User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

How are you doing Jasper? Wikipedia articles on pharmaceuticals sound like sales pitches for taking these chemicals and there is nothing on how these pharmaceuticals were made or synthesized. It would be very nice if you would do research on the subject and even write letters to the various pharmaceutical corporations demanding information on these many drugs are manufactured and sythesized all the way down to their root chemicals. If you can't get enough information from the pharmaceutical company on how chemcials they used to make their pharmaceuticals were manufactured inquire about where they get the chemicals to manufacture their drugs so you can inquire from the chemical corporation on how these chemicals were synthsised. Wikipedia needs this information in the articles so explain the chemistry of these pharmaceuticals and how they were made. For instance it is not enough to say that Phenothiazine pharmaceuticals are made from phenothiazine. How was phenothiazine itself synthesized and from what chemcials? Also I read that many drugs are manufactured from the waste of bacteria, even genetically engineered bacteria. How was this done and what chemicals are used to seperate the waste from the bacteria and how if any was it modified chemically and with what chemicals and how were those chemical sythesized? What medicines are made from petrochemicals or pepared with the aid of petrochemicals and how were these chemicals sythesized? I don't like reading sales pitches for taking pharmaceuticals. I want to know how they were made and where they came from. 2602:306:C518:62C0:74DE:981B:CE5E:4DE0 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, the syntheses are probably confidential. The synthesis is usually a long process, so it would take up a lot of space on the page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jasper Deng. I'm still getting the lay of the land here at Wikipedia, so I appreciate your taking time for this, and hope that this is the appropriate place to discuss your recent edit to the Arthur M. Sackler Museum page. It seems to me that a collection in a leading art museum can be described as "world-renowned" without it being puffery. For instance, in this case, the Sackler is described by Time Out Boston as having "the widest collection of Chinese jades outside China, an unrivalled showcase of Korean ceramics". http://timeoutboston.com/arts-culture/museums/24197/arthur-m-sackler-museum

I'm curious to know if terms like "world-renowned", when used to subjectively describe a collection like this, would be verboten completely, or only if unsupported. Thanks.Vistawhite (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, avoid such words at all costs when describing an organization. --Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Jasper Deng. Sorry to belabor this, but I'm trying to get the subtle nuances of what's accepted and what's not. I think "world-renowned" doesn't describe the organization. It describes the art in the collection. I understand that it is subjective, but isn't any appreciation or assessment of art subjective. Would the word "important" be okay to describe the art in a major museum? That would be subjective also, no? Would one be able to describe art in the collection of the Louvre or MoMA or Hermitage as "world-renowned"? I don't have a stake in this. I just want a better idea of the thinking behind how the editing decisions are made. Thank you.--Vistawhite (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes for the examples you cited. However, we nevertheless should try to avoid those words at all costs. "popular" and the like is the most I'd go. In general, we don't want to give a direct impression that the article is giving a very positive view on the subject.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

When you entered Jac16888's talk page to remove my reasonable, very legitimate and well-argued request, did you review the whole discussion to see what was going on, or did you just decide to remove it, because he had - without taking into consideration who was in the right? It is my understanding that Wikipedia administrators ought to respond to community criticism. It's very bad form to simply delete a request without responding to it, or even considering it.

I understand that as an aspiring administrator, and that you may feel a need to ingratiate yourself to admins like Jac16888, but there's what's right, and what's wrong.

Considering that there was absolutely no justification for your action, regardless of your "reverting powers", I urge you to restore my reasonable request immediately. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No. He doesn't want that, so it's rude to restore it after he removes it, regardless of how reasonable it might seem.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm Newman2 from Wikimedia and Wikispecies, and unban Newman2 on MediaWiki, don't rollback this edit. So, I'm not spamming here, so I had an old account on this Wikipedia, and I can't make one anymore this time.

To email me, please log in. To contest the block please login on MediaWiki.org and comment on mw:User talk:Newman2.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to tell you a fact: How does Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia add the bot turn-off and bot flag and stuff? I own a site like Wikipedia called English Penguinapedia that I made on the Editthis wiki farm, and I want to have all those extensions!

Hi Jasper Deng - this is the first time I signed in in a long while and noticed the message from you. I looked for it through the archives, but cannot find it (its quite old, from January/February in the non-autoconfirm page). Could you point me to where I can find it? Thank you. JC.Torpey (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed/Archive 0.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How was my contribution to the Windows Aero article redundant? The article makes no mention of the Aero features in Windows Vista. (66.116.19.121 (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Yes it does. As the introduction of Aero was in Vista, the whole article up to that point pretty much documents Vista.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood me? The article makes no mention of the Aero features in Windows Vista. This could confuse people. Yet, there is apparently no problem with something so trivial being listed such as "The cyan outline on the right and bottom side of focused windows has been changed to white in Windows 7."? (66.116.19.121 (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

No, read the article's introduction more closely. Then re-read my comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to what I am missing? The "introduction" consists mostly of information pertaining to early Windows Vista builds (Longhorn). (66.116.19.121 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Read further. Like I said everything up to the Windows 7 section is mainly about Vista.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I did read, thank you very much. I am aware that the "introduction" is about Windows Vista. I mentioned that in our previous correspondence. Now listen. There is not a lick, a crumb, a shred, a tad, or a smidgen of text that mentions the features introduced in Windows Vista. Would you like to put the information back, or should I? (66.116.19.121 (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Previous versions did, but what you inserted was unencyclopedic and unsourced. I'm going to try to revert to that preferable previous version.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked the history, and nothing else was changed besides what I inserted. If it's unencyclopedic, the Windows 7 features shouldn't be mentioned either, yet you don't seem to have a problem with them. As for my information being unsourced, it doesn't look like the Windows 7 features have many citations for verification. I count two. (66.116.19.121 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Hi I've added more information to why my account should be unlocked 2.217.97.31 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC) this is google9999

I am not qualified to write articles on such matters, so instead of asking me to fix your extensive plaigirsm, I would ask you do it yourself. Despite your claims you have NOT made the neccessary changes.

Incase you did not understand, you copied a large section from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831353.aspx and pasted it into the IP address management (IPAM) section of the article. Retrolord (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, please assume good faith here. I was the original writer but did not actually make that copy. Please take another look at the article - I have tweaked the wording.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken another look and this section has been copied word for word from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831353.aspx

Custom IP address space display, reporting, and management: The display of IP addresses is customizable and detailed tracking and utilization data is available. IP addresses are assigned built-in or user-defined fields that can be used to further organize IP address space into hierarchical, logical groups. Retrolord (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel that it's sufficiently identical anymore, since this is a few sentences, but I will fix that too. You don't need to be an expert to fix this - I'm not one, and the vast majority of us aren't either!--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Renominate the page if you want me to take another look please.

Retrolord (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

First checking if anyone else copied/pasted. --Jasper Deng (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the article I passed, you can nominate it for either individual or community reassessment! As the article has already been passed, further discussion on the review page would seem rather pointless, so if there is a problem please renominate it!

Also, your nomination for Windows Server 2012/GA3 has been put on hold after i uncovered further plaigirism, i would ask that as nominator you check the sources more thouroughly, as it appears the article is copied from a variety of sources.

Retrolord (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please revert the vandalism by Kapitaenk to the previous edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce_600_Series&action=history

I'm not an administrator, and even if I was one, this is  Not done. You need to discuss with the other editor in a constructive manner to reach an agreement.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not possible, the other editor is an AMD fanboy and troll and refuses to acknowledge the info written in http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196

You should note that your other IP address 115.134.191.229 (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for such comments. Please comment on the content rather than the editor himself. If you can't convince him of it, or if you cannot achieve consensus in favor of a specific version (i.e. a compromise), then there's no grounds for reverting it to your state. (By the way, I have video cards from both companies, and I do not especially prefer one over the other).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is nothing "questionable" or "fringe" about climate engineering, to which the layman's term "chemtrails" refers. Wikipedia policies prohibit wholesale deletion of content except where "the reason for removal is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Because there is no readily apparent (legitimate) reason to "blank" the article (being that the sources are "neither questionable" nor the concept "fringe") and because you failed to provide any explanation in your hasty attempts at doing so, you have violated Wikipedia policies and are in danger of being blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniaprods (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I just quickly made myself an account. I just found it misleading since the link to the Torus article is mainly from a geometric point of view and at the bottom of the article of Surface of revolution the Toroid is explicitly described as well. So in my opinion (which is not worth much since I am not an expert) linking people to the Torus article is misleading, especially when there is "A circle that is rotated around any diameter generates a sphere of which it is then a great circle, and if the circle is rotated around an axis that does not intersect the interior of a circle, then it generates a torus which does not intersect itself (a ring torus)" written in the Surface of revolution article. Just wanted to tell my reasoning. Moneher (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)