User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed/Archive 0

IPv6 - Addressing Section
You reverted revision 461890800 made on Nov 22 with the comment "verification failed". The information was sourced from the second comment on the blog, which is a comment by the Comcast blog author and states "We are taking IPv6 seriously and are able to provision shorter IPv6 prefixes. In fact, if a home router that is included in the trial provides the hint specified in RFC3633 we will honor the same, as part of our trial, up to configured maximum prefix length." 174.20.160.248 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Configured maximum prefix length" - that is the key here. RFC3633 said nothing explicitly about this. The maximum prefix length is likely to be /48,/56, or /64 (Comcast did not say which will be used in its final decision (after the trial)), and the latter case would allow no improvement over what we got.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I misread that section. I thought it said that they were provisioning shorter prefixes when requested, while Comcast only state that they are able to do so (and as you mentioned, they don't specify what the configured maximum prefix length is and it could be /64). Also, they are only giving out /128 in their current trial and only /64 in another trial that will start later this year (http://blog.comcast.com/2011/11/ipv6-deployment-technology.html). Maybe I'll see if I can find any information from Comcast subscribers that were in the trial.174.20.160.248 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not reliable sources, because their own experience constitutes original research.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Removal
Thank you for removing the vandalism on the Autism is a World page. 65.202.226.2 (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :).Jasper Deng (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Jimmy Neutron (character)" article & talk page - Removal of Wikia material
Wow, you're fast! I've never had a talk page request responded to so rapidly. Is this article on your 'watch-list' or whatever it's called? I have observed that some requests on talk pages (mine and other editors') may get responded to quite quick; others take almost a year or even more. I guess part of it was the obvious inclusion of wiki material that made it a noteworthy concern. Can I nominate you or award you for a "Lightning-Fast Request-Fulfilling" Barnstar? (Does anything like that exist?) I don't know how the Barnstar awarding works, but I think you deserve something like that. Maybe I'm just unaccustomed to such rapid response. At any rate, thanks again. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in fact watching it, after a vandal thought it was funny to call Jimmy a "rapist". Then I discovered this. Click the red heart above to reward barnstars, but we don't have a quick-reply barnstar because it's considered normal to reply that quick :/ .Jasper Deng (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Black Friday
I apologize for the recent vandalism to the article 'Black Friday (shopping)' however I congratulate you on your speedy correction at only two minutes since the change. I am currently writing an article for a university magazine about the accuracy of wikipedia articles for use as research. and my reason for vandalism was simply a test at response time. once again I apologize for the malicious act, and I would like to tell you that you have helped me prove a very valid point about the validity of wikipedia as a source of knowledge
 * WP:POINT?  HurricaneFan 25  23:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

dns forgery
It is rediculous, you have removed my change, which precisely stated "some", argumenting it does contain "many". Please read what you remove before any removal next time. --ser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serek (talk • contribs)
 * No, in your edit summary you clearly said "many". Besides, DNSSEC is only for DNS. Are you, in any way, related to DNSCurve?Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It shows you do not read changes, but only summaries. No, I am not related in any way, and I find your assumption offending, as you suggest I am not objective. --ser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serek (talk • contribs)
 * Because it seems that you were trying to promote DNSCurve at the cost of DNSSEC (WP:AGF - please don't make comments like "you don't read"), a technology that does not at all deserve the weight you've been putting on it (the point of view is directly proportional to media coverage).Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

LibreOffice.
Hello Jasper Deng,

Why did you remove the links to my video tutorial series of LibreOffice Calc and LibreOffice Writer. Although I am not affiliated with The Document Foundation, My video tutorial series are very good. Anyone interested in learning more about LibreOffice Calc or LibreOffice Writer will find them useful.

One thing I will say is the links were not working properly. I was trying to fix the problem when I notice you removed my links. I am new to wikipedia, so maybe I did not insert them correctly. Please advise on how to insert my links properly so they will not be viewed as spam.

thank you.
 * You shouldn't be adding links to sites you are affiliated with.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

World IPv6 Deployment Day v. Launch
It is not "Deployment", it is "Launch". Also, it is not a "Day" event. Go to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/, "deployment" used once and "Launch" used 13 times. "day" is only mentioned w.r.t. "World IPv6 Day".

Google for "World IPv6 Deployment Day" gives me 2 hits, one of which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_deployment the problem page. Google for "World IPv6 Launch Day" gives me 101,000 hits, some of which don't capitalise "day". Google for "World IPv6 Launch" gives me 703,000 hits.

Please fix this paragraph, or let me change it. Thanks. Jm493 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we can call it "World IPv6 Launch". Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 IPsec support
I notice you rolled back a change (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPv6&diff=prev&oldid=474324453) I made to IPv6. I would like to draw your attention to section 8.2 of the cited RFC (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4294#section-8.2), which states "ESP [RFC-4303] MUST be supported. AH [RFC-4302] MUST be supported." Neither statement implies that ESP or AH must be enabled, and no other part of the RFC states that ESP or AH MUST be enabled (ESP is clearly identified as optional: "Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional").

The statement "IPSec is mandatory" can easily be interpreted as a statement that IPSec must be enabled on all IPv6 nodes, which is inconsistent with the RFC's requirements. Replacing "IPSec" with "IPSec support" avoids this possible misinterpretation. Therefore, to maintain Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy, I strongly recommend "redoing" my change. Johnsmith4092 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅Jasper Deng (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 Privacy Controversy/Concerns
Thank you for your prompt response to my last message.

Can you please clarify your reasons for undoing (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPv6&diff=next&oldid=472695066) my edit to the 'Controversy' section of IPv6? I not certain what you are referring to when you say "those", how I'm faulting IPv6, and why IPv6's default method of address assignment wouldn't be relevant to a discussion of its privacy concerns.

My goal in making the edit was to more thoroughly investigate the privacy concerns (which seems to be the point of the 'Controversy' section--the heading seems misleading to me) caused by the IPv6's default method of selecting its IP address. I notice the section is currently flagged as possibly non-neutral--it certainly is the case that it lacks detail and is out-of-date. My edits provide a more comprehensive and current synopsis of the issue, making Wikipedia a more reliable and reputable source. I would recommend "redoing" my edit, or at least refraining from undoing my edits if I re-instate the Privacy Concerns section and make references to it in the Controversy section. Johnsmith4092 (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Web tracking is completely independent of the IP version. I'm not redoing this one because I don't believe what you added adds a lot. That neutrality tag was not because of this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded to your note on my Talk page. Look forward to hearing back. I'd like to respond to the points in your previous message, but per my other response, it's not certain yet that it'd be productive. Johnsmith4092 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to determine from your response if there is a personal conflict that needs to be resolved here. Could you please confirm/deny? Johnsmith4092 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal. Saying people can be tracked by their addresses is not a valid statement because this is still a problem even without IPv6.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's certainly true that IP-based activity tracking isn't IPv6-specific. I didn't intend for the fact that activity can tracked by IP address to be the main focus of the edits, which is why I only mentioned them in the first paragraph. My goal was to describe IPv6-specific countermeasures to combat IP-based activity tracking, particularly privacy extensions and their limitations. It didn't make sense to me to describe the countermeasure without describing the issue the countermeasure was designed to counteract.

Since the main goal of the edits wasn't clear to you, it seems like that readers would be confused as well. How might we communicate the same concepts in a more obvious manner? Johnsmith4092 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps mention that the tracking is not based on IP addresses?Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't understand. What sort of tracking would be both relevant to IPv6 and not based on IP addresses? Tracking based on IP addresses is the only kind of tracking that seems relevant to IPv6. Johnsmith4092 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, you have to specify that the tracking is not going to be a drawback of IPv6, especially since it's possible in v4.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. So, if I point that tracking based on IP address is a problem for any Internet Protocol version, are you satisfied with the rest of the edits? Johnsmith4092 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. It'll also help, if I remember correctly, to elaborate more on how the extensions work.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated. Look good? Johnsmith4092 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just be careful: A static IP address is not what you said it was. That just means the address doesn't change at all; it doesn't say anything about the MAC address usage.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in revising the edits, I realized that MAC address usage isn't a necessary component of IP-based activity tracking, although it makes it easier (hence the note in the second paragraph). A static IP address is a static IP address, no matter the method of generation. Anyway, I've changed the wording to avoid equating a static IP address with 'unique identifier'. Thoughts? Johnsmith4092 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.Jasper Deng (talk)

Mac OS X
Hi, I noticed you reverted the changes I made. I know I don't have a lot of experience with editing Wikipedia yet, but I think you were wrong to revert all the changes. I understand there is no registry on Mac OS X, but there is a Property List, which does become the equivalent of infected (DNA Changer, a Mac malware). How about a compromise? Instead of simply removing, "windows," from Windows registry, how about I add a section on how anti-malware for Mac works to remove the malware from OS X, since Mac is just as "infectable" as Windows is and the info should be included.

The reversions I feel were wrong include: Changed the wording of the first sentence to be clearer with definitions, as virus and spyware are classified under the umbrella term of "malware," and anti-malware was created to protect against this broader scope of infection, which includes viruses and spyware. After you reverted it, the section again reads, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection, to malware protection, and programs have been developed specifically to combat them," which could be misconstrued as being three separate infection types when in reality, malware includes spyware and viruses. I would like to change it back to what I wrote, since it is clearer, and I cited my source.

I changed the redundant expression "malware software" to "malware" since, by definition, malware is "malicious software" and is implied as such when writing the term, "malware" (not to mention being defined as such in the article's first paragraph), so "malware software" is unnecessary.

I changed "spyware" to "malware" in the same section. As reverted, it reads, "This type of spyware protection works the same way as that of antivirus protection in that the anti-malware software scans all incoming network data for malware software," which again can be misconstrued as if anti-malware only removes spyware. By changing it, it is clearer and represents that anti-malware removes all forms of malware, not just spyware.

Otherwise, the second issue you mention in the edit summary as to why you reverted states, "some anti-virus software also fixed system problems like disk cleanup," but I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not change or remove any content having to do with what this comment states. Can you explain that comment please? Thanks for your help (I'm in EST, so I may not respond again until tomorrow). JC.Torpey (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mac has no registry. I wholly agree with you on that. However, the fact that you cited your source is not relevant; some anti-virus software also include tools to help uninstall other things.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I have no idea why you are saying that. I didn't make any changes regarding uninstalling anything. The source I cited concerned my making the sentence clearer, and had nothing to do with the Mac info. I changed redundant expressions, rewrote two sentence to be clearer. That's it, so why do you keep talking about anti-virus software including tools to uninstall things? I am seriously confused by your commentJC.Torpey (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot that some anti-virus software can also do other things. Not all of them are dedicated to anti-virus.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you are making no sense. I simply want to know why you included that comment in the edit summary when you reverted my changes since your comment has nothing to do with any changes I made. JC.Torpey (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you can't claim that the focus was "solely" on viruses. I can't be any more clearer than this.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I think I understand. I didn't make that claim. It was already there, and it is still there, despite your reversion because I didn't write that. Look at the history, I simply rewrote what was there to read better -and then cited the part about what anti-malware can get rid of, since its not anti-virus we are talking about anyway. In its current form - the one you put it back to - it reads, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection, to malware protection, and programs have been developed specifically to combat them." So, its not cited as it is, and it still reads exactly how you are telling me it shouldn't. JC.Torpey (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. It says, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection," which essentially means the same thing. It means that the software is not "only" focusing on viruses and spyware as it was, but is focusing on the broader issue of malware now. What I wrote had the same meaning, but was clearer. I would like to compromise, though. I am going to remove the redundant expressions (change malware software to malware because of my reasons stated above) and not touch that part. One more thing, though; above, you aid that my source was not relevant. The source I used was to cite the statement about what anti-malware focuses on removing (that it and malware itself includes viruses and spyware), and is quite relevant. JC.Torpey (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides the grammar, nothing's wrong. You may add but not replace something with the source.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning of Extension talk:SSL authentication
Hi Jasper,

The extension talk page mw:Extension_talk:SSL_authentication is currently very hard to navigate, because of several obsolete discussions. Mostly several year old discussions, about using the extension with now obsolete versions of MediaWiki, and problems due to bugs that have since been fixed. To make it worse some discussions contain server logs, full copies of the extension php code and other bloat.

I did some cleaning and removed some obviously obsolete discussions. You reverted my edits saying discussions should be kept, or archived. However this is not what is documented on MediaWiki. Before doing anything I read mw:Help:Talk_pages and that page say "Delete discussions when they are out-of-date" and does not mention anything about archiving.

After your edit I have now found Help:Archiving_a_talk_page here on English Wikipedia. That method looks reasonable enough, I would have no problem with doing that instead. But if this is the way to do things then the current Help page on MediaWiki should be updated. Getting my changes reverted due to unwritten rules is rather annoying. I am a new editor, and will likely make more mistakes, but I actually do try to follow what is documented. Paran7 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not for me. In principal, I archive instead of deleting, but I don't actually find it that hard to navigate. At least we don't have to remove two thirds of the discussions like you did.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What yo you mean "Not for me"? I am not asking about your preferences. I ask why you revert edits I did while following what is documented in the available help text. The amount of deleted text is irrelevant, I would have guessed more than two thirds actually, all of it is still out of date, mainly concerning bugs and problems when using MediaWiki versions 1.8 to 1.12. Paran7 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as I wrote, I do not have a problem with the archive solution either. I just like to know what rules to follow. :-) Paran7 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

3D Chess non-specific-variant additions
If you are a 3D Chess player, then surely you have opinons and ideas about improving the generic area of the article. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm a player of a rough equivalent to ThreeChess and regular chess.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any opinion at this point... Also, I fear User:Ihardlythinkso has crossed over into vandalism, he can't just delete my quote can he? just because I am quoting him? 24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism, persee, and he shouldn't be doing that. However, it does tend to be rude to quote others in a content dispute.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How could it be rude to quote someone, if they are being two-faced for example, then that would be the exact thing to do. I have a lot of suspicions about why he is trying to derail the improvement. One of which is that he has advertising profits on one of the external links for those specific 3D chess variants listed. I haven't checked all the external links yet but I hope to get to that. I don't see why he has to be so impeding and discouraging, as though he has some invested interest in not changing the article for the better. Phrases like "insumountable" strike me as doubiously discouraging positive change. I just don't trust the guy anymore. That's why I added the RFC, to get other views, but I'm disappointed that no one has waded in to the discussion. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's not prohibited, but even if they are being two-faced (which I don't really think Ihardlythinkso is being here), you don't make it better by quoting them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(From the discussion on the other tab) He needs to be instructed on the difference between (for example) calling an action stupid and calling a user stupid. I think some idea he presented are nutty, he then insisted they were not his ideas, as though I called him nutty, which I didn't, but since he quoted them he chose to take it personally. It is much more of an insult of his own making by taking it personally. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC) If you have a good rapport with other Chess players that are editors - of all times - I think this would be a good time to ask their opinions. Thanks. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked for that before; just ignore him. I'm posting the RfC at WikiProject Chess' talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a copy of Batman's 3D Chess board here(website), what do you think about its addition to the 3D Chess article. I don't think it's a great example being that it is a level chess actually with the colums all the same color, but it is a novel/notable photo. I can't upload it myself, perhaps you could add it to wikimedia commons. Starting in the talkpage is fine with me. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First you're going to have to create an account and get it autoconfirmed. Then you're going to have to pass WP:NFCC - so no, you can't upload it to Commons, only to the English Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as long as it can be put in the article, I don't mind where or by who it is uploaded. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not doing it myself, because I'm not playing around with the file permissions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, but wait, you don't think Batman's 3D chess board is cool? It's a cool pic, no? 24.79.40.48 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do find it interesting, but is Batman the only possible theme?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of a theme, just that it is a good 3D Chess board example, and the context is popular/notable. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly prefer an image w/o such distracting stuff like Batman, especially since Batman is surely copyrighted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Classic Start Menu
Jasper Deng, please tell me... do you have the Classic Start Menu? I'm using Windows 7 Ultimate. (66.116.0.2 (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC))
 * No, since my Win 7 Ultimate computer is not joined to my AD instance.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's possible? I have Force Classic Start Menu enabled in GPO... The HomeGroup and Libraries icons go on the desktop, but the Classic Start Menu is not active. Supposedly it was removed from the code. (66.116.0.2 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Yeah, you kinda need to use AD and make everything in the GPO say use classic, I think.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... Well, ah, do you have a picture of video of this? I mean, you must've seen it before since you are describing it so well... I'm just wondering what it looks like (probably like Vista)? Thank you!! (66.116.0.2 (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC))
 * I don't have much experience forcing this because I like the new start menu.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you can't verify it then? :( The person who wrote on that page posted his or her information before RTM, so I am wondering if it still works... (66.116.0.2 (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

Willy Wonka
I would ask that you return my willy wonka piece of information to the password page - It's a fun and creative bit that helps to conceptually broaden what a person might consider "passwords" to be. A quick google search confirms that indeed this exists and it is in the film itself if you watch it - the film from the 70's. I certainly admit I don't know what constitutes a proper citation on here nor do I think I could find one if I had clear knowledge of the requirements, so I was hoping others could give it its proper coding rather than outright toss it. Don't be a techno-fascist! I really mean no harm but wanted to contribute.
 * Well, even if Wonka really did do that, this is sorta off-topic per Notability - and I'm not sure if it even meets the definition of a password (you have a source for that?).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gold Edit
Hej Jasper,

Saw you undid the gold edit. I just wanted to let you know my perspective on this. I have a bit of work experience with both thin films and colloidal (nano-particle) gold. Nano-particle gold has a transmission spectrum which is dependent on the size of the nano-particles (due to the types of surface plasmons you can excite).

The image I show in the article is a 30 nm thin film of gold - e.g. it is two dimensional. All thin films of gold have the same transmission spetrum (color) regardless of thickness. This is of course true until the film becomes so thick that one must treat it as a bulk material. Generally, nano-particles (e.g. colloidal gold) has a 3D geometry. It really is different physics in either case

/M
 * You're right. Sorry for that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No prob. I think it is hard to sort out the details in nanoscience. It is interesting - one thinks that gold is gold. Yet entire books have been written on the behaviour of thin films versus nano-particles and other nanoscale structures. Colloidal gold has some really interesting physics - there are even some crazy scientists trying to make nanoparticles into plasmonic resonant cavities. You cant get any of that out of a film unfortunately.

Edit: Put up a new picture and posted the complete procedure for making the film. I can see why materials did not like the first picture. The second one is a bit more realistic.
 * I assume both of you are professional in this field, but even so we need reliable sources - which would help readers avoid scratching their heads over this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)