User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 23

Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination Notification

Hi Jasper Deng/Archive 23

You were previously nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!

Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.

Thanks! Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Season summaries

Why did you at least revert every edit I did? Especially for the season summary at the top. You don't have to revert everything, at least revert the first paragraph about the "hyperactive season", but retain the season summary of storms. It is just because of TSR's updates, as they still have not yet issued their season summary for the 2015 PTS for nearly three months. I have talked about this with JR. But surely, the 2015 season is one of the most active. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Another reason why I reverted, which I couldn't include in the edit summary due to length restrictions, was that details about those individual storms are excessive for the lead and belong in the season summary section. Note that the 2015 PHS article mentions only two of the 26 systems of the year in its lead.
The term "hyperactive" is definitely not appropriate for this, especially when no official (read: RSMC or JTWC) source explicitly says so, per WP:DUE, no matter what TSR says.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
So you are saying that one of your reasons for doing this is because the info summary I've put is too much? Also what I've seen like in the 2014 PTS article, some bits at the top are followed from the TSR. For example, the 2014 PTS is slightly below normal etc. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: It's called a "lead" not a full season summary for a reason. The "slightly below normal" classification of the 2014 PTS is just because it produced a below-normal number of named storms compared to normal. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that from the number of storms in that season. In the 2015 season, that is definitely not the case. A "hyperactive" season would be like the 1997 PTS - one with many many storms, like the 2015 PHS.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I would say that Hyperactive is a definite no no, above average could be used at a push but I personally prefer near average since it was only 1 or 2 systems above average I think. I agree with Jasper that the seasonal summary in the lead is too long and I would encourage you Typhoon2013 to merge bits of it with the seasonal summary section and source it! Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Even the 2014 PTS season? Ok, so what I think, is that because this is your opinion as you did say in your edit summaries in both the 2014 and 2015 PTS articles, then you're wanting a change in all articles? Just look at the 2015 PHS and AHS articles, they have summaries at the top. Although, as you mentioned, there are some in the "Season summary" section. So what are you trying to do? Do you want to do the same in other articles like the PHS and AHS articles?Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between a concise summary that briefly mentions the most important storms of a season (good), and a verbose summary that essentially says what a full seasonal summary section would (bad).--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If so, for PTS articles, I think the 2015 season is a good one (despite there are a lack of sources in its summary). But as you did to the 2014 article, there's like hardly anything at the top. But anyways, seeing the 2014 PHS article, mentioning major events/storms are (only) included at the top whilst the summary in its section. Should we do that? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I am saying that I think we should follow the format of the 2014 PHS and the 2015 PTS articles. The edit you did in the 2014 PTS article, now it looks like there's hardly anything at the top with only a few sentences. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
For the 2015 PTS we have Soudelor and Maysak as the most notable storms; however, for 2014 I'm not so sure. Vongfong, Nuri, and Hagupit all have their own merits, though, so maybe we can start with them. But we definitely should only mention a select few storms that contributed the most to each season. Think of the 2015 PHS as an example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this by either of you would be appreciated before I put it live on Saturday.Jason Rees (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Normally, weak systems that didn't affect land would not deserve note in the lead, but in this case we have nothing else, so it's fine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping me with the sphere integral, your approach was clearest!

אדי פ' (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon Nepartak (2016)

Thanks for your usual assistance on editing / building the article I linked above. I hope you maybe give more tips on how to create a Tropical Cyclone article properly. I do really appreciated your assistance on this. And to tell you honestly, this is my first tropical cyclone related article I've created. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 06:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Trackfile confirmation

Ok so what you've said about me editing from the trackfile before the official advisory, does this include for all basins or is it only the EPac and Atlantic basins? -- Typhoon2013 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: This is only for the NHC (eastern Pacific and Atlantic) and CPHC (central Pacific), as you were previously reminded. Please do not make me remind you again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow I forgot that we even discussed before. But thanks! -- Typhoon2013 00:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Season timeline updating

Hi. You know how we have the season timeline box in the "Seasonal summary" section and we update them? Are we suppose to update them if it's 00Z (or do we follow UTC time)? Because last week, I got warned by United States Man for updating the timeline 'early' and stated that I should follow the UTC time. But recently, he made an edit in the timeline, stating he updated it, around 21Z, which I have always been doing. Do we need to make up this 'rule' about to only update the timelines if it's 00Z? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and United States Man: Please do it strictly only at 0z or later each day.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
We go through this same ignorant crap every year. After the 2100z advisory, it is perfectly okay for me or any other user to update the timeline, as we have done for years, and I will continue to do that. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a question that only @Typhoon2013: is to answer: What time and date is it as you write your response in UTC or Zulu time. I have a sneaking suspicion about something.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: What do you mean? Are you talking about different time zones? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Just tell me what is the current time and date in UTC?Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jason Rees: As of this edit, it is 02:38, 24/7 in UTC. Why? Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a theory I had based on some of your edits, about you not really knowing when UTC is.Jason Rees (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Tower of Hanoi

(Undid revision 731479464 - you still aren't explaining how it is related to the ruler function, formatting a section header correctly, or showing the correctness of the code.) Wikipedia doesn't currently explain the simplified ruler function. If you plot out core OEIS sequence A001511 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, the result looks like a ruler, hence the name Ruler function. I'm not a Wikipedia expert. If the section header was wrong, why couldn't you have fixed it instead of starting an edit war and rejecting OEIS as a source? This sequence is the position of change of the Gray code. If the Gray code is accepted, what extra hoops need to be made for a more elegant solution? Move $n$ uses a disk sized one more than the power of 2 in $n$. You are asking again for the connection to the Tomae function, which I removed several iterations ago because that page also has errors of omission. I've added a Talk discussion on the Tower of Hanoi page. If you want to suggest that one of Neil Sloane's original core sequences is wrong, please explain your reasoning there. I've added an explanation of the Ruler function at the Thomae's function page. If that sticks around, then a link to Thomae would make sense.EdPeggJr (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject WIldfire

Information icon

Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically North Fire. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Miles Rocks and Point Lobos

Thank you for mentioning it. A remarkable lot of history happened in that area. Feel free to edit as you see best. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dissipation

You should refer to the high seas report for any dissipation of tropical cyclones in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Meranti is still active as a tropical depression at 12:00 UTC today. -- Meow 16:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't use that for the same reason we don't track remnant lows of eastern Pacific or Atlantic tropical cyclones, even if they are mentioned in NWS High Seas reports - that the JMA abuses the term TD for what really are invests or remnant lows doesn't change that. After all, I consider it WP:SYNTH to connect that low with Meranti (no matter how obvious) because the JMA is not explicitly labelling it as such. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Stalemate

Hi Jasper. Thanks for the example of king versus king and rook pawn. I was looking to have more complicated examples like this included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synesthetic (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for finding and reverting that anti-Hillary Clinton stuff on Template:NYT topic. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Chalcogen

Chalcogen, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Double sharp (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Jasper Deng Genghis Khan (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Jasper Deng,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)