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.
Oh, I never checked Meteo-France. I'm sorry! X2A3Q (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
More about this: I added information regarding the MFR. Is the MFR or the JTWC the preferred center? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2A3Q (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Warnings
I noticed you issued two warnings with one intermediate edit at User talk:66.128.246.175. Thought I'd mention it. Not that the IP probably doesn't deserve to be blocked. Master of Time(talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I issued the second after seeing them try to change Nancy again. I personally think vandals get too many warnings here (four levels is ridiculous in my opinion).--Jasper Deng(talk) 22:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I sympathize with your sentiment. Sometimes, especially if the vandalism is particularly bad and / or threatening to Wikipedia's reputation (e.g. inappropriate images on high-profile articles), I'll just skip to a higher level right off the bat. Master of Time(talk) 22:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Dreaded 45 day list
Hello, just here to remind you to login to the ACC interface, you're on the list. Thanx, - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi-I have been rv your recent edits concerning Mersenne #s because they perhaps need to be expanded or sourced? I'm not saying that your additions are incorrect, just that they were not understandable and also unsourced in the changes that I made. Also-please do not use Wolfram-Alpha if you find a source as that lead to a dead end for me. Thank you.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@TeeVeeed: by definition. It doesn't get any simpler than that.--Jasper Deng(talk) 15:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks-that would be WP:OR for this though? Hang on I have something better for that "use" section I think. That source link is no good anyhow.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@TeeVeeed: See WP:OR#Routine calculations. And that "use" section cites a book, books do not go out of existence just because a web link dies. In fact many sources don't even have to be online.--Jasper Deng(talk) 15:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay-now it's getting confusing because we are talking about a few different edits here. So--I think I imp the "Use" section? on the Chessboard page? And yes I see the math there but how hard would it be to find a source that confirms that?TeeVeeed (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
My feeling is that something that follows so easily from a definition defined only using basic arithmetic does not need a source. @TeeVeeed: But, be my guest if you can find one. The bottom line is verifiability, and clearly that is met here.--Jasper Deng(talk) 16:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Well this is somewhat over my head mathematically, and probably for other readers too so a more understandable version of the statement would help I think. I hope that you don't mind I will ask to take it to the article talk page.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@TeeVeeed: Anyone reading the wheat and chessboard problem article needs to have an understanding of basic exponentiation. So I expect the reader to know what I mean when they click the link to the article on Mersenne numbers and see that it is indeed . And I thought you were objecting to my insertion on multiple articles?--Jasper Deng(talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it should not be in the article, just that it should be explicitly related to the chessboard problem not just exponentials in general. That's why I keep asking for a seconday source-to avoid OR and relate it directly to the topic. Yeah--your recent M number edits are a little lacking in my opinion--but I could be wrong, that is why I am asking for other opinions. Also funny you should mention the wheat & chessboard being a "math" article. The more I have been reading today the more that I feel like putting it also back in the chess catagory is appropriate. (chess was rm at some point)-thanksTeeVeeed (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
And again, what I'm saying is that it's not original research. I kept it at a single sentence in order to not distract from the statement of the problem. But I maintain that it is not completely irrelevant because readers will be wondering things like "when is the number of moves prime?" - a question answered by the article linked to, but whose discussion is not relevant to the original article.--Jasper Deng(talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok to remove from talk pages(?)
About your revert: WP:NOTFORUM: "Discussion forums. [..] Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." Maybe it did it wrong (should have deleted all?). If I recall, my edited on talk pages, have been edited (at least subject-header). Do with it what you will. It's probably sensitive to change materially, but I was clear I did it. comp.arch (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Comp.arch: This editor made a concrete suggestion to add something to the article. It was a very ridiculous and uninformed suggestion, but a legitimate one nonetheless, so NOTAFORUM does not apply here. And even if it was correct to remove the comment, in that case you either remove the comment in whole, including his signature, or you don't at all. What you did amounted to editing his comment and almost putting words in his mouth.--Jasper Deng(talk) 16:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries. I wouldn't even have noticed if you hadn't posted here ;) .--Jasper Deng(talk) 18:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
A small question
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.
Hello, I have a small question not related to any article, but it makes me a bit uncomfortable. Could you not revert all of things from an editor if you just disagree with his/her specified contents? Meow 08:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Meow: Let me be blunt. If (but not only if) you introduce factual errors, like you did on Donna's article, then it's grounds for reverting. After all, you have a history of calling such edits "vandalism" when they are done by others. I know English is not your first language, but you are contributing to an encyclopedia in English and are therefore responsible for ensuring that you understand English. If you can't stand that, then don't make such edits. It's that simple.
If you're not willing to WP:AAGF (notice the double A) and WP:AGF on my part, then quite frankly, I have no reason to spend time even replying to messages like this.--Jasper Deng(talk) 08:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not say what you did are wrong, but it seems you never wanted to WP:AAGF and WP:AGF on my edits. You just simply reverted all my parts for merely one mistake. Meow 08:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Meow: If I thought your edit was in bad faith, I would not have taken out the time to write an edit summary. I would've instead simply used rollback on it and gone the rest of my way. My edit summary is provided in part for you to learn and correct your mistakes, and although I don't exactly think of it this way, reverting the whole edit is more effective in that regard because it sends you a notification and makes you take out the time to take that constructive feedback.
Whenever I have a significant issue with your edit, and have not already reverted, then I am free to invoke WP:BRD. Quite simply, that you inserted a blatant error in an important part of the article is entirely your doing, not mine. It does not help that your edit summary usage rate is only a bit more than 2/3 of your edits (whereas mine is well over 95%). I don't do this just to you; if I did, that would not be fair. Please find something more productive to do; I am not entertaining further discussion on this topic.--Jasper Deng(talk) 09:01, 8 May 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.
There are two source (Media Release 10 and Fji and Rotuma (Fiji Warning)) was issued by RSMC Nadi, both the cyclone is estimated gust to 130 km/h.--60.246.85.194 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to note
Just to note that you have left me a message weeks ago about replying back to your messages because I was "ignoring" them, as you did to my message in the 2016-17 SPac article talk page (I pinged you). But it seems like you are doing the same. You are really disrespectful and may have to tell the others this, if this happens again, and to add I really feel disappointed on your actions as you are much a "leader" than I am here. So just in case you will "ignore" this message too, I have to state that I have already done a new format to the AusR articles and might as well do the same in the SPac soon. Typhoon2013(talk) 10:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Typhoon2013: Because this is not an analogous situation. My comments on your talk page were concerning your grammar, a user conduct problem. This is not a user conduct issue. In that case, if I don't feel like I have anything to say, I don't feel the need to reply. In this case, I am waiting for Jason to reply just like you suggested. This is hardly "disrespectful".--Jasper Deng(talk) 10:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikiproject:Tropical Cyclones / Tracks
Hello, I've been interested in taking part of the Wikiproject, Tropical Cyclones/Tracks, but I've been having a lot of trouble getting the program set up. I know you are active with this Wikiproject, do you know if there is any video tutorial that I may view? Not David Brown (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Not David Brown: There is no video tutorial. Note that this software would be almost impossible to set up on Windows; despite all the Windows userboxes on my userpage, I run the software in an Ubuntu virtual machine.--Jasper Deng(talk) 17:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for the response. Not David Brown (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Cyclone infobox
Hi Jasper Deng. Sorry for removing your source when I edited the 2017 Pacific hurricane season article. It wasn't intentional. There is something I feel needs fixing, however, and to be honest I should really be talking to all the editors about this so we can can arrive at a solution. It is regarding the formatting of information in the current hurricane infobox template (or whatever it's called). Whenever information is inputted, there is always a word or a number that goes over the line due to the insufficient size of the template in the article. This is particularly annoying with the windspeeds, as the 'sustained (1-min mean)' that is automatically added means poor formatting is caused every single time. To prevent this being split into two lines, I have to remove the knots measurement and make do with the metric and imperial conversions, which sacrifices some information for the sake of the infobox not looking ridiculous. Also, when the winds get to ≥100 km/h, it is necessary to put this measurement in the 'small' template (though I actually think this looks good, to be honest). The ugly formatting also occurs in the 'distance from' section, where the word 'About' regularly sends the info slightly past the line length limit and puts one word on the second line. In my opinion, I think the word 'about' is completely redundant anyway, as of course the location is not going to be exact - any reader will know it is 'about'.
I'm just rambling, but I do think something needs to be done, as it looks ridiculous. I only mentioned all this to you as you said something about formatting in your edit summary regarding your reversion of my edit. I don't know if there's a way to increase the width of the template (this would be ideal), or what else could be done. Though, for the time being, I think I'll continue removing the knots measurement (it is still stated in the current storm information section, if readers really want to know it) and the 'about' to prevent ridiculous formatting and to preserve my sanity. Sorry about all this rambling... :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChocolateTrain: Please gain consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones before changing any of our formatting practices; until then, please stick to the existing format. For what it's worth, I do oppose your proposed changes since I don't see the need, and it shows perfectly well on my screen (hence I don't buy your formatting argument).--Jasper Deng(talk) 09:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The infobox as displayed on my screen.@Jasper Deng: By 'I don't buy your argument', are you saying you don't believe me that the I see the formatting as poor? That would suggest I have an ulterior motive, but I can not think of one thing which would possibly motivate me to go to the trouble of having this conversation other than an intent to improve the aesthetics of the article. If that is indeed what you are implying, I am highly taken aback and do not see what part of my two months on Wikipedia could cause such a rift in the credibility of my comments or arguments - I try my utmost to make everything I do on Wikipedia act in aid of the common goal of article improvement. If this is not what you are insinuating, then I'm very sorry about my misunderstanding of your idiom (though this is what I understand that idiom to mean). It may indeed just be my computer screen that displays the infobox the way it is; however, it would have been my assumption that the article would be displayed the same regardless of the aspect ratio of the screen (the computer should just scale the web page to fit the screen). I have provided a picture of the infobox as displayed on my screen to show that I am indeed being truthful in my assertions. The split 'sustained (1-min mean)' is clearly visible. If this was written in the article rather than the infobox, editors would be quick to correct the mistake by adding a ' ' or a line break. I see no reason why this is inapplicable in infoboxes. Something that is not a factor in this picture is the word 'about' causing an unwanted two-line distance measurement. This is only because the Mexican place names are long, and cause the extra line themselves. Please read the image description for more information on the formatting problems I have identified. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChocolateTrain: Calm down. I always ensure to assume good faith, and in return, I ask that you do assume that on my part. I have no issues at all with it being split over lines, and therefore, I don't buy (i.e. agree with) your argument.--Jasper Deng(talk) 18:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
