User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal sandbox

Hello! Sorry for writing to you directly, but isn't ones sandbox our own place to learn and sharpen our editing skills? Of course, it is a fantastical tornado outbreak, and it will never represent real information, but I have never hit the "publish" button, and hence all that is inside is not supposed to be viewed by anyone by me. I like editing it from time to time, but have never intended to publish it, as it is all baloney and no actual elements from it have happened. And you say "take this elsewhere, please." Where? I thought the sandbox was the place one could practice and have a little fun outside of actual editing. I understand the sandbox is where many articles are started, but I never intended to submit it, so it should no have harmed anyone. I've already taken all the code and saved it elsewhere. Mjeims (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The expectation with pure test edits is you will clean it up soon after you make them, since Wikipedia isn’t a free webhost. See also WP:FAKEARTICLE. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok! I took it down already. Mjeims (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Marcyway4

Hi Jasper, I was looking at the edits of Khaddy4 on en.wiki and noticed that they were blocked as a sock of Marcyway4 at wikidata. I then tried to figure out if any of Marcyway4's socks have edited at en.wiki - or possibly even an SPI case under a different master at en.wiki - but was stymied by the huge list of socks. I looked at several of them anyway but none had edited here, and I couldn't possibly go through all of them. Do you know of any connection between this sock farm and en.wiki?

Then I discovered another account here, QDJ22, and decided that behaviorally QDJ22 and Khaddy4 were socks and blocked them. But I also noticed that QJD22 has edited a fair amount at wikidata but was not blocked as a Marcyway4 sock, so I thought I'd get your opinion on that as well.

Thanks very much for any help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I’ll follow up privately. In the future feel free to contact me privately for CU stuff. Thanks! —Jasper Deng (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember, but please don't blame me if my memory fails. :-( --Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You're probably not back from the weekend, but I've been busy. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ndizzy4glo.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Freddy

Just a heads up that I dont see the full track length for File:Freddy_2023_path.png. It appears to end right before Madagascar. Noah^Talk 02:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Let me fix that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Thanks for the ping. I fixed it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:  Hello Jasper Deng, Could you overwrite the track made by meow to avoid confusion? HurricaneEdgar 02:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar: No, per Commons policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#FleurDeOdile Cross-wiki edit warring. Thank you. Noah^Talk 03:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Noah^Talk 04:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Extremely rate cyclone in South East Pacific.

Recently, I discovered several articles documenting the formation of an "extremely rare tropical cyclone" in the Southeast Pacific basin, near Peru, and unofficially named by the tracking agency as " Yaku". Should it be added to the South Pacific cyclone season? Vệ Thần ^{- Talk} 23:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for a strikethrough

Hello. I do agree with your closure of Talk:Hurricane Orlene (2022)#RfC - User created map or NHC Map, especially after you mentioned how a larger discussion would need to take place most likely on a WikiProject talk page. However, I do not approve or appreciate having the RfC I started be called “inappropriate and disruptive”. The RfC you linked in the closing message was not about NHC Hurricane maps, but rather a color discussion. I request and urge you to strikethrough that part of the closing message content or I request you undo the closure and request a new person close it. I would support either option (note: I do support the closure), but I do not appreciate being called a disruptive editor, ESPECIALLY not in a closing message meant to be neutrally worded. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I will not retract my wording. The context of your proposal made it highly WP:POINTY in appearance even if not in intent. By now you reasonably should have known the correct forum to propose this in, so to deliberately post it on the talk page of a single storm where it is less likely to receive as much visibility is not constructive. Also, you named accessibility concerns that were addressed in the original RfC so the original RfC is relevant.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just wanting to confirm, you do highly agree that the discussion was “disruptive” in the first place? If so, then you should not have closed the discussion at all as it appears you have a bias toward the discussion. Again, I urge you to change the wording or let another editor close. I do not disagree with closing the discussion, in fact, I would withdraw it (if you undid the closure). But, this feels like a biased closure occurred, and after all the recent heat at AN/I about neutrally worded things (and no canvassing), this might warrant a message an AN/I. So please, just remove the WP:NPOV wording in the closing discussion and everyone can move past this. That is all I am asking. Aka, “disruptive”, since that is a biased and opinionated thing drawn up in the closing remarks & was not eluded to at all in the discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Claiming my wording was “biased and opinionated” doesn’t make it so. NPOV is not relevant here. I already stated why the discussion is disruptive. The comment will stay as is and there is no more point in discussing here. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was moved to WP:AN, so this is not a new discussion as the previous WP:AN/I notice. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring: Arbitration request declined

Hello Jasper Deng,

The Arbitration Committee has declined the FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring case request, but the user has been blocked as a checkuser action.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

IMD

Apparently they said 120 knots/931 but kept it a ESCS across the board. That's why I forced ESCS. Noah^Talk 02:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Link please. IMD is known to not use multiples of 5 knots at times, so they could've done 117 knots for all we know.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

[1]

THE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED SURFACE WIND SPEED IS 120 KNOTS GUSTING TO 130 KNOTS. THE ESTIMATED CENTRAL PRESSURE IS ABOUT 931 HPA.

Noah^Talk 02:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is likely a typo though. The rest of their products are consistent with 115 kt. Let's wait for another bulletin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I reverted it back to 115 knots for now. Noah^Talk 02:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

00z interactive says 115... so that's what it will be... IMD wouldnt know a SuCS if it bit them. Noah^Talk 02:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: What about the pressure? The 938 to 931 was coincident with the 120 kt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure... They are messing with everyone rn... they literally stated 220 kmh which is 1 kmh away from SuCS... tsk tsk Noah^Talk 02:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Do I understand WP:SPS correctly?

Hey Jasper Deng. So I recently had a discussion with two other users and I commented about the WP:SPS policy. The discussion is over and we all came to a partial agreement to remove a sentence from the article. But, I wanted to know if I interpreted the policy correctly? If I didn’t, what part was I messing up? Did I accidentally ignore something vital? If I did mess up in some fashion, I want to know because I want to strike, fix, and/or apologize and then understand and know for the future what the mistake was and how to avoid it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Why i am banned

Hello, I'm an active member on Vietnamese wikipedia. I have recently received a message that my account and IP was banned by you. Can't you tell me the reason why you did that, please? Mintu Martin (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about how Featured Article Reviews work

Hey Jasper Deng. I got a question related to how FARs work. So I thought I found an issue with Hurricane Walaka, which became a FA in 2020. Following the steps (step 1) for a FAR, I brought the issue up on the talk page (Talk:Hurricane Walaka#Notability for Featured Article). I started discussing the issue I saw with another editor, but I am now very confused. My issue was that a large section in the article (17.6k bytes in the 29k byte article) did not have a reliable secondary source since it was all primary sources. But when talking with the other editor, they said, “The onus is on you as the reviewer to present examples that such reliable secondary sources covering the same or providing additional, relevant information do exist. If they do not, then your point is moot.”

Why would I need to locate the reliable secondary sources before the FAR discussion to say it isn’t FAR criteria, because the sources I am mentioning now aren’t cited in the article? Maybe you could help clear up what they mean by that comment because I’m honestly confused on what exactly I need to do before starting the FAR for the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:BANHAMMER" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:BANHAMMER has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § Wikipedia:BANHAMMER until a consensus is reached. A smart kitten (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoops.

I apologize for you having to do this. I've been talking to other editors a lot lately about not breaking WP:CRYSTAL, but I had a dumb moment and made that mistake myself. My bad. ChessEric 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for adding the parameter for the season infobox! I can't tell you how many discussions and reverts there have been over the years, because of the disagreements over whether the strongest storm was measured by pressure or winds. I'm glad this can now be a thing of the past, thanks to your implementation! Cheers ^_^ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Track Map for Typhoon Surigae

Hello,

I have noticed that you have plotted the track of Typhoon Surigae with the new version of colours of the SSHWS scale (purple for Cat. 5). However, there are some points that you might have missed, mostly those after Surigae transformed into an extratropical cyclone/remnant low (as shown here: File:Surigae_2021_track.png). It would be greatly appreciated if you could plot the track with the new colour scheme and the extra location points so that all pages can be updated with the newer track map. (Currently, some pages have all the points but with the old colours, while some have your original map with new colours but missed out points.)

Many thanks! Chong Yi Lam (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I replotted with --extra 1 and it only added a single ET point after its tropical stage. The extra points will not be plotted if they are not in the JTWC BT file. We cannot combine different agencies' data with JTWC's per WP:SYNTH. Instead, JMA can be plotted completely separately at File:Surigae 2021 JMA path.png.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

JTWC

I swear... the JTWC has really pissed me off here lately with their handling of Tej and Hamoon, especially the latter one. The IMD had the guts to call a storm with an emerging eye 55 knots. Personally, I'd say Hamoon peaked at 90 knots around 01Z based on SAB's T5.0, IPTCWC's T5.0, and my own T5.0 alongside the improvement in appearance in the two hours following the fixes. Noah, AA^Talk 12:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hurricane Otis

On 26 October 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hurricane Otis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Hurricane Otis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hurricane Otis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	This is a thank you for your quick defense of me in that absolutely bogus sockpuppet allegation. I'm not feeling well today and was also unable to be on Wikipedia for a couple of days due to being busy, so I'm very grateful and appreciate your help in this case. ChessEric 18:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence example about Eastern category 5 Atlantic hurricane

After watching Lee's track, I suddenly realized something interesting, that is, Lee's category 5 point is quite close to Hugo's category 5 point in 1989, and even a few dozen miles further east. So can I add the Hugo link to Lee's section? Without the appearance of Lorenzo 2019, Lee would probably be an easternmost category 5 hurricane. Vệ Thần ^{- Talk} 00:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Final-Fantasy-HH: WP:TRIVIA like that isn't suitable for Wikipedia as Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Chinese Politburo articles

I ran into a reversion once and took it to the Help Desk. I did a number of reversions on articles in the series (the other user seeks to delete information I consider best included from a whole series of articles) today and have posted on the other user's talk page even as you were putting a post on my talk page.(I replied there) It may head to dispute resolution if some consensus can't be reached on the usefulness of designating which members of a particular Politburo are on the PSC (which had always been included before the other user started deleting it and expecting anyone who cared to follow a link to a PSC article to find out).71.105.190.227 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ravel's piano concerto

Please consider to revert your (undiscussed?) move of Piano Concerto in G major (Ravel). See generic titles in Classical music: while piano concerto is no proper noun, it gets proper, Piano Concerto, when it means a specific piece, - compare Piano Concerto (Clara Schumann), or take a quick look at Category:Piano concertos. You might defend Piano Concerto (Ravel) because he only wrote that one. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You can revert it per BRD, but I refuse to do so on my own, because you asserted long ago that la campanella, despite being the title of a work, is not capitalized accordingly. Thus I am not convinced. If you are to revert this, then that article needs to be capitalized too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you see that one is a true title, capitalised in the language it is in, and the other a generic title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That doesn't matter. Who said Liszt would use proper Italian? His original capitalization is what we ought to be using, not our interpretation of what it should be.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

So you think. Take a look at A Boy was Born to understand that the wish of the composer (to my deep sadness) was regarded as less important than Wikipedia housestyle. - (edit conflict:) I wanted to change the capitalisation in the Ravel, but found it fine. We should not have "concerto" capital blindly every time, - when it says "is a piano concerto", of course the general name is meant, explained in Piano concerto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to discuss this more broadly as I have a WP:CONLEVEL concern about capitalizations here, since I do not believe the correct interpretation of MOS:TITLES is this. If we were to go by this, then Rondo à la Krakowiak (Chopin) would get lowercased as well. The wish of the composer should be respected up to WP:COMMONNAME limits because composers have creative reasons to choose their capitalizations at times; for example, consider a (hypothetical?) musical setting of the Shahada where the proper rendition in English requires a distinction of "God" and "god", titled using the English translation. Then the argument of proper titles becomes pretty weak.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we please for today just talk about the generic titles, such as Symphony, Piano Concerto and String Quartet? And perhaps revert the move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, the move can be reverted by you like anyone challenging an undiscussed move, but I also think it's not possible to decouple the topic of generic from non-generic titles, because that gets muddy when a composer invents a new genre (Chopin with the instrumental ballade, Liszt with the symphonic poem, etc.).--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The topic looks clear to me for the three types I listed. What do you not understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)