User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 29
 | 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 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi
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.
Sorry for the disruptive edits I have caused but I don't understand whats wrong with them. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have been told numerous times that what's wrong with them is that the information in them is wrong, and you have no reliable sources to back any of it up.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can't find any reliable sources. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you mean that you can or you can't, but either way, MeteoFrance, the official agency for that basin, has not designated a new zone of disturbed weather. I frankly have no clue how you could have come up with the idea that either they or JTWC has designated such a disturbance because neither have.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I found it on JTWC possible tropical cyclones. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are just lying (this lists no disturbances anywhere in the Indian Ocean). And in any case, JTWC has no official status for any tropical cyclone basin and they are not the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center. So even if they did mention a disturbance, it does not get added unless and until the RSMC, MeteoFrance, recognizes it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- YesterdY THERE WAS. now it is not included sorry I looke yesterday added tropical depression by mistake now tropicl disturbanmnce. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- There wasn't yesterday either. Yesterday they listed Joaninha and nothing else. No other disturbances. So either way, you are mistaken, and your edits will not be restored.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I though I looked on there. it must been a different date. sorry for my distruptive edits I diserve a block. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even if JTWC recognized one, MeteoFrance is official for this basin and they have had nothing on the disturbance. Your edit very falsely claimed that they recognized a disturbance.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- So only MeteoFrance can officaly have a tropical cyclone for example Joaninha if JTWC foundn that but Meteo france didn't I wouldn't be a tropical cyclone. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please try again with more coherent English. You should not be writing an encyclopedia in English if you cannot write proper English.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm English!!! so of course I can. you bitch 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- So only MeteoFrance can officially announce a tropical cyclone but JTWC CAN'T. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @109.145.230.22: And yet your comment is incomprehensible. Clearly you're lacking in maturity so I'm not going to reply further. As a parting note, please read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Any further comments by you here will be deleted if they are not written in comprehensible English.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please try again with more coherent English. You should not be writing an encyclopedia in English if you cannot write proper English.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- So only MeteoFrance can officaly have a tropical cyclone for example Joaninha if JTWC foundn that but Meteo france didn't I wouldn't be a tropical cyclone. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even if JTWC recognized one, MeteoFrance is official for this basin and they have had nothing on the disturbance. Your edit very falsely claimed that they recognized a disturbance.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I though I looked on there. it must been a different date. sorry for my distruptive edits I diserve a block. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- There wasn't yesterday either. Yesterday they listed Joaninha and nothing else. No other disturbances. So either way, you are mistaken, and your edits will not be restored.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- YesterdY THERE WAS. now it is not included sorry I looke yesterday added tropical depression by mistake now tropicl disturbanmnce. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are just lying (this lists no disturbances anywhere in the Indian Ocean). And in any case, JTWC has no official status for any tropical cyclone basin and they are not the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center. So even if they did mention a disturbance, it does not get added unless and until the RSMC, MeteoFrance, recognizes it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I found it on JTWC possible tropical cyclones. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you mean that you can or you can't, but either way, MeteoFrance, the official agency for that basin, has not designated a new zone of disturbed weather. I frankly have no clue how you could have come up with the idea that either they or JTWC has designated such a disturbance because neither have.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can't find any reliable sources. 109.146.230.22 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Possible Tropical Low
G'day Jasper! I was just seeking your opinion on the matter of a possible tropical low that may have developed in the Eastern Region of the Australian basin. Yesterday (or whenever 04:30 UTC is for your time zone), the Bureau of Meteorology noted in their daily Tropical Cyclone Outlook for the Coral Sea that a 'weak low pressure system' had developed southeast of Papua New Guinea (the MSLP chart for the time of issue shows the barometric pressure to be approximately 1005 hPa). Now, they did not specifically mention that this low was a tropical low; however, I am inclined to assume that it may be, given that they are unlikely to mention it in their tropical cyclone outlook if it wasn't a tropical system. For example, there were three other low pressure systems located in Australian tropical waters at the time of issue, but none of those were mentioned in any of the BOM's outlooks, presumably because they were not assessed as being tropical. Do you think we should add this low to the season article? I'd love to know your opinion. ChocolateTrain (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Our general consensus has been to require an explicit "tropical low" designation from them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I contacted the BOM and they confirmed that the system is a tropical low. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hurricane Michael
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
"is not mentioned as supporting by Category 5 by any sources" - Jasper Deng, April 4, 2019. It was just upgraded to Category 5, here's a trout for you lol. Jdcomix (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Daulatpur–Saturia tornado
Sorry, I dont write english well. But the article, until the revision of "16:56, 24 April 2019 206.211.34.7", showed always "five deaths e 500 injuries". The single tornado claimed 1300 lives and 12000 injured. And the rest of the outbreak of tornadoes killed others five people. But the way that this excerpt from the article is written "but it was part of an outbreak which also saw another 1,300 people killed and 12,000 injured," it seems that there were 2600 deaths when in fact there were 5 more deaths in the remainder of the outbreak. Marcel Passos (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 12th Street Oakland City Center station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transfer station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
p-adic number
I'm quite sure you did not really read my contributions. They are not only good faith. Moreover, they were well sourced. Indeed, in enWP, there seems to be great ignorance with respect to the subject. But as far as I can see, very important people want to adhere to this stable status. (Don't know why.)
And in essence, p-adic numbers don't matter at all. So there is not even a need to wish good luck. --Nomen4Omen (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Nomen4Omen: "Well sourced" I didn't see you cite anything for your comparison of p-adic arithmetic to real arithmetic. Also, your "Arithmetic" section was not in compliance with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I'm not saying to not include such material, but as-is, we couldn't have it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
June 2019 WPTC Newsletter
|
Volume XIV, Issue 39, May 31, 2019  The Hurricane Herald is the arbitrarily periodical newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The newsletter aims to provide in summary the recent activities and developments of the WikiProject, in addition to global tropical cyclone activity. The Hurricane Herald has been running since its first edition ran on June 4, 2006; it has been almost thirteen years since that time. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from April 14–May 31, 2019. This edition's editor and author is Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs). Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article of the month, by Jason Rees History of tropical cyclone naming - The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back several centuries, with storms named after places, saints or things they hit before the formal start of naming in each basin. The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907. This system of naming fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of World War II for the Western Pacific basin. Over the following decades, various naming schemes have been introduced for the world's oceans, including for parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The majority of these lists are compiled by the World Meteorological Organization's tropical cyclone committee for the region and include names from different cultures as well as languages. Over the years there has been controversy over the names used at various times, with names being dropped for religious and political reasons. For example, female names were exclusively used in the basins at various times between 1945 - 2000 and were the subject of several protests. The names of significant tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Australian region are retired from the naming lists and replaced with another name, at meetings of the various tropical cyclone committees. Storm of the month and other tropical activity  Cyclone Fani was an extremely severe cyclonic storm that made landfall in Odisha, India on May 3. The storm achieved peak intensity as a near Category 5-equivalent cyclone with 3-minute sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph), 1-minute sustained winds of 250 km/h (155 mph), and a minimum central pressure of 937 hPa (mbar). Fani caused over $1.8 billion (2019 USD) in damage in India and Bangladesh and killed at least 89 people.
New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter in April 2019 More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in April 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned. To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions! Editorial for welcoming new users, by Hurricanehink Every year, editors new and old help maintain the new season of season articles. The older users are likely used to the standards of the project, such as how to Wikilink and reference properly. Newer users might make mistakes, and they might make them over and over again if they don't know better. If anyone (who happens to read this) comes across a new user, please don't bite, because with enough pushback, they'll decide that this group of editors is too mean, and unfun. This is all a volunteer project; no one can force anyone to do anything. We're all on here because of our love of knowledge and tropical cyclones. If you find someone new, consider using the official WPTC welcome template - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Welcome. I also encourage that if you know any tropical cyclone researchers, please speak up and try recruiting them to edit. Veteran editors can't keep editing forever. Life gets busy, and the real world beckons! Member of the month (edition) – Yellow Evan  Yellow Evan has been involved with WPTC since 2008. Since the last newsletter, Yellow Evan has taken 5 typhoon articles to good article status as well as created 2 more. Overall, he has created and/or significantly contributed to more than 130 good articles. Your work in the Western Pacific Basin is invaluable... Thank you for your contributions! Latest WikiProject Alerts The following are the latest article developments as updated by AAlertBot, as of the publishing of this issue. Due to the bot workings, some of these updates may seem out of place; nonetheless, they are included here. Today's featured articles
Did you know
Featured list candidates
Featured topic candidates
Good article nominees
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles for creation
Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!
This section lists content that have become featured, articles and lists, since the past newsletter in mid-April 2019.
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: News & Developments
New articles since the last newsletter include:
New GA's include:
Current assessment table Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics.
From the Main Page From the Main Page documents WikiProject related materials that have appeared on the main page from April 14–May 31, 2019 in chronological order. WikiProject To-Do Project Goals & Progress The following is the current progress on the three milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. They can be found, updated, at the main WikiProject page.
|
Word meanings
You undid an edit of mine, saying "falls under WP:CALC; this is important for readers since the term is restricted to tropical cyclones today, but back then also could cover extratropical cyclones like the European windstorm here". Firstly, calculations involve numbers, not the meanings of words. Secondly, check any dictionary to see that the meaning of the word "hurricane" is not restricted in the way you seem to believe. 94.66.221.72 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @94.66.221.72: No. "Hurricane", per the World Meteorological Organization, explicitly means a tropical cyclone with 1-minute sustained winds of at least 64 knots in the western hemisphere. This already has consensus so I have undone you again and you will have to take it to the talk page. Note that what I meant by "CALC" is more a WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue sort of thing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- etc etc. Presumably you are not a native English speaker and thus do not know that the word has a specific meaning to meteorologists, and a general meaning in everyday use. Instructions on how to interpret particular words are original research. But now you're saying that the meaning is so obvious it doesn't need citing? I begin to think you're being disruptive. 94.66.221.72 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- "not a native English speaker" you're being funny; even if you were right (you're not, by the way;l I'm a native English speaker), that ad hominem argument would be fallicious. "Hurricane"'s established modern usage, as demonstrated by the preponderance of reliable sources, is tropical cyclone, which is why we redirect it there. Dictionaries are not the only sources that matter. And no, etymology is definitely not original research. "you're being disruptive" – please read WP:AGF a little and reconsider your participation on this project if you are unable to hold yourself to that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- I assume good faith until I see evidence for bad faith. Putting original research into articles is an act of bad faith. Instructing readers on how to interpret a word is contrary to the core policies of the encyclopaedia.
- And noting your seemingly poor English level is not an ad hominem argument; it's an unfortunate fact. Your claim that dictionaries are not reliable sources of the definitions of words is laughable. 94.66.221.72 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @94.66.221.72: Consensus was clear that this is not original research. And it is an ad hominem argument to assert that I am wrong because of English skills, which is not even correct, since my arguments would be the exact same if made by someone who doesn't even understand English. And you are wrong; when explaining historic usage of words when it is contrary to modern practice, the reader benefits and there is nothing that isn't verifiable. The reader is left to draw their own conclusion about what the speaker meant by "hurricane". "Your claim that dictionaries are not reliable sources of the definitions of words is laughable" – you again are engaging in a fallicious argument, this time making a straw man. I never said that. I said that they are not the only reliable sources. If you go to The Weather Channel or the National Weather Service websites, obvious reliable sources, their usage is the restricted one. Lastly, if you can't be WP:CIVIL I will simply not have this conversation, which in any case belongs on Talk:Tay Bridge disaster after I already showed you consensus in favor of that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- "not a native English speaker" you're being funny; even if you were right (you're not, by the way;l I'm a native English speaker), that ad hominem argument would be fallicious. "Hurricane"'s established modern usage, as demonstrated by the preponderance of reliable sources, is tropical cyclone, which is why we redirect it there. Dictionaries are not the only sources that matter. And no, etymology is definitely not original research. "you're being disruptive" – please read WP:AGF a little and reconsider your participation on this project if you are unable to hold yourself to that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Ujin-X
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.
1. I did not speak about bivectors.
2. Probably you need to reconsider the evidence about the inconsistency of the cross product.
3. As well as the definition of the inverse vector.
With your harsh statements, you spoil your reputation. Do not believe me, ask your friends. --Ujin-X (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you have tagged this userpage for speedy deletion as vandalism? ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Look at the history: it was created to impersonate someone else: see the edit summary here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive as in stating facts and proving links that prove the point?
Disruptive as in does not comply with your biased view? Where exactly does your bias on this issue end? --CuriousQuestions (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @CuriousQuestions: Your questions are off-topic, simply put, since they aren’t talking about specific ways to improve the article. You need to read every link I posted on your talk page in full, since they contain key facets of how this project operates.—Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"Your questions are off-topic" I never asked any questions, I stated facts. How can you make such a terrible mistake as that? The stating the fact about them giving Ricky Gervais (An animal abuser and murderer According to PETAs beliefs and stated on their website) an award is very interesting as "animal murderers" dont get awards from them EVER, but Ricky got one! Other "animal murderers" have not said they are going to donate 100m Pounds to animal charities in their will....
So PETA giving an award to a vile evil animal murderer (a person who typically they hate) is not interesting information to you?
I said improve the article by pointing out the contradictions and double standards about an organisation which you now claim is off-topic. You claim pointing out the contradictions and double standards of an organisation is against wiki rules! (nothing on wiki says that).CuriousQuestions (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Lesson time "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character!" I have not attacked your character, to prove PETA have double standard, thats an Ad hominem. How you view the topic and your own personal bias comes into your decision making is a valid point! (it is impossible for most people to be unbiased and objective on matters - Another FACT PROVEN by SCIENCE)!
Heres a simple question for you to prove my point (which im sure you will not answer, again why state a fact thats against what you want to claim?) Is a PETA member/follower going to ALWAYS be unbiased when working on the PETA article? YES or NO?
I noticed that you undo my changes on page IPv6 which is about this sentence.
Direct communication between the IPv4 and IPv6 network protocols is not possible
As far as I know now, there are many ways to communicate with IPv4 in IPv6.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martian097 (talk • contribs)
- @Martian097: The key word is "direct". IPv6 transition mechanisms require extra work on the part of the hosts, and an IPv4-only host will not understand IPv6 packets and vice versa.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Why
You reverted my edit. There is no citation. Why is one not needed? --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Pray
Hello Jasper Deng. The devastation to those poor people in the Bahamas is about to be unreal. 200 MPH gusts, 20 ft stormsurge, heavy rain, all lasting for hours and hours. So Please pray for those people! Please! It is a very sad situation. The whole island may be wiped off the map. Please pray for them. I do care for them.
Father God, I pray for the people in the Bahamas that will get devastated. Please protect all of the people in those areas, and that they can miraculously be safe when it is over. In Jesus name I pray, Amen
Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 12:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I am in no position to physically help them at this point; my only contribution is having gone there on a cruise 7 years ago (with my tourist spending).--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
barnstar
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For tactfully defending Hurricane Dorian from amateur meteorologists Chetsford (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC) |
- @Chetsford: Thank you very much for both this and the protection. In a stressful situation like this (for locals), it's important that we don't misinform readers, even though we're not supposed to be the source of info for disaster preparation purposes (somewhat like WP:MEDRS).--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Greetings
|
Nice to meet you ~ |
| ~ sorry ~ I only saw that "the approach" and wondered ~ ? ~ it's been five hours since the storm made land fall~ thanks for your humor ~ ("I appreciate it too") {lol} ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC) |
strongest vs most intense
Are strongest and most intense two different terms or are they the same? If they are different, what is the difference? Angela Maureen (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Most sources don't distinguish between the two.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Question
Hello Jasper. I just had a quick question. Am I ready to be an administrator? If not, what all do I have to do before becoming an Administrator? --Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 00:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Wyatt2049: I'm afraid the answer has to be no for now. I agree with the outcome of your recent WP:ORCP. Right now, your understanding of Wikipedia content policies is not very deep (content work as a criterion for adminship is meant to be an easy way to test whether you know them). Also, many editors believe you aren't mature enough – something that always needs time to improve. I would focus less on your user rights (such as reviewer, account creator, etc.) and edit count (so don't update it; I prefer the service awards as a better way to show experience without obsession over the count of edits, since after all it should be about quality and not quantity) and focus on just improving the encyclopedia. Revisit the admin question in a few years. I'm sorry that this is not the answer you are looking for, but RfA opposers tend to be strong with their criticism of what they view as unqualified candidates.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng: Okay. I will do that! Thanks! --Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 09:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
JTWC BT
- Guess what, it didn't come out yet! :P Jason Rees (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
My website
Jasper can you help me on my website Procyclone25 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The NHC
The National Hurricane center has NO official record of the Labor Day Hurricane wind speed. You’re making it up. I clearly included a reference from the NHC backing up my edit. I have connections in the NWS so I will get this page taken down if I have too. Goalie1141 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- So you didn’t look at HURDAT. The winds were deduced from its pressure in Atlantic hurricane reanalysis.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Jasper Deng, Thanks for the delete (it was humor). The reason I use tilde a lot, back in 2011 I had a motorcycle accident, lost a piece of my brain about 2/3 of the size of your little finger's finger nail. When I concentrate to hard I have seizures (of course I'm not allowed to drive a car any more). English was not my strong point in high school (so I did not go to college) and I joined the Navy instead. I worked on secure voice communications. Every communication had a stop to it (just like a telegraph message).I've learned though the years not to use punctuation to much ~ if I slow down on my edits I might be able to slow down on the tildes. but the summary is a place where you can't change your summary, so I use tildes ~ True story ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring at Rigopiano avalanche
Jasper, please note the outcome of the thread at the protection noticeboard. You and User:Porotoazul have each reached three reverts. You are risking a block if this continues. So far there is nothing on the talk page from either of you. In other words, there is so far no good-faith effort at dispute resolution which is visible to the admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hurricane Dorian Talk Page
I have opened a discussion about the lead sentence of Hurricane Dorian. Considering the fact that you reverted my edit, I figured I would invite you to reply. Oldag07 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 18 September 2019
 | This edit request to User:Jasper Deng has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add the ImtheoneKhaled investigation(blocked within 21 hours) 47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Moves without redirect
Take note that, as a global rollbacker, you are required to use the ...
per Wikipedia:Global rights policy. Moving a redirect into your userspace is clearly not related to counter-vandalism efforts and is therefore in violation of this policy. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
suppressredirect function[] on the English Wikipedia only in the context of counter-vandalism efforts
- I had forgotten about that requirement, but should note that my move seems justified per IAR, as the creation of an article in this case was time-sensitive. I won't do that in the future. @Pppery: IMHO, you should not police others' usage of rights if you're not an admin or (in this case) a global rights holder.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Why?. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)