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.
@Kamil Kielczewski: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix representation of tensors for my full objections. Much of my objections to your edits center on wrong definitions of notions like the del operator (talking about it as a co- or contra-vector is meaningless because it is an abuse of notation to think of it as a vector; what is correct is that operating on scalars, it produces the contravariant vector dual to (i.e. the sharp of) the differential of the function) and the meaning of co- and contravariant vectors: in fact, the more idiomatic way to represent tensors is is as multidimensional arrays, which more clearly show the multilinearity of tensors as maps. The rest of my objections are at the deletion discussion and are of such seriousness that they warrant deletion of the article. Papers published on Vixra are by default considered unreliable and the other source is not scholarly at all.--Jasper Deng(talk)10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Del operator variance have sense when you want to use with matrixes - like in Cauchy momentum equation (so it not return scalar, but vector(!)). So with matrixes there is the problem. To use MATRIX MULTIPLICATION notation with del operator you need to determine that you work with column or row vector. Cite from wiki del is: "vector differential operator" - so we can choose its variance. This notation has deeper meaning when you start to use this operator with matrix-es. If you use matrix notation, in many important physics equations you can change symbolic notation like to meaning full matrix multiplication notation.
multidimensional arrays - are not handy to operate on tensors because you cannot use matrix multiplication. However there exist a way to represent tensors in matrix notation (so we not loose matrix-multiplication ability) - what Is shown clearly in Matrix_representation_of_tensors. Specially for 2D tensors (which occures in many fundamental physics equations) using matrix notation is extremley handy.
Vixra - if you not trust Vixara (why?) - then you can just study the article and verify it using logic. The article is not complicated but quite short and clear.
@Kamil Kielczewski: Vixra articles are not peer-reviewed and are self-published sources. For nearly the same reason, that other website you cited is also unreliable. Since this is not elementary school math we are talking about, WP:CALC does not apply and original research is not permitted. "Vector differential operator" – you are flatly wrong about the meaning of this. It is a differential operator that is vector-valued on scalar functions, but which has some properties of a Euclidean vector when "dotted with" or "crossed with" an actual Euclidean vector. When applied to a vector field, then in Euclidean coordinates the total derivative, given in coordinates by the Jacobian matrix, is meant; convince yourself of the type of tensor this is. See abuse of notation for an example of why it is absurd to think of the del operator as a vector in its own right (including matrix math using it). Also, it is wrong that we can pick the type of vector; the gradient is a contravector as almost universally defined by reliable sources, we do not get to substitute our own opinions for that. I am a computer programmer in addition to mathematician, so I understand the value of matrix representations, but often I will prefer to use libraries like Numpy which support multidimensional arrays and tensor(-like) operations on them. What you wrote about a "vector of vectors" is not rigorous; that notion does not admit a rigorous notation, and you will end up making life unnecessarily hard when it comes to changes of coordinates.--Jasper Deng(talk)12:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Hello Jasper. Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jasper Deng reported by User:PenyKarma (Result: ). Would you consider agreeing to undo your close and leave other's comments in place for a while? There might be a time when blocks could be needed, and WP:FORUM is a concern, but your removals cloud the issue if administrators are going to step in. If you undo your close, it might let the AN3 complaint be closed with no action. In any case this is not a dispute on an article, and it's only a subpage of talk, so it doesn't do much to disturb the regular encyclopedia if we let the argument rage for a while. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Jasper, given exactly that lack of patience, I think it might be better if you stayed away from Arguments pages. They are a harm-reduction strategy that mostly works, and you're putting it at risk. If the Arguments pages go away, the crank arguments will come back into the main talk pages, and that will get in the way of building an encyclopedia. You can't "win" an argument with a crank, and quoting Wikipedia policies isn't going to accomplish anything useful either. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @EdJohnston: (and JD): The page history is a bit confusing at this point for trying to restore specific comments, but if PK really wants to undo the close/re-add his own comments, I certainly won't be offended. However, PK has 0 constructive contributions to article space (see User talk:PenyKarma#Why are you here?), and my advice to all at this point is to just ignore him. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I respectfully decline to disengage from arguments pages. Those with the correct attitude are great to discuss with and I enjoy that. I'm not advocating for the deletion or removal of the arguments pages, but also think it's better that cranks be asked to leave entirely rather than being allowed here at all. It'll save energy for everyone involved.--Jasper Deng(talk)21:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
See, it really won't save energy. Because none of them think they're cranks, and they won't go away. You wind up spending your energy in distasteful enforcement actions rather than improving the encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I take the view that cranks ought to get let known well that they are cranks. They will go away if appropriate sanctions are taken. I distinguish between those who are just confused and those who are clearly NOTHERE like PenyKarma.--Jasper Deng(talk)21:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there,I appreciate your editing in the article about cyclone Amphan but please strictly follow bulletin about cyclone Amphan published by IMD, thank you. Tanmoyee Ghosh (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tanmoyee Ghosh: I am, you're not. You're putting words in their mouth by saying 913 mb. All of us are undoing your edits for that reason. Please adhere to bulletins provided at their official website, [1].--Jasper Deng(talk)04:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@INeedSupport: Not really; our comments were grammatically correct, unlike theirs. I do think there could be a WP:CIR problem though given the extent of unacknowledged warnings on their talk page.--Jasper Deng(talk)04:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
May be the pressure is not accurate,but the distance from Digha, Paradwip and kalapara is accurate that I edited because I am following every bulletin of IMD about the cyclone,so please erase the pressure,but you erase all the edits that I did,the current locations, distance from coast,wind gust, every thing,so please don't do it again,I promise you that from now I'll be edit this page based on the bulletin given by IMD,Ok. Thank you, have a nice day, and sorry for my interrupting of your edits. Tanmoyee Ghosh (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tanmoyee Ghosh: I never reverted your edits to the locations. What I undid was your edits to the intensity of the storm, like your fictitious figure of 145 knots from above. As long as you don't do this again, I consider the matter settled. Consider joining WP:WPTC.--Jasper Deng(talk)04:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The current bulletin of JTWC is showing that the cyclone is moving 9 Knots/h and layed at 15.6 degree latitude and 86.8 degree longitude, will I ad this on the article about cyclone Amphan?? Tanmoyee Ghosh (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox of cyclone amphan,there is dated as of 03:00 UTC,18 May. Is it 18 or 19th may, I'm a little bit confused about it what is the exact date, will you please tell me,I leave in Kolkata, West Bengal. Tanmoyee Ghosh (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Your effort is lovely for continuously editing the article,keep it up,some hpurs ago anyone edited the article putting the maximum 3 minutes and 1 minute sustaind wind speed of 260 Km/h with a gust over 280 Km/h, I get feared as IMD didn't published any thing like this in their bulletin,but then when I see the edited article some times later,I feel relaxed. Tanmoyee Ghosh (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Re. [2], what I was getting at is that those adjectives don't really add anything to the meaning of the sentence. Unless "very powerful" or "deadly" are technical terms in classifying cyclones, calling it a "very powerful" cyclone is basically just stating your opinion. This is unlike the next sentence calling it the strongest cyclone since Cyclone Sidr, since that is a quantifiable claim. The particular adjectives in the diff aren't listed at WP:PEACOCK, but that's the spirit in which the edit was made. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@It Is Me Here: Hi, MOS:LEAD asks that we give more than just a "dictionary" definition as the first sentence. Many tropical cyclones are not notable (in fact the majority that form each year are not). It is important to deliver to the reader why, and immediately, it is a remarkable storm. In this particular case, numerous reliable sources call it "powerful" so it is well-justified to say "powerful". With that said, we should be with dropping "very" and "deadly"; in this basin, sadly, 118 deaths are considered very good, considering that death tolls three orders of magnitude higher have occurred here.--Jasper Deng(talk)07:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Please reply
Jasper Deng i am not use multiple Account. Vala kals is new account.
@Vala kals: It is not reasonable to expect instant replies from me, or any other Wikipedia editor for that matter, as I cannot reasonably be expected to stay online 24 hours a day; thus "Please reply" will not expedite anyone's responses. We cannot delete user accounts. I advise you to explicitly declare that you have abandoned the Vala keep account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vala keep, but also, you need to explain your alleged relation to Valakkpp (talk·contribs).--Jasper Deng(talk)20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chicdat: Nope, not at all, look again. I tracked this storm in realtime. Per WP:BRD you should not have re-reverted; please take this to the article talk page instead of my talk page.--Jasper Deng(talk)11:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@3nk1namshub:WP:TPG is pretty clear: don't remove or edit others' comments when not extremely clear-cut personal attacks, which this was not. By the way, at the ANI thread, "RGW" is a reference to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Long story short is, "crusading" for a cause on Wikipedia usually doesn't end well. You ought to drop the WP:STICK on that particular discussion and just leave it be. I really support LGBTQ rights, and your perspective is important when adding or changing our articles on this subject and would encourage you to do that instead of dwelling on this particular issue..--Jasper Deng(talk)06:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice, and I have dropped the subject. Per WP:TPO and WP:TPNO, I've reverted the comment as it is an attempt to patronize me and remove my agency as an autistic person. 3nk1namshub (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@3nk1namshub: Sorry, those do not apply, as the evident consensus has determined. Please read WP:AGF and apply it to other editors. From my own experiencee, it is often difficult for others to take one's own perspective. In this sort of situation, you need to also take others perspectives and not assume they understand yours. "it is an attempt to patronize me and remove my agency as an autistic person" is not an unconditionally true statement and edit warring, i.e. proof by assertion, is not going to convince others of this and, instead, risks your getting blocked (again).
You said you "dropped" it, and yet you are continuing to edit war over the comment. Please, honestly, take some time away from the computer if the issue is becoming too stressful for you.--Jasper Deng(talk)07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
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.
I see you have a history of reverting things that aren't meant to be reverted or do not need to be reverted. Stop reverting my work, god damn it! I spend hours sometimes days on my work and make sure it is to a high standard - and reverting it simply because you don't see it as 'easy to read' isn't a viable reason and you're really irritating me. This is the FIRST and LAST time I will tell you this. ModulatedRotation - Talk here 22:35, 8 July 2020 (GMT)
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.
