Welcome to Wikidata, Jasper Deng!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Regards, --Ajraddatz (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for my signature edit

Sorry if my signature offended you. I understand that canvassing is very innapropiate.

I edit my signature and delete the maximum of link.

thanks for you're remark. --Jitrixis (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interwikilinks vs. items edit

Hi Jasper, I'm new to Wikidata. What should I do with different items that are connected through an interwiki link? A historical society Q38750 is not the same as a yearbook Q38788 (deleted as "Duplicate: of Q38750"), published by this society. I think the best solution are two items or a kind of redirect. -- 02:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've restored the deleted one. The two looked similar enough based on the German. Sorry! (by the way, you're encouraged to register).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick response! --Media watch (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sparrows edit

Please note: Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q30010. --Art-top (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

patrol right edit

I've thanked the wrong person, so thank you for asking on bugzilla! :)

Best regards — Arkanosis 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty item edit

Thanks for pointing that out, must have made it by mistake somehow. I think i't because I pressed the Enter key twice by accident while I was typing a description. I've filled the item with something else now. Thanks again for pointing it out. Delsion23 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I have thus declined the request for its deletion at WD:RFD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q49907 edit

Hi Jasper Deng, you have deleted Q49907 because you thought it is a duplicated entry with Q29416. It is not. See Wikidata:Forum#Ein Artikel, mehrere Personen (though in German) for details. Basicly Q29416 is about Alfons Kontarsky, Q49742 is about Aloys Kontarsky and Q49907 was about both of them, the siblings Alfons und Aloys Kontarsky. --Alex (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restored. I'm not convinced we need an entry on both, though. This seems to vary based on Wikipedia language.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure either. I picked it up as an example where there is an article about a group of people in one language version, and one for each member in another one. There might be a lot of other cases alike (see e.g., en:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Redirect to joint biography). And the problem might not be restricted to persons. --Alex (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know why some Wikipedias do articles on two things that are covered separately elsewhere, but this is indeed a problem, indeed not just restricted to persons.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I guess that is due to something like a “language bias”. The English Wikipedia might be an exemption (as English serves as the
lingua franca
of our days), but even there Aloys and Alfons Kontarsky are perceived as a duet, not as single persons. This is (or at least might be) different to an audience that consists mainly of German speaking people. --Alex (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. The problem is that different entries on Wikidata can't share such an article. And I don't think that if we had a single entry on both, that we could link separate articles in one language.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, at least not at this stage of Wikidata. Someday it might be possible to get the data from Q49742 and Q29416 at Q49907 (or vice versa), so that there is some connection between these entries. --Alex (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main Page protection edit

Fair enough I certainly won't contest you changing the protection, but prophylactic protection of the Main Page seems like a given to me. Thanks for the note. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barack Obama edit

Sorry, didn't notice Barack Obama already existed. It didn't appear in the search results. 05:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:ItemDisambiguation helps, but the existing search function is indeed very horrible. No fault of yours.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolling edit

Thanks. :)--Avocato (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! edit

This is a little late but thank you for entrusting me with the autopatrolled user right. --J36miles (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain? edit

Hi Jasper--what did you mean by this edit? —Theopolisme 21:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a user is blocked and tries to submit a change to a data entry like changing a site link, a dialog box "Edit not allowed" appears. When "details" is clicked, the bare wikitext of that interface page, not the formatted message it's supposed to generate, is shown to the user. Without this edit, the first thing they'd see is the CSS/table markup, not the actual "You are currently unable to edit Wikidata" message.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! —Theopolisme 11:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin confirmations edit

Hello! We are currently in the process of confirming all of the early admins, and you are scheduled to be confirmed between 2 - 6 February 2013. Please create an entry at Wikidata:Administrators/Confirm 2013/3, and see Wikidata:Administrators/Confirm 2013 for more details. Merci et bonne journée! Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Création d'une task force Chimie edit

Hello, Je voulais t'annoncer la création d'une task force dédiée à la chimie Wikidata:Chemistry task force. Snipre (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merci!--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cape Krustenstern edit

I appear to have borked what should be "Cape Krusenstern National Monument" (Q5280756). I moved it on en from its original cumbersome title of "Cape Krusenstern National Monument and Archeological District" (Q2937254)and didn't realize that the second title already existed here, created the first, so now we have two. I'm not autoconfirmed so I can't move it, and in any case the first title would need to be deleted first. Not being quite sure of how things work on WD myself (obviously), can you sort it out? Acroterion (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. As for as I know, you don't need to be autoconfirmed to rename items, as we don't use page moving for them. One problem with Wikidata is that what's multiple articles on one wiki is a single article on another.
In this particular case, you can edit the title of the latter entry. Duplicate detection is sometimes hard, but Special:ItemDisambiguation and Special:ItemByTitle are helpful. I'm not sure of exactly what you'd like here (deletion of the first one, perhaps?), but what I'd do is delete Q5280756 and replace the link(s) at Q2937254. Cheers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it appears that the one I created, Q5280756,should be the one that gets deleted, and then I'll edit Q2937254. I can't alter Q2937254 until Q5280756's gone - I get a conflict message. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Q5280756 has now been deleted, so everything should be OK now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar edit

  The admin's barnstar
Congrats on passing 100 blocks! — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Talkback edit

Can you enable this template Template:Talkback for be translated? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look at doing that later today. You can also do it - follow the instructions at Template:Autotranslate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question edit

Hi Jasper. We have this and this pages about the same article. When I try to add Turkish interwiki to the first one, it gives me an error. Is there a way to fix it?--Rapsar (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Wikidata admin confirmations edit

Hi! Thanks for information. Now, I have a many work in my live, that, I had decrease my activity in all wikimedia projects to april. However, I will make every effort to comply with its obligation. Best regards, Karol007 talk 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Autopatrolled and rollbacker flag edit

Here's an explanation of the Serbian Wikipedia, I blocked under various charges for which there is not the slightest evidence. --Kolega2357 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to seek others' comment on this before I make a final decision.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serbian Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wikidata, This is completely irrelevant to what you're doing. --Kolega2357 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. It factors into whether you can be trusted with any permissions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have the right to consider your record on other WMF sites in our decision to grant you rights here. --Rschen7754 19:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User page items edit

Why can not I be on the user pages on Wikidata? --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's subject of current discussion - see the project chat. The original consensus was that it would be of little/no benefit and that it's out of Wikidata's project scope.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commenting on talk page edit

image « Fair Use » suivre les règles WMF edit

Je ne comprends pas. C'est une préoccupation WMF, et non les Commons. Les Commons ne fait que suivre les règles WMF. Wikpedia en pouvez mettre en place « Fair Use » (avec un « Fair Use » justification pour chaque utilisation) parce que c'est la loi aux États-Unis, mais les Commons ne peut pas parce qu'il est dans le monde entier. WMF est très préoccupé par les violations du droit d'auteur. Toutes ces images sont Cover Art et sont sous copywright. WMF ne peut pas soutenir violoation droits d'auteur.Merci, Farrajak (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ces sont juste liens, pas utilisations, donc il n'est pas obligataire à mettre rationales.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RequestDeletion edit

I don't see how this was controversial. It just gives every user (unregistered users included) the ability to tag items easiliy for quick deletion, like it is possible on every other WMF wiki with the {{delete}} template. This is normally standard. Any admin/registered user who dislikes having the RequestDeletion link in his toolbar can still easily opt-out via his preferences. Regards, Vogone talk 04:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be fine if it were off for admins by default. That's the main reason why I reverted you. A second reason was that I also didn't know why you did that because of your lack of an edit summary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, the thing with the lack of an edit summary was indeed my fault. I'll document my changes better, next time. Greetings, Vogone talk 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Properties for review edit

I saw that you contribute to the chemistry task force. Do you have time to look at Crystal habit, Twinning, Fracture and Cleavage? (link) --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not that advanced.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page reverting edit

Hi Jasper,

Please avoid reverting other users comments on your talk page. This is unfriendly and makes your warnings on other users talk pages appear some sort of retaliation and suggesting misuse of your admin privileges. --  Docu  at 20:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can remove comments from my own talk page as I wish. Yes, it may be unfriendly, but I'm not interested in comments like the one you posted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh .. and then you complain about other users not listening to you .. --  Docu  at 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not plural users, that's singular user - the discussion is about your conduct, not mine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Aristomenis12 edit


You posted another warning to this user's talk page. Why not indefblock? You've probably seen that he/she made strange edits before, this is one more strange edit. I'd think it enough for a block. --Michgrig (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The goal of a block is to stop disruption. If a warning accomplishes that, as it seems to have here, a block is not necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on Wikidata's primary sorting property edit

You recently participated in a deletion discussion for P107 - main type (GND). The discussion has been closed, as it is clear that a resolution won't come from PfD, and an RfC has been opened on the matter at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Primary sorting property. You are invited to participate there. Please note that this is a mass delivered message, and that I will not see any replies you leave on this page.

Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfP Micru edit

A month has passed and he has done some more reviews. What do you think? Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Other_rights#Micru. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say if (s)he wants the right, (s)he should open a new request, as when a {{not done}} is placed, the decision for that request is usually final.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! edit

Hello Jasper, I decided to join the data wiki, and I must say I really like the place! Im a bt concerned with my edits, I haven't had anyone comment about what I do and how I work, is there something I'm not doing or am I causing more harm than good? Hope to hear from you when you are free. Thanks! --Prabash (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick glance shows that they are probably fine, and I've assigned you autopatrolled. However, keep in mind that descriptions are more like dictionary definitions, and thus you generally only specify the "thing" a particular item is (for example, an American national park is simply described as a "United States national park"). Best of luck!--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok so we do not go in detail with the description, I'll hop back and simplify the descriptions into a more dictionary like format. thanks for the help Jasper, really appreciate it! --Prabash (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi edit

Hi Jasper Deng,

I saw that you are a sysop here and had some questions about my entries. First thing is, am I doing a good job/are they helping? I want to make sure that my contributions are helping. If you could tell me how I am doing or what must be changed, feel free to. Best. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't really check your foreign-language contributions - remember to keep in mind TCN7JM's advice on your talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that was a slight, minor mix up that was easily fixed, albeit I sight necessity for the expression of caution. Happy editing. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Flood flag, again edit

Hello, Jasper Deng. You have new messages at Ricordisamoa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not vandalising edit

Hello. I wasn't vandalising, I was fixing incorrect links between different language wikipedias (rep by pop and representation are two different things, as well there was a link to the romanian article on proportional representation which is once again a wholly different subject). Rather silly accusation, I don't see who would vandalise such a specific page on this Wiki. Please undo your revert, thanks.-- 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, usually mass-removal of links is construed to be vandalism. However, I have removed only two links because the rest appear to be related.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, my bad, I only should have deleted those two. Cheers, Methegreat on wikipedia fr & en. -- 04:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatroller Request edit

Hi Jasper. I am here to ask if you can give me the autopatroller user right here. I would need the autopatroller user right as I would want my edits to be autopatrolled when I revert off new editors removing sitelinks. I have been here for a while. I hope that you would grant me the autopatroller user right here. I have it on Commons. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, autopatrolled was very recently phased out. You should be autopatrolled already though, because you're autoconfirmed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually saw that requesting for the autopatroller user right was removed from Wikidata:Requests for permissions, so I asked here instead. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because it was phased out - i.e., unavailable now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contributions seem good. I have given you 'confirmed' as the step in which gives autpatrolled rights as well as allowing the rights of an autoconfirmed user. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't fuss over it, but because he's autoconfirmed (first edit over a month ago, over 80 edits), I think that's redundant.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think I am fit for the rollback right? I have made a lot of reverts using 'restore' and I know how Wikidata works. I find that the restore button have a glitch. When I try to revert some edits, an error message comes out. So I think I might get the rollback right. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to see more counter-vandalism activity here first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like until how much? 200 or 300? I have 100+ now. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 06:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm more concerned about how much time you've spent here on countervandalism - tomorrow is probably good enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have did a lot of valid reverts yesterday and today. Can you give me the rollback right? Or should I ask at WD:RFOR? Jianhui67 talkcontribs 03:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's done. It may be quicker to request it at RFOR next time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] edit

Thanks for blocking them. I was watching their edits, but it looks like you got to it first. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 02:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't hesitate to block spambots of this kind. See Special:AbuseFilter/5.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:History edit

Hello! I just found Template:Purge for MediaWiki action=purge and created Template:History for MediaWiki action=history. Please semi-protect the template, add the required .css class historylink if not already available. I am a newbie here. Maybe you can create / review and semi-protect the required Template:History/doc based on Template:Purge/doc (which needs to be created first) as well. Thanks in advance! @לערי_ריינהאר

לערי ריינהארט (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plesase note the existence of Template:Property/doc and Template:P/doc versus Template:Q/doc. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where can I get the CSS code?--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:AbuseFilter/5 edit

Why did you make this modification to the abuse filter? The xzork.com site has been used by several vandals so far, see [1], [2], [3], and [4]. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your regex syntax was incorrect. \b means word separation, because \ followed by a letter is special.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rezabot edit

You can probably Nuke all items this bot created.--GZWDer (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to wait for an all-clear because this will involve the deletion of a large amount of items, which could cause a problem with the database.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'm doing it gradually.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are so many to delete, I won't proceed beyond this point because I fear that it might cause irrepairable damage to the database. I will wait for more comments or let others do it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unblock edit

Hi, please unblock Rezabot. It works on many local wikis and this blocking will cause many problems in local wikis.

now importing that templates are stopped and we can talk about them. yoursYamaha5 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I know template subpages which are not Wikidata:Notability means /doc pages not independent subpages which can have interwiki. these subpages should have interwiki because users can develop or review them by interwiki also in
  • Request for comment: Inclusion of non-article pages
  • Request for comment: Inclusion of non-article pages 2
  • Request for comment: Exclusion of pages in the file namespace

I didn't see any comment for these kind subpagesYamaha5 (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what the policy says though. It does not restrict the prohibition to just /doc subpages. I do need confirmation from the bot operator (Reza1615) before I can unblock it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am bot operator :) please see fa:user:yamaha5 and here. I changed my username because of some personal problems Yamaha5 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unblocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I left a topic in the Wikidata:Project chat . please leave a comment thereYamaha5 (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jasper Deng, Kindly unblock the underlisted accounts:

1.Jerome1506 2.Perperment22 3.dupsylondon3 4.Oladamglobal 5.Salvadoryetty 6.Olubukunmi 7.Arowosola60 8. Philgbemio 9. Jerachin24 We are working on a campaign and edits made by them are been monitored.

Thank you. Odomero2711 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jasper Deng, please unblock underlisted accounts:

1.Jerome1506 2.Perperment22 3.dupsylondon3 4.Oladamglobal 5.Salvadoryetty 6.Olubukunmi 7.Arowosola60 8. Philgbemio 9. Jerachin24 We are doing a campaign on wikiGlam awareness for librarians in Lagos state, Nigeria. Below is the metapage.

Thank you


Meta page for WikiGlam Odomero2711 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

link does not show up edit

Hi Jasper. I randomly clicked on your talk page for help. The article w:Asphalt shingle does not show an interlanguage link to it's German counterpart Preolitschindel so I went to add the link. However, I get the error message "Site link Preolitschindel is already used by item Q2108753...". How can I get the link to show up? Thanks. Jim Derby (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are possibly dealing with duplicate items. I would have to see the items in detail to make further comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the article names above into links. Could you look at this problem? Thanks. Jim Derby (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not seem that Q2108753 is a match for the German term you propose here, based on a Google Translate of the German.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I click on the Q2108753 link and it goes to a page listing preolitschindel, I do not understand your last entry.Jim Derby (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant that Q2108753 does not match the item on asphalt shingles.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elo rating (P1087) edit

Just created Elo rating (P1087). --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for feedback on my GSoC'14 proposal edit

Hi Jasper Deng,

I am planning to work on the project titled "Tools for mass migration of legacy translated wiki content" this summer under Google Summer of Code. I have drafted a proposal for the same over the past few weeks. This project is going to help the translation adminstrators like you in a great way, as it would completely automate the tedious manual task of preparing a page for translation and then importing the translations into the Translate extension. You can check the proposal page for detailed information on how I plan to accomplish this.

As you would be an end user of this tool, it would be great if you could go through the proposal and provide feedback/suggestions. Your feedback would definitely help me improve the proposal as well help in creating an even better tool. You can do the same on the discussion page of the proposal or reply here, whichever is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you!

P.S: I need to submit the proposal to Google by March 19, 2014.

BPositive (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I usually don't do translation administrator work, sorry.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jesmion (talkcontribslogs) edit

Just to let you know, he continued his disruptive behaviour today despite promising to behave, so I've reinstated the original block. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q15136093 edit

Thanks for the heads-up edit

Looks like I'll be missing my activity deadline. I told myself I'd do the handful of required actions to keep the bits, but I've been sick this past week (better now!) and suddenly have a load of things to do. Maybe I'll find the time in the next few hours (not sure what the details of the policy are), maybe I won't. On verra.

More importantly: I'm sorry for sorta disappearing in a fuss way back. Wikimedia had been a stresser for me almost since I started using it, as I think I mentioned on occasion, and I guess, y'know, I took some time off and "some time" became six months eventually.

I feel like a jerk for ditching all you guys without any real good-bye, after y'all had been a pretty big part of my life for the better part of a year. If it makes it any better, I justified it to myself by saying I needed to put myself first so I could move on with my life, and I'm... kind of doing that now? I mean it's too soon to say I've accomplished anything, but I'm backpacking through Europe right now, having a pretty good time. Then at the end of July I'm gonna go study Hebrew for a couple months... Hey, who knows, maybe I'll be back on the wikis to improve my language skills. So, it's progress at least. I'm still not in school or anything, but it's a whole lot better than laying in bed all day editing articles and items (fun as it was).

And it's nice. I spent months telling myself I'd get off my ass and do something, I left this place tangentially to that, and hey, now I've actually done it! Or at least started to do it. It feels nice to follow through on a goal.

That still doesn't excuse my unceremonious departure, but I hope it provides some explanation.

So really, thanks for the desysop heads-up. You're a good friend, Jasper, and I hope I'll have a chance to work with you again in the future. Same goes for tons of other people on here... I'd give echo pings, but I'd leave someone out by accident, and then I'd feel bad; but I'm sure everyone who's anyone is stalking this page as it is. My apology obviously extends to the rest of you as well.

Let me know how you're doing! You can email me at tom@tomkel.ly if you want. (Same goes for the rest of y'all.) And if you take six months to respond to this, I suppose that's only fair.   Heh, I'm the one who created the redirect for that template here

— PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PinkAmpersand: you still have about 25 hours, all it would take would be 10 RfDs (for example). Also, in case you're going to be there, I will be at Wikimania 2014 in London.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PinkAmpersand: actually only 8 RfDs, you have 2 MediaWiki-space edits on 1 January. --Rschen7754 08:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC edit

Hi Jasper, thanks for the effort in creating the RFC on user conduct. Its sheer length already shows how much you care about a good working community. Unfortunately that is not the way to make everyone feel more integrated and to collaborate better, quite the opposite as Gerard and me pointed out in the talk page. Sorry if the language was harsh, but we should not repeat the painful errors that arose in wikipedia and that displeased so many people for so long.

I have suggested on the project chat to start a "tea house", which might avoid problems by taking newcomers by the hand and mentor them. I would appreciate that you would take some time to imagine from the perspective of a newcomer what are the possible outcomes of each path, and perhaps you want to consider testing a teahouse project before establishing new rules?

It will take weight out of your shoulders, and your task as an admin will be more free than ever. I understand that sometimes it is hard to make decisions, but by having non-hatred and empathy as the rule, all your decisions can only be great! :) --Micru (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Micru, GerardM: I respectfully disagree, because the conflict tends to be among experienced editors of the wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, while I respect your effort in starting it, I'm not sure that the current format is manageable. I do think that the use of Widar to make automated edits needs to be examined, more urgently. --Rschen7754 21:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This day has gone pretty quickly for me (I was busy throughout much of it), so I will finally make a full statement on this.

My opinion is that while guidelines are preferable over policies, they haven't worked for us. You already know that.

Now why did I start such a large RfC? Because, I felt like a major program needed a major overhaul. However, I do admit that this should've instead been done in three or four separate RfC's at the very least. But I won't accept that such an RfC is not necessary. When drafting the proposal, I predicted every single response to it: "too much bureaucracy, too much confusion". My response to that is that this RfC requires the full participation of the community, including actively revising policies when they become inadequate. Most problematic policies I've seen on Wikipedia (in terms of controversy over them) have not been overhauled for more than half the age of the wiki. Yes, getting consensus to change it becomes hard, but on the other hand, I've found that inertia can be avoided here. I truly believe that our community is a dynamic one capable of that. I would not start an RfC with the intent of setting anything in stone.

Now, what I ask for my critics is to remember that I am human and to assume good faith with my actions. Therefore, @GerardM: I do not appreciate calling it a "power play". I also ask that any criticism of the existing proposals be met by not only comments against the proposals, but by new proposals on the same page, in order for the community to be able to choose from as widely of a range of choices as possible. @Micru: I do not want to end this without saying that I do thank you for your civility on this. I just do not think that the notion that facilities for new users have to be mutually exclusive with this is valid.

We learn from my mistakes. I'm already learning from this one. But since this is an RfC that already has been started, I can no longer halt it.

Thank you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that communication is very much something we do not want to get involved in, how do you want me to express how this RfC comes across. I understand that you do not like that this is called a power play but how do I get that message across to you? You ask for comments, you get comments and it is not mandatory that you like them all.
The notion that you have set something on its way and "cannot stop it" is because ? So all the negative fallout is fine because it was started ?? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GerardM: Sigh. You really should choose your words better in the future, because I'm less inclined to be convinced by incivil comments like that one - that you think such comments are more effective than civil comments like Micru's is the specific problem I have with them. I specifically opposed your request for administrator access here for that aspect of your commenting style.
I try to be nice by not pointing fingers at you. It's really hard to continue doing so when you point your finger at me this much. You haven't said a single constructive thing regarding the RfC, i.e. you haven't accepted that the RfC is going to happen and that the best thing to do is what I intended the RfC's structure for - molding its options and form as the community sees fit. If you think your idea is better, you should propose it instead of bashing me out of my own idea.
Just because I requested comments doesn't mean I can't request that they be civil and non-combative.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, guys, calm here. Let's discuss it in the public chat and let's also talk about what are the participation requirements for such an important policy to be passed or not.--Micru (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FideID edit

Hello, You participiated in the discussion of the property Elo rating (P1087), so you might be interested to know that there now is a proposal for a property of a related topic: FideID. It is discussed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person#FideID. Regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2014 edit


Probably we meet (also with GerardM standing next to us) on Wikimania2014. (my image). If it was you - You were not sure that I am admin. So you can see that I am :).

I hope that you have good time on Wikimania. PMG (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PMG: Yep I did, and I do clearly recall seeing you!--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Təşəkkür edit

Salam. Vikidata idarəçiliyinə namizəd olduğum səsvermədə iştirak etdiyiniz üçün Sizə təşəkkür edirəm. Hörmətlə, --►Cekli829 06:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of User:Oegupm edit

Hi Jasper, I saw that you deleted that account. From the edit summary "Wikidata does not host original encyclopedic content", the reason or underlying policy is not clear to me. Can you please elaborate? --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been common practice by administrators since the start, here. Plus the content was quasi-spam anyways. The deletion policy is not a policy anyways; it has been long-standing practice that userpages that are completely off-topic violate the fact that we're not a free webhost. I didn't delete the account, by the way. I deleted the account's user page, the account always exists.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

You have mail edit

Rschen7754 01:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q15136093 - 2 edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]
See here [6] [7] [8]. 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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

decomposition point (P2107) edit

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

review of my contributions edit

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)Reply[reply]

Range block edit

Hi, you blocked the IP range 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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

mw:User talk:Imzadi1979 edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

your reversion of my edit at AN edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

AbuseFilter edit

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)Reply[reply]

Hello, old friend :) edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Link spam edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

Block of MechQuester on testwikidata edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

autoconfirmed vs confirmed edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation edit


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 edit

  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)Reply[reply]

  • 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 edit

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)Reply[reply]

Your block to GerardM edit

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 langcom lists.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)Reply[reply]

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

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block edit


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)Reply[reply]

  • Apologizes for posting in English.

user:Dumbmoron2018 edit

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)Reply[reply]

Looking for clairification edit


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. 22:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

"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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Someone pinged me? edit

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)Reply[reply]

Actually, never mind. I don't care. I disabled pings. FleetCommand (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
  • "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)Reply[reply]
  • I, on the other hand, love to come back sometimes. FleetCommand (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Admins leaving in protest of the outcome of the scandal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
In protest of the treatment by the foundation, which they perceived as unfair.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

reversion edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Ask for help edit

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 edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
'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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

My request on AN edit

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)Reply[reply]

CoinNewsSpan edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Delete Spam Page edit

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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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

20:59 eMail edit

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)Reply[reply]

Few questions from WD: PC edit

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

27 April 2020-Resolution edit

@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)Reply[reply]

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

Meatpuppeting edit

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

The user that you blocked edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

Please help me understand edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

two requests for unblock edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
User:Gale5050 evading their block. Global disruption and socking.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now done, both declined. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YGM edit

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)Reply[reply]

Hurricane Iota edit


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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Anan Islam edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

Template:tl edit

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)Reply[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct consultation edit

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)Reply[reply]

Blastmaty case edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

GRP edit

Just so you know, Special:Contributions/ 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Libera edit

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)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors edit

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.


Kholoudsaa (talk)

How we will see unregistered users edit


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 edit

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)Reply[reply]

Hinweis und Bitte – notice and request edit

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Imports edit

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 LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 16:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IRC edit

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

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment edit

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)Reply[reply]

Two new socks from User:Smagzine. edit

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Marcyway4 edit

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)Reply[reply]