
Just saw your latest RFPP requests - dude, two IPs vandalising or edit-warring is not something for page protection. It is something for WP:AIV. Before submitting a page protection request, ask yourself "would a limited number of blocks fix this problem?" If the answer is "yes", close the window, report them to AIV and make yourself a coffee or something. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, some of the edit warrers were IP hoppers and registered accounts. I see at least 4 edit warrers.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then make this clear in your request. If you present it as a simple case, it'll be judged as one. Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree since I assume that whenever I request page protection against edit warring that admins assume multiple warriors are involved, since just two edit warrers would be reported at ANEW. I also don't agree with reporting them to AIV.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage warning
Hi. Can you be more specific regarding the warning you've placed on my talkpage? First you tell me about a discussion about the article for DJM. If you look closely at the edit history, my initial edit was to redirect it to DJM Records. This was done over FOUR YEARS AGO. Then your next edit warns me about a Conflict of Interest. What CoI is this? And then your third and final edit warns me about creating inappropriate pages. Again, please be more specific.

I notice you made all three edits with Twinkle. I'll be reporting you for mis-use of this tool and maybe it is you who needs to be blocked.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop abusing the user warning templates like you did on his talk page. That level-4 warning for creating inappropriate pages was an exceptionally agregious violation of WP:AGF in addition to being borderline vandalism. Additionally, there is no indication of a COI as all he ever did was create the page as a redirect! You can be blocked if this continues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article I tagged was nominated for deletion. I didn't check the history of that page.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jasper, that explains your first edit to his talk page. Note that you need to check the history of a page when you nominate it for deletion; I'm sure it's in the instructions somewhere, but it's also common sense.  However, please explain the next two edits, where you accused Lugnuts of having a COI and dropped that uw-create4 template on his talk page. Those are not harmless mistakes, and are difficult to ascribe to "not checking" something. I have observed with concern your apparent lack of care for a long while, but have deferred to your mentors, and haven't said or done anything about it.  If they are willing to spend a lot of time guiding you, more power to them.  But I am quickly coming to the point where I may feel compelled to take some sort of action. So first, explain why you made those further two edits, and then, explain how you are going to avoid that happening again (or anything of similar magnitude happening again). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The next edit was based on the fact that he had another deletion discusison notice right above mine, but the last one was just unjustified.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to block, nor would I, unless you went on some sort of spree. However, there are administrators out there who, if Lugnuts had created an ANI thread, would have summarily revoked rollback and blocked for 24-48 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reaper Eternal, I think that TW needs to be disabled for me. I have uses for Rollback, especially when dealing with Grawp.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (continuation of a conversation at User talk:28bytes) Jasper, and 28, I can't speak for Reaper, but a block isn't imminent from me, and I'd probably try to consult with you (28) a bit more before making one in any case, as you've put in a lot of time and effort trying to mentor Jasper. If I could summarize my overarching concern, it's that you (Jasper) are habitually far too bold; when you get put on 1RR, you're too bold about COI warnings. If you're told not to warn for COI, or even if you have Twinkle taken away, you'll just find something else to be too bold about unless you change your approach.  We all make mistakes, but you need to slow down so you can learn without making so many; they're not just mistakes, they cause problems for others.  For example, there are real people on the other side of the monitor; you didn't just break a rule of some kind, you just insulted another human being, and although you're quick to suggest appropriate punishments for yourself, I note that you have yet to apologize to him, and I don't think it's crossed your mind. The way to not get blocked by me, going forward, isn't just to read up on policies, or disable Twinkle, although both are good ideas.  It's to slow way down, think about what you're doing, and not do it if you aren't 100% sure.  BOLD doesn't really apply to you anymore.  If you aren't 100% sure about something, and it's important, ask first.  if it isn't important, don't do anything for a while, just watch. If you are 100% sure about something(*), and it is as wrong as this episode was, then (as much as I hate to say it to someone who's trying to help), I think you might need to be blocked until you've aged, and gained some more wisdom.  I'm not talking about a 3 day block, here.  I think I gave this same general advice a few months ago, and I still don't see evidence you're doing it. *For example, your comment at 28's talk page "I understood COI right there, and based my judgement off the page involved." is very worrying. I'll check back in later; I'd value 28's (and Kansan's) opinion on my comments as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Explanation below in reply to 28bytes).Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We have conflicted. I spent a few minutes writing a note to Jasper at User_talk:Jasper_Deng and then read down this page. Coincidentally, I also mentioned the apology issue. Now, I am far from perfect but do understand how to apologise! Sometimes the other party is unwilling to accept but, hey, I have done my best. I do a lot of work in a highly contentious area (India-related) and the squabbles are ridiculous at times, but admitting a mistake in a gracious manner often works and is always the right thing to do even in such areas. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've admitted mistakes that have always plagued me here. Apologizing both below and on Lugnuts' talk.
 * Jasper, I think the advice offered by both Floquenbeam and Sitush is very valuable. Slowing down and being less bold is an excellent suggestion, I hope you will follow that advice. Apologizing when you have made a mistake is another excellent suggestion. Regarding COI accusations, please do not make any more of them, templated or not, as I don't feel you have the necessary understanding yet what a COI actually is. 28bytes (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam and 28bytes: COI means that an editor has a distorted view of whoever or whatever he/she is writing about as a result of being affiliated with that something, and it affects his/her article's/edit's tone in a way that violates NPOV pretty badly. The tone of the article there to me implied that (w/o knowing Lugnuts made just a redirect) he had a COI because it was to me written as a product page.
 * I hope I'm not out of line in making this recommendation, but I think it might be a good idea, Jasper, if you limit your use of Twinkle to just the regular vandalism warnings, and not use it for any other messages. Kansan (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what I was talking about on 28bytes' talk page, sort of, but even more extreme. Having rollback can replace Twinkle's function of "Rollback (vandal)" and I've memorized the uw-vand series of templates, and I've considered just turning it off for at least a month while I sandbox in my own namespace to learn what's worth givin' a warning over. Having said that though, I often use TW for sockpuppetry cases, requesting page protection (though that often goes haywire at times, I want Reaper Eternal's comment on that), AIV (uncontroversial), and making a multi-edit revert that needs an edit summary. I may want to refrain from using it for AFD or MFD, nor warnings besides uw-vand, uw-unsourced (only on articles I have knowledge on), and maybe 3RR (that's also controversial).Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem (IMO) is not Twinkle. The problem is that you need a better understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, in this case the WP:COI guideline. You seem to be confusing it with the WP:NPOV policy. Just because something is written in a non-neutral tone does not mean that the person who wrote it has a conflict of interest. Does that make sense? 28bytes (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me elaborate a little more on what my judgement is based on. If it looks like an ad, the person behind it has a COI very likely, or so I thought. The line needs to be drawn between a G10 case or a simple one-sided case. The COI and NPOV policies are related, in that COI's main thing is to keep NPOV with editors.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for the apology to be posted on my talkpage.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give it both here and at your talk page. I really screwed that up, Lugnuts, and am sorry that you had to deal with false accusations. Need to watch out more.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks JD. No harm done. I don't mind people adding warnings to my page, if I know what I've done to get them! Move along people, nothing to see here...  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)