This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jasper Deng. 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.
I saw that there was lots of back and forth with you and another user on my talk page and that it was all revdeleted. What happened? I know it is about the Kris Herzog article I declined. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please source your "most of the Internet." Many large providers do have native IPv6 these days, but few end-users are taking advantage of it...so not only do most end nodes not have IPv6, the networks they're connected to don't even have it available. Yes, it's continuing to improve...but it's still not proper penetration of the technology. In any case, I think it's important to note that you don't need to *switch* to IPv6, just to support it. I'm re-editing the lede and will try to make that more informative... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't (mean to) say "most", but a "large part". IPv6 support means something else than switching to IPv6. The best term is deploy. Most consumer operating systems have IPv6 tunnel support already and many cable modems already support IPv6 (especially the newer models). This is not the same as deployment.Jasper Deng(talk)03:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, deploy is a better generic term here; support is too broad, since many hosts DO obviously "support" it, even if that support hasn't been deployed (as is the case most of the time...) Seems like our edits are in sync then, so all's good there I hope! (Sincerely, IPv6 documentation prefix.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Median in web browsers
After some thinking I came to conclusion that the RFC you've opened represents the issue in a biased manner: it focuses on median instead of data representation. I would like to discuss a possibility of closing this RFC and opening another one that would ask editors to suggest a preferable way of representing user agent statistic, so that we could actually gather the community's input on what to do instead of what not to do. But I though I should ask you before any action on a Talk:Usage share of web browsers share. What do you think about it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Because we're involved, none of us can close this RFC ourselves. If the median is removed we can replace it with something else like a mean.Jasper Deng(talk)19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't have consensus on what to replace median with. In fact we never discussed that. That's why I want this RFC stopped and replaced with another one regarding the method of representing the data. I would agree to remove median until there'll be clear consensus on the matter. If You OK this, I'll post a thread about my proposal on talk:usage share of web browsers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but this RFC is in fact useless, as in any case the answer for question "What are we going to do next?" will make the result of this RFC void any way. My suggestion only helps to save time, it doesn't influence the end result. Why don't You want to give it a try? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't care median. I want the data properly represented. As of now, the median is the best way, but I would be happy to be able to work out a better way. Or a worse but still acceptable way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
See the DYK nom for this. In addition to comment there that needs addressed, avoid single-sentence paragraphs and sections.PumpkinSkytalk19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You say that "Twinkle ... will have to undergo extensive modification to gain IPv6 support." As a developer of Twinkle, I would assert that Twinkle would require very minimal modification to support IPv6. From a networking perspective, so long as the user's networking stack, OS, and browser support IPv6, Twinkle and all other user scripts will transparently support IPv6 without requiring modification. From a functionality perspective, Twinkle will need one function updated (isIPAddress()), and that's really about all. — This, that, and the other (talk)01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
IPv6 addresses also take many forms. Is the SanitizeIP() function available to you? Also, we'll also have to change it so there's the option to warn the IPv6 subnet.Jasper Deng(talk)01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I just thought of warnings when I posted this... that will be more of a challenge, and I would need some more implementation details to write such code. On the other hand, even though the SanitizeIP function is not directly available to Twinkle (being written in PHP), it looks like it can be translated into JavaScript pretty easily.
Still, I don't really see the need to mess with this sort of thing until some sort of announcement is made about the plans for enabling IPv6 (unless one has already been made and I have missed it...) — This, that, and the other (talk)06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you delete the userpage for Sk8rownot? I tagged it as a puppeteer and then realized who it really was a minute later. Just nuke it. Night Ranger (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Diff of Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports This thread is from someone named Natalia, who was under instructions from Skomorokh (the editor of the Signpost). She was trying to contact users privately to pass along information, including passwords to email accounts needed to run the newspaper. Please see also this thread on SMaster's talk page. I think you owe this Natalia person an apology. Sincerely, --Dianna (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
If you could post an explanatory note and apology on the IP's talk page, they will see it. They were editing there within the last few hours. Thank you for acknowledging your mistake so readily. --Dianna (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I realize you are only trying to help, but I've noticed you seem to constantly be reporting blocked users at RFPP asking that their talk pages be revoked, sometimes after only one unblock request. There are admins who regularly review unblock requests, they are able to determine when it is time to revoke talk page access when reviewing requests. In the case of the latest one I've declined you asked for indefinite full protection for some socks talk page. They had only requested unblock once. Of course it was a hopeless request and I denied it, but that doesn't warrant indef full protection. Disruption would have to be very extreme before such a measure would be taken. RFPP has been backlogged on a regular basis lately, as I'm sure you know, and these kinds of requests only add to the problem.Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If they are abusing the unblock template, they have essentially reported themselves as they get added to WP:RFU which is regularly reviewed by admins. If they are just doing something other than requesting unblock, many feel it is best to let them talk to themselves, they will run out of steam eventually. However if there is severe vandalism or BLP violations being posted to their page while blocked WP:AIV, which generally has a better response time than RFU or RFPP, would be a good bet since protection is usually not the way admins proceed in such cases, instead changing the block settings to revoke the users' access to their talk page. Protection would be appropriate if there were multiple IP socks posting to the same talk page, or any situation where there was a long-term pattern of disruption of a particular talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
AIV has the specific instruction to not use it for talk page access removal (since it would be removed by an AIV helperbot), and these things just seem to be not worth taking up at ANI.Jasper Deng(talk)19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Realistically, just ignore the user talk pages of blocked editors unless they are posting BLP violations, spam, or copyvios. It's not worth your time or administrators' time to look for 192.168.1.100 who replaced his talk page with: "Reaper Eternal is a monster faggot" after getting blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
As you see, I've been accused by CPL of calling you and Elen "Asshats" and "Idiots". Did I ever? I would never do that. It is a rather violent accusation, I'm not going to just stand and take it. I've asked for confirmation, or apology. What is your position on this? Abusive false accusations of name-calling is okay? Assume good faith? Huh? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) I tried to get an answer to this question before it archived on Jimmy's talk page, but, unfortunately, I just missed it. :D You had asked, of course, the following:
Is Wikipedia going to participate in World IPv6 Deployment Day? I know it missed World IPv6 Day because schema changes to the db were required, but would it be ready this time around?Jasper Deng(talk) 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
From what I'm told, the WMF hopes to be able to participate only to test its stack on that day, but not to keep IPV6 on, as there is more work to be done before that can happen. I have no real comprehension of what that means, but I hope you do. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I know that broken clients and db schema changes (presumably to accommodate the longer addresses) are problems. To test the stack means that WMF's IPv6 network will be tested, but will not be put into production use. Hopefully we'll have full IPv6 access by the start of the next fundraiser. Jasper Deng(talk)23:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Goodbyz's claim in both unblock requests that the threat was not a legal threat within the meaning of WP:legal does not sit easily with me. When Goodbyz appeared at the Gingrich presidential campaign article talk page to advocate for the edit-warring multiple-IP user there (who promptly vanished, and has not reappeared therafter), Goodbyz was at pains to claim that the IP user is "an attorney"[1], and also claimed, at Goodbyz's UTP, that Goodbyz him/herself is the IP's "colleague",[2], i.e. someone with professional legal expertise of some kind. May or may not have a bearing. Writegeist (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you turned around and reverted that. I was tied up trying to sort out an EC at AN/I. Restrictions treat symptoms, they don't really treat the cause of the problem. You've previously had 2 pretty thorough discussions regarding some of your editing issues. My concern is this: As recent as september it was quite obvious you had an issue biting users. I haven't trawled your contribs looking for issues, this was just from AN/I archives. So since that time I don't know whats happened. All I know is that in this incident it looks to be more of the concern. It bothers me when I see long term issues like this on Wikipedia. it means as a community we've failed to address these things appropriately, however that may be. I'd encourage you to work more closely with your mentors and find a solution to whatever it is that's causing this kind of behaviour. I will say that you seemed to handle this AN/I discussion much better than the previous two, so kudos on that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed your speedy tag on MobiFiles] -- this is computer software, and computer software is not one of the things included under that CSD criterion; it is not included under what is meant by "web content". The article has been prodded, and that should do the job of removing it. If not, it will have to be AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
responding
Please don't edit too fast for me to keep up when I am dealing with someone as an admin. I know your excellent intentions, but I prefer to handle my own warnings when I'm around. It is however now late night in NYC, and I am stopping till tomorrow. As for the article, I will take a look in the morning. I've semiprotected the p. for 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
PS. At least some of the references that user put in are probably in fact usable, if they aren't in the main article already; if you can find a neutral wording, no reason why you shouldn't add them. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
In 4chan attacks, report only the article title and long-term participants to AIV, there is no use reporting them all, the admin who'll get to the article will see whom to block. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This one came from Reddit; there are usually no long-term participants (except for LTA cases). I was afraid reporting the title only would interfere with the helperbots, but bots are not intelligent.Jasper Deng(talk)03:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks. In any case, I find it strange that we can treat some radioisotopes as if they were stable, especially things like thorium, and use them like ordinary materials.Jasper Deng(talk)03:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"Stable" is a relative term, safety matters depend on the total dose and intensity of radiation emitted by a real chunk of material. Say, americium smoke detectors are still common, despite all the recent radiation fears. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The thing was, I was surprised that thorium could be useful, alloyed with magnesium (at least thorium-232). A large chunk of thorium with lots of alpha radiation emittance would be used to make such a thing, even though it has a such a long half-life.Jasper Deng(talk)03:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, those alloys typically contain only some 1% thorium and are used for military/space (or other non-civilian) applications, where safety regulations are different. I don't have any personal experience with those alloys, and believe their use is getting limited, i.e., what we read on this topic is mostly echoes of the past. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
RFA
Sock indeed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
