User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Re:Bansi Cat5

Hey. I am not angry but I do not know what you are talking about. It wasn't me who updated Bansi to a Cat5 cyclone, ok. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I am not a person who vandalizes or puts 'false info' in pages, FYI. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: This has no mention of 140 knots, and the previous warning only mentioned that as a forecast. If you have evidence of that then please provide it (and in the future, to keep discussion in one place, let's try to stay on one talk page). I would look for a trackfile except I can't find one. --Jasper Deng (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to argue about this. You are in the right site but in the wrong button. JTWC stated in the 'JMV 3.0 Data' or http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/warnings/sh0515.tcw that it reached its peak as 140kts. I am a user who never vandalise pages and trust me, you may be new in here. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing WP:AAGF here; if I considered your edits vandalism I would not even sit down and discuss it.

Thanks for the data, but in the future it would be much better if it could be cited; no other website I know of reports on anything but the text warning I looked at.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are new here in English Wikipedia, right? You better keep an eye out to JTWC since they do their best track data as well in the future and could possibly change Bansi's winds as well. But it's alright, other users like Hurricanehink and Meow would fix that. Have a good day. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I have more than twice as many edits as you and more than three times the tenure, I'm obviously not new (I take that language as condescending). What I was looking for was verification: the burden of proof lies on whomever makes the claim. In this respect, I'm sorry because Meow is the one who made the claim. However for you to reinstate it, I expected a citation and didn't get one, hence why I remained skeptical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I didn't know that you were here before me but, cool! I wish you help here in English Wikipedia more as well since there are anonymous users who are doing things wrong and I am like the person who just reverts it since no one else is doing it too. But yeah, I will try to put more cites as well. I better go to sleep now. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Some advice so this doesn't get this tight again: use navigation popups (see the gadgets section of Special:Preferences) or other tools to readily check age and edit count, make no assumptions about someone's experience - when someone makes an edit that is "wrong", the experience card does not do anything but rattle the bones of the other person, particularly if said user is experienced; an experienced editor will always accept being wrong while if a new editor clearly needs help, they can be pointed to the relevant policies. I don't think you really need it but WP:NOTVANDALISM could be a good read to you; an edit being reverted, even more than once, does not mean it is vandalism (in fact, nowadays most reverts I make are of non-vandalism edits that are well-intentioned but wrong; that's how I viewed your edits here, though in the end it turns out I was the one whose edits were well-intentioned but wrong!).

I think we first met when I cleaned up some misguided anonymous editors' edits on Typhoon Hagupit's article, who thought it was as strong as Haiyan (amusingly, I notice that each powerful landfalling tropical cyclone produces new editors, it seems like you joined around the time Haiyan formed, after all!). Unfortunately I don't watch the English Wikipedia nearly as much anymore (see the notice at the top of my page); less than 3000 of my edits were made in the past one and a half years. I wish I would, but I'm busy in real life, particularly beginning a week from today. Tropical cyclones are very complex yet are very popular to discuss, hence why many anonymous editors and new editors introduce errors like the ones with Hagupit and the 2014 typhoon season. Unless their edits' contents look like vandalism (i.e. I have a reason to not assume good faith), I treat such edits as misguided editors rather than vandals. Accordingly I will not usually use rollback with such edits.

Moving forward, I've found that spending too much focus on reverting can make others perceive you as a police(wo)man, even if the reverted edits should've been reverted; I've had first-hand experience of that. Part of why I wrote this long comment is because you indicated interest in adminship on your userpage, and addressing these points will greatly help you prepare for a request for adminship. But with that said, most vandalism and other wrong edits get reverted eventually, so you shouldn't have to feel like you're the only one doing them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Lixxx235 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Wait... I sincerely thought you were an administrator. Cheers!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (talk) Ping when replying 02:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrator attention requested for User:Instalok's edits

You should have addressed it on WP:ANI and not WP:AN. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I felt like it was not extreme enough for ANI; after all ANI means for "incidents" and I don't consider it an "incident" in the sense of requiring urgent attention. I'm really only looking for one or two administrators' attention on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Higos Intensity

Actually, according to the actual reports from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) and reliable sources, Higos had peaked at 105 knots or 193 km/h. The link which is said to confirm your claim was just the initialization of the Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting model (HWRF), but not the actual peak intensity assessed and initialized by the JTWC, which was a slight lower. Now, I will revert the data back to 105 kts. However, the JTWC may later upgrade the intensity of Higos on their 2015 Best Track which is set to release on April 2016. Dvorak estimates showed 6.0, equating to a category 4 (115 kts) but had not occurred during any of the synoptic times. (00z, 03z, 06z, 09z, 12z, 15z, 18z and 21z - released every six hours)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtyphooncyclonex (talk • contribs)

@Xtyphooncyclonex: You forget that JTWC uses the same data files as NOAA. We use these data files all the time, in fact; the track maps we produce are generated using such data files. JTWC keeps no archive of their warnings that I know of, and unlike the NHC, will not normally make a publication about such corrections. Also, per WP:BRD, while the edit is still disputed you should not be continuing reverts over it, particularly since I'm not the only editor who supports 115 knots.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:You're not getting the point. I know that JTWC and NOAA use the same files even many years back. It does not matter if you are not only the editor who supports that intensity for Higos, what matters is if we deliver actual info to the readers. Now back to the point, as I've said, NOAA also does add to their sites the initialization of the models, such as the HWRF and GFS. What you're claiming is that the JTWC upgraded Higos to 115 kts. NOT YET. They never issued any warning with sustained winds of 115 kts, unless they add a revision by April next year. Why in the world would the NOAA put Higos at 115 kts when the highest warning put Higos' peak at 105 kts? --Xtyphooncyclonex (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing the data file counts as "upgrading". What the warnings said is moot, because JTWC does not keep an archive of them. Also, while it was still active as a tropical depression, you could've clicked the "JMV 3.0 Data", and it should've reflected the change because it was done before the system ultimately dissipated. The system was Category 4, you can't argue against that. We could remove mention of JTWC classifying it as such, but what is clear is that the data file shows it was Category 4. If you want to discuss this further, please use the article talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:Alright, calm down. You win. JTWC had just upgraded Higos to a category 4 at 115 kts. --Xtyphooncyclonex (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Guessing about Instalok 3

Hi again. I was just browsing through the 2014-15 SWio season article. I noticed a user: |Nino Marakot edited the article. I saw it and (s)he edited like Typhoon2015 (also known as Instalok). I don't know if it is him but I don't want Instalok to "come back" here and do vandalizing stuff. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I did too - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instalok. Keep watching that page, and if someone hasn't reported the suspicions yet, file a new report. I've filed one already, as you can see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok I saw the report. I actually kind of agree with Vanjagenije here. So far, I am about 75% sure that this is the old Instalok, but I think we need to see in the next few days since he just made only a few edits here. I should watch him as well during this weekend. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pam

why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.176.135.222 (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cyclone Pam#Superlatives. It was less notable than what we already had there, not to mention the fact that your grammar was quite poor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

i'm live in South East Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.176.135.222 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

To contribute to an encyclopedia in English, you must be proficient in English, no matter where you live.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.176.135.222 (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Jasper Deng,

I am contacting you because you have left feedback about VisualEditor at pages like mw:VisualEditor/Feedback in the past. The Editing team is now asking for your help with VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translatable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Maysak's infobox

Hey there. I saw your edit summary there and I understand about why you reverted me. Although, the JTWC made its latest warning on Maysak (0900Z). It predicts that Maysak will not re-intensify into a weak tropical storm, but a tropical depression. Also according to imagery, Maysak looks really disorganized. I am just confirming this to you and should we now remove the infobox or just wait for the next JTWC warning? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did that just before the latest forecast was released. But as long as the JMA continues tracking it and/or the JTWC keeps issuing warnings we should keep the infobox up.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Well, actually starting 2013, we remove the infobox if it is nearly dissipating. That's why I removed it just before. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

As of the time of your initial removal it had remained a tropical storm for another 12 hours before getting downgraded to a depression today, so I wouldn't put it on the very verge of dissipation until both JTWC and JMA issue their final advisories.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Maysak is still active

Actually, as of 12Z of April 6, JMA is still tracking it, although it is a weak TD according to their Weather Maps. When the JMA stops warning on a TD (which is a former storm), that's when it dissipated. I am pretty sure you know that from 2 years ago, right? Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Also when you put that it had dissipated (April 7), it is impossible since we are still on April 6, not the 7th. But I am still telling you to please wait until the JMA doesn't state a TD in their maps and then you could state it had dissipated. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I always meant to insert April 6, not 7th, sorry. But I stand behind my reasoning that Maysak is dissipated. The public page on typhoons by the JMA only lists the remnant of Haishen.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But as I mentioned before, I said Weather Maps. This may be confusing to you but there is a TD over the South China Sea right now and that was the former-Maysak. I did have the same problem lie this before, but Meow explained. And yes, sometime between the next 6 hours, the JMA would classify it as a LPA (dissipated). Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I know its unusual but in the Best Track file published by the IMD here, Gonu is listed as having peak windspeeds of 127 kts. As a result that is what we have to follow rather than rounding it off to the nearest 5.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Even rounding it off to the nearest 5 rounds down to 125 kt. I never saw an RSMC do this in a track file before...--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I know - its bizarre - though its not unprecedented with the IMD since the Super Cyclonic Storms in 90, 91 and 99 were all rated as 127 kts at one point in their life's. Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

JMA Hourly

For the JMA I would suggest that we keep to the 3 hourly advisories since they are formally published and can verified easier than the hourly updates which are only put on their website.Jason Rees (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking; these are unimportant anyways because they're just position and movement updates. But what if intensity changes?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Dolphin STY?

Hi. I don't even know why, but according to JTWC's JMV 3.0 Data, they have Dolphin with 115 knots, which is not at super typhoon intensity. However our infobox in the 2015 PTS article says that it is a super typhoon. Is there a source? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh never mind. The JTWC track map in the 2015 PTS article infobox is not updated that's why. Silly me. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I had linked [1]. Did you check that?--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox removal information

Sorry I replied this message late, but I want to inform you that when removing current infobox, you remove it when the JTWC made its final warning. So if the JTWC made its final warning you remove the current infobox, however the true infobox states that it's still active until the JMA stops warning on it in its weather maps. This rule has been there since 2014 because me and Meow did an agreement of it. Thank you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I'm just confused because you did basically the contrary with Maysak if my memory serves myself correct. Also, you + Meow alone ≠ a consensus. Also see WT:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Template:Japan Meteorological Agency's Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I was just telling about it, just so you understand that I or some user do in the future when a tropical cyclone (I only do this in the PTS articles) nearly dissipates. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: For what it's worth I still oppose removing the infobox (this time on Dolphin) as long as the JMA thinks it's still tropical. Unless you have evidence of consensus otherwise I will go revert your removal and ask that it not be done until the JMA has it extratropical. Additionally, a commenter at storm2k.org thought that this final warning itself was premature.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. As said before in this topic, we remove the current infobox after or when the JTWC made their final warning. That's what everyone did last year and two years ago. And I know why you are still 'opposing' on this thing, it's because you just joined Wikipedia (english) just halfway of 2014. Please I hope you know about this. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Again you forget that I have over twice your tenure here... I've been actively editing since early 2011. Again, you need to provide a link to a discussion on this, or I will not believe that consensus exists to support your change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Just saying here that I don't want to growl at you. I've been editing since halfway 2013 and I do clearly remember that I haven't seen your name in the View History box, or I should say that rarely (maybe). However you edit more in the other language Wikipedia since I sometimes visit the zh Wikipedia. For the current infobox thing, you may want to visit my contributions in 2014 (if possible) for reference that I've been removing some current storm infoboxes in older storms that year like Rammasun, the time when me and Meow (as said at top) had an agreement of removing infobox when nearly dissipating (final warnings of JTWC). Please, the other users don't mind about this and they've been doing it as well. Then you are the only one who is 'going the other way', unless someone who I trust decides to put down this rule thing. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I'm basically calling "citation needed": you + @Meow: is not a consensus, so it doesn't matter how long you've been doing. Please link a discussion that shows consensus in favor of this (I'm not looking for you doing this in the past). Also I would highly recommend that you do not attempt to play the "experience card" on others, I hate to do it myself and it only infuriates others.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Next question if alright. Just asking, and I should have asked it earlier, what is: Please link a discussion that shows consensus in favor of this means? I am just a young teenager, if you don't know. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: See Wikipedia:Consensus. If a talk page discussion somewhere (either the WikiProject talk page or an article talk page) has shown consensus for this practice, then link me to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So I will make a topic in either the Wikiproject talk page or an article talk page about this? Ok sure. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I ask that you refrain from this disputed practice (especially if I already have made a revert) until said discussion concludes. But you're doing the right thing, following WP:BRD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a topic in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#The 'Current Infobox' removal and information for future storms if OK and to confirm to other users about it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw and replied. Thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

ref desk

I've moved your question to the math desk, you will find the do a hell of a lot better than the general science desk when you want an actual equation. See here. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nino Marakot...Again??

Hi. Just asking that should @Nino Marakot: be cropping images as he did to most images in the 2014 Pacific hurricane season? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at my Commons watchlist, and Nino Marakot has cropped a huge amount of my tropical cyclone uploads, but even bigger a problem is that they are all low-resolution images and aren't as high quality. This probably isn't the place to post, but I am just adding this here since this appears to be the only pre-existing thread on the issue. See commons:Special:Contributions/Nino Marakot. Dustin (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 PTS timeline

I know I said that to break after Dolphin, but due to a lack of storms in the past month then we break it after Kujira instead. It's ok Jasper, the timeline will be adjusted soon if we have lots of storms within August-October and I'll fix that. Don't worry too much, I should say. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: It's situations like this that I think using edit summaries would really help you (your edits tend to lack them).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)