User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Hurricane Lorenzo

Firstly, I'm sorry for the shouting on Mario's talk page. It was immature, and I should have known better. However, I'd also like point out something in your reply. Saying that you only read half of my comment is also quite immature and rather rude to be honest, and claiming TL;DR is simply ridiculous. There wasn't anything rambling about my comment, rather it contained valid evidence and elaborations of how it supported my point. I don't know how much you know about expository writing or good practice when constructing an argument, as I don't know you very well. However, years of high school English has taught me that you need to elaborate upon the evidence you provide and explain why it supports your point. That is exactly what I did, and is why my comment appeared a little long. Realistically, it should have taken you no more than two minutes to read, and stopping halfway is dismissive and condescending, and betrays a hint of self-superiority.

The point about Dvorak numbers which you raised again doesn't serve any purpose, as I already conceded in my comment that the NHC's reference to Dvorak numbers supports using the IR image. I also reject your postulation that interpolating intensity constitutes the same level of original research as Wikipedians conducting independent Dvorak estimates. That is absurd. The Dvorak technique requires training and rigorous application, and could give any result if you do it incorrectly, whereas a linear interpolation can only result in an intensity which lies between the two advisory intensities. This is much more reliable for us, as we are not professional meteorologists. Also, I can see no mention of an eyewall replacement cycle occurring between 0131Z and 1339Z in the NHC advisories, so you are either mistaken or that is original research on your behalf. I didn't "gloss over" your point about the timing of the update, either—I agree that the IR image is superior in this circumstance. I am not disputing that. Lastly, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that choosing a higher quality, more detailed, full-colour image in circumstances of equivalent intensity is "hand-waving". ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Sorry, I'm not going to reply to this since you still failed to be concise. 500 bytes or less please; if you have more to say, learn to actually break up your argument into coherent paragraphs. You don't know a thing about the Dvorak technique (which really isn't rocket science) so you are in no position to be comparing it to linear interpolation. I have a degree from a prestigious institution that includes numerical analysis, you are not telling me I am somehow mistaken about linear interpolation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: How dare you treat me with such disrespect? You are being rude, dismissive and overtly supercilious. You have not responded to several of my arguments now, which simply indicates that you have no counterargument and are resorting to ignoring them completely. I do actually "know a thing about the Dvorak technique", and I am fully within my rights to compare its accuracy to linear interpolation when conducted by untrained Wikipedia editors. You would do well to get off your high horse and address my concerns. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: And I have split my comment up into paragraphs for your ease of reading. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay how about this. I don't think it's rude to ask you to present your argument in a better format but:

1. First and foremost, there is no a priori reason to assume linear interpolation is best, because tropical cyclones do not evolve in intensity at a constant rate between synoptic times. Why not a cubic spline interpolation? That even looks less jagged and is differentiable at synoptic times, unlike linear interpolation. No numerical analyst worth their salt will blindly choose linear interpolation like this. Also, any interpolation using two points ignores any additional information we have about our function, such as ADT and the NHC's TC update.
2. If you bothered to read up something about the Dvorak technique, then you would clearly see on Basic Dvorak imagery that Lorenzo's appearance degraded by a full T-number or more in the ensuing hours. I'm not the only one who will say that.
3. The 21z advisory mentions an eyewall replacement cycle, and that eyewall replacement cycle clearly began much earlier than 21z.
4. All of our decisions on imagery is OR, because no one else referees which images we use.
5. Notice how I, unlike you, organize my argument into separated, concise list entries.
6. ADT numbers, which are relied upon by NHC, are updated every half-hour and demonstrate without doubt that Lorenzo was stronger around the time of the IR image.
7. Your ignorance of all these important details renders your argument hand-waving. I would support your point about using visual images in general, however, the way you are attempting to justify it here is highly flawed.

@ChocolateTrain: I apologize if I seem rude, but I also have little patience for what I view as hand-waving.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Thank you for addressing my points.

1. Yes, I agree that using a linear interpolation is not the ideal way of assessing the intensity, however, it is still a useful guide as it is a simple numerical technique. However, choosing an accurate piecewise-defined function to model the cyclone's intensity would require that we actually knew the intensity at many times in between the advisories. If we were to already know that, then there'd be no point using interpolation, as we would already know the intensity. I don't yet have tertiary educational experience in numerical methods, so obviously my knowledge is inferior on this topic; however, I still believe a linear method would be sufficient for our purposes.
2. I'll take your word for it. And again, I agree that the Lorenzo was stronger in the IR image.
3. Although the 21Z advisory indeed references an ERC, that is more than seven hours after the true colour image was taken, and no mention is made of it at the 15Z advisory. It can be logically assumed that the cycle began between 15Z and 21Z, not before.
4. I agree.
5. In this comment, yes; however, lists are rarely used in an academic setting. I will endeavour to use a list format in the future, though.
6. I'm not disputing that Lorenzo was stronger in the IR image. My original assertion to Mario was that the two images were of equivalent intensity, but I conceded in my very first reply to your original post that I was mistaken due to missing part of the NHC advisory.
7. I don't actually have an argument against the IR image, because I agree that it is the strongest. My point is that in the absence of the NHC's reference to Dvorak numbers, my original reasoning would still have held, and I don't think it constitutes hand-waving. To reiterate, I no longer dispute the superiority of the IR image.

ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: And I am arguing that you would still be incorrect even absent that explicit reference to the 130z fixes. For one, a rough unwritten consensus has been to use the image temporally closest to peak intensity, in which case 0131z wins hands-down. I also strongly believe that we should not not take advantage of the data we have when assessing (for image selection) intensity of the storm at that time, in which case linear interpolation is silly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: What would be the consensus in the following entirely plausible hypothetical scenario? My method would support Image #2, whereas the one you just mentioned would support #1. As you correctly noted in your previous comment, tropical cyclones do not necessarily change in intensity at a constant rate. This renders the temporal proximity method illogical. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Time	Intensity (kn)
00:00	60
06:00	80
07:00	Unknown Image #1 taken
12:00	100
18:00	95
00:00	95
06:00	95
07:00	Unknown Image #2 taken
12:00	95

@ChocolateTrain: What are the ADT numbers? What would be the pressures? (tie-breaking is done by pressure). In practice we are going to have far more data than that. And also, that's why temporal proximity is a rough consensus and not an absolute rule. Pathological cases like this will always arise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Would you mind clarifying what you meant by not taking advantage of the data we have? Doesn’t that mean we shouldn’t use ADT numbers? ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No, we should. The double negative above was intentional.—Jasper Deng (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Ah, OK. I understand. Anyway, I think we’ve both said enough on this matter. We’ve made our opinions clear, and I don’t think anything positive will come of us discussing this any more. Hopefully we can return to the good, respectful working relationship that we had here on Wikipedia previously. I’ll seek your advice in the future for image-related matters. I hope I can be helpful to you in some way in the future as well. 🙂 ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Im not sure why your pinging me as I don't have a problem with you and i dont generally deal with TC imagery unless i have too. Oh and Jasper this is your Sunday notification that the JTWC BT is now out! :P Jason Rees (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Ha ha ha ha! Wow, that was a big fail on my part! I intended to ping Jasper, not you. Your names both start with J, you know, so I guess I had a mini brain fade. Anyway, I’m glad to know that you don’t have a problem with me! 😆 Have a good day, Jason. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACKUSE

Rollback should be restricted against vandalism-type of edits. This rollback goes against WP:ROLLBACKUSE. You should have undone the edit, with a relevant edit summary. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Two-child policy

To Jasper Deng from Tim Allen.

Dear Sir Would you please reinstate our addition to the Two Child policy page as it is a significant part of the subject & it is meaningful due to the 8000 global signatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhallen101 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Timhallen101: The long story short is, no, because Wikipedia is not for WP:ADVOCACY nor is it a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Plus, you didn't even cite a source (we need something more than a WP:PRIMARY source by the way, since it must receive reliable, significant, and independent coverage from others), and 8000 signatures is nothing remarkable (a petition to place a proposition on a ballot in California alone will get hundreds of thousands of signatures... about two orders of magnitude more).

You say "our"; please note that your account may not be shared among multiple people, nor may you edit on behalf of an organization (WP:ROLE). Please also read our conflict of interest guideline.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Thank you for answering

My contribution to the subject is not advocacy or rightgreatwrongs. It is simply adding to a subject.

8000 global signatures may not be remarkable but they are significant on a very important subject for mankinds future.

As for primary source if you want to be helpful, could you please produce it with my help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhallen101 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Timhallen101: well it sure reads like advocacy. I found nothing in a Google search but the change.org petition itself. Anyone can start one of those, making it a self-published source. It's the same reason why WP:GARAGEBAND is a thing. 8000 signatures is a pittance whatever the context, especially without secondary coverage of the movement. It will not be reinserted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir

One could say that all articles read like advocacy but that is simply personal taste.

8000 global signatures is not a pittance & that would be offensive to the 8000 humans that read & signed the petition.

If you had been more careful you would see there is secondary coverage of the movement on a Facebook site by the same name.

This subject is not a garage band.

Please reinstate it & help me with the processing of your source critercism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhallen101 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Timhallen101: I'm afraid I can't reinsert it in violation of Wikipedia content policies. Facebook doesn't matter as it is a self-published source as well. I can give numerous examples of petitions with orders of magnitude more signatures (not just the California ballot propositions) which have no mention on Wikipedia; the signature count does not merit it inclusion. Have a look at the entirety of our verifiability policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Halemaʻumaʻu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crater lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

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.

---

Do not edit war with my talk page posts[1][2]. You get to say what you will answer. You do not get to say what others can answer, o if I get to ask. It's not your page. I got many responses. I asked many questions for those responses. I've now asked a very clear question about the matter. Answer it clearly, or stay the hell away from it. Thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 14:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: with your action, you are the one who has picked up "the stick". Back all the way away from it and don't see it as anything to do with you if you can't answer the question. Is that *enough of a statement* for you to understand? Well you don't need to. ~ R.T.G 14:48, 17 December 2019 (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.

Atlantic hurricane

Just to explain my edit. With the most recent off-season storm being since the date quoted, the tense did not seem right to me. Maybe it is a US/UK thing? Red Jay (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"As of", meaning, the statement's veracity was last checked on that date, but it's reasonably likely the statement holds today (which it still does in this case). Thus the past perfect is the correct tense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for picking up the vandalism by multiple vandals that I missed when I only focused on the most recent edit and thought that only one vandal was at work. Donner60 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Climate of Alaska

Hello Jasper Deng. I see you changed my edit of Climate of Alaska "while in the winter, the temperature can fall below −50 °F (−45.6 °C)" The Fahrenheit temperature is rounded to the nearest 10°F, it's not an exact temperature, if it were exact it would perhaps read 50.5°F, We are talking about the whole state of Alaska here, therefore why the unnecessary precision for the conversion? Avi8tor (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The key word is “below” but not with your reasoning. It’s not a supremum of a set of measurements and thus not subject to measurement error.—Jasper Deng (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also point out the following from the Manual of Style "Whenever a conversion is used, ensure that the precision of the converted quantity in the article is comparable to the precision of the value given by the source (see § Unit conversions)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement Avi8tor (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And there is no talk of “precision” here because we are not talking about measurements. Thus that is not applicable.—Jasper Deng (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A temperature is a measurement ! If you look further down the page you'll see the record minimum and maximum temperatures, they are way colder than this. Here we have the temperature can fall below xx. The xx°F has no decimal place therefore by the manual of Style the conversion should have no decimal. If it states the temperature is in the 90's, that's a difference of 10°F or 5°C. Avi8tor (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Temperature is a thermodynamic state variable, independent of any measurements. This is an exact conversion, we do not need to needlessly drop the precision. Your only option is to get a third opinion because you clearly do not understand what a measurement is, versus an exact cutoff.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Circus Tube Fire 1984

Jasper you have deleted two additions I made to the wiki post about the 1984 Tube Station fire at Oxford Circus Tube Station can I ask why ? Dennis Joe Fallon (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Joe Fallon: Hi. Please read our verifiability and no original research policies. Long story short is, we cannot use information that can only be sourced to personal experience. Outsiders cannot verify it independently of you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)