User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2017/November

Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon (Nov 19) and global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month (Nov 1-30)

Sunday November 19, 10:30 am - 4:00pm: Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon

The Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ The Met will be the Metropolitan Museum of Art's second edit-a-thon, hosted on Sunday November 19, 2017 in the Bonnie Sacerdote Classroom, Ruth and Harold D. Uris Center for Education (81st Street entrance) at The Met Fifth Avenue in New York City. Following the first Met edit-a-thon in May 2017, the museum is excited to work with Wikipedia Asian Month for the potential to seed new articles about Asian artworks, artwork types, and art traditions, from any part of Asia. These can be illustrated with thousands of its recently-released images of public domain artworks available for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons from the museum’s collection spanning 5,000 years of art. The event is an opportunity for Wikimedia communities to engage The Met's diverse Asian collections onsite and remotely. Sunday November 19 Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ The Met (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 10:30 am - 4:00 pm in Bonnie Sacerdote Classroom, Uris Center for Education 81st Street entrance, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1000 Fifth Avenue Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Light snacks, drinks and cake will be provided. We also welcome remote participation for the global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month, running November 1-30. Thanks, and hope to see you at the museum, and/or as part of the online Wikipedia Asian Month contest!--Pharos (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Road Runner (ISP) Logo With Character Cropped.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Road Runner (ISP) Logo With Character Cropped.PNG. 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) 18:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Additions to "Water cycle" page undone -- Questions

Greetings Jeff,

I hope all is well my friend. Recently, my edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle was removed. (By the way, I greatly appreciate you reaching out to inform me of the retraction that was made, rather than doing so silently.) Here is what the page looked like prior to the retraction: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_cycle&oldid=809113647

As you can see, the part I had added, under the "Source of rain" section within the "History of hydrologic cycle theory" subcategory, is the following:

The source of rain is further discussed in the biblical book of Isaiah: "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so will My word be which goes forth from My mouth. It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:10-11).

My addition is not, IMHO, misplaced or out of context, as the section contains other biblical references (which are, as it happens, all appropriate) -- they all discuss the ancient Israelite's conception on the source of rain via their perspectives some 2,500 to 3,000 years ago, which is highly historically relevant in context of the ancient understanding of the hydrological cycle. The Isaiah 55:10-11 verses build on the foundation already in place within the subcategory in an important way. Namely, these verses appear to actually discuss an early understanding of not only the source of rain, but further, evaporation itself (". . .the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout . . .").

Notably, this quote is also from the New American Standard Bible (NASB), widely considered by many scholars to be the most literally accurate English rendition of the ancient Hebrew to date -- though perhaps at the expense of some elegance found within the KJV and similar translations. (For example: Daniel B. Wallace, American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, and founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, considers the NASB to be one of the go-to translations when "accuracy" is at stake.).

Is the problem, perhaps that I left in the allegory to the "Word of God" within the Isaiah passage, for purposes of context? At the time, I felt this would better inform the passage -- but I would be happy to remove it if you feel that to be necessary.

Overall, I feel that Isaiah 55:10-11 is a substantially important piece of data in the "History of hydrologic cycle theory" subcategory, and, on balance I cannot understand why it would be removed.

Any corrective action you could take or advise me to take (or alternatively, if you cannot, then a proper explanation therefor), would be greatly appreciated.

My apologies for the length of this message -- I am sure you are a busy man. I just happen to be passionate about this topic. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.38.132 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, I put your additions back in.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic Services

Well it isn't the same article but it's just as spammy as the previous one so I've deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out. Hut 8.5 16:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Jeff G.. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thank you, I have accepted the invitation and gotten the right.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Jeff G.. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)