User talk:Jadeslair

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jadeslair. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Hi Jadeslair. I'm extremely concerned that you have a conflict of interest with at least some of your editing. Should we discuss it here or maybe at WP:COIN? --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not even been editing that much. Mostly when I get a notification. What are you talking about? Is this because I created that company page... the page was deleted last time I knew. I did not even contest it or anything Jadeslair (talk)

Thanks for the quick response. I've not looked at your article creations at this point. I noticed that your addition here to Acoustic foam was reverted earlier today. I did some cleanup to the article and noticed that unlike the other editors, you've been editing for some time now, making substantial and valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I thought you'd be familiar with WP:COI at this point. I'm assuming you have a great deal of expertise in many of the topics that you edit, and I'm surprised that you're still adding such sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A commercial source does not mean it is a bad source. Often they are the best source because of their expertise. I also link to studies but they lack real world information. I do not link to product pages or anything like that even if it has the information I am looking for. You removed the link, now the article is almost unsourced. That is the opposite end of the spectrum. With only one source we do not know if the article is even partially true. I think you have made the page worse. That is just my opinion. It takes may types of people to make wikipedia. Jadeslair (talk)

The problem is that commercial sources are usually very bad sources. They are self-published. They are biased. While you personally may have the expertise to identify the quality of the information in such sources, to any observer you're just picking and choosing from sources that all look like WP:REFSPAM.

Sorry to press you on this, but I was hoping you'd make some comment on any conflict of interest you may have. I'd like to get past any coi problems if possible. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have ant conflictsJadeslair (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Iam not an expert either. I did not know that was required now. Is it? Jadeslair (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not required, but thank you.

I'm assuming you have some expertise with sound management, and respect soundcontroltech.com as a source. However, of the sources you have offered, it is one of the worst. I have a hard time imagining that there aren't clearly reliable sources available of the quality you usually use. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Pratt-Pullman Yard concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Pratt-Pullman Yard, 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) 01:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag

Hi, Jadeslair.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I had stopped because I was unsure about what to do with most articles. I just saw the flow chart via NPR. Might be more active because I see some clear ways to handle pages now. Jadeslair (talk)

Good to hear that the flowchart is helpful in clarifying the process for you (I made the thing in an effort to try to codify a way for inexperienced editors to review a page when they might not be 100% on all the various parts involved, and to help when you get lost and don't know what you should check next). I'm sorry that things didn't go your way at PERM, I should have checked your activity level before suggesting it. I would recommend installing Twinkle and heading over to the Special:NewPagesFeed if you want to help out, as the NPR user right isn't required to do most of the review work (only the final step of ticking off the page). If you are keen to get involved, this would be a good way to get some experience with the project. The main pitfalls I would suggest you avoid are: don't over-tag articles (apply 3 tags maximum; even if others apply just pick the best 3), and be very frugal with CSD nominations (only CSD in the most blatant of cases, err on the side of caution and use lesser tier methods such as AfD and PROD instead if there is any doubt at all). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds Like a great Idea. Thank youJadeslair (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)