Jasper Deng

You've got mail

Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: Et toi aussi.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You have mail

Rschen7754 01:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Q15136093 - 2

Just a note to let you know that I have restored Q15136093 which you previously deleted. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 19:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@addshore: Uhm, what is this thing about consulting me before reverting my action? The previous community consensus was for excluding this particular item so you need to demonstrate that that has changed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, please see specifically occupation (P106) -> Wikimedian in residence (Q3809586) claims with references as well as on Wikipedia:Voice intro project (Q15966613) the claim founded by (P112) to Andy Mabbett (Q15136093) with 2 refs. This meets both points 2 and 3 of WD:N.

I did not have to un-delete and thus undo your action (although I did). A regular user would have / could have simply created a new item for 'Andy Mabbett' to add the data and fulfil the structural need. I see little point in this extra step.

Also as the reason for deletion was not meeting the criteria set out in the notability policy, which as stated above it now does, I had no problem un-deleting the item. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 21:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Addshore: It's not fair to those who have complained about self-promotion in addition to notability as a problem. I don't deny that you had a valid reason for recreating it, but my interpretation of the discussion that occurred had been that both notability and self-promotion were an issue with this particular item. Is it unfair to single out one individual item for this? Perhaps. But that's what the community said.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, again, self promotion doesn't at all apply with my restoration, after all the item is not about me, and I am the one that has added the new data and restored the item. Self promotion could perhaps be an argument against certain claims that were added by Andy himself, but the data is not incorrect and much of it has the appropriate level of referencing. Even in this case the item itself should remain but potentially after discussion some claims removed? But again, this seems counter intuitive to me, as then I, or any other user could re add the data and the issues of self promotion again goes away. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 22:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Addshore: Yes it does, because you restored it as-is. If it were recreated from scratch and Pigsonthewing kept his COI in check, the only content added would be from (putatively) neutral third parties. Some of the content on the item as-is was created by him, in fact, a lot of it. I suggest you revert your action and take this to project chat. Also per Rschen7754.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Addshore: if memory serves me right, there was a significant amount of community discussion that resulted in Jasper's action. I would have expected for the community to be consulted before taking this significantly controversial action. --Rschen7754 02:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: The only correct way to restore an item is 'as-is'. Recreating from scratch as a new entity would still require the restoration of the previous item in order to create a redirect (meaning there is little point in creating the new item in the first place)... We want to keep the history of a single item in a single place where possible. If you deem data incorrect then I ask you to remove it, but with your logic if I were to remove all of the information added by Andy and then add it again myself this point is again mute. I will not be reverting my action due to the reasons below in my response to Rschen7754 as the item itself is notable, if anything further is to happen it would have to be on a claim by claim basis.

@Rschen7754: The points that were raised and the discussion, as said above, no longer apply. The item meets 2 points of WD:N, it no longer includes sitelinks to user pages, and it is not self promotion (or at least the item itself is not, even if certain claims could be seen as such). I would rather not waste another month discussing the item but if you deem my above points to be incorrect then sure lets have another big long discussion! :) The easiest / only way to demonstrate the points above / meeting of WD:N is to restore the item and add the data and references, or to do so in a new item. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"The points that were raised and the discussion, as said above, no longer apply." -> in your opinion; the community should be given the chance to evaluate that. In my opinion, I don't see that anything has changed. --Rschen7754 13:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

See here [1] [2] [3]. If you want to nominate the item for deletion feel free to, but again as said above, the alternate outcome of this would have been that I create a new item in order to add data to Q15966613, lets say QABC, as there has already been an ID about this topic / concept / person the two IDs should then be merged, hence restoring the first ID. Then of course we prefer lower IDs when there are two or more so the data in QABC would be merged into the old ID and QABC redirected to Q15136093 which is where we currently stand.

Again as said above "it is not self promotion (or at least the item itself is not, even if certain claims could be seen as such)" and "The item meets 2 points of WD:N" thus the item itself should remain. I feel this discussion needs to swing from deletion to potential removal of claims. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Addshore: I think you're ignoring the point here. The community has to have a word on this, especially since the current notability policy does not have an optimal level of consensus in favor of it... we badly need a new RfC for it soon. It does not matter how you interpret it. You should have and were obliged to consult me and the community first. With that said, if we're opening a discussion on it, then keeping the item would be useful for the community to evaluate it. And on that note, to facilitate better community involvement in this, I have posted here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

decomposition point (P2107)

decomposition point (P2107) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

review of my contributions

Hello, I work mainly on turkish items, for instance I've caught this insult while updating interwikis. anyway thanks for the quick responseHakanIST (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Range block

Hi, you blocked the IP range 91.9.96.0/19 for a long time. The range belongs to a big German ISP (Deutsche Telekom) and therefore blocks many German users. There have been complaints about the block in the German Wikipedia already (see [Wikipedia:Sperrprüfung#Wikidata_-_Sperrung_Deutsche_Telekom_bis_April].) Do you think you can unblock the range or make it smaller? Yellowcard (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yellowcard: I'll unblock but only with the understanding that per m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi, this range will be monitored for block evasion by this user and may be reblocked again in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jasper, thank you. I personally am not affected by this range block anyway, but due to the complaints I was afraid other innocent users are. Cheers, Yellowcard (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

mw:User talk:Imzadi1979

Would you mind semiprotecting this user's talk page? The user is being hit by a crosswiki vandal. --Rschen7754 06:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Seems to be handled already.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

your reversion of my edit at AN

Due to the edit conflict I encountered I didn't consciously see your edit summary or that it was someone who was not actively involved in the thread (I was not trying to edit war but to explain my immediately preceding action). I still firmly believe that the thread should remain open until someone explains either why the lack of consensus was ignored (IAR is not an explanation), or why the delete arguments were stronger. My comments on the new (and unnecessary) property proposal discussion in reply to Arthur P Smith expand on the whys a bit further. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 22:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: My main issue really was that in the process of that edit, you removed Ajraddatz's comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That was unintentional and I wasn't aware that I'd done so (I wonder if there was more than one edit conflict but I only saw one of them? That happened to me several years ago). I'll go and re-add it if it hasn't been done already. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that no comments have been removed since my revert, so I'm going to end my involvement with that thread here. However you are more than welcome to solicit my help in drafting new policies or guidelines; bear in mind however that the community only approves new policies and guidelines on a strict on-need basis and tries to keep them at a minimum, so admin discretion has wider leeway here than on most other wikis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

Hi, you previously mentioned on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#AbuseFilter fix that you could take care of a filter we're updating. I just wanted to mention that we're postponing that update to be sure we're not messing up anyone's filters without telling them. Thanks, and I'll be in touch. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, old friend :)

I've been fiddling around here a bit the last few weeks, and I realize I hadn't taken the time to swing by and say hello. So... Hello! How are you doing? How have things been around here since I went inactive? How are things going around the project right now?

— Tom (&) @ 01:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: There's been so many RfC's and other things going on... it's been a bit intense. If you become active again I'd still suggest you run for adminship here again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Link spam

Hello, Jasper

How do you do?

Codename Lisa here. You seem to know French, right? Could you please check Q777's history? I seem to have spotted an instance of link spam there. Just want to be sure though. The site however, is in French.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: The site is a third-party download site for Chrome. Definitely not preferable to the existing link, but based on AGF and the site content, not outright spam either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess I should have asked someone with French knowledge sooner. Cheers. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Block of MechQuester on testwikidata

I see you blocked MechQuester on testwikidata. Although he did do something wrong there, I don't see why it's needed to revoke his talk page and email access. He does not abuse his talk page.--GZWDer (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Considering his actions there (trying to cover up and get revenge for his sockpuppetry), I felt it was appropriate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

However his actions are clearly unrelated to talk page or email abuse. In my opinion no matter how much disruption he had caused, we should not preemptively revoke them unless you feel that talk page or email abuse is extremely likely.--GZWDer (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: What useful thing could he do with talk page or email access that he couldn't do here? This is not up for discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see the point that he can appeal here.--GZWDer (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

autoconfirmed vs confirmed

It makes a difference in abuse filters where the "remove autoconfirmed" check box is on. Confirmed status is that trigger.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We have no such filter here, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on Wikidata. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.

Other ways that you can help

1. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
2. Help with translation.
3. If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.
4. Help summarize the discussion to share back to your wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for posting in English.
• Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Reminder about Blocking consultation

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on meta now and is in the final days.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. There is still time to share your ideas. You can post to the discussion in any language.

Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. You can also help out by sharing a link to the meta discussion with users on this wiki. Or you can translate the summary of the discussion and share it on this wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

• I apologize for posting in English.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your block to GerardM

For what I've found, GerardM is a member of Language committee. As this committe is a part of Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees group of committees, I have no idea that if you are doing a WMF office action or not? And have you contacted langcomlists.wikimedia.org to notice them that their rights on Wikidata will be indefinitely influenced due to your action? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, it is already complicated enough.. :) GerardM (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WMF Office action is almost always performed by WMF Staff (mostly from Trust & Safety). (Yes, IIRC there was some office actions done by community members...) I don't think this is office action, AFIAK. (Generally speaking, someone being staff, a member of some committee, or the Jimbo Wales should not make them "unblockable" if someone needs to be blocked.) — regards, Revi 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block

Hello,

You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Apologizes for posting in English.

user:Dumbmoron2018

Can you explain to me exactly why you were unable to see vandalism in this instance. The edit summaries. The fact that the semantic change was to remove valid content. How, *exactly* does this not constitute vandalism - even absent the fact than anyone familiar with wikidata should be reasonably familiar with the bona fides of the two editors being reverted, and wonder what cause an account named Dumbmoron2018 had to revert their edits. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking for clairification

Hello,

I am looking to understand some of the changes implimented by you on Q63245258 in accordance with Wikidata:Living people.

According to the policy, "Labels, descriptions and aliases need to be neutral and well-sourced (ideally based on referenced statements on the item) and particular care should be taken in editing these for items about living persons. Derogatory names, even when used in reliable public sources, should not be added as aliases. Descriptions should focus on facts, not opinions."

When you locked the item you reinstated and allowed the charges of identity theft, plagiarism, and harassment. To start with the first two it says that labels, descriptions must be neutral and well sourced. The two sources linked on these charges are from a domain called box5227.temp.domains which is clearly not a source. It also is from an organization that if you go to their site now is suspended. I am curious your thought process because from my prospective these are not well sourced and you can't find these charges anywhere else.

The third charge of harassment is cited in two places. The first place is Heavy and the second is some organization called Washington Press. Heavy is a secondary source to Right Wing Watch who published the story first. The blog Right Wing Watch is a biased source that attacks political figures based on their view point. It is run by People for the American Way a 501(c)4 political organization. I am curious as to how this is also neutral and well sourced.

The final aspect is you restored the political ideology of alt-right, far-right, and men's rights movement. The only one that has a reference is alt-right and if you click on the link it is a twitter post of someones opinion that does not claim he is alt-right. The other two are not sourced. Again, these are labels and in according to the policy they have to be neutral and well sourced. I do not see that here.

I just want to understand your reasoning please. I think this could be a libel issue given the bias and unsupported statements being made by someone looking to attack the individual.

Please help me to understand. 23.96.34.23 22:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B

Hello.You blocked the user but he emptied the page David (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed." 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B 08:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Technically, our policy is actually silent on this since we have no explicit policies on talk pages. In this case, I would leave it up to the community whether they want to permit or not permit this. The English Wikipedia policy is not directly applicable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone pinged me?

I keep receiving ping notifications from English Wikipedia. Your name is in the mix too. What's going on? And why is your talk page like crap? Didn't Wikidata use some advanced state-of-the-art threaded messaging system? FleetCommand (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I don't care. I disabled pings. FleetCommand (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @FleetCommand: Long story short is, Codename Lisa is back, and came here. An admin misused their access in a content dispute with Codename Lisa. Back home on Wikipedia, Codename Lisa’s use of a new account here was deemed to be socking.—Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Codename Lisa is back"? And "Deemed to be socking?" 🤣 She and I are friends in the real world, now that she has left. She has a full-day job now. When she said she will dedicate her life to something worth dying for, she was not kidding. I will pray for the soul of the poor guy you are accusing. You love smear campaigns and you can be very nasty. He or she won't stand a chance. Even a clear CU report won't clear this guy. FleetCommand (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• I, on the other hand, love to come back sometimes. FleetCommand (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Now that I am here, there is something else I needed to ask: Is it true that admins are departing from Wikipedia en masse? Has anyone that I know of left? Anyone that I enjoy hearing to have left? FleetCommand (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: At first I felt sympathetic to Lisa after they basically stormed off the project and would not calm down after I tried to reassure them after the edit war they were blocked for, but lost my respect after this case of socking (see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 2560613081) wherein they were CU-confirmed to have been socking. I don't love "smear" campaigns. What I do value is honesty and transparency, which I feel like I didn't get in this situation. For what it's worth, I for the most part have sided with them on the subject of Windows 10 (Q18168774).

Regarding admins on Wikipedia, it's a long story.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you've got you guy wrong. I know the Codename Lisa in flesh and blood. She is right here with me. So, just do me a favor and focus on this FRAMGATE story. How about giving me its summary? Drama in Wikipedia too long for our short lives. FleetCommand (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Long story short is, Fram was banned by the foundation and desysopped for a year, which the community was quite unhappy about. I prefer to stay out of (the worst) drama so I'll leave my summary of it at that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me guess: Admin are leaving en masse either because they are unhappy with the community's lack of trust in them or they are leaving because the don't trust the WMF.

So, it seems in Wikipedia, where everyone harasses everyone else, admins can no longer be sure that they are the top of the chain of harassment.

Well... It was nice talking to you. I miss editing Wikipedia. FleetCommand (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Admins leaving in protest of the outcome of the scandal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

In protest of having oversight from WMF or anyone else. In protest of accountability, honesty and transparency. FleetCommand (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

In protest of the treatment by the foundation, which they perceived as unfair.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You call oversight unfair treatment? What happened to your accountability and transparency speech you gave about Codename Lisa? An admin suddenly makes up his mind that such-and-such person is guilty and blocks him. There is no practical recourse; he can request an appeal, only an appeal is never granted. That's exactly what's happened to Fram. I call it karma. FleetCommand (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not endorsing any position on this scandal, not wanting anything to do with the scandal; I'm only telling you the story of the scandal, as requested.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I see! Thank you. It wasn't clear. And thanks for giving me the fact. I understand there is such a thing as resignation as a sign of protest, but never understood it. Oh, well. FleetCommand (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, now that the kangaroo court for Codename Lisa has run its course and you can do absolutely nothing about it, I don't mind telling you something. TheSmartOne2019 was not Codename Lisa. It was me. I have even emailed ArbCom and provided them irrefutable evidence that it was me. They did not even reply. So, it is wise that you do not make a fuss. You too can do nothing.

My mention of the year 2006 must have hinted you, but prejudice had blinded you. You couldn't see farther than the tip of your own nose.

I am, in a way, guilty of smearing Codename Lisa's name, but she does not care. She has made her peace with Wikipedia.

I'll see you around. Under other account names. FleetCommand (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

reversion

Hi, Regarding your reversion special:diff/990896227, I think I did because appeared a constraint in part of the series (P179). However, after your delete It doesn't show (anymore?). Well, I'll check it, because I entered this subclasse in hundreds of items. So, be patient if you find someone. Let me a few days and, if now it runs without constrain error, I'll revert all cases. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez: I've come to the realization that tropical cyclone items are going to need a complete overhaul. This property and others used on this page were clearly not designed with natural events in mind.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. However is the result of a big update I did after expose a proposal of change in Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Change of properties for cyclone items. No one attends the discussion,even after invite in chat and in enwiki project. Now, I've uploaded all Atlantic & Pacific hurricans since 1970. If you have some suggestion related with the ontology that I worked, please tell me. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amadalvarez: I will be making specific proposals this weekend. I hail from the English Wikipedia tropical cyclone wikiproject and I know my fellow editors there have many uses and preferences for data organization. One of the biggest proposals I have is to store the entire best track of each storm on their item in the form of numerous claims for particular storm parameters (location of circulation center, winds, pressure, radius of maximum winds, etc.) at particular times. From this, other things like peak winds and what not can be inferred directly, as well as accumulated cyclone energy (Q339687).--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Please take note of the work already done. If you're going to ask for a new properties, may be could we re-alive the "cyclon category" qualified by scale. I saw that it was demanded and rejected "because with the windspeed it was possible to calculate". May be it's true, but with differents formulas in function of the basin. So, if we can have the "peak category" official and assigned after cyclon ends will be great and we can avoid the funny use of P31 I did. Plese keep in contact anything you need o can share. Have a good andproductive weekend. Amadalvarez (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I would even advocate removing most of the current properties, as nearly all quantitative things like categories can be inferred directly from the data. We should not make this manual because the scales are mutable; for example, the IMD added "extremely severe cyclonic storm" to their scale a few years ago. In the event of such a change, we would have to manually update the corresponding properties, whereas if we compute the categories we just have to update our scripts. My goal is essentially Boyce–Codd normal form (Q2460153) where we have no redundancy, and therefore mostly automatic satisfaction of constraints.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Amadalvarez: I have made a proposal on the talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Ask for help

My username was formerly called "Wildly boy" and is now renamed to "Catherine Laurence", but this has not been updated. I would like to ask you to help me modify it. Very grateful. 03:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

onion links

Hello, you added onion links to spam list. My bot updates Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations reports. Some property values are included into the reports (for example Q19867869). Bot fails to write some reports because spam filter blocks write operation. Could you delete blocked values from items synchronously with adding its to spam list? Or suggest some other solution? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: The entry was added under the assumption that every legitimate website does not need a .onion URL and we should use the direct URL instead (many .onion's are unofficial). Has consensus been against that?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to think about should .onion be blocked or not. Now we have inconsistency in our database. The links are blocked, but its still present in database. This inconsistency is important for me because my bot failed to update reports due to it. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

But that's the question we need to answer, because if the answer is no, then the solution is to remove all .onion links from the database in the first place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

'Has consensus been against that?-' Shouldn't it be the other way around? That we need to reach consensus to ban onion links?--Trade (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We need a broader discussion on onion links. In my experience, onion links are abusive more times than not. We need to have a broader discussion on it. For now, I'll comment out the entry.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My request on AN

Hi Jasper Deng. I placed a block request on AN, so far nobody responded. In the meantime User:Macskelek keeps adding his improper descriptions. Without exception, his every single edit must be modified, therefore - after having been warned by myself - this can be considered as vandalism. Can you please block him for a longer period of time. Thanks. Csigabi (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

CoinNewsSpan

Someone have added CoinNewsSpan to WD three times through three different accounts (Q90869683, Q90874003, Q90881233) Can we please blacklist the link now? --Trade (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trade: I blacklisted it earlier today. My only concern is whether the site itself is notable, but I don't believe it is. We can of course make an exception to the blacklist entry if such an item is needed though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Spam Page

Q91833255 Delete this item. The item does not meet notability requirements. 2405:205:140A:A22A:89FD:30AE:7626:4DF4 18:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

On hold; the Gujarati and English Wikiquotes have pages on them, created by them as well it seems. They should be deleted first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Axymakofficial: In response to your email: While the Wikiquote pages technically do confer notability via criterion 1 as of now, those pages do not look like they are in the scope of Wikiquote and are likely to be deleted. Whether it meets criterion 2 is not clear from the links provided on those pages; they mostly are passing mention or directory-like entries. Thus I decline to take further action pending a discussion with the community. At this time, I am leaning towards it not meeting criterion 2.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You can disable my eMail without blocking me if I am too inappropriate with it. Regards, Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

20:59 eMail

Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Sorry for notifying you so late! But please do check your inbox! It is important! Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Few questions from WD: PC

@Jasper Deng:What do you mean by “delving”? What does that mean. I know I should not be involved in admin areas, but I wanted to foresee something because I could. That is very interesting about consensus. I only eMailed you because pinging is not always effective. Please answer my questions and block my account for 24 hours to enforce a brief Wikibreak so I can learn to constructively contribute so I don’t get indeffed. Ok? Also please disable eMail during that block so I can learn to stop eMailing people so I don’t get blocked for that.Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Steven1825andrew2044: Well, first things first. I fundamentally agree with your idea that we should have separate pages for vandalism report (and maybe protection request) posts, but there's little I can do to stop a discussion from going stale. Sometimes it is good to start an RfC on it. Pinging me is usually effective here (if I don't respond, usually I don't have much to say, or I'm away from the computer). Don't take this hard on yourself, I'm here to help you. I personally have no issue with your focus on administrative areas, but others view that with distaste when you're not an admin, and I want you to get started on a good note, that's all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I think I might be doing a good job. But your right, a meaner admin could block me if I am not careful Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about being blocked. If you do anything that Wikidata:Blocking policy would allow blocks for, and it's not severe, you'll be warned first. Be bold, and just edit the database. Blocks are a means to an end, after all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I was only asking because I wanted to take a week off, enforced. I also wanted it so that it was NOT a self requested block, it is an enforced WikiBreak. BUT I do want you to put it in the logs it should NOT count against me in potential future sanctions, which could happen. As a final note, you are an admin. So this means you do get a vote in the matter. Take my word and spread it forward with your admin power! Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you need a wikibreak enforcer, how about w:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_Enforcer?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: ok, what exactly is the code? Can you try to do it for me? I want the WikiBreak to(and I am using Eastern Time here)begin at 9:30 PM tonight and end at 8:30 AM on May 4. Oh PS I am a mobile editor. And for even more bad news, by IP is blocked on enwiki and I am globally blocked. Oops.Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Email-sorry to disturb you, but it’s kinda important.

Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail! The subject is Enforced Wikibreak.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Good. And yes, I am an IP editor on enwiki. And there are valid reasons for the block-my son made an account on that IP and was blocked for sockpuppetry. Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

27 April 2020-Resolution

@Jasper Deng:Since I can’t seem to do the code as my IP is blocked on enwiki, one by Breanan Hunter and one by ToBeFree, I really want you to monitor my contributions and block me for 12 or 24 hours even if I make one mistake and I’ll consider it a “warning block “. The eMail is worthless as it does not cover some information. I am very sorry for sending excessive eMails, feel free to block me for that for up to 1 week if you feel need-be. I just don’t want me to be doing badly and no warnings and poof! I am indefinitely blocked! I want warnings but feel feee to block me as a warning block for short periods. Note that blocks are harmless to me between 01:30 and 12:30, due to my time zone. Steven1825andrew2044 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks of this sort are not a valid block reason under Wikidata:Blocking policy. Honestly, stop obsessing over getting blocked. We're not out there to get you. Also, do you have any history editing the English Wikipedia?Jasper Deng (talk)--01:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess this worry about being blocked makes sense now.--Trade (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting

You might wanna keep an eye out for this. --Trade (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted my edit regarding request to delete...why?

Hi, I just commented on a request to delete two items I created, requesting that they be kept. I see that you immediately reverted to remove my comments, and am confused. I see other editors engaging in discussion about RfD, did I do something wrong? Thanks for clarification, I have not had much experience with deletions etc on wikidata and maybe I don't understand the processes to discuss.DrThneed (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@DrThneed: In the process, you removed numerous other requests and comments. Please make sure you are editing the latest version of the page and not an old version.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

eeek, so sorry. Thank you for fixing. Will try again. DrThneed (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The user that you blocked

Hi Jasper,

User:PokestarFan is asking to be unblocked here, for over 6 months now. Since you were the blocking admin, I'm asking you to review the block as it's been open for 6 months now with no response. Please don't think I am a sock of PokestarFan, you can checkuser me. Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 02:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:PokestarFan block appeal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please help me understand

Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sidowpknbkhihj lacks recent edits here... because the edits were made on jawiki and pushed through to data by the software without the users actually editing on data??? So the contributions listed on Special:Contributions/震度5弱 aren't necessarily contributions on data? Is that correct? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Sorry, I meant that that account you mentioned is the only one with edits. The master and the Nani account don't have any since November of last year.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

two requests for unblock

Hey Jasper Deng, the two IPv6 cases in Category:Requests for unblock seem to be your business as you have extended their block after the unblock request was made. Can you please check whether you can just mark both of them resolved? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Actually, I cannot since I'm the blocking admin and would decline those requests if it were up to me. The block extensions were due to further socking and talk page abuse such as here. Could you handle them if you can?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It is relatively difficult to understand what happened in this case, i.e. why the block was originally implemented on 26 June 2020; your block comment just says "Block evasion" with no further reference where you got this evidence from, or which user has evaded their block here. My guess is that it is related to Special:Diff/1216774044, and another oddity is Special:Diff/457232090 from the same range which is a link to another sockmaster. It is relatively clear that this is a problematic contributor, but given the rather vague insight I have, I do not want to act at the moment and I would be surprised if another admin would. If you are willing to confirm my findings, I would consider again whether I can do something here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Gale5050 evading their block. Global disruption and socking.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Now done, both declined. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Rschen7754 03:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Iota

Hi:

I don't know why you changed in knots only the maximum wind of this category 5 hurricane but I had to reinput 260 km/h (160 mi/h) with the reference https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2020/al31/al312020.public.013.shtml? One can input more than one unit.

---

Bonjour, Je ne sais pas pourquoi vous avez modifié la vitesse seulement en nœuds des vents maximums de cet ouragan de catégorie 5 mais j'ai dû remettre à 260 km/h comme le dit la référence https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2020/al31/al312020.public.013.shtml? On peut mettre plusieurs unités dansWikidata pour un même propriété.

Pierre cb (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: The knot is the primary unit used in meteorology and it is always given in 5-knot intervals. The other units are obtained by taking the figure in knots, converting to that unit, and rounding that to the nearest 5. We do not need to include redundant information.

Le nœud est l'unit principal en meteorologie et c'est dit en intervals de 5. Les autres units sont obtenus par convertir le nombre en nœuds à l'autre unit et l'arrondir au 5 prés. On n'a pas besoin d'information redondante.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Anan Islam

Hi Jasper. Forgive me for not going through any official or back channels. Do you want to clear up after this, and probably this? Thanks. Zzuuzz (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

We might wanna consider blacklisting his websites and social media accounts. --Trade (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:tl

You seem to have broken https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Tl by importanting something from meta. I discovered this by looking at pages like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine where it used to be that you could copypaste the ping template so that it points to the Wikiproject. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct consultation

Hello, I am writing to you to personally invite you to the ongoing consultation about the new Wikimedia movement's Universal Code of Conduct. Your feedback as an admin and experienced user is of great value for us, and we are extremely interested in hearing your say.

You might express your opinion at any given time and in any way you may consider useful (for example, publicly at the consultation page or on my talk page, or privately via email). If you wish or feel more comfortable, we can also set up an online meeting in order to discuss your opinions and ideas.

Please remember that there is no such thing as a “stupid opinion” or “worthless idea”, so be bold and feel free to express yourself. :) Also, if you wish you can help us involving other users you know and that you think might be interested in having their say in this!

Hope to hear from you soon! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Blastmaty case

Recently I saw this, tens of socks appointed to Blastmaty, "the oldest" of these accounts. However, the oldest one is actually Hanooz, administrator on Commons and generally very productive as well as helpful user. Is it possible that he's blocked by mistake? Situation seems weird. Even from technical perspective, he may be using the same VPN (common practice in Iran) as sockmaster. I kindly suggest double-check about this. Regards, --Orijentolog (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: Blastmaty is the oldest account here. I actually was fairly confident about my conclusion so pinging @Sotiale, 1997kB: for a 2O. At this time though I found the technical data pretty convincing and, because I saw they weren't new, my block is basically a requirement that they explain this connection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Strange, the global account information gives Registered: 09:35, 10 December 2020 (2 months ago) for Blastmaty and Registered: 12:18, 18 April 2018 (2 years ago) for Hanooz. In any case, no problem, I'm sure if there's a mistake that Hanooz will explain all himself. He's not much fluent in English, but he knows admins who are. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I went by their local account ages. Usually that's the custom here, but in any case I'd be reticent to re-tag all those socks as Hanooz if they in fact have a valid explanation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

GRP

Just so you know, Special:Contributions/119.92.141.146 is GRP, which you may want to block for LTA or as a proxy, and possibly also delete that talk page. Regards, JavaHurricane (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Also have a look at my contributions and this page's history. GRP evidently thinks me inebriated. JavaHurricane (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Libera

I hereby affirm I am JD|cloud on the Libera.Chat IRC network that replaces freenode.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors

Dear Jasper Deng,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in the Ratification vote of UCoC Enforcement guideline

This message has been sent because you are administrator in this project. If you voted, Thank you and please ignore this message 🙂

Hello Jasper Deng,

The Ratification vote of Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelinein currently taking place until March 21. If you didn't vote yet, please take a few minutes to participate the ratification vote! Your voice is important.

Best, —YKo (WMF) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hinweis und Bitte – notice and request

Deutsch: Du hast wahrscheinlich meinen Ping nicht erhalten. Deswegen bitte ich dich hier, dass du bitte mal auf meiner Diskussionsseite vorbeschaust und dort meinen Entsperrwunsch durchliest, da ich dort eine Frage an dich gerichtet habe. Ich würde mich dort über eine Antwort auf diese Frage freuen. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

English: You probably didn't get my ping. That's why I'm asking you here to take a look at my talk page and read my unlock request there, because I asked you a question there. I would appreciate an answer to this question there. PS: The official version of the message is in German. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Deutsch: Weil du aktuell scheinbar nur sporadisch hier tätig bist, möchte ich dich hiermit noch einmal bitten, auf meiner Diskussionsseite meinen Entsperrwunsch durchzulesen und am besten meine Fragen zu beantworten. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

English: Because you are apparently only active here sporadically at the moment, I would like to ask you again to read through my unlock request on my discussion page and ideally to answer my questions. PS: The official version of the message is in German. ---Gymnicus (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Deutsch: Weil du aktuell scheinbar nur sporadisch hier tätig bist, möchte ich dich hiermit mit Verweis auf den Abschnitt „Accountability“ auf der Seite Wikidata:Administrators erneut darum bitte, dir auf meiner Diskussionsseite meinen Entsperrwunsch durchzulesen und meine Fragen zu beantworten. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

English: Because you seem to only be active here sporadically at the moment, I would like to ask you again, with reference to the "Accountability" section on the Wikidata:Administrators page, to read through my unlock request on my talk page and to answer my questions. PS: The official version of the message is in German.--Gymnicus (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Imports

Hello, I am wondering if there is a way to import mass articles and then I would need to verify they are correct before submitting them. We have thousands on simple wiki that are not liked to wd. I look forward to your response. Thanks - Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 16:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

IRC

Would you mind hopping on? Its about your email DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Jasper Deng,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our model based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study should take no more than 15 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link

Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Two new socks from User:Smagzine.

User:Fandomworldwide and User:Doyouloveme22222 have repeatedly added promotional content about Bui Quoc Huy to Wikidata. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas: Found several additional socks. Please in the future file a request directly at Wikidata:Requests for checkuser.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Marcyway4

You said more details later but you never came back to tell us what these details were Trade (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)