User talk:Meatsgains/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Meatsgains. 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 5

←

Archive 7

→

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Meatsgains,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		Well done! 1,338 uses of the Page Curation tool. Keep up the good work! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thanks for the barnstar! Always appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rocket.Chat

I'd welcome your opinion on the discussion. Thanks you. Gabriel engel (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gabriel engel: I've responded to the AfD but suggest you read through WP:COI given your relationship to Rocket.Chat. Meatsgains (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I am conscious about WP:COI so I have tried to limit my contributions to the article and discussions with only adding references and media assets that I believe were uncontroversial. Please let me know if you feel that done anything wrong and I'll be happy to undo. Gabriel engel (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Meatsgains,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bob Barnes

Just so you know, I just undid some edits that you did to the article Bob Barnes several years ago. I basically had to roll the article back to an earlier state, so you won't be getting an "undo" notice on your alerts. Your edit had managed to conflate the cartoonist that the article is about with another artist with a similar name, Robert Barnes. Bob died in 1970, Robert retired in 1999, so pretty clearly they are not the same guy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thanks for the notification. That was years ago, sorry for the mix up there! Meatsgains (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Refs

Thank you for filling in the bare refs that I had on the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (comic book)‎ article. I appreciate it.★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Happy to help. Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ellevio: sources

I did not find any sources for the basic facts about Ellevio on the Swedish article. The relevance is clear. --Per W (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Per W: Reliable sources covering the subject is how we establish notability. If you are saying that you cannot find any, the subject may not meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There should be such reliable sources since the company has nearly one million customers. I did not find them in the Swedish article though. I have not had time to look elsewhere. I realized that Ellevio did not appear in the template Energy in Sweden, so I added it and created the article.Per W (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just do a quick Google news search, which pulls up a handful of reliable sources that you can use. Meatsgains (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Black Diamond Capital Management for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black Diamond Capital Management is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Diamond Capital Management until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Fiera Capital Corporation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fiera Capital Corporation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiera Capital Corporation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cabayi (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Mudrick Capital Management for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mudrick Capital Management is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudrick Capital Management until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphan tag for Sage Kinvig

You have tagged the new Sage Kinvig article as an Orphan. Thank you for looking to the edit, but it is linked to from Ned Maddrell. Are you happy for me to undo the tag? Manx James (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Yes, feel free to remove the orphan tag. Meatsgains (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Los Solidos

Im still new at this, please feel free to help me build this page. PearlJam101 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@PearlJam101: I would suggest expanding the page with relevant content and provide additional sources to confirm the subject's notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Darsh Naidoo, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry, my mistake Atlantic306 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sunflower Seeds (artwork)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sunflower Seeds (artwork)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in Talk:Sunflower_Seeds_(artwork)#Merger_proposal. Thank you. Mduvekot (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

GA articles

Perhaps I should not have started a review of Belief bias, but instead added standard talk page comments on improving the article. I have a background in cognitive psychology, but have not kept up with all the research, and frankly had never heard the term before. My personal opinion, even if supported by academic expertise, is irrelevant to writing WP content, but it does determine what I think is worth my time as a contributor. I recognize when research is being done within one sub-discipline that may be at odds with the approach of other academics. The paradigm of experimental social psychology is to gather data by running controlled experiments using college undergraduates as subjects, something I actually did while earning my BA both as subject and as researcher in classes. The research on the belief-bias effect appears to take a narrow approach in using a single task, the evaluation of logical syllogisms, as its only tool for testing a number of theories on the relationships between prior knowledge and the evaluation of logical validity. Some of the references note the problem of determining whether the results indicate bias, lack of understanding of the task, or shear laziness. It is not clear to me what all of theories being tested are, in spite of the literature reviews in some of the primary sources, but it is clear that there are multiple competing theories, including some that think that the entire enterprise is on the wrong track, since few use formal logic except those trained to do so. Some of the articles admit that the results of their research is to cast doubt on some theories, but not firmly support alternatives. This counts as progress in primary research, but is problematical for an encyclopedia article. Thus I stated the need for secondary sources to provide an overview of the topic that indicates the current consensus. It may well be that no such overview exists, and the topic is nowhere near a consensus that could be stated in the clear language appropriate to a WP Good Article. It would not surprise me if the other articles that you have nominated for GA share this problem. It comes down to a personal philosophy regarding editing WP. Taking small articles about specific aspects of a larger topic and trying to elevate them, when the main articles are a mess, is contrary to my approach. Instead, I am more interested in working on the main article on Cognitive bias.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and apologize for ghosting on you in the discussion. I've been very busy lately with other pages and traveling. That being said, can I ask why you believe Belief bias is "irrelevant to writing WP content"? Meatsgains (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC

In case you didn't see, I made some comments. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Sorry, for just getting back to you. I now see your comments (thanks by the way) but unfortunately the FAC was closed due to my delayed response... Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belief bias

The article Belief bias you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Belief bias for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WriterArtistDC -- WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC

Yes, you can renominate as many times as you want, but there is a minimum 2-week wait before an editor can nominate a FAC if their nomination has been archived. And yes, addressing the concerns before nominating is vastly preferable and usually results in a smoother ride next time. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Distinction bias

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Distinction bias you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr. Guye -- Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Distinction bias

The article Distinction bias you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Distinction bias for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr. Guye -- Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

About becoming an administrator

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)