User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2017/October
 | This page 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. |
The edit I made on the 2017 Atlantic Hurricane page regarding the intensity of Hurricane Nate is correct, as of the National Hurricane Center's latest advisory, they have Nate at 90 mph and 984 mbar. That is correct, so it would be appreciated if it would be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumballs678 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Gumballs678: Standard practice on English Wikipedia is to require each addition of new information to an article to be supported by a Verifiable Reliable Source. I do not know why no one is attributing the new data in their edits to this article (and others covering Nate) to the National Hurricane Center's current advisory on Nate. My edit was changed a minute after you saved yours above. — Jeff G. ツ 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Jeff, you need to slow down. The current advisory links easily suffice for WP:V and they are always updated with the newest information. WP:V does not mean "you must add a (new) source for every edit you make". It means merely that the content is attributable to a reliable source. If one has already been provided for said information, there's no issue. If you are unable to understand that, you quite frankly should not be doing recent changes patrolling. I'm saying this as someone who (long ago) committed the previous mistake; it does far less good to the encyclopedia to revert a correct edit than to check for yourself that it is actually correct and (only if needed) cite the source yourself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Jasper Deng: I haven't edited that page in 25 hours. — Jeff G. ツ 02:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Jeff, you need to slow down. The current advisory links easily suffice for WP:V and they are always updated with the newest information. WP:V does not mean "you must add a (new) source for every edit you make". It means merely that the content is attributable to a reliable source. If one has already been provided for said information, there's no issue. If you are unable to understand that, you quite frankly should not be doing recent changes patrolling. I'm saying this as someone who (long ago) committed the previous mistake; it does far less good to the encyclopedia to revert a correct edit than to check for yourself that it is actually correct and (only if needed) cite the source yourself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
why are you reverting all those stat updates?
They all look accurate to me when i check. Spanneraol (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: Standard practice on English Wikipedia is to require each addition of new information to an article to be supported by a Verifiable Reliable Source. Sourcing is especially important in Biographies of Living Persons. I do not know why that editor is updating ballplayer BLPs with unsourced information. As I noted in my edit summaries, those updates were unsourced. — Jeff G. ツ 01:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- The info box stat updates dont require a source. There is nowhere to put it in the info box.. and they can easily be checked from the stat links at the bottom of the page. Spanneraol (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: One can put the source in the edit summary, e.g. a URL or just MLB , NYY, or Yankees. — Jeff G. ツ 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- I really dont see a reason for it in the stat updates.. the source links are already in the article.. i've never seen anyone list a source when updating that. You could have at least checked if the edits were in error before reverting. Spanneraol (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: No, it is incumbent on the editor adding the info to indicate the source, if they want the info to stay. Willy-nilly changing of digits with no explanation is indistinguishable from vandalism, and shall not stand. Not on my watch as a pending changes reviewer. — Jeff G. ツ 05:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's pretty harsh.. and clearly not vandalism. I think you take yourself way too seriously. You need to use a little more common sense. I don't like the idea of deleting accurate info. Spanneraol (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: Really? Please read this log, {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}}, {{uw-unsourced1}}, and {{uw-unsourced4}}. — Jeff G. ツ 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- I get that you dont want unsourced information added.. I'm just saying in this case.. when updating the info box stats... that is always sourced to the mlb links at the bottom of each page so it doesnt need additional sourcing.. thus reverting it when the information is correct is rather unnecessary. Spanneraol (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: Tell that to Jimmy Wales, he spearheaded this. — Jeff G. ツ 01:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Your link doesnt work but i doubt Jimmy said anything about stats in sports info boxes. Spanneraol (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: Sorry, I fixed it. — Jeff G. ツ 14:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- That link says that misleading or false information should be removed. This isnt either of those. And the information is sourced.. at the bottom of the page in the stat links. Spanneraol (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: Sorry, I fixed it. — Jeff G. ツ 14:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Your link doesnt work but i doubt Jimmy said anything about stats in sports info boxes. Spanneraol (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: Tell that to Jimmy Wales, he spearheaded this. — Jeff G. ツ 01:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I get that you dont want unsourced information added.. I'm just saying in this case.. when updating the info box stats... that is always sourced to the mlb links at the bottom of each page so it doesnt need additional sourcing.. thus reverting it when the information is correct is rather unnecessary. Spanneraol (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: Really? Please read this log, {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}}, {{uw-unsourced1}}, and {{uw-unsourced4}}. — Jeff G. ツ 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's pretty harsh.. and clearly not vandalism. I think you take yourself way too seriously. You need to use a little more common sense. I don't like the idea of deleting accurate info. Spanneraol (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: No, it is incumbent on the editor adding the info to indicate the source, if they want the info to stay. Willy-nilly changing of digits with no explanation is indistinguishable from vandalism, and shall not stand. Not on my watch as a pending changes reviewer. — Jeff G. ツ 05:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- I really dont see a reason for it in the stat updates.. the source links are already in the article.. i've never seen anyone list a source when updating that. You could have at least checked if the edits were in error before reverting. Spanneraol (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol: One can put the source in the edit summary, e.g. a URL or just MLB , NYY, or Yankees. — Jeff G. ツ 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- The info box stat updates dont require a source. There is nowhere to put it in the info box.. and they can easily be checked from the stat links at the bottom of the page. Spanneraol (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition
| Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition | |
|---|---|
  This event is the concluding "upload party" to the Wikipedia @ Open House New York Weekend photo scavenger hunt, and an accompanying Wikimedia Commons tutorial and multimedia hackathon, Learn how to work with your photos to illustrate New York City articles! Note that this is part of the larger Open House New York Weekend activities on Saturday and Sunday, when sites normally closed to the public are open for public visits and photography. If you can, bring your camera/photos to the event, and a laptop if you'd like to engage in adding photos to articles. But this is not necessary. For photos from last year's event, see the OHNY campaign 2016 on Wikimedia Commons.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
| Wednesday October 18, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Rolling Stones Tongue Logo with white background.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Rolling Stones Tongue Logo with white background.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Symsyn concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Symsyn, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)