User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 27

Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Microsoft Hearts

Hello Jasper,

I see you have re-instated your removal of the "Mathematical discussion" section of the Microsoft Hearts article.

The section really is an uncontroversial element of the article that may be of interest to anyone with a mathematical appreciation of the Hearts game.

I see from your User page that you are an intelligent person with an interest in chess and I therefore believe you will understand where I am coming from.

There is a similar section in the Wikipedia Chess article.

The section was a long-standing component of the article, and of much interest to nerds like myself. Indeed someone put a lot of work into creating a chart showing a possible configuration for a perfect game and all the other discussion is mathematically rigorous and readily verifiable. There is no malice or misleading of the public interest.

I sincerely believe the section adds a lot to the article. I know that I am personally interested in it and I suspect there are many others like me.

Removal of the section adds nothing to the article's veracity but on the contrary it detracts from general interest and from the general pool of human knowledge. I am hoping in the true spirit of wikipedia that you might review your position.


Respectfully yours,

Lynton McGirr 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynton1 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lynton1: Sadly it runs afoul of WP:NOR: if you don't have a reliable source for it and/or don't cite it, then we can't have it in the article. There are lots of mathematically rigorous results that are not trivial to the average reader (consider Lagrange's theorem, where readers not well-versed in the meaning of a group will not be able to verify a proof of the theorem). Only simple arithmetic is allowable without a source (which is not the case here, because things like the minimum length of a game require derivation, however simple, of the method by which you calculate that). I personally find the section interesting, but the policy relevant here precludes it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Jasper: Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I am glad that you find the section interesting. Please note that it has existed for some years prior to your deletion. It may run afoul of WP:NOR as you say, and I am not qualified to challenge you on that, however I am sure that many "good faith" exceptions exist on the site, and I have fastidiously checked all the math statements made in this particular section (they are really quite simple and easily checked by any afficianado of this deceptively simple game) also I also have a screenshot of two the patterns discussed in the section, which I have uploaded to Wikipedia but I have not yet learned how to insert them. Now, a smart boy like you, I am sure, may be capable and interested in checking some of the math and I personally would love to read any statement you might make on this - particularly if you have any knowledge of probability theory and can add something in that area. As I have previously mentioned, there is nothing negative or controversial in the section. It is a lovely little piece, well-written and definitely in the spirit of Wikipedia. I would love to see a smart person add something to it in regard to probabilities because this area is beyond me, and apparently others who have contributed, and I would love to learn. You will see at least one reference to a "supposedly incalculable" probability (certainly beyond my ability but possibly not yours) so if you know anyone who is intellectually capable of approaching this, I think they would deserve some kind of Wiki-Nobel prize.
Regards, Lynton
@Lynton1: While it is important to ignore all rules that impede improving the encyclopedia, it is also important to follow policy, and WP:AGF does not provide for such exceptions. In this case, although I don't disagree with the analysis of game outcomes, it is not something a reader could be reasonably expected to verify (as there are no sources provided), a key requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. See Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section for further discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper, Respect to you for being so incredibly efficient at replying and also for apparently being available for the full 24 hours ;-). Thank you also for taking the time to comment in [Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section]. Also respect for you that we are both on the same page about ignoring rules that may impede improving the encyclopedia. Also respectfully, though, I disagree that a reader could not reasonably be expected to verify any of the maths discussion (Certainly I managed to do so, and I consider myself nothing more than a reasonably average user). If you wish, I can include simple calculations for any of the math discussion you think should be clarified.

Regards Lynton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynton1 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata changes

Hi, regarding this, I have said umpteen times in umpteen places, as recently as last week, that Wikidata changes do not appear on my watchlist either. This is despite clearing the checkbox on the thing. I've wondered whether it is due to using the combination of Ubuntu and Firefox - the situation has persisted despite using different versions of both. However, the same problem affects other people who, IIRC, are not using that software. FWIW, I'm currently on Ubuntu 16.04LTS and FF 55.0.2. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you should be selecting, not clearing, the checkbox "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist".--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I've tried it both ways. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
One of the reasons may be that there is often a serious lag (ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours) between a change being made on Wikidata and appearing here on the "recent" changes, rendering these changes invisible on recent changes and much harder to notice on your watchlist. At the moment, if I check "show Wikidata" on "recent changes, not a single Wikidata edit appears (with the default 100 changes). The first edit that appears iafter expanding to 500 edits is three minutes old, which is good enough for a watchlist but not for recent changes. And that is with only a small lag between the two sites this time... Fram (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Fram. Propagation delays certainly might affect things to some extent but my watchlist is > 3500 articles and is showing the last 7 days of last changes. I first raised this issue at least two years ago and still have never seen a Wikidata change at any article. That seems pretty implausible to me, especially given how much time I spend on this place and the range of articles that are watched. Presumably, I am doing something wrong but I'm blowed if I've been able to work out what that may be. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
All I can say is,  Works for me. Not all items on Wikidata receive frequent edits and I would estimate that perhaps <1% of the edits on my watchlist here are Wikidata edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Only 1%? That's weird. When I change my very long watchlist from "hide Wikidata" to "Show Wikidata", the numbers change from "Below are the last 379 changes in the last 72 hours" to "Below are the last 540 changes in the last 72 hours", or some 40% extra! Fram (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It depends on which pages you watch. I watch many noticeboards, whose items don't get updated very often. I also have my watchlist show all changes, not just the most recent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, things have got more weird. My watchlist is now showing 250 changes in the last 168 hours but the oldest entries are from 15 September, even though I know for sure there were things happening before that date. No WD in the list at all. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, found the answer to that one. Even though I have not edited my preferences in months, perhaps years, it had somehow flipped to limiting the watchlist to the last 250 changes. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And now I think i may have also found the answer to my original issue. There's an option to show WD changes in the watchlist via Special:Preferences. That was unticked, presumably by default. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Master Editor II", no?

Hey, Jasper! I noticed that your userpage indicates you identify as a "Senior Editor"... But according to your edit count, it looks to me like you should be a Master Editor II! Is this just modesty?? (not that it really matters, of course, just that I was confused). Anyhow, cheers! KDS4444 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh I haven't bothered to update it. Once upon a time, I suffered from WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, so for the past few years I've been reticent to update my userpage with anything wiki-related. Cheers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Ophelia (2017) - old

Probably not an issue since it won't last long, but would it have made more sense to move this redirect to a title outside mainspace? Just a thought. Master of Time (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GF(2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning!

@Persian-iran: You are a pot calling the kettle black. It's you who has been trying to game the system here. I doubt Jimbo will disagree with me. I will not give further replies to this thread.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hi.This proposal should not be closed with snow!Special:Diff/811531115--Persian-iran (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Persian-iran: I don't see why not. Unanimous opposition is not necessary for a SNOW close. Arguing against the fact that an essay was used to justify a close is a red herring - it doesn't change the fact that the proposal itself doesn't stand any chance of getting consensus, and therefore is not a good use of the community's time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, But you voted: Special:Diff/811384980. You violated this policy: WP:CONFLICT. So immediately open it!--Persian-iran (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Persian-iran: You're not going to get your way by wikilawyering. I acted in accordance with the overwhelming consensus of the community. I linked it before, but I'm going to link it again, and ask you to read it - WP:STICK.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
We also love these wp:essays (WP:STICK, Wikilawyering) in fa.wikipedia.com, Even translated into Persian. But that does not change anything.You violated this policy: WP:CONFLICT and consensus So immediately open it!--Persian-iran (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Persian-iran: Firstly, I did not. WP:COI has absolutely nothing to do with it. Secondly, consensus supports my actions. For the fourth time, I am going to tell you that you are not going to get it reopened. If you can't understand that, then it will not be worth my time to give you further replies. You can't participate in this community if you decide to ignore what the community tells you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Gaming the system and WP:THIRDOPINION (Jimmy Wales) thank you.--Persian-iran (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jasper Deng. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

For the reverting of lorem ipsum to User talk:zzuuzz twice. Iggy (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miss America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Howard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Buttons

Just FYI it's 7 that was agreed to. It did make me thought about it for the PTS ones because we all know there would be about 40-50 systems. That's the reason why I did 9 each for that because I don't want to leave Tembin out by itself. Also I thought doing 9 each instead of 7 would be great for PTS ones because it is getting a bit big? What do you think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"7 that was agreed to" link please. Also, think of narrow screens.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
From JR's edit summary in here and here. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Filter Difficulties

I was trying to send you a message, but I got blocked by the edit filter. (See my edit filter log.) I put a request at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:C99B:7536:7642:1FFD, but since you're an edit filter manager, you can just examine my filter log and figure out what I was trying to ask you to do in the first place (After getting disallowed 30 or so times, I'm not going to try to post it again.). Okay? 2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:C99B:7536:7642:1FFD (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears you were blocked after including the word "death" in your message, so that's a false positive. This is exactly why you should do what others have been telling you to do for months: register an account -- especially since you have continued editing well past the end of the hurricane season, contrary to what you had said earlier in response. I won't reply to your talk page message until you do, as tracking all your IP addresses is unwieldly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but unless it was inside another word (like in this example) or a typo, I can't see why I would type "death". Can you give me a string of eleven words from one of my attempts the sixth one of which is "death", so I can understand what the context was?2601:2C1:C280:3EE0:C99B:7536:7642:1FFD (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Not until you register your account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay! Okay! Just cite the NOAA!The Nth User (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
To answer your original question, the phrase "death toll" includes the word "death".--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to suggest a fix—and ran into edit filter difficulties. I thought that it wouldn't pick it up if the word was in quotes. Just look at the filter log again.The Nth User (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The filter does not take quotes into account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Then how was I able to type my reply to your reply to my original message (The reply in question is the one that was indented twice.)? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 19:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A non-existent (yet) barnstar for you!

(Insert Edit Summary Barnstar here when it's made.)


Thanks for including an explanation for why you undid my edit in your edit summary for this edit; when MarioProtIV undid my edit, I thought that it was just about the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead (the one where I wanted to use semicolons and an <abbr> tag), and that the #North Atlantic Ocean addition to the link in the second paragraph of the lead was just reverted collaterally. As I make more and more edits, you'll probably notice, if you haven't already, that when I get reverted, I tend to redo my edit but only part of edit and try to only redo what the other user didn't disagree with, or sometimes I'll try to find a third version that we each like. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 01:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A little help please?

Basically, the story is: While going through Wikipedia:Teachers can be vandals too#Examples (I got there from Wikipedia:My little brother did it, which I made an edit to as an IP editor.), I clicked on the diff links in the first example, forgetting that they wouldn't be in English. When I saw that the page that I was linked to was in French, which I don't understand, I went back immediately to the English Wikipedia. Somehow, even though I didn't make edits on the French Wikipedia, a user on the French Wikipedia posted a message on my French Wikipedia talkpage, and while I figured that it was a welcome message (which it was), I had to use Google Translate in order to understand it.

I'm worried that because I have an existent talk page on the French Wikipedia, users and (of considerably more concern to me) bots will gain the false impression that I'm potentially active on the French Wikipedia, when in fact, I don't even know French. Are these fears justified? If they are, I would like my talk page on the French Wikipedia to be deleted. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have another question.

If I created articles in the draftspace (Winter Storms Aiden, Benji, Chloe, Dylan, and Ethan) then submitted them for AFC (all except Ethan) before I was autoconfirmed, then when I become autoconfirmed and am able to move pages, am I allowed to move them to the mainspace and delete the AFC submission template? I'm not going to submit Draft:Winter Storm Ethan until I get an answer. It could be important that I created and submitted the drafts for Winter Storms Benji, Aiden, and Chloe (but not Dylan or Ethan) before I got an account, so it wouldn't be immediately obvious that I'd be undoing my own draft submission on my own draft for someone looking in the edit summary. Would this create a problem? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 23:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter shortfalls

How did the edit filters not catch and block the replacement of an approximately 18,000-byte first section of the St. Louis article, including the heading, with a single sentence that is clearly false? I looked at the IP's filter log, and nothing is there. Does Wikipedia need a new edit filter? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 00:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

About https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season&dir=prev&curid=38113551&action=history

MarioProtIV also changed the Katia image. Was that against consensus? I don't want to change it back until I know either way. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR by IP editor

I think it's time they were dragged to AN3. You want to do the honors? Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 20:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Beat you to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
would what you used for "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" be acceptable, though? I thought an actual diff was required. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 20:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I was somewhat concerned about that but since it's just them against a large multitude of editors, the edit warring is mostly their making.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 Australian region cyclone season

Hi, if there's an existing consensus that I wasn't aware of, then I'm happy to defer to that, so thanks for drawing my attention to it. However, I'm not volunteering to update it myself. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank's for helping me!  Anchorvale T@lk  09:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)