User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 32
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Your warning regarding the three revert rule
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.
Regarding this, I was just curious whether you actually looked into the case before issuing it. Because I think it is rather obvious that I was doing everything I could to resolve the issue through discussion, and was getting very little in return. I do not feel I was even edit warring in the sense that is proscribed, I was merely making the same edit, but fully explained, at suitable time intervals, as a reflection of changes in the consensus, such as it was. It wasn't really my fault that those on the other side of the edit war, were doing virtually nothing to participate in a resolution through discussion. Not even, ironically, to explain their rather cryptic explanation for their reverts, to use "rv SPA" and "This mode of editing isn't going to work" as examples. I can't force them to comment, can I? And as their actions seemed to show, it is only really the act of making an edit, that seems to compel them to comment at all. At the very least, the fact you didn't feel the need to warn them for their unwillingness to engage except as part of an edit war, especially where their reverts were actually unambiguous repetition of the same edit for the same reasoning, in defiance of an open discussion, does rather irritate me. BorkNein (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: You got the three-revert rule warning because you continued trying to insert your content even as others objected to your content. It should've been clear by then you didn't have consensus for your changes so persisting with them was edit warring, no matter the duration. WP:NOTTHEM.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, this is a gross oversimplification of events, an account which completely ignores the reasons given for each revert or the reason for the extended duration, as well as the basic principles in play. I could expand, but I would merely be repeating things that you should ready be aware of, if you had fully read the relevant posts. Suffice to say, it seems obvious that a key strategy of an edit warrior, would be to continually (and immediately) revert due to an alleged lack of consensus, without ever having any interest in forming that consensus. Someone who shows no interest either in making a content policy based argument for their revert, or in addressing the evident consensus in the debate between those who do have such arguments, such as it was. BorkNein (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: I don't care about your reasoning for the reverts, don't do them while the content is under dispute. You did the right thing by asking for an RfC, but you may not revert even having done that until consensus is achieved.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think you need to reassess your approach. It is plainly obvious that if you don't care why someone uses the revert function, you have wrongly assumed that in all cases, doing so is an edit war. It wasn't necessary to start an RfC, and it certainly won't be right if it takes this much time effort to remove three clearly unsupported words, this being only one of three similar very simple but very serious complaints I have with that article currently, and probably more as I give it a thorough examination. I have been proven correct now that it is underway, and the people you and Nomoskedasticity were apparently showing a concern for, have done exactly what I thought they would do, and not shown any desire to further contest my last edit. Specifically, Czello and Chaheel Reins are compete no shows. Presumably because their case was so incredibly weak when subjected to the full glare of content policy. If they had felt differently, if Nomoskedasticity had given them that chance to exercise their right to revert in a similarly judicious and fully explained fashion, I maybe would have started an RfC, or maybe found a less bureaucratic way to move forward. I would not have reflexively reverted, because I was already aware of the difference between edit warring and constructive use of that function. Put simply, if you're taking the side of the people who have put the least effort into actually resolving a content dispute through discussion, and have actually relied on their ability to use the revert function rapidly and without properly explaining themselves to stop someone who has, and especially if they are claiming to have absolutely no reason for it than procedural concerns, then no, you probably aren't warning the right people for the right reasons. BorkNein (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no "but I was in the right!" exception to our policies on edit warring. Stop doing it or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: Guy Macon said it right: unless the material in question clearly violates WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, or is unambiguous spam or vandalism (WP:3RRNO), how "right" you are has no bearing on the fact that reverting in this context is edit warring.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you see the irony of having just proven there are indeed circumstances where a person's reason for reverting is actually relevant to a determination of edit warring. We shall have to agree to disagree on whether my stated reasons and evident intent would have been enough to prevent someone from blocking me, and more importantly, only me. You will see from that RfC that there is even one way to look at my revert as a BLP issue, so don't be too quick to assume you have done everything you need to do before issuing warnings like this. I have no intention of reverting this text anymore, but that is of course not because of your warnings, but because circumstances have changed, and my prior reasoning would therefore no longer be valid. I hope you follow the logic now, even if you still disagree, because I certainly won't be the only person who interprets Wikipedia policy this way. Certainly in terms of broad based principles, in a project which places very little store in following rules just for the sake of it, and takes a hard line on those who try to game the system, nobody should ever get blocked for doing the right thing. And therefore, warnings issued in such circumstances, should be properly reflected upon by those issuing them. I won't hold you to that though, this has already taken up far too much time than it warranted. BorkNein (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: The other person's motives for reverting you are almost never relevant, so you should adhere more closely to WP:BRD. It's not unambiguously a BLP situation (I looked at the content before issuing you the warning) so that exemption does not apply.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Potential to harm living people if untrue? Check. No inline citation that directly supports the claim? Check. BorkNein (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Organizations are not considered "people" to nearly the same degree as when the subject is an actual person. Usually, if it's a BLP issue, others would not believe it justified to revert you and if you still think so, WP:BLPN is there for you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is a case by case situation in policy, and this case is a newspaper. Therefore, and this is backed up by the context of how this questionably sourced claim came to be included in Wikipedia in the first place, there are two readily identifiable individuals whose main responsibilities are to ensure what is printed is reliable, and could therefor suffer harm if Wikipedia was allowed to simply invent claims about what a poor job of it they apparently do. BorkNein (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: This is a very slippery slope, wherein almost any claim about an organization can be argued to fall under BLP even if it does not concern a specific person or group of people in the organization. The fact that you're having to argue your case about this shows that the exemption to 3RR is not applicable as it only applies in rather unequivocal cases. Again, if you truly disagree with this reasoning, you have WP:BLPN at your disposal. My talk page is not the right place to continue this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm only here to give you my reading of policy, in the hopes you make better choices when warning people. There is no slippery slope here, the policy allows a case by case application for organisations, and I have just given you a very good reason why this case is one where harm to specific individuals is highly likely, and you don't seem to be disputing it. Just because the argument has to be made, wouldn't shield you from being found to be wrongly warning people if you hadn't properly considered it. Because that is what you did, issued a warning, your first and only contact with me until I decided to address it. You would have never even known if I was claiming a BLP exemption, because you didn't ask. BorkNein (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: I saw your edit summaries. My decision to warn you was a fair one and none of what you're saying has any traction. The bottom line is being right is not an exception to WP:EW. Please read the explanations by User:Guy Macon in more detail.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm only here to give you my reading of policy, in the hopes you make better choices when warning people. There is no slippery slope here, the policy allows a case by case application for organisations, and I have just given you a very good reason why this case is one where harm to specific individuals is highly likely, and you don't seem to be disputing it. Just because the argument has to be made, wouldn't shield you from being found to be wrongly warning people if you hadn't properly considered it. Because that is what you did, issued a warning, your first and only contact with me until I decided to address it. You would have never even known if I was claiming a BLP exemption, because you didn't ask. BorkNein (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: This is a very slippery slope, wherein almost any claim about an organization can be argued to fall under BLP even if it does not concern a specific person or group of people in the organization. The fact that you're having to argue your case about this shows that the exemption to 3RR is not applicable as it only applies in rather unequivocal cases. Again, if you truly disagree with this reasoning, you have WP:BLPN at your disposal. My talk page is not the right place to continue this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is a case by case situation in policy, and this case is a newspaper. Therefore, and this is backed up by the context of how this questionably sourced claim came to be included in Wikipedia in the first place, there are two readily identifiable individuals whose main responsibilities are to ensure what is printed is reliable, and could therefor suffer harm if Wikipedia was allowed to simply invent claims about what a poor job of it they apparently do. BorkNein (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Organizations are not considered "people" to nearly the same degree as when the subject is an actual person. Usually, if it's a BLP issue, others would not believe it justified to revert you and if you still think so, WP:BLPN is there for you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Potential to harm living people if untrue? Check. No inline citation that directly supports the claim? Check. BorkNein (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: The other person's motives for reverting you are almost never relevant, so you should adhere more closely to WP:BRD. It's not unambiguously a BLP situation (I looked at the content before issuing you the warning) so that exemption does not apply.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you see the irony of having just proven there are indeed circumstances where a person's reason for reverting is actually relevant to a determination of edit warring. We shall have to agree to disagree on whether my stated reasons and evident intent would have been enough to prevent someone from blocking me, and more importantly, only me. You will see from that RfC that there is even one way to look at my revert as a BLP issue, so don't be too quick to assume you have done everything you need to do before issuing warnings like this. I have no intention of reverting this text anymore, but that is of course not because of your warnings, but because circumstances have changed, and my prior reasoning would therefore no longer be valid. I hope you follow the logic now, even if you still disagree, because I certainly won't be the only person who interprets Wikipedia policy this way. Certainly in terms of broad based principles, in a project which places very little store in following rules just for the sake of it, and takes a hard line on those who try to game the system, nobody should ever get blocked for doing the right thing. And therefore, warnings issued in such circumstances, should be properly reflected upon by those issuing them. I won't hold you to that though, this has already taken up far too much time than it warranted. BorkNein (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: Guy Macon said it right: unless the material in question clearly violates WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO, or is unambiguous spam or vandalism (WP:3RRNO), how "right" you are has no bearing on the fact that reverting in this context is edit warring.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no "but I was in the right!" exception to our policies on edit warring. Stop doing it or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think you need to reassess your approach. It is plainly obvious that if you don't care why someone uses the revert function, you have wrongly assumed that in all cases, doing so is an edit war. It wasn't necessary to start an RfC, and it certainly won't be right if it takes this much time effort to remove three clearly unsupported words, this being only one of three similar very simple but very serious complaints I have with that article currently, and probably more as I give it a thorough examination. I have been proven correct now that it is underway, and the people you and Nomoskedasticity were apparently showing a concern for, have done exactly what I thought they would do, and not shown any desire to further contest my last edit. Specifically, Czello and Chaheel Reins are compete no shows. Presumably because their case was so incredibly weak when subjected to the full glare of content policy. If they had felt differently, if Nomoskedasticity had given them that chance to exercise their right to revert in a similarly judicious and fully explained fashion, I maybe would have started an RfC, or maybe found a less bureaucratic way to move forward. I would not have reflexively reverted, because I was already aware of the difference between edit warring and constructive use of that function. Put simply, if you're taking the side of the people who have put the least effort into actually resolving a content dispute through discussion, and have actually relied on their ability to use the revert function rapidly and without properly explaining themselves to stop someone who has, and especially if they are claiming to have absolutely no reason for it than procedural concerns, then no, you probably aren't warning the right people for the right reasons. BorkNein (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: I don't care about your reasoning for the reverts, don't do them while the content is under dispute. You did the right thing by asking for an RfC, but you may not revert even having done that until consensus is achieved.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, this is a gross oversimplification of events, an account which completely ignores the reasons given for each revert or the reason for the extended duration, as well as the basic principles in play. I could expand, but I would merely be repeating things that you should ready be aware of, if you had fully read the relevant posts. Suffice to say, it seems obvious that a key strategy of an edit warrior, would be to continually (and immediately) revert due to an alleged lack of consensus, without ever having any interest in forming that consensus. Someone who shows no interest either in making a content policy based argument for their revert, or in addressing the evident consensus in the debate between those who do have such arguments, such as it was. BorkNein (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- I still beg to differ, but will leave you in peace. BorkNein (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have a right to my opinion is not an argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- BorkNein, I have been patiently explaining Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to you. It appears that you are unwilling to listen. We have a page on that: WP:IDHT, which is an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. Continuing to violate it may end up with you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also, when multiple people tell you you are wrong about something you don't appear to be willing to accept what you are told. You may find my essay at WP:1AM to be helpful, but only if you are willing to start listening. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I still beg to differ, but will leave you in peace. BorkNein (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have listened to everything you have ever said to me Guy Macon. That is why I asked you if you had correctly remembered what you had said about my question being biased, when you appeared to contradict yourself. Other than an evident desire not to hear it, was there some other reason you didn't reply? Too busy, perhaps? BorkNein (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BorkNein: if you had listened then you would not be drawing out this discussion, which is beginning to exceed its useful lifetime. Please, stop with this discussion and continue discussing on the article talk page only (or WP:BLPN).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have listened to everything you have ever said to me Guy Macon. That is why I asked you if you had correctly remembered what you had said about my question being biased, when you appeared to contradict yourself. Other than an evident desire not to hear it, was there some other reason you didn't reply? Too busy, perhaps? BorkNein (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- What was not clear from me saying I "will leave you in peace" other than I fully intended to leave you in peace? If you respond with "'I have a right to my opinion' is not an argument", then you can expect people to respond to your mischaracterisation of what they said, to point out that at no time here have I offered my mere opinion. If you had wanted me to quote chapter and verse policy to accompany my points, you should have asked me, but I don't think that should be necessary for a person who is so sure of policy, they want to be issuing warnings to other people for not following it. BorkNein (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is a huge W.O.M.B.A.T. (Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time). I am now unwatching this page and disabling any pings from BorkNein (it's in the preferences under notifications. I note with amusement that I just can't stop being helpful even when dealing with someone who reflexively rejects all advice.) Jasper Deng, feel free to ping me if there is something that should be brought to my attention.
- Final comment: BorkNein, either you will obey all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (as written, not as you conveniently choose to misinterpret them) or I will report you at WP:ANI without giving you any further warnings for you to WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:PLAYPOLICY over. Feel free to have the last word here, but be aware that I won't read it.
- ...and then there was silence. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have never pinged you Guy, and I have not rejected all of your advice. If you ever decide to do more than issue warnings, you can expect those sort of facts about your behaviour, to be presented. You are an astonishingly difficult person to communicate with, you frequently make accusations that lack evidence or even contradicts it, you frequently ignore the person you are talking to, instead preferring to talk at them or past them, perhaps only for a gallery of observers you imagine exist are highly appreciative of your dramatic performances, and you seem to show absolutely no awareness that those two behaviours alone, the lies and the grandstanding, are totally unacceptable on Wikipedia. Your advice is neither wanted, nor welcome, and since you are not an Administrator, your 14 years service and 50,000 edits shall carry little weight with me, if this is the sort of behaviour you think is compliant with policy. BorkNein (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing
Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ping functionality
Out of curiosity, did the ping I left for you in this discussion show up in your alerts? Sometimes they seem to get lost when added in a second edit, and I'm not really sure about the dynamics, so any data points in that regard would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- It did. I have been extremely busy in real life and thus have not had a chance to respond in more detail.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! No rush — it's a busy time for me as well, and I've probably spent more of it here than I should have. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
For being patient with me as I learn the definitions of the policies of Wikipedia. Few would spend their time learning every single one the policies of Wikipedia, but I think you are close to being one of the few. For this, I thank you.
~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
GAN
Would you be willing to take a look at 2018 Pacific hurricane season? NoahTalk 19:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Can you tell me how to do the speedy deletion template? I don't know how to and it is SERIOUSLY annoying to deal with when trying to move these draft tropical cyclone articles to the mainstream. Additionally can you do a speedily deletion of the Hurricane Paulette redirct so we can take the year off? Thanks!ChessEric (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Why did you delete the new Sally Track?
Why you delete the new Sally Track it's from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at4.shtml?start#contents ? It is the track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.203.192 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Root 2
Dear Jasper Deng,
It was presumptuous of me to insert a proof with my name on it into a Wikipedia article on so fundamental a thing as the square root of 2, and I fully accept your right to remove it.
I suppose all proofs of the irrationality of √2 are equivalent in that they exploit the basic property that √2 x √2 =2, where multiplication is expressed either numerically, or geometrically as the area of a figure. All proofs must also contain the idea of irrationality, and, as far as I can see, that must mean not expressible as a rational fraction.
But I think the proof I have given deserves a place on the list for these reasons:-
1. It is correct. 2. It is short. I have not found such a compact proof anywhere else. 3. Other proofs do indeed rely on the premise that √2 =a/b, where that fraction is in its lowest form, but other proofs do not explicitly state that a^2/b^2 is therefore in its lowest form. 4. Other proofs do not rely on the idea that 2, expressed as a fraction, is 2/1, in its lowest form. 5. Since a rational quantity has a unique lowest form, a^2/b^2 = 2/1 gives a^2=2 and b^2 =1, leading directly to the contradiction that √2 =a, an integer. This is not a feature of any other proof which I have seen, and it is a clear and direct contradiction. 6. Some other proofs rely on arguments about the factors of a and b, whether they are even, or divisible by 4, or how many times the factor 2 appears on each side of an equation. This proof does not require any of that. 7. Some other proofs entail an infinite descent (a feature which many students find confusing), which is used to show that a/b can be reduced to some other rational c/d and so on ad infinitum. While perfectly valid, it leads to a contradiction which I would describe as subtle. 8. It is easy to extend the proof to show that all square roots of integers are either integers or irrational, and to n-th roots as well.
I apologize again for my clumsy approach to the editability of Wikipedia, and leave it at that.
Yours, 188.76.223.115 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Bill Dixon, Madrid, Spain bill@billdixon.eu
- Your proof is, simply put, redundant to what is already there in the article. Also, we won't include your proof without reliable source coverage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
You must have it your own way. You simply ignored me. Good for you.
Bertha damage
lol I just went through an entire conversation about this with Cyclonebiskit (See his/her talk page) and we agreed to keep the sources consistent until NHC releases their reports at the end of the season. The problem is we have been using Aon for all other storms so far this season. If we don't keep the sources consistent then the numbers lose their meaning especially for comparison purposes. Also if Aon reports are not used then why are they used as reference for many storms in previous seasons? Hurricane21 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- We should not be using AON for them either. Total economic losses are not storm damage, period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I get that but we've been using Aon for everything else so far and as I said I thought Aon was acceptable since it has been used for previous seasons. Also where does wikipedia mention what exactly they mean by "damage"? I couldn't find it anywhere. Finally Aon uses the term "Economic losses" but doesn't specify exactly what they mean by it. My argument is that let's keep the sources consistent until NHC NOAA releases their reports at the end of the season, then we can update everything according to their release. Sounds good? Hurricane21 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- And removing the use of AON would be "consistent". Damages are impacts that are tangibly traced to the storm by reliable sources, not things that cannot be decoupled from other things (especially with COVID-19 being a confounding factor this season).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually I just went back and checked Aon reports for previous seasons and they use the exact same definition as NHC NOAA so when they write "Economic loss" they actually mean total damage (Basically what you wrote). Go back to previous seasons and compare Aon reports to NHC NOAA reports, they're reporting the same numbers so using Aon as a source should be acceptable according to what you wrote. Do you still have any objections? Hurricane21 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- And removing the use of AON would be "consistent". Damages are impacts that are tangibly traced to the storm by reliable sources, not things that cannot be decoupled from other things (especially with COVID-19 being a confounding factor this season).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I get that but we've been using Aon for everything else so far and as I said I thought Aon was acceptable since it has been used for previous seasons. Also where does wikipedia mention what exactly they mean by "damage"? I couldn't find it anywhere. Finally Aon uses the term "Economic losses" but doesn't specify exactly what they mean by it. My argument is that let's keep the sources consistent until NHC NOAA releases their reports at the end of the season, then we can update everything according to their release. Sounds good? Hurricane21 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppeting
Thank you for your concern Jasper I close my web browser quite often and it sign me out so when I sign post it will be my ip or my account it might look like I have 2 accounts but it's not that hard to perceive that I did not sign in you powers of perception proceed you Thank you Jasper for the concern I hope the investigation does not turn up anything that supports your crazy claims I'm signed in this time so don't think I am sockpuppeting if that's what you call it I just want to state my case because it worry's me that you wrongfully accosed me of something that should be obvious If I close my browser I get signed out19dreiundachtzig (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
ellipse talk page
Hi Jasper you understand it is important to use the right value for a calculation a value that comes from thin air is not a value its a number (a>b) is the answer its a fact the semi-major is > the semi-minor this (a/b) is a number I know you think it's letters right wrong Jasper letters don't have value in Math (a/b) is a Fraction Thank you again Jasper its in the sandbox and waiting approval.2601:203:101:BD0:78F1:5839:7DCC:FC03 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- You've been trying for years (see the sockpuppetry case) to try to convince us to believe your crank mathematics. Perhaps if you would punctuate your sentences correctly, and stop hand-waving with absolute nonsense that is not even wrong, then we might believe you. But Pi is a specific number, derived from the circle's ratio of circumference to diameter, and not that of an ellipse. To be fair, "stretching" does have a rigorous basis, but you need to correctly use integration by substitution. You haven't been making any sense for many years, why do you suddenly expect us to listen now?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata, DBpedia, Knowledge graph
Dear Jasper Deng,
Following discussion here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamma_function#Infobox_for_Gamma_function
What do you mean for "I am an admin there and can help you navigate the website"?
Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
A mistake?
Correct if I am wrong but I believe it is a mistake of you pinging me in the 2020 AHS article in regards to the Auxiliary list of names. I have not been editing or even "add 3 names" to that section anywhere in the past 3 days at least. However if I can interject, this edit of yours is quite similar to what you have discussed about when Zeta was named, which I really thought it was odd on why you added an extra 7 set of names instead of 4. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Typhoon2013: Can you please learn to keep discussions in one place and just comment on the talk page of the article, not here?--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hello, I hope that you're doing well. I just was wondering if you could help me in regards to some edit warring that I have seen between Jason Rees and Cyclonicallyderanged. First of all, they are having a heated discussion on Cd's talk page, in which they have not been able to come to any sort of resolve. Second, on 2020-21 Australian region cyclone season, they are having an edit war in which they are continuously reverting each other's edit over and over again. I warned them in their discussion that they need to quit warring and come up with a consensus, and that they were probably violating WP:3RR. I also made a short edit on that weather page itself saying that it would become WP:ANI if this continued, though I think it is at the point where something needs to be done. Unfortunately, I am busy and so I do not have time to do anything major nor am I quite sure how to report edit warring. My apologies, I just thought that I would bring it to your attention. My apologies to users involved as well, something needed to be done, I couldn't just let it go unnoticed. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 07:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Weatherman27: I'm not an admin. I don't think this needs admin involvement for now, but I do think the ad hominem remarks need to stop. Neither you nor I can help except by helping to build a consensus on the talk page. As for myself, I am favoring Jason's view on this matter. You can issue Template:uw-3rr or request full protection if they continue, but they seem to have stopped for now. --Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh okay,thank you for pointing me in the right direction. My apologies, for some reason I though that you were an admin it must have been something I read that made me think about it. Again though, thank you for helping me out. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 13:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry
I was not in the best mood yesterday and was indeed a little irritable. I apologize for that and hope that we can work together better in the future.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Notification
Tropical Storm Blanca (2009), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Hurricane Iota
On 19 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hurricane Iota, 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. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)