User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 22

Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Filter

Could you please look at this: Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#Penal_Code_.28Singapore.29. There is a filter at Penal Code (Singapore) that blocked my edit. Thanks.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9F5C (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Was/will the filter be removed for this edit? What are the procedures?2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9F5C (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The filter is not on a per-article basis. I haven't taken a deep look at your edit yet but if it's real false positive I will probably just do it for you. Note that most edit filters do not apply to registered accounts of sufficient age.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. What needs to be done is replacing the definition of the legal offense of rape, which is out of date (in this section Penal_Code_(Singapore)#Rape) with the current definition found in the Penal Code here (Article 375): [1]. It's simple.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9F5C (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I have done your edit, although in a way intended to preserve the existing format.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

2014 BT Data

Just saying...woah the JTWC is being aggressive with their data for the 2014 storms. I nearly reverted the user who edited Typhoon Neoguri which made it to cat5 status, but it was you and the good thing you stated a summary for your edit. Also I did thought a user or you copied from my own version of User:Typhoon2013/2014 Pacific typhoon season because I classify Neoguri as a cat5 typhoon and Fengshen a cat1 typhoon. Those mini-articles is like my 'own' agency where I classify storms in that storm category. BTW yes I'm back so I'll continue to edit the Chan-hom article and carefully edit because of my grammar. [User:Typhoon2013|Typhoon2013]] (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Not to continue nitpicking on you but I must say that I don't consider your userspace articles to be within the scope of WP:USERSPACE and hence don't condone them. Additionally I think your verb conjugation still needs work. Be sure, when editing Chan-hom's article, to obey the rules of it.
With that said, the JTWC was definitely not being aggressive for the best track data. 5-knot adjustments aren't unusual. The JTWC has a tendency to be conservative with their intensity estimates (except during weakening) and so this is no surprise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline chart

No, they are not going to vanish... all that aside, Why not wait an hour? It doesn't do well to have a timeline incorporate a date that still is in the future, even if it is not the far-future. Dustin (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not not wait? The date already exists on part of the earth so it isn't completely false.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The charts always use UTC, so it will technically be incorrect for the next three quarters of an hour. I have made sure that whenever possible, I will update storms shortly after 0000 UTC, but you have done so prematurely. Yes, it isn't the end of the world, but I'd prefer it if we updated it one hour late rather than one hour early... Dustin (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a big issue with this practice so I will continue it. Bear in mind that some of our readers are in Europe where it is already tomorrow.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you choose to add incorrect information to articles? I told you I have it set to where I can update everyday at 0000Z but you choose to do it early which just causes me trouble... Dustin (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Like I said it is already true in positive UTC timezones and I see no need to bikeshed over this. I find it more convenient to update earlier than later, which is why I'm doing it. Visually the difference is almost imperceptible to readers. Since this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere I won't continue this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for your timely and thoughtful comments on Talk:Taylor series. Best, JBL (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox element

I'm sorry if I caused any missinterpretations. I was attempting to create a fictional element on my personal user page and had trouble editing it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperclassic (talk • contribs) 07:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hyperclassic: By the way, such content is not allowed by WP:USERPAGE. Also, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for further testing, since this edit broke every single element's infobox.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this happened. I will take into consideration the next time I feel like creating fictional content, that I will use the sandbox. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperclassic (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Typhoon Nangka (2015)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Typhoon Nangka (2015) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Typhoon2013 06:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

About category 5 in South China Sea

... Can you tell me ?... how many category 5 typhoon in South China Sea ? Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Final-Fantasy-HH: I'm not sure what you mean, as this question can be interpreted multiple ways. I'm also not the person to ask, sorry.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my english so bad ... my question is how many typhoons have reached Category 5 super typhoon intensity in the South China Sea? ... if you know, thanks you vm ! Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

JTWC Soudelor

I just wanted to ask about the source you've put in a while ago. Is the source part of the JTWC? Its because why did the JTWC downgraded it to a cat3 whilst in the source, it is just below cat4 STY intensity. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: They made a big mistake, due to incorrect application of the Dvorak technique at 06z. They corrected the mistake in that data file, while also entering the 125 kt value for 12z early (it's not even 11z yet). I suspect that figure isn't final either. The storm is rapidly intensifying and I think it'll be a Category 5 soon.
Also for NWS Guam, they always repeat what JTWC says according to their website. This may include times intermediate between times divisible by 6; the advisory I had looked at was for 9z, for example. In any case, they are no longer relevant because NWS Guam has stopped issuing advisories on Soudelor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok and I hope JTWC classifies Soudelor between the 120-125kt scale in their next warning. Also yes I still believe that this storm will be a cat5. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
They will most likely go at the bare minimum the current 125 value; 130-140 is possible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a friendly note about storm stats

When updating death tolls and damage related statistics, remember to add an in-line citation for it. Providing the reference in an edit summary is helpful because it let others editors verify it, but it really needs to be added in the article itself for everyone to accurately know the source. I totally understand that it can be a pain to update a citation every time new information comes out, I'm guilty of doing the same thing, but it's just something we have to do. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: One reason why I have not been adding it to the body of the article is that the death toll is far from final. Adding it to the infobox looks clumsy, but if necessary I can put the ref there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already updated the text to reflect the latest death toll, so no need to do that. Even if it changes rapidly, information needs to be sourced appropriately (See: WP:Citing sources and WP:Verifiability). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Jasper Deng. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Trijnsteltalk 11:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing Jerk (physics)

I beg your pardon for reverting your edit, adding information about jounce. Due to me only sloppily reading, I wrongly assumed you had deleted that content, and remarked -fully erroneously- in the edit comment that one should start with deletion of this page. I am sorry for my fault and -since I did a good deal of this article in the current form- say thanks to you for your amendment.

Regarding your remark about "infinite" jerk, I will respond on the talk page. Regards. Purgy (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you're interested: As I recalled only after writing the above, my sloppiness was induced by a recent discussion (see above in the talk page) about re-introducing the disputed terms "crackle" and "pop" for even higher derivatives. Still my flaw. Purgy (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

if you're interested in reviewing another SHE article...

Ununennium is at GAN. Since it is not even known yet I think it will be a long wait for a GAN if I don't do something like this. (^_^) Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to have a GA on a non-existent (as of yet) element. I may or may not have time to look at it (you'll know it if I do though).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please check before editing

JMA reported 70kt at 1500Z, but you changed it to 85kt at 1757Z. I will report vandalism if you continue making this mistake next time. -- Meow 18:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

[2] very clearly reads 85 kt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh right, this is 12z. Still, from now on, I will ignore every message that is not compliant with WP:NOTVAND.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Data file

Hello. I just want to know what is the data file and where do you get it (or source). I just wanted to help here and update current tropical cyclones, if it's ok. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: [3] and [4].--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: and one addendum: The data file is to only be used for JTWC's data. CPHC and NHC often deviate from the data files for their advisories.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Pacific/Western Hemisphere

I was aware that that was only a basin record. I didn't read closely enough to notice that it read "892" rather than "879"! Dustin (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Current infoboxes in the future...

Do you think I have to do the same thing as this (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_34#Current_infobox) again? Just to confirm other users? Because I have double red the talk section and people agree to discontinue to infobox, HOWEVER to keep the "Current storm information" section in storm sections, as they said. Also those users' reason for discontinuing it is quite confusing and possibly embarrassing saying something like, I don't have time to update and we are not a weather agency. The thing is, I did not plan to create that talk, Meow started it and it all just became a huge problem when it came to users. So should I create another of this again? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This has to achieve broader agreement. You can start by going onto the IRC channel again, but be warned that the magnitude of this change requires strong on-wiki consensus for it, and that another talk page discussion will be necessary. If those users don't want to update it, so be it, but that was not a consensus to discontinue the infoboxes entirely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok can you please show me maybe a link in wiki where I can find an example of a consensus? Just so I can get it right this time. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Uploading and Downloading listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uploading and Downloading. Since you had some involvement with the Uploading and Downloading redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

IPv6 ranges

I'm wondering about mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6#Collateral damage which says "A single /64 subnet can represent anything from a single user to hundreds or even thousands of users" and I see you created most of that page. I've done a lot of networking but have no experience with IPv6. Would you mind explaining the situation.

A lot of the "IPv6 is wonderful" websites claim that everyone will get a /64, but I understand there is no compulsion about how an ISP allocates addresses so an ISP could treat IPv6 just like IPv4 with a DHCP server giving individual IPs within a single /64 to different users. Is that what is behind the collateral damage statement? How common is that?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm working on a tool to calculate IP ranges like https://tools.wmflabs.org/blockcalc/ (which is currently broken, again). My code is finished but I haven't uploaded it yet—an earlier version that works only with IPv4 and handles one range is at Template:Blockcalc. By default, when processing IPv6 addresses my code stops trying to get a more precise range once it reaches /64. I'm pondering how to document what it does—is stopping at /64 generally good enough? Or, should an admin planning a range block use allocation=128 to tell the module to try harder to find an optimum range covering the specified IPs? Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Some hosting companies subdivide it at the /96 level, such as Ramnode. Since you cannot easily distinguish hosting IP addresses from others (sometimes even WHOIS is not enough), there's no easy way other than to look at it as a case-by-case basis. Some ISP's also allocate larger blocks than /64 to each of their connections, though most home users rarely use more than one /64. At the other extreme, an entire office building can be on a single /64, wherein blocking even that blocks everyone. The "everyone gets a /64" statement really only applies to home customers; hosting companies are not consistent in it. For business customers, it's even more complex.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The situation makes it difficult to give general advice and as IPv6 becomes more common it's going to be difficult for admins to know what to block. Most range blocks seem to be /64, although there are quite a few /32 with most marked "webhostblock". Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Range block assistance

Hi Jasper Deng. I was wondering if you could assist me with a range block - Berean Hunter recommended coming to you for help on this should I need it when he's not around. A few months ago, after I blocked this IP-hopping block evader a number of times, Berean came by and range blocked him, and it stopped the disruption completely, until about a week ago. If you could apply it to this new IP range, I'd be very grateful.

For some background on the situation: This IP-hopper goes around altering information regarding video games and the companies that make them, and the info is either undeniably false, or just displays them differently than policy or guidelines dictate. I've tried many times to express my concern and inform the editor of the problem, but 95% I'm ignored, and the few times the IP response, its nonsense like "I hate you Serge, stop it!" or "Now I'm going to block you, Serge." So, there's very clearly a competence problem here.

FYI, the new IPs that have been used lately are ones at 71.46.56.68 (talk · contribs), 71.46.56.65 (talk · contribs), 71.46.56.6 (talk · contribs), 71.46.56.4 (talk · contribs), 71.46.56.57 (talk · contribs). Myself and several other editors are certain its the same IP block evading again, so its really just the matter of the implementation of the range block. I don't quite have the basics down yet, and have heard horrors of admin accidently blocking millions of IP addresses at once due to mistakes, so I figured I'd go to an expert. Anyways, if you could help, great, if you need more information before you feel comfortably doing it or something, let me know too.

Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not an admin so you still would have to do the block yourself. At first glance, these could all be covered by 71.46.56.0/25. Now as for collateral damage, Special:Contribs/71.46.56.0/24 (using the range contribs gadget) seems to indicate that the target user is confined to the lower half of the /24 you did block (i.e. that /25).--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. I didn't look closely enough at your userboxes that say that you're admin of things like Wikidata - thought you were an admin in general as well. Anyways, Berean Hunter ended up either getting my "ping", or seeing my comment above, and ended up coming by and helping me with it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hessian = (transpose of?) Jacobian of the gradient.

Well, I'm getting confused having been reverted by two people! If you have a chance, could you explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hessian_matrix#Hessian_.3D_.28transpose_of.3F.29_Jacobian_of_the_gradient. ? Thanks, Wisapi (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BootCD

Hi. An AFD that I started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BootCD, needs more participant. If it isn't much trouble, would you mind taking a look. Thanks! Fleet Command (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)