User talk:Spintendo/Archive 1#A barnstar for you!

File:Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(It's nothing to be concerned about.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

:PS — sorry, accidentally included this in a closed discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keddie_murders&diff=810084486&oldid=810083036 the distinction] ... the lede of familicide doesn't make it as clear as it should that the term refers only to murders of members of families committed by other members of said families.

I have reverted other such edits that I have made, as well. I have been working on Dardeen family homicides for that case's 30th anniversary at the end of the week, and, noticing the many other articles in the "unsolved mass murders" categories where families constitute all or most of the dead, I had thought of creating a separate "family murders" category, but then the wording of that lede convinced me otherwise. I now see my original intuition was right. Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|user:Daniel_Case}} You're correct that the familicide article's lead statement was vague in its description of the phenomenon's perpetrators. The article does state {{tq|"Familicide differs from other forms of mass murder in that the murderer kills family members or loved ones rather than anonymous people."}} but this statement does not occur until halfway through the article; when it does, it introduces more ambiguity by failing to state the familial connection with certainty (i.e., {{tq|"the murderer kills family members rather than anonymous people"}} could be interpreted as meaning that the killer kills people who are themselves related — and thus, not anonymous people to each other — while still being a stranger to those he or she is killing). I've edited the lead in an attempt to remove this ambiguity. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  08:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, I had not noticed that lovely Alien-themed barnstar until I saw that my own user page looked slightly different! It feels wonderful to have my efforts appreciates, as I only wanted to see articles that deserve good treatment to shine in such a way. Recognition really is a great motivator, so you have my most sincere thanks. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm assuming that your comment on WP:MOS and my simple mistake corrections is referring to me? I'm sorry for being unaware of that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. So, when correcting simple spelling/grammar problems, should I simply mark it as minor and leave the comment box blank? Please let me know by sending me a talkback and/or leave a comment on my talk page. Thanks for the heads up. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|User:LABcrabs}} How you decide to proceed is completely up to you, as you are the editor who presumably knows most about the article and what would work best.

::The passage in question which brought the Common Mistakes WikiProject to the BarlowGirl page was the following:

{{tq|"This from from my super wise sister. And what she's saying is real good."}}

{{tq|"If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template {{sic}} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment, unless the slip is textually important."}}

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!

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Spintendo. 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)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Hello, Spintendo. Thanks again for your assistance with this edit request. I did have one question about the last part of the request, if you have a moment. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

::{{Ping|User:Inkian Jason}} Thank you for your question. In regards to Request #4, the information in the Fortune reference originated on GreatPlaceToWork.com. Under their [https://www.greatplacetowork.com/user-guidelines User Guidelines], it states, in part: {{tq|"You acknowledge that the Site contains the opinions and views of other users for which GPTW is not responsible. You acknowledge further that GPTW is not responsible for the accuracy of any User Content posted on the Site. You understand and agree that you shall evaluate, and bear all risks associated with the use of any User Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such User Content."}}

::While the Fortune piece does state that GPTW collated the data for their survey ({{tq|"Fortune partner Great Place to Work surveyed employees in offices across the planet."}}) the information provided by GPTW does not reasonably assure a difference between an authority at GPTW as the single source of the information, or a simple user, as defined in their User Guidelines. Therefore, it cannot be stated with certainty that the information appearing in the Fortune piece is accurate. Needless to say, the most reliable surveys are ones where the methadology used is subject to peer review. Wikipedia strongly suggests using surveys of this kind.

::Regards,

:: Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Thanks for reading over my requested edit to the WalkMe page. I just went in and added more references to news articles and other website lists to better support the information I included. Could you review and let me know if there are any other changes I should make to ensure my edits are a fit for Wikipedia? Thank you!

Sylvia Rosin (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

:{{Responded}}  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Based on your feedback, I revised my edits to the WalkMe page (edit from Dec. 12). Could you please review? I would like to replace the existing sections with the new sections in the Talk Page. Thank you very much.

Sylvia Rosin (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

::{{Check mark}} Responded at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

I just edited my request per your notes. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvia Rosin (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

On the talk page for Hepatic Encephalopathy, you declined and posted link for “what Wikipedia is not”

The requested edits were to add external links to the page. I don’t believe you actually looked at the links provided. First, they don’t violate anything within that policy (if I’m wrong, please quote the section that applies). Secondly, I’ve seen hundreds of pages with similar such external links. Third, if al links to YouTube were meant to be blocked, the links wouldn’t be allowed by the editing engine. You type in the URL incorrectly and it will reject the edit, but YouTube is not rejected.

Could you please provide a more detailed explanation?

I appreciate your guidance.

The links Tmbirkhead (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you for your message. While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, all external links to video sites still must abide by the External Links guidelines. (See {{section link||Restrictions on linking}} and {{section link||Links normally to be avoided}}.) Those guidelines state that when considering external links, proposed videos such as yours should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis, in order to ensure that the videos hosted on YouTube meet the standards for inclusion. In my opinion, the subject matter surrounding hepatic encephalopathy warrants additional vigilance above and beyond that which would normally be the case, in that many readers of that article who have gone there in search of medical information deserve the utmost care and respect by ensuring they receive the most accurate information possible. While this is not meant to impugn the hard work that you've put into your videos, I'm sure you'll understand that the possibility of yours or anyone else's videos inadvertently providing information that could be misinterpreted by those individuals watching them, causing them harm, is much too great a risk to entertain. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your help with my COI edit requests have been incredibly helpful, and I appreciate the input / hard work. Even more so since I know you are not getting paid for your time helping me out. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I added additional ref... also I would like the 501c(3) listed in the infobox like it was I added the ref for it... also, there is a magfest is/not a donut edit war (been going on for sometime)... the line up was copied from one of the sources directly and as not to use primary sources I looked for more than one source.

Can I with a COI just add references to the page... as I know the page needs it as it heavily uses the orgs website as a reference?

Msg4real (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|User:Msg4real}} {{donetask}} 501(c)(3) status and current artist lineup for MAGFest 2018 both {{added}} to the article.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  08:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you being so hostile, cryptic and unhelpful to new editors who want to improve this article with content from good sources like New York Times, Washington Post and Forbes ?

If there is something wrong, either you can fix it or describe to me exactly what is wrong so I can attempt to fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelpetersen (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

1. The text that you most recently submitted is still insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, as shown above.
2. The parts of text you've attempted to rewrite yourself do not meet the standards set by WP:MOS (i.e., {{tq|"Saylor, once a high-flying tycoon, dropped billions in notional worth.."}} That type of text is not encyclopedic in tone.
3. A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not adding content to an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Due to these requirements, a person associated with alleged criminal events need not have such events mentioned in the article concerning them, if the event is already mentioned elsewhere. As I understand it, these events are mentioned in the MicroStrategy article.
4. Persistently adding information improperly paraphrased or fashioned in an improper tone may be considered vandalism in WP:BLP articles. Taking the information you wish to add and placing it in the talk page, therefore opening it up to community discussion, revision and consensus, is your best option for including it in the article. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  07:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Thanks so much for editing the University profile following my comments in the page's talk section. I'm really grateful. I'm just trying to feel my way towards understanding what content works. i was a little surprised to see the subject of both the Queen's Anniversary Prize and Regius Professor were removed as I would have thought knowing that these awards were, respectively, for social science research and political science would have been helpful to a reader. Other entries mentioning Queen's anniversary prize awards mention the area of expertise e.g. Newcastle University. As mentioned I'm feeling my way and your support would be helpful. Look forward to your feedback.Ben Hall at Essex (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

::These have not been removed. I see now what you mean by "subjects of both" (prizes). Both of the texts added to the article now state the following. Under 2000 to present: {{tq|"On two occassions Essex has been awarded the Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education, in 2009 for its "advancing the legal and broader practice of international human rights," and in 2017 for its "authoritative social and economic research to inform the policies of governments for the improvement of people’s lives."}} Under Regius professorship it now states {{tq|"In 2013, Queen Elizabeth II conferred upon the University the Regius Professorship, recognizing "50 years of excellence in research and education in political science at Essex." The first Regius professor was David Sanders of the Government Department, who held the post from 2014–2017. In December 2017 Kristian Skrede Gleditsch was appointed as the second Regius Professor."}}  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  23:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

:::Thanks so much for these edits. It has really made me happy that you responded positively to my comments. Thank you once again.Ben Hall at Essex (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

{{collapse top}}

Hey, thanks for handling the requested edits from Dodds_Writer. As you appear to be far more experienced in the ways of Wikipedia, would you mind checking over the edits that I had previously accepted as part of this request so I can feel more comfortable that I didn't accept any changes I shouldn't have? Thanks! Linearizable (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

::Is that request the one under the heading of Request to update "Technology and products" shown →here←?  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  00:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

::# The first request addition is problematic because the COI editor has not provided you with the page number of the source for this sentnec: {{tq|"Teradata offers three main solutions to its customers: cloud and hardware based data warehousing, business analytics, and ecosystem architecture consulting."}} I would have declined it on that aspect.

::# The second request addition states: {{tq|""In September 2016, the company launched Teradata Everywhere, which allows users to submit queries against public and private databases. The solution has a code base using massively parallel processing across both its physical data warehouse and cloud storage, including managed environments such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, VMware, and Teradata's Managed Cloud and IntelliFlex."}} This is problematic because the editor is copying the phrasing used by the sources, only taking care to change the order of the words used while keeping intact the spirit of the original author's phrasing. This is plagairism. Take a look:

{{reflist-talk}}

::Notice that in the first example above, all they did was change Amazon and Microsoft to Public and Private databases. Substitute those two things and you essentially have the same sentence. In the second example above, they've taken a new 2nd source ("massively parallel processing..") and blended it with the prior 1st source they used, specifically, the part about Amazon and Microsoft — but this time they leave it as is, blending it on to their newly created sentence combining the two sources. You can tell its a hybridized sentence because it ungrammatical — try reading it aloud a few times — its cadence is very odd sounding, and difficult to even read very quickly. In the third example above, it's the same story — they've copied the exact phrasing used by the source material. In fact, by this point they don't even bother changing the main words around. As you can see, its almost verbatim, though a few of the minor words are changed ("deployment options" vs. "storage" which are practically the same things). In the end, they must feel that because it is a very short sentence, they can get away with doing it. But if they're getting paid to do this, then it should at least be real work that they're doing — rather than copying others' work. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  01:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

I hear you're clearing the COI edit request backlog. Good for you! EEng 03:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

:Thank you. As of this posting, the COI edit request queue stands at zero — the first time it's reached that number in over five years. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Spintendo, thanks very much for the advice. Just new at this, will do my homework and do as suggested. (I'm amazed I got this far)

Rexb9 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

:You'll be please to hear that, thanks to Spintendo's efforts, the edit request queue is currently a lot shorter than in was when you made you first request, {{u|Rexb9}} (single figures rather than triple!). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I know I'm jumping around a few different talk pages but I plan on addressing each one over the next few days. Thanks for the patience. JacobMW (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering you were the one that responded to my article, I am reaching out for your help. I am trying to create a Wiki page about the company I work for but have been turned around a few times now. When I went to create the article I read that if I had a personal connection to the topic that I should post it in the 'Talk' section and have someone edit it for me. I have done so and now you have responded telling me that this is not accurate. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FisherIDO - for your reference)

Since you seem to be a knowledgeable individual about Wikipedia's inner workings, I am asking your assistance in posting my article in the proper place so that 1. It can be reviewed and edited, and 2. Ultimately be posted.

If you could steer me in the right direction with the proper steps to get this article to the right place I would appreciate it.

FisherIDO (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I responded to them on the talk page if you care to participate. You are welcome to the discussion. Cheers! Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope you're having a great holiday season, Spintendo. Thank you again for being so responsive with my edit requests and volunteering your time to implement them. I wanted to ask you: what would be the easiest way to respond back to your changes? From my understanding, some of them were not implemented as they do not follow best practice but I feel some of them could be easily fixed. I also had questions on some of them but would hate to be that much of a nuisance and would rather ask you the best way that I can meet you half way and not be too annoying. Let me know. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

::Requests belong on the article's talk page. If I'm answering them, it's not a nuisance. Placing the changes underneath the comments works for me. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

:::Great, just wondering in general. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

::::On the same topic, any tips for submitting articles through AFC? I intend on submitting future new articles there but just wondering if you have any tips for someone in my position. JacobMW (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Spinoza, will you take a moment to look at my additional comments concerning the COI request if they haven't been fullfilled? I marked them again as COI Request to edit, and am unsure if this was the proper way to add more information to the request. First off, I am the Secretary of The Flat Earth Society. The main additional point is that our societies name is "The Flat Earth Society" not "Flat Earth Society". The new format clearly shows this. WakingJohn (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit more information I included on the talk page itself:

This format seems to match the previous agreement as well as implements the new changes that are clearly more readable, accurate, and chronological:

• The Flat Earth Society of 2004/2009
• The Flat Earth Society of 2013
• The International Flat Earth Research Society

To recap, it accurately names each organization, instead of the current inaccurate naming of "The Flat Earth Society" as "Flat Earth Society". It also shows them in a more readable format that clearly notes the agreed upon format, lists them chronologically, and increases readability. WakingJohn (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, your proposal sounds great from our end! Just wanted to thank you for taking a second look at it all and for your time on it in general! WakingJohn (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for your notes on Rodrigo Tavares article:

. I have formatted all citations to comply with the format you recommended. Many thanks for the tips. It looks much better

. I have deleted the content that was not supported by sources. The previous version indicated that he had been nominated StartUp Portugal Ambassador, but I couldnt find online sources (only a social media piece of news) to confirm that statement. I have also replaced the sentence "He started his career by assessing the social, economic and security impacts of regional integration and supranational arrangements" by "His first publications assessed the social, economic and security impacts of regional integration and supranational arrangements" - and added another early publication demonstrating just that.

. I have also took a bit of time to read User:Jytdog/How. Enlightening.

Revised version is in the Talk section - Edited Source (for some reason doesnt show in Read section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgvwiki07 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

fgvwiki07: hi, many thanks for your edits in the Rodrigo Tavares article. I have gone through all your comments and addressed them/replied to them underneath.

Hi, other editors have come in today and made changes that contradict the revisions we were making and some of the ones that you had approved and implemented. Would it be possible for you to take a lead on this? Otherwise we wont reach the end of the article! Also, the editions made today by the editors maintain that Rodrigo Tavares is a diplomat. This is utterly false. I just have the feeling that Im spending an incredible number of hours accounting for every single comment by editors and then the final result is, sadly, far from good, with false information being maintained while relevant information is cut out. Fgvwiki07 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The base article - the one that precisely covers all issues and suggestions from editors - is the one I posted on Talk pages this morning. Could you take a look at it please? Many thanks! Fgvwiki07 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

One final observation: as you can see, after so many contributions from editors, they wrote the sentence "in 2017 he was nominated as Young Global Leader by the Ministry of International Relations of Québec", but this information is false. The Quebec nomination was made in 2011 and the WEF one in 2017. The base article in Talk Pages is much clear (and trustwhorty!) Fgvwiki07 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo

Please reconsider your decision to decline my requested amendments.

1. This statement was originally included by one of your fellow editors: "Laurie Patton is an Australian media, IT and events industry executive most notable for having influential roles in the Australian nonprofit sector". There are numerous references to backup this statement, including: https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2017/06/case-mandating-governance-training-nfp-boards/, https://www.itnews.com.au/news/tv-exec-named-first-ceo-of-isoc-au-398187, https://www.itwire.com/telecoms-and-nbn/78194-is-laurie-patton-back-as-ceo-of-internet-australia.html, http://www.saxton.com.au/laurie-patton/, https://tvtonight.com.au/2010/04/ceo-quits-community-channel-tvs.html, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2614807.htm, https://www.itwire.com/people-moves/80337-patton-appointed-first-ceo-of-smart-communities-group-asca.html

2. At present my entry is inaccurate in that it implies I am still CEO of Internet Australia. I am now CEO of ASCA and here are two references to that effect: http://australiansmartcommunities.org.au/content/asca-appoints-first-ceo, https://www.itwire.com/strategy/80754-patton-on-broadband,-smart-cities-and-regional-australia.html

3. Regarding - He is chief executive officer of the Australian Smart Communities Association, "the peak body representing people and organisations spearheading moves to make our communities more liveable, more sustainable and more technologically empowered. How about... In 2017 Patton was appointed the inaugural CEO of the Australian Smart Communities Association, which describes its role as "the peak body representing people and organisations spearheading moves to make our communities more liveable, more sustainable and more technologically empowered". Reference: http://australiansmartcommunities.org.au/content/asca-appoints-first-ceo

4. Regarding - Internet Australia is the peak body representing Internet users, including business, educational, government and private Internet users. Here are some references: https://www.internet.org.au/about, https://www.internet.org.au/membership, https://www.itwire.com/telecoms-and-nbn/76731-laurie-patton-to-depart-internet-australia.html, https://independentaustralia.net/profile-on/laurie-patton,713

5. Regarding - While Deputy Chair of the NSW Film and Television Office (now Screen NSW) Patton initiated and led the first official delegation of Australian film makers to the Shanghai International Film Festival and headed-up exploratory negotiations with the China Film Group that led to the signing of an official film co-production agreement between Australia and China. Here is the reference: http://www.screen.nsw.gov.au/data/publish/7/arep0102.pdf (page 6)

Thank you

Edit0695 (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Responded}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, i"m confused about your message reverting an edit on Costa Cruises, specifically the reference to "Added material violates WP:CLOP. (TW))". All I did was reformat wikilinks in the body of the text and italicise ships' names. No idea what WP:CLOP is about. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Spintendo}}File:Farm-Fresh eye.pngYou are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Angelgreat#Costa_Cruises_02-JAN-2018. (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2018 (CST)

:::{{ping|Murgatroyd49}} It's nothing to worry about. The text that you made edits to was deleted because it violated WP:CLOP, which is a rule against adding text copied from somewhere else. This text wasn't added to the article by you. Rather, it was added by another editor, Angelgreat. When I removed their edits adding the text to the article your edit was removed as well, since it came afterwards, and was modifying text that was eventually removed. In the end you didn't do anything wrong — it was the other editor who made the mistake. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

::::: Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Spintendo}} STOP BLAMING ME FOR THIS! (talk to me immediately) 13:46, 2 January 2018 (CST)

Hi! Thanks for all your help with my COI edit requests for MathWorks. I'm sorry I didn't flag this sooner, but I realized one of my larger requests is still unaddressed. I've recapped it in my latest post on the Talk page here. If you're up for taking a look, I'd very much appreciate it; if not, just let me know and I'll reach out to other folks. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

::There is an awful lot of material there, and it's difficult to see what was left pending amidst what was already done. Placing whatever proposals were inadvertently left behind under a newer heading would greatly expedite the process of reviewing it. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

:::{{ping|MaryGaulke}} The final list of changes were implemented. Let me know if there are any more we missed. Thnx Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

::::Thank you so much, and I apologize again for missing this in the previous go-round. We should be all set. Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo -

I am hoping you can offer some additional guidance on a proposed edit that was rejected from the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M.J._Murdock_Charitable_Trust

I am referencing the section on the talk page titled "Proposed edits to provide additional factual, background to intro paragraph." I understand that I had previously submitted a collection of edits that were improperly formatted and too robust for consideration, which is why I struck out my previous edits (my understanding is it is against Wikipedia protocol to delete previous edits if they have received a response) and wished to only submit these edits to this specific section.

In that section, I proposed the striking of one fact that was inaccurate (that the Trust contributes to causes around the US. The Trust gives to nonprofits working in the Pacific Northwest).

I also requested that a handful of facts about the Trust be added to the introductory paragraph of the page (the first section that does not have a heading or title) to provide additional background and context to the Trust's work. These included things such as the area served, total grants made and additional programming offered.

The only feedback I see is that the request was declined because it was "not specific enough," but I'm not sure how to clarify this further. According to my understanding of Wikipedia Formatting, the proposed additions show what content should be struck, what should be added and what citations to reference. There are notes below a different section that was submitted by a different editor ("3 Jan 2018 deletions") but I don't know that they apply to intro paragraph section.

I am a relatively new contributor here and am trying my very best to utilize proper formatting and follow all necessary protocol, so I would greatly appreciate any guidance you can provide here that would help me make more effective contributions.

Respectfully thanking you in advance.

ColbyReade (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

::This is correct. Your request makes it difficult to discern what it is that you want done to the page. Striking out a small portion of text can be beneficial, because it helps others to know what is being rejected, or what is not wanted, needed, or workable. Conversely, keeping a large amount of text stricken out on the page can work as a distraction, making it difficult for other editors to see what is going on. My suggestion is that you begin anew with a different section. In that new section, you should label each request like so:

1. This way you are providing others with a roadmap.
2. Telling them which step is taken first.
3. Which step is taken next.
4. And so on, and so forth.
5. Once editors know which direction you are going, it makes it easier for them to follow along. To ensure this you need to make sure that each step of the way you are clearly stating what it is that you want added to the article, where it is to be located, and the reference for it.
6. First off, you want to state whether or not that information is being placed in a new position where no other text exists in one step (i.e., the placing of text)
7. Or is it being placed next to something in two steps (i.e., the placing of and then moving of text)
8. Or possibly is it in 3 steps (i.e., the placing, moving, and deleting of text)
9. When steps are delineated in this fashion, it makes it very difficult for an editor to get lost. They know exactly what is to be done, how it is to be done, and why it is to be done.

::Having edit requests which are simple and understandable makes the process of creating a great encyclopedia flow much more smoothly. I look forward to working with you to affect these results.

::Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

::::Thank you User:Spintendo this was incredibly helpful.

::::I have followed your guidance and submitted a fresh request under a new section on the talk page titled "4 January 2018 proposed revisions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M.J._Murdock_Charitable_Trust#4_January_2018_proposed_revisions

::::Would you be able to take a look and let me know if this is more on track?

::::Also, I am well aware that my previous attempts are cluttering up the talk page (this includes the four sections that are now struck through at the top of the page "Some Proposed Changes," "Intro Paragraph," "Criticism Section" , The section titled "Request Removal" and the section titled "Proposed edits to provide additional factual, background to intro paragraph" )... is there a way to request that those be removed or archived? I don't want to strike them from the record or anything improper, they are just no longer relevant and I'd like to remove any possible confusion for future edits.

::::Again, I greatly appreciate your help.

::::ColbyReade (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade

{{unindent}} Per your request, past proposals have been placed under an Extended content section. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Spintendo

I just wanted to stop by and say thanks so much for looking over my proposed edits to the Public Interest Research Group wiki. I'm new to editing (as you probably guessed) and your comments have been very useful in improving the readability and accuracy of my suggestions. I've tried to correct my proposals to your specifications.

I love the factual rigor of the Wikipedia community, and I'm absolutely hoping you'll let me know how else to improve the particular edits on the PIRG Wiki, and my Wikipedia editing chops in general.

Cheers-

Rjxca (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

::Thank you for your message. Just a reminder, here at Wikipedia it is customary to use an editor's unformatted name when referring to them in a talk page conversation. The other editor's stylized signature is for them to reproduce only, not for others. I look forward to working with you on your COI edits.

::Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

:::Apologies for using your signature without permission. I have a lot yet to learn about Wikipedia decorum.

:::I'm writing again because I just realized you don't get flagged that I've made additional edits without changing the ans=yes parameter, but I couldn't quite find how to do that. I've attempted to implement your edits on the Public Interest Research Group talk page - would reposting my changed requests as a new section on the talk page make our conversation easier to track/preferable for you?

:::Thanks so much again! Rjxca (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

{{unindent}}All changes should be made on the talk page. Then, to notify other editors that changes are ready for review, add a new template under a new heading like so:

Thank you, thank you, thank you for all the help in managing the COI edit requests. It's quite an undertaking to not only take on my edit requests, but also everyone else.

I just wanted to touch to follow up on a couple things. Feel free to get around to this whenever you have a moment, no rush:

1. Formatting on Studio71 article.
2. Comments on Arne & Carlos article. Goal here is to just expand from stub mode - that's it.

P.S: I see you're based in California. Whereabouts? Just curious. I am based in Los Angeles myself.

JacobPace (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Arne %26 Carlos, I replied to your comments on the talk page.
2. Studio71, I assume "formatting" refers to the remaining maintenance template at the top of the article. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Studio71&diff=next&oldid=812089622 this diff], that template was added by SamHolt6. I urge you to make contact with them to resolve the issue.

::Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the prompt reply! I will get back to your comments ASAP. In regards to formatting, I was actually talking about the bullet points. Here was my reply on talk for reference: {{tq|As I'm interested in always improving how I work on Wikipedia, could you quote the specific part of WP:MOS that it is in violation of? Yes, if you could remove the bullet points that would be much appreciated. I've never seen a Wikipedia article structured like that which is my personal (and the client's) point of reference}}. Thank you as always! JacobPace (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

{{unindent}} WP:PARAGRAPH and MOS:EMBED. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

:Thanks. What can be done to remove these bullet points? I've never seen a Wiki article formatted like this. Could we add some sentences in? JacobPace (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

::MOS:EMBED is the best place to begin. It explains about the different types of lists which are available to be used in an article's mainspace, and in what circumstances they likely might need to be used. It also provides examples of different styles of lists, as well as examples that show combinations of lists used in tandem with traditional prose. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

I wanted to inform you that I've updated my requested edits to the WalkMe page, per your comments. Could you please review them? Additionally, I wasn't sure how to change the edit request template ans parameter from "ans=yes" to "ans=no". I hope this isn't an issue -- my edits are very clear. Thank you very much!

Sylvia Rosin (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

::@Sylvia Rosin {{Responded}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

I added just one more requested edit to the WalkMe page. You left out a source I included before because I didn't specify which page numbers the information came from in a report, so I just added in the page numbers.

Thanks!!

Sylvia Rosin (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you added content to the review table, but nothing was showing, so I was perplexed :-). I looked at it in the edit mode and saw your comments. I'm not sure if you've written them for yourself or not. In any case, I would be happy to expand the Contents section, if you feel it would do more justice to the subject. On another matter, I did not feel that the review was misogynistic at all. I got from it that the reviewer thought that Hebert missed an opportunity in not describing how the Wehrmacht fit into the overall genocidal project of Nazi Germany. I.e. the "case for the prosecution", so to speak, could have been stronger. Please let me know your thoughts. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

::At the time I wrote them you had not had a chance to respond to the last few Q&A's I had left. So not wanting to waste time, I just went ahead and added the comments I had planned on placing there, but made them invisible until the latest Q&A's were responded to (invisible to a degree, of course, because they are always visible in edit mode). But I was curious about how you felt about the article. Do you think it's in as good a state as it could be? I think it might benefit from some additional reviews and perhaps a meatier summary of the book and its findings. I have two additional reviews from two academics, Mark Montesclaros and Frank Biess. If you'd like to see them they are [https://pastebin.com/GNYL6pYA posted here]. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

:::I’ve developed a number of articles on books, although this was the first one I nominated for GA. Looking back at the list, I see that the articles are somewhat utilitarian in nature, in that they can quickly answer the question: is this book a reliable source? For example, it’s clear that Panzer Aces is POV-challenged and unreliable, while Hitler’s Bandit Hunters is RS, even if it comes from an author who does not have a wiki page.

:::Specific to Hitler's Generals on Trial, I do agree that the narrative is somewhat barebones and could be expanded. I also was striving for “balance”; i.e. I did not want to make it sound as if the book was the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps I overdid it, since the reviews are predominantly positive. Yes, I can definitely expand the article & reduce quotations; thanks for providing the reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You were kind enough to provide some guidelines to me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Ullman#Reply

I hope that I followed your good advice. DanaUllman^Talk 15:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Responded}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanx...I hope that I have followed your advice DanaUllman^Talk 15:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Spintendo. I can't thank you enough for all of your help in managing my COI edit requests. Just a heads up, I'm likely going to be pinging you for a few edit requests in the next few days if you don't mind. At this point, I'd just like to wrap up the pending agreements I have with Arne & Carlos, Studio71, and Roku among other clients to fulfill my service with them. As I had mentioned on the Arne & Carlos talk page (something I've brought up to {{u|Jytdog}} before), myself and the community have gone back and forth for so long over such tiny, non-controversial edits for my clients, just because I feel like they don't very much like what I'm doing or what I'm about, which is understandable. Anyhow, I'd really appreciate the continued help so I can wrap these up. I'll be following up on a few edit requests in the next few days as I had mentioned. The sooner we can wrap these up, the sooner I'll be out of everyone's hair. JacobPace (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

::Please be aware that in my opinion, it would be best if your edit requests were made to the Wikipedia editor community at large. Pinging certain editors to make edit requests is something I don't feel is appropriate, and I will not respond to edit requests made in that fashion. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

:::Understood, no problem. I will continue to do that. JacobPace (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on my COI edit requests. It is very helpful so I can provide more valuable content to Wikipedia. Get back to you ASAP. JacobPace (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Spintendo

Thank you for your feedback on my proposed edits to the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust page titled "8 January 2018 Deletion Request" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M.J._Murdock_Charitable_Trust)

I have responded to your specific feedback on my request to delete the line referencing Jeff Grubb on the talk page. I tried to ping you on the talk page but I am not sure if the notification was set properly. Please let me know if my response is satisfactory or if additional justification is required.

I sincerely appreciate all of your help through this process.

18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyReade (talk • contribs)

(my apologies. I realized after I hit submit that I failed to sign this note properly)

16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC) User:ColbyReade

Hi Spintendo, thank you for reviewing my edit request on the Hensoldt talk page. I've responded to your message there and would really appreciate it if you could take a look at that. Thank you --Stefanie at Hensoldt (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

::{{Ping | Spintendo}} Thanks for reviewing my request again. I've left you another message on the Hensoldt talk page as there is now a content error in the article. I would very much appreciate it if you could revise that. Thank you --Stefanie at Hensoldt (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

:::{{Responded}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo, it's my first time creating an article, I believe it to be correctly submitted in WP:AFC. Can you please comment if there's anything I should do/change? I initially requested a Request edit to avoid COI conflict. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrescklein (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Andrescklein}} The AfC process takes precedence over COI edit requests in cases where the article is still in the Drafting stage. I see that your draft is in the pipeline and waiting for an editor to review it. When this happens, they will ensure that it meets all of its requirements, including the avoidance of any COI conflicts. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Spintendo}} Thanks! Regards.

Dear Spintendo,

Thanks for the edits on the copyrighted material. Will work on that.

But you also deleted citations to several scientific publications. There was a publication cited after the sentence "Mutations in the GLI3 gene cause Pallister–Hall syndrome."

You also deleted the citation that followed the sentence: "Unlike the normal GLI3 protein, which can turn target genes on or off, the short protein can only turn off (repress) target genes."

Why did you delete those changes?

Les — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliegb (talk • contribs) 17:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

:Reverting an edit is a process which is done in one step. Fragments of information which are added within a single edit cannot be separated from other fragments within that same edit. Thus, everything within the edit that you made was removed with this revert. It was not my decision to combine into one edit both illegitimate information (the plagiarized text) along with legitimate information (the reference you added). If you had added them separately, it is most likely that the legitimate part would have been kept. As for the article itself, it's need of citations remains. If you would still like to make a contribution to the article, and if it supports the text, please feel free to re-add the deleted citation back to its place within the article. Thank you for your help. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo. Thanks again for input. I made the changes you suggested then waited a long time to see if the article could be updated by someone as per my COI edit requests. A notice was posted there that said my edit request has been answered (by you presumably) Does this mean that no one will look at and/or post it? What do I need to do to get it posted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiko_Kerr

Rexb9 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

:{{read}} For future reference, I have no way of knowing that the request is ready to be acted upon unless either a new template is placed on the talk page or the older template is reactivated by changing the ans=yes parameter to ans=no. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo,

I have responded to your feedback regarding Dan Weiss' article on the talk page. I look forward to hearing from you on next steps forward. Best Valdel10 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

:{{responded}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

:::{{Ping | Spintendo}} Thank you for your response. I replied to your comments on the article page.

Hi Spintendo. I'm planning to bring the Species article first to A-class and then FA, and I was wondering if you could provide me academic sources which would give it a significant boost? Regards, Slightlymad 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

::I've located 12 articles so far, and combined them into one pdf which you can download [https://ufile.io/bcjex here] for the next 30 days. It will take longer to check dissertations, so I'll have to get back to you on those. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

::: Hey thanks! I've also placed the article for a peer review just a few hours ago, and would like to hear your thoughts about it. Don't feel obligated, though :) Slightlymad 11:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

{{unindent}}Ok for dissertations I found 1 doctoral thesis and 2 other theses. Species didn't have a whole lot of academic materials written about it to begin with, especially when compared to a film like Alien. A doctoral thesis — which takes up to a year to write and is typically hundreds of pages long — is arguably the best academic source available, and very rare to find one in this case. Im not sure how much of it you'll be able to use though. Her doctorate was in Philosophy and, as you can see, its analysis is quite abstract. As far as I'm concerned, Dr. Bjornsson's is the gold standard. Here's one passage:

SIL's own desire to reproduce is conflated with the clerk's obviously pregnant body in a brief but significant point-of-view shot from SIL, focusing on the woman's belly, which then immediately cuts to a reaction shot of SIL's face. A brief look of silent understanding passes between the two women and the viewer is asked to identify/conflate the two women through their own looks of mutual recognition. This mirroring and resulting recognition is not a case of Lacanian misrecognition and loss. Rather, this look serves, in the Bakhtinian sense, as a form of mutual authoring, a dialogical intersection of the frontiers between selves.{{cite thesis|last1=Bjornsson|first1=Nina Gudrun|degree=Ph.D.|title=Aliens Within: Immigrants, the Feminine, and American National Narrative|date=1999|publisher=University of Arizona|url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/304495392/|chapter-url=http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/284138/1/azu_td_9927491_sip1_m.pdf|location=Tucson, AZ|chapter=Terminal Visibility in the Reproductive Zone: Species and the California-Mexico Connection|pages=154-223|id=Document No.9927491|via=ProQuest Dissertations Publishing}}{{rp|163}}

• {{cite thesis|last1=Bjornsson|first1=Nina Gudrun|degree=Ph.D.|title=Aliens Within: Immigrants, the Feminine, and American National Narrative|date=1999|publisher=University of Arizona|url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/304495392/|chapter-url=http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/284138/1/azu_td_9927491_sip1_m.pdf|location=Tucson, AZ|chapter=Terminal Visibility in the Reproductive Zone: Species and the California-Mexico Connection|pages=154-223|id=Document No.9927491|via=ProQuest Dissertations Publishing}}

• {{cite thesis|last1=Gutierrez|first1=Osiel|degree=Master's|title=The Horrifying Transformation of the Female Monster|date=2001|publisher=San Jose State University|location=San Jose, CA|pages=63-66, 105-109|id=Document No.1403970|via=ProQuest Dissertations Publishing|url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/304798588/|chapter-url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/304798588/|chapter=Species}}

• {{cite thesis|last1=James|first1=Cara Lyn|degree=Master's|title=Hideous Progeny: 'Frankenstein' and the Female Monster in Science Fiction|date=August 1996|publisher=Dalhousie University|location=Halifax, Nova Scotia|pages=17-20|id=Document No.MM15914|via=ProQuest Dissertations Publishing|url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/304335744/}}

Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Hello Spintendo.

I appreciate your interest in keeping Wikipedia free of copyrighted material. However, none of the material you removed from the Epidemic Intelligence Service article qualifies as copyrighted. The list of Langmuir Prize winners is a public list published in a government document (which would also qualify as public domain, were that designation necessary to avoid copyright infringement). Arguing that the list violates a copyright is akin to arguing that a list of Oscar winners violates a copyright owned by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The explanation for your deletion did not address any of these issues. Unless there is an alternative argument as to why the copyright for this list differs from any other list of award winners (Pulitzer, Nobel, etc.), the content should be restored.

User:Turnaphrase

:{{ping|Turnphrase}} Although the EIS program you took the information from showcases various government-associated entities and their works, the copyright I invoked by removing the information does not apply to the government — it applies to [http://www.rwdconsultingllc.com/ RWD Consulting, LLC], as they are the ones who, through their contracted work, produced the program from which the material in question was taken. They and their work product are covered by copyright. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

:Spintendo Thanks for the follow-up, Spintendo. I think there are a couple of confounders for your argument. First, the work of RWD Consulting almost certainly qualifies as a "Work made for hire," which gives ownership to the employer (i.e. CDC). Still, neither of us have access to the specific contract language that would define that aspect, even though the default language would leave ownership with the employer. More importantly, however, is that RWD Consulting has never had any copyright claim to the list of Langmuir Prize winners—simply because they printed existing information (which was created by the government and is displayed publicly on a CDC plaque) does not give them a copyright claim to it. I do not display any image from their document that may qualify as intellectual property because it relates to a design element they may own. In short, they have no copyright claim on a list of names they did not create, and even if they did, they almost certainly would have forfeited it as part of their contracted agreement with the CDC. Turnaphrase 14:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|Turnaphrase}} {{tq|"RWD Consulting has never had any copyright claim to the list of Langmuir Prize winners—simply because they printed existing information (which was created by the government"}} But this list wasn't created by the government. No government employee sat down at a computer and performed research as to the names, dates, and titles of these articles, in order to have that list placed into the EIS program. If you're claiming that somehow the government already had a list of all these people somewhere lying around then why was RWD contracted to prepare the program, and why doesn't the program indicate that, along with RWD, a government employee assited in the program's development? And why does the EIS program explicity state that RWD was involved in the development of the program and also claim that the government be "held harmless" for any errors in that program? I believe that the copyright is not over the names on the list itself, these are not copyrightable. Only unique works are copyrightable. The unique work on display here is the collecting process. Your wish was to include the end result of that collecting process — that is, the list itself — and pass that collection of names off as one that you made, that your hard work informed, as you did not specify at the top of your paste "Information taken directly from the EIS program." That is the problem here, is the taking of information without proper attribution. While you assert that this collection of information was something that is "freely available to anyone" the fact is that your way of collecting that "free information" wasn't your way at all — rather, it was RWD's way. Without their work to inform your copying, there would be nothing for you to add to the article. If it is your desire to use RWD's way of collecting the information — to reap the benefits of what others have sown, or, as your username suggests, to "turn a phrase" — then you need to make whomever originally made that phrase more explicitly clear in your additions to articles. In the end, my edits were nothing personal, and I dont want you to take it that way. I was directed by CopyPatrol to investigate the article's additions, and that's what brought me to the article that day. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how I stumbled on this discussion, but since I have I'll butt in. There is not, and cannot be, any copyright in a list such as this; see Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.. The source should be cited as a WP:V matter, but unless there's some creative element to the selection and arrangement of the entries, or maybe some descriptive text accompanying each entry, there's no copyright. EEng 06:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|Spintendo}} Thanks for jumping in to help out with this {{ping|EEng}}. It's worth reiterating that everyone here is on the same team. The citation of the list in the EIS program is verification of a publicly displayed plaque. I cited the program as the third-party source of verification and included the quote from the CDC foundation about the Langmuir Prize that noted the information was publicly visible at CDC. Both elements are clear signals about the source of the information; neither suggests it was my attempt "to reap the benefits of what others have sown." And, as EEng notes, this type of list is not copyrightable in the first place. I hope this resolves the matter and look forward to the restoration of the content. User:Turnaphrase 08:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

:::I bat for the other team, actually. EEng 16:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

::::I have reverted my edit on the page in question. {{Thank you}} to everyone for your input, I appreciate your help. {{smiley}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I took your advice. Let me know if this works for you..and if not, what do you recommend?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Ullman#Request_for_third-party_advice,_Second_stage

DanaUllman^Talk 18:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Check mark}}Answered on article's talk page. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:I made one minor final suggestion...and you are now welcome to make the additions to the article. Thanx! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Ullman#Suggestion

DanaUllman^Talk 02:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate the work you are doing reviewing COI edit requests.

When you do them, please make sure that they are supported by sources at minimum, and that they are actually NPOV in that they reflect what independent sources say. Many, many conflicted editors post requests that are skewed and the step of checking their neutrality - that they have appropriate WEIGHT and tone, reflecting what good sources say, and not just whatever sources are presented - is really important.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

::I definately will do. And thank you for all your help. {{smiley}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

::: :) Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, (and I know I've said this a million times) I'm very grateful for all the work you're putting into handling COI edit requests, as I know you don't need to and you're not getting paid for it, which is admirable. Just help me understand this, though. I really am trying to meet the community halfway in making progress on the Studio71 article, but how is it possible that someone can just come in and wipe out a bunch of the content? There are several other similar companies that have that same information and it seems that just because there's no paid editor working on the other articles, no one bats an eye. Do you agree with the edits that were made? Anyhow, I'll likely be checking in with the company to verify the accuracy and submitting another edit request. Thanks for the help. JacobPace (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

:I haven't looked at the other editor's edits in detail so I can't say. The editor who made those changes, {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}, is a much more experienced editor than I am, so for me, I would not presume to judge their edits in this case. That being said I can understand how this would cause you to feel singled out, but you should realize that it may just be an example of the squeaky wheel gets the grease, in which case it might prove beneficial to more-widely space out your requests. As far as other articles go, you mentioned there are other companies with the same information, but without knowing who they are I can't make a comparison. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

:{{WikiThanks}} for this. It is much appreciated! Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Moved discussion to|Talk:Carter Ledyard & Milburn|2=Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)}}

Hi Spintendo,

Thank you for your prompt response to our requested edits.

I wanted to again request the addition of the firm's complete set of practice areas to the page. I previously requested that the following sentence be added as the first sentence in the Present Day section of the page, "Today, the firm counsels clients on a range of topics, including condemnation, corporate and finance matters, cross-border transactions, cybersecurity, employment, compensation and benefits matters, environmental law and land use, financial services, insolvency and creditors’ rights, intellectual property, litigation and disputes (including fiduciary litigation), maritime law, real estate, tax, tax-exempt organizations, trusts and estates, white collar crimes and investigations, and art law (including how donated art works can be handled)." This list reflects a comprehensive list of the firm's practice areas. The current list is narrowly focused on matters we handle for corporate clients only. The source we provided for this sentence is http://www.vault.com/company-profiles/law/carter-ledyard-milburn-llp/company-overview.aspx, a link to Vault's website describing the firm. Vault is a website that ranks and provide reviews of companies in a variety of industries, including law, banking, and consulting. Their website compiles information about employers in these different areas to provide a resource for job seekers to learn more about potential employers. This site should be considered a second or third party source containing information about the firm. The current form of the firm's Wikipedia site cites to an outdated version of Vault's guide to New York law firms at https://books.google.com/books?id=tySfUkGLzPUC&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false. Our link is to the current Vault website discussing the firm. I am essentially updating an existing third party source. We maintain the use of the other third party sources as well.

I would also like to edit the current first sentence in the Present Day section to align with our proposed change above. I request the sentence to be revised to read, "The firm advises corporate clients on variety of matters including restructurings, financings, joint ventures, private equity, hedge funds, mezzanine debt and distressed funds in their investment activities." The requested change is stylistic in nature to ensure the text flows properly and eliminates redundant topics already listed under our proposed new first sentence for this section. the sources for this sentence should remain the same.

Thanks.

Jlpeters213 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Dear Spintendo,

I note the Wikipedia policy of rejecting links to "personal pages", and your subsequent rejection of the Shelta lexicon link. This seems to be a relatively recent policy change. The document I was seeking to link was previously linked on the Wikipedia page, which was at that time also on a "personal" page. The rules have clearly changed since then.

The reason why the original link was deleted is that the page was not maintained after the author's death. I have resurrected the material from a web impression taken in 2007 because I felt it would be valuable. I was simply seeking to place back onto Wikipedia a resources that was previously available. I think it would be very useful, indeed Melcous implied that it might be. There is already one link on the Shelta page to a document on archive.org, which is of inferior quality to the document I was proposing to link.

BTW my site is completely non-commercial and I am using a creative commons licence for the Shelta material (with permission of his widow). The link was "direct" therefore bypassing the rest of the site.

As I am retired and have no links to academe I have no idea what an "acceptable" site would be and I have asked if anyone would like to host the document. Would you perhaps have thoughts on how this might be done? For example, does Wikipedia have its own repository for information that is deemed to be of value but which, as a result of such policies, cannot be made available as a link? I hope you will be able to make some suggestions - perhaps you know of someone who may be able to assist? Thanks Chris.

Alivebeing (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

{{see|Wikisource:For Wikipedians|Wikisource:What is Wikisource?|Wikisource:Help}}

I think the part that you're referring to is Wikisource which is a different part of Wikipedia where items such as full text files are accepted. I would talk with someone over on that side first to see if they can host your file. The links are just above this line of text. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Knew something wasn't right with what I did, but couldn't figure it out. Will remember in the future. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo. Thanks for your work here and on the Request Edit queue in general. I haven't used Request Edit in ages, because nobody was reviewing.

I was hoping you could clarify your comment that "the references constitute editorial content." I started going through those references, but they all appear to be written by staff journalists at the publication. None of them are labeled as op-eds or editorials. I thought maybe what you meant was that you felt the content I cited it for was editorial? As in I need to write more neutrally or consider if this commentary warrants inclusion? CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

{{responded}} Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo! You closed the edit request on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rittal as answered. I still have a question about the "locations" section there. Could you please advise what is left to be done to get this article online? Many thanks, --Manuel Funk (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

:I am working on this, I haven't forgotten. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

::I've placed the table on the Rittal talk page along with further instructions.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, a couple weeks ago I pinged you on the MicroStrategy talk page, asking about your decision to turn the history section into a bulleted list. While you didn't reply there, I have looked around and have seen that you seem to prefer bulleted "Milestones" sections in company articles, as opposed to fully written history sections. I am curious what your thinking is here, as I understand Wikipedia's guidelines to recommend written paragraphs for most article content. Do you see this as the ideal version of a history section, and would you do the same with another type of page—say, a biography? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

:The guidelines for using lists such as these are delineated under MOS:EMBED. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

::I'm certainly familiar with the guideline, which among other things states: "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." This would seem to recommend against using the bulleted list in the MicroStrategy article, and others. Hence my curiosity. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

:::That is correct. If you're aware of that, then you're also aware of the fact that whether or not the information is also supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points is whether or not it is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list — a rule which is governed by the principle of due weight. In many instances of COI, that weight is something the editor will constantly push against, arguing that the world deserves to know all it possibly can about a company. It is the COI edit request reviewer's job to balance that weight in a neutral manner. I'm sorry if that means that the scale is never quite as balanced as you'd like it to be. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

::::I understand due weight very well, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the decision to present the information as a list or as prose paragraphs. My question is about why you prefer lists even though the guideline recommends against their use. Once we've agreed certain information should be included, isn't it better to write in full paragraphs, as opposed to a bulleted list? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

::::: The guidelines give guidance on the usage of lists, they do not prohibit their use. The majority of cases where Milestones are used is when the information is an assemblage of dates of occurrances. As MOS:EMBED shows, this accumulation of what is essentially one sentence blurbs on events varying from sentence to sentence does not equate well in a full paragraph, as paragraphs traditionally ought to contain a single subject. In those instances, lists are superior to prose, as the alternative of having several single sentences all operating as paragraphs is not preferred. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

::::::One salient aspect of this which you havent questioned me about, is the relative ease with which someone with a background in writing has, to be able to construct a wonderfully coherent prose incorporating all the information perfectly into one succinct paragraph. This is not a background which many of these COI editors have, not by a long-shot. What that means, is that I then have to make do with whatever short, ungrammatical, confused and often copied texts that the COI editor foists upon me. It is their decisions to use these texts — the dull and cacographic scriblings that they are — that I must make decisions upon. It is eminently not my fault if the texts that they submit are deeply flawed and resistant towards incorporation into paragraphs. I would love for nothing more than to place paragraphs into these articles, but I need to receive decently-written ones for that to happen. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::::I can't speak to unnamed other COI editors, but I can speak to the MicroStrategy History section. When I was last involved in late 2013, I believe I'd left it as a {{oldid|MicroStrategy|561533228|very coherent set of paragraphs}}. And yet, I don't dispute that {{oldid|MicroStrategy|809072333|by late 2017}} it had become too much a WP:PROSELINE. So I'd be willing to try my hand at rewriting it again, updated as a real set of paragraphs like a proper encyclopedia (though I can't promise each would have only one subject). However, I also wouldn't want to waste my efforts, if you would oppose it automatically. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on DiCamillo's logo. Your comment said Filled out the required information on this image's fair use that the editor Bbarmadillo refused to enter. Just wanted to clarify, I didn't "refuse" to enter the information, I just didn't know what should be done. Images are quite tricky, you know... I will follow your input as a reference when being in the similar situation. Thanks again for taking your time to work on it. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

:Thank you for clarifying this, but it was not meant to impugn your integrity. I had mentioned that none of the required parameters for fair use have been filled out, to which you replied {{tq|"I have consulted with the other editor who made some changes to the metadata and said the image is fine."}} As no editor with knowledge of Fair Use would have made such a claim, I took this statement for what it was — a refusal to act on my suggestions — because you didn't say at the time what you're saying now, that you "just didn't know what should be done". The statement above sounds as if you were very sure of yourself. Since I cannot force you to take advice that you do not want, I simply made the changes myself. That is why I'm here, to help, and I'm glad I could do so. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

:: Thanks again for your help and support. I learn a lot from your edits. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As requested by {{u|Robert McClenon}} I am notifying you that a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:The_National_Memo#Several_edits Dispute resolution request] has been raised for edits to The National Memo article. I've seen your profound explanation at the article's talk page, but I guess, the rules suggest you to share it as well at the dispute's page. Thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Spintendo. I think you've been pinged a couple times already, but I wanted to ask if you'd take a look at this user talk page discussion and give User:CNMall41 permission to review my proposed Realtor.com draft article. I've asked for additional feedback on the draft, and for text to be implemented into the existing article appropriately, but they would prefer not to become involved unless you have no objection. Can you please reply here or on the user's talk page? Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

{{Autp}} Spintendo     

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Google bus protests you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 20px 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 Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you quite got the gist of my edit request at Talk:World Trade Center Health Program#Pentagon and Shanksville program. The article currently reads, "Enrollment related to these sites is expected to open in late 2012, once eligibility guidelines and program benefits are defined." This is obviously out-of-date information, and I want to replace it with the fact that enrollment actually opened in 2013. Stating the actual eligibility guidelines is of secondary importance, but I still fail to see how any of this violates the essay WP:NOBLECAUSE given that the topic's notability is well established and there's already a lengthy article about it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

:Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.WP:NOTEVERYTHING Articles should not become a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather, a {{em|summary}} of accepted knowledge regarding their subjects.See {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404|Final decision}}, which suggested a similar principle in November 2004. Wikipedia is not an appropriate surrogate for those information portals already competently staffed by the Health Program's representatives. This is the point of WP:NOBLECAUSE — the title of which might very well be changed to read Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your enrollment guidelines. The Health Program's minutiae, specifically the implementation of program benefits, deadlines, etc., are ultimately inapropos to what the article should be communicating: a summary of the Health Program, not its particulars. The posting of detailed information is best left to those charged with the administration and oversight of the Health Program, from within their own web portals. That the information is out of date is not the problem — the problem is that the information is too particular to begin with. Regards, Spintendo      04:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

:I have edited areas of the article which strayed into eligibility requirements. As you yourself have identified, these requirements are not static, and may be in flux. Thus, the most appropriate place for up-to-date information to be garnered is the web portal assigned for this task — the cdc.gov address. Areas of the text in question have been updated with this recommendation to seek an outside authority concerning questions of eligibility in general and deadlines in particular. Regards, Spintendo      04:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

::That approach is totally fine. While you're at it, the list of covered conditions in the article is quite a lot shorter than [https://www.cdc.gov/wtc/conditions.html the actual current list]. I'd recommend keeping just the first paragraph and the last paragraph about cancers, since they mention the broad categories of covered conditions, and replacing the rest of the section with a link to the updated list. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

A belated thank you for your GA review of Hitler's Generals on Trial. It was very thorough and I felt that the article has improved quite a bit in the course of the review. Thank you also for the additional sources. The article expanded by at least 30 percent and became much "beefier".

That was my first GA nom for a book; I'll try to follow the same approach for any further book noms. Thank you again. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

There is a discussion of edits you made in response to my COI review request at Phil Griffin. It is here: Talk:Phil_Griffin#Review of widespread deletions

I also notified an editor who had previously reviewed the edits, prior to your review. I neglected to mark the request as answered on the Talk page, which is why it was answered twice.

Thanks,

EdBC1278 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

{{responded}} Spintendo      20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

An editing colleague "Feminist" suggested you might be able to help with a COI posting. I am CEO of a large free learning social enterprise. I made a significant update in early January - which Feminist thought was too much "Like an Ad". The narrative was I thought was factual, referenced and notable - but I accept I am close to the topic. The previous entry was out of date and incorrect in places. A number of editors edited parts of what I posted, and did not go so far as to wipe the entirety as Feminist did. I don't want to go re-posting the exact same thing - would appreciate advice. We have 12 million users - so this posting is viewed - and will be viewed more when done correctly. We are doing some interesting stuff that is new and notable. Thanks for your attention and time. If you are happy to assist, how should I proceed? Post the full narrative again to my TALK section? M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comenius2016 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what help I could offer. The Alison article has a problematic history, with contentious edits that add and shortly thereafter subtract content in a cycle spanning years. The problem as far as I can surmise is the material, which if it were more balanced, would not see this level of disputatious editing. Spintendo      21:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo! Thanks for your feedback on my suggestions at New-collar worker, glad to see we're moving in a positive direction on this. Wanted to let you know I've replied to your questions and shared a suggested timeline, if you want to look again. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Spintendo. As you'd mentioned you don't get pings, I thought I'd better nudge you that there's been more discussion about the NJ investigation section of the New York Life article. Since you hadn't replied there (sorry, I wasn't previously aware you didn't get pings) and I had not been able to get any input at WikiProject Law, I opened a 3O request and an editor reviewed the section. Their thoughts were essentially that they feel like the section can be removed, but they left any editing up to you and I. As I prefer not to edit given my COI, I wanted to see if you'd read through their feedback and look again at that section. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, just letting you know I replied to your comment on my user talk page. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo. In case you didn't see it, I wanted to let you know that I left a reply for you over at Talk:Foundation_Medicine. Eager to hear your feedback. Thanks! Fmidan (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

hi Spintendo. Thanks very much for your quick reaction to my edit request for the IKEA page. I also really appreciate your comments, which made me realise how I can improve future COI edit requests. Thanks for that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stwrhbgmon (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Google bus protests you nominated as a good article has passed 20px; see Talk:Google bus protests for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello just wanted to let you know that i have addressed your points and put in another COI request. I have also left a message at WP:BOXING asking for boxing article editors to take a look. I didn't add this point to my COI request because i think everyone else not affiliated to the project will just ignore the request, plus there doesn't seem to be many active editors on the boxing project. Again thank you for your points and tips. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

:If we dont get too many responses to my queries about AFC then I'll just reopen the template and leave it there. Unfortunately the COI sector of Wikipedia seems to be the least popular for editors to choose. But hopefully you wont have to wait too long. Thanks Spintendo      20:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, In the past it has been a requirement for access to the Wikipedia Library accounts that users have allowing email set to on in their Wikipedia preferences. I'm not sure if that requirement has been relaxed, and have brought the question to Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#is allowing other users to email (still?) a requirement. If you feel comfortable with it, turn on that option and ping me and I'll finish processing your request immediately. Otherwise, depending on the answer to my inquiry I'll finish processing your request as quickly as I can. Thank you for your patience, Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Smmurphy}}I've just turned on my email as requested. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo      19:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

::Great! I've sent along your login information. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, letting you know that I'd replied over at New York Life about the Policyholder service improvements following your most recent edits. I'm hoping to understand more why this information should be included. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{Ping|16912_Rhiannon}} {{Responded}} Spintendo      20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

::Thanks, have replied back there again. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I am working on clearing out the backlog of articles with Good Article status that do not have the assessed revision specified with the oldid parameter to the {{GA}} template. (The bot that normally does so is currently not running.) Can you please advise why you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_bus_protests&oldid=829480512 reverted my edit] that added the oldid on Talk:Google bus protests? Thank you. tubedogg (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

:The bot already reverted it, no problems. Spintendo      00:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A161:A155:32DD:E327:9533:1374 (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Can you check back into the WalkMe talk page? I responded to your last note there. Thanks!

Sylvia Rosin (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{Responded}} Spintendo      14:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I replied to your decline yesterday, and pinged you, but haven't seen a response. Posting here in hopes of getting another look. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{responded}} Spintendo      15:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi I am new to this platform and I am trying to fill in blanks for cities in Iceland starting with where I live; I am not paid nor do I know anyone in the text below, I added text but now it is gone, What is the best way for me to edit and addinformation.

History of Borgarnes

The Settlement of Borgarnes is first mentioned in Egils Saga however in the saga it is called Digranes. The first Settler to live there was named Grani, a shipmate of Skallagrímur, the first landlord and settler in the Borgarfjörður-area. There is no known history of settlement in Borgarnes after Grani's days until the 19th century. In 1861 soon after Iceland gained its independence from the Danish trading monopoly Borgarnes became an official trading post. In 1857 a canning factory was the first major structure to be built in the town yet was torn down a few years later. Finally in 1877 twenty years later, a trading house was established in Borgarnes and the settlement of Borgarnes began in earnest.

In 1913 Borgarnes was officially named Borgarneshreppur, then its name changed again to Borgarnesbær in 1987. In1994 Borgarnesbær united with the hamlets of Hraunhreppur, Norðurárdalshreppur, and Stafholtstungnahreppur to form the municipality of Borgarbyggð. In 1998Álftaneshreppur, Borgarhreppur and Þverárhlíðarhreppur were included in the municipality.

Arts & Culture

There are two museums in Borgarnes, both are non-profit organizations. The main one is the Safnahús Borgarfjarðar and has a prominent position in the town. Most of the institutions and events in Borgarnes are partially funded with cultural subsidies. Borgarnes is the birthplace of Magnús Scheving the producer of the international children's program Lazy Town. Borgarnes is also one of the filming locations in the Hollywood film The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, the Geirabakari Kaffihus which is featured in the film was transformed into Papa John's during the filming. Michelle Bird (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

:All of the information added to the article will require reliable sources. These can include newspaper media in Iceland. It's best to avoid any references which originate from within the town. Museums and things of that sort may be referenced, but anything said about them should be a very short summarized statement of facts. Anything that is inordinately detailed and without references will likely be deleted. Spintendo      17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Iteris.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

{{responded}} Spintendo      03:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Danilo Two (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

{{responded}} Spintendo      03:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Thanks for looking at those requests made on the talk page of Tim Flach. There now seems to be a lot of content missing - most of the exhibitions and talks have been removed, perhaps you can help us understand why?

I hope that we can get this page right as the media use this as a first port of call & resource to find information on Tim Flach. Can you kindly look into this for us? Tim Flach Studio team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.222.31 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

:An inordinate amount of links in the article were found to suffer from link rot, which is what happens when content from a webpage is lost because the links are no longer active. It doesn't mean that the information never existed, only that what once was there now is gone. The challenge is to locate where the information may also be found. If the content can be located elsewhere, please feel free to propose adding it on the talk page, and I assure you that if the claims are found to be made in references which are considered WP:RS's, the information may be re-added to the article. I've placed a list of resources at the top of the Tim Flach talk page which will help you in the search for references to cite for the article. Regarding the information placed there, it's important to understand that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.WP:NOTEVERYTHING Articles should not become a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather, a {{em|summary}} of accepted knowledge regarding their subjects.See {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404|Final decision}}, which suggested a similar principle in November 2004. In light of this, it would be helpful if the information placed in the article does not become just a listing of art exhibits or publications, in which case, there are other sites for that. Information placed in the article should summarize these lists and be written in prose, or else a bulleted timeline, if need be. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask. Thank you for your help! Regards, Spintendo      15:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

File:Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You said, reasonably with a note of humor, that I evidently am not running a cocktail lounge. That is true. If I were running a cocktail lounge, I wouldn't expect responses within 48 hours because I would have to close every 24 hours, either at closing time for that night of the week as specified by the liquor code, or at the earlier closing time that was negotiated with the citizens' association. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{smiley}} It's prolly a good thing then that it's not a cocktail lounge — you'd definately get a backlog, cause no one would ever leave! Spintendo      04:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo,

I completed your requested paraphrases last month. I'm not sure what action need to be taken now. I was waiting for someone to write me about the proposed major edit on his page again, but have not heard anything. Many thanks, Hollist 24 March 2018 Hollist (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hollist}} Thank you for your message. If you could remind me again, what the name of the article was (I see it's the Jon Rose article, sorry about that.) I'll take a look at them. Thank you! Spintendo      04:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Either to entertain you while working off the queue of COI edit requests, or to eat the printed copies of the material in the queue, some of which may have no real value except to a herbivore that likes to eat paper.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

::Who is Beutler? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

:::William Beutler, the person who is in charge of those 4 accounts which do all of the COI edit requesting on behalf of William's company, Beutler Ink. Spintendo      09:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I left a message. I don't know how to format the citation numbers that are raised and in blue--is it just that, or is there a special command. I looked at Footnotes Help but could not figure it. Sorry to bother you. Thanks so very much for your assistance. hollistHollist (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

:It's no bother at all. When you have the text editor open you should see on the far right Cite and a triangle next to it. Click on Cite until the triangle points downward and you will see a drop down box appear on the left side that says Templates. Next, making sure that your cursor is in the exact spot where you want a reference note number to be placed in the text, click the Template drop down box and choose one of four choices, book, web, journal or news. A new box will open with blank fields where you can enter the citation information. If you have a URL, you can place the URL in the box and then click the magnifying glass. The box will attempt to populate the different fields. Any boxes it leaves blank are ok to be left blank as well. Having every box filled out would likely never be required. At most, 4 or 5 of the boxes filled out would be perfectly acceptable. Then click insert, and the reference will be placed wherever you previously had the cursor.

:For looking up books, you can visit [https://www.worldcat.org WorldCat] and search for each book there. If the book is located, click Permalink found under each individual book's page at the top right-hand corner of the screen. Copy the permalink URL, and when you're in the citation box on Wikipedia populating the empty fields, paste the URL into the URL field and click the magnifying glass. The software will then populate many of the needed fields for you. Then click insert. If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask. {{smiley}} Spintendo      23:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your edits in the article International Science Programme. I wonder if the section concerning the Sandwich Model could be put back (maybe in a revised version)? It concerns a fundamental concept that has actively shown to mitigate the effects of brain drain (the loss of educated people from low-income countries to high-income countries) and as such could be an inspiration to other agencies working in the Academia in low-income countries without necessarily promoting this particular program. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

:Unfortunately there was a dearth of sources to go along with the claims made about the Sandwich Model. For example, none of the references were published outside of Uppsala University. In performing a search for the Sandwich Model in other databases I was not able to locate any 3rd party sources which described it very well. If you are able to locate reliable third party sources which make mention of the Sandwich Model and are published outside of the university, then I would be more than happy to return the information to the article. Regards, Spintendo      22:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

::If you by sources outside of Uppsala University mean sources where persons not affiliated with Uppsala University have published things on the sandwich model, then you are (probably?) correct. Otherwise this reference https://www.handbook-internationalisation.com/de/handbuch/gliederung/#/Beitragsdetailansicht/174/654/The-Sandwich-Model---A-Successful-Case-of-Capacity-Building is to an edited handbook made in Germany. https://www.handbook-internationalisation.com/

::I'm not sure whether this is the correct place to explain the background and relevance for this article, but it deals with support and capacity building of academia in low-income countries. Sweden is together with Denmark, Norway, UK and The Netherlands the greatest contributors per capita of foreign aid List of development aid country donors where only those countries are spending at least the 0.7% of BNI that UN has declared as the level that all OECD countries should meet. Of the countries involved in foreign aid to academia, Sweden is playing a pivotal role through Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and is (as far as I know) the only government giving long-term support (20-30 years) to capacity building in the higher academic sector in low-income countries. Several countries have scholarships. This is also how the International Science Programme (ISP) started out, but then realized in the 60's that it did not help the countries in the long run and slowly changed the way support was given. Since then ISP and Sida has changed the way they work and now not only support research groups under decades, but also the infrastructure around it such as laboratories, ICT, libraries, financial management, etc. To a large extent, this kind of support model has been developed jointly by ISP and Sida, where ISP being at a university have had greater knowledge in terms of what is required from an academic point of view and Sida with its financial strength have been able to drive the implementation. As written in the section about the sandwich model, this has been a successful way to mitigate the brain-drain. Still this way of working is quite unique and poorly documented, but should based on the experiences be implemented in other parts of the world. So, in all, I think the whole article makes sense as it was written, but I'm more than happy to revise it. Regards, Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

:::It may be possible to add information on this if it already exists on Svenska Wikipedia. But that would depend on whether the information user there was outside sourcing beyond the university. Spintendo      14:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

::::Sorry, but I was not able to comprehend the last sentence. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

:::::It may be possible to add information on this topic if it already exists in the same topic page from the Swedish Wikipedia (Svenska Wikipedia). That would depend on whether the information used there was information that made use of sources from outside of the university, which is the general practice of English Wikipedia (to not use self-published information as a reference). Regards, Spintendo      04:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo, Just checking in again about my question from 27 March:

Question, please, Spintendo. Thank you so much for your assistance, so appreciated. It should be simple to change the numbers I have into footnote numbers, but I cannot figure out how. I see that yours are in blue and raised, but I assume you are doing it in some special way. I have looked at Help/Footnotes - Wikipedia, and I just don't get it. I am working on a Mac. Sorry to bother you. hollisHollist (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Hollist}} When you have the text editor open you should see on the far right the word Cite and a triangle next to it. Click on Cite until the triangle points downward and you will see a drop down box appear on the left side that says Templates. Next, making sure that your cursor is in the exact spot where you want a reference note number to be placed in the text, click the Template drop down box and choose one of four choices, book, web, journal or news. A new box will open with blank fields where you can enter the citation information. If you have a URL, you can place the URL in the box and then click the magnifying glass. The box will attempt to populate the different fields. Any boxes it leaves blank are ok to be left blank as well. Having every box filled out would likely never be required. At most, 4 or 5 of the boxes filled out would be perfectly acceptable. Then click insert, and the reference will be placed wherever you previously had the cursor.

For looking up books, you can visit WorldCat and search for each book there. If the book is located, click Permalink found under each individual book's page at the top right-hand corner of the screen. Copy the permalink URL, and when you're in the citation box on Wikipedia populating the empty fields, paste the URL into the URL field and click the magnifying glass. The software will then populate many of the needed fields for you. Then click insert. If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask.{{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 22:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited IntraLinks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NY ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/IntraLinks check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/IntraLinks?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

:{{done|Fixed.}} {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 12:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you please have a look at my comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrachytherapy&type=revision&diff=834238740&oldid=834235573 here], and reply here and let me know if you understand what I wrote? Let's work through this example... Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I think both of our first steps towards the request were working to the same goal, it not being approved. I think both of our approaches individually ended at pretty much the same result, that the documents were not usable. We just had two different ways of going about it. Your first approach was to invalidate their usage based on their being primary sources Your first approach was to make a determination that it was not able to be used based on them being primary sources - an argument which I don't feel is very strong - since I see those types of studies similar to Party and person, which states that a researcher performing a meta-analysis would be considered a first party, secondary source.

Instead, my first approach was to invalidate their usage based on their not providing page numbers to determining that it was not able to be used because was that they did not provide page numbers. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The key word here is directly. To me, if the given source indicates that the information is more than 10 pages in a range, and I have to spend the time and effort needed to find that information which is 10 pages removed from where it ought to have been - then this is not the definition of directly.

It doesn't matter if it's a book or a journal — I'm going to require the exact page number to garner my assistance in making the edit because I'm not going to read ten pages of text just to approve one sentence. If the information exists on a certain page number, and if the COI editor has already accessed the document (as they should have, since they are the ones providing it and are therefore vouching for it) then there is no reason why they shouldn't provide that page number to me. In the unlikely event the COI editor had provided the page numbers (unlikely because access to those articles requires monetary output most editors are unwilling to expend) I probably would have approved it - but not having reached that step I couldn't say for sure.{{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 19:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

::No, I did not, and do not ever, have a goal of invalidating a conflicted edit request, and that cannot be your goal when you review such requests. The response needs to be solely on the merits. I am not going to respond further at this point, although there is much else to discuss. Please reconsider that part of your answer and please let me know the result of your consideration. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

{{tq|"I did not, and do not ever, have a goal of invalidating a conflicted edit request"}} When I said invalidated, I meant you invalidated the use of the journals, not that you were invalidating my COI edit review. This is the same determination you arrived at, but for a different reason. You determined that the journals very not valid for use here because they were a primary source. I determined they were not valid for use because they were not a direct reference, giving page ranges instead of the page number. I apologize for this misunderstanding. {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 19:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

::Thank you for redacting your remarks above.

::Please listen --

::You did not say that the sources are not OK; you simply said that the content wasn't supported by the sources, and that page numbers were needed.

::If the person comes back with content that satisfied you, directly supported by those sources and with page numbers, and you then implemented it, then I or another experienced medical editor would have removed that content. You would have wasted everyone's time -- the conflicted editor's and your own.

:: Content about health needs to be sourced per MEDRS. This is a guideline with broad and deep consensus in the community and has been tested many many times at ANI and other venues. It has many many benefits, including keeping out a lot of medical marketing. (Perhaps you may also want to read WP:Why MEDRS?, which explains why this guideline is so important)

::If you are going to review conflicted edit requests about health and medicine, you need to understand MEDRS and what it is used for, and apply it. The first question to ask for COI requests for content about health or medicine, is "do these sources comply with MEDRS"?

::Also, if you have a look at WP:MEDHOW, you will see that we do ask for specific page numbers in book citations; we do not ask for specific page numbers in journal articles. (I have never (!) cited a page number for a journal article). Saying "no" to an edit request because someone does not cite a page number in a journal article is not valid.

::Would you please either adjust how you are evaluating COI requests about health and medicine, or alternatively just agree not to review them?

::Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Jytdog}} I did not say anything about whether these sources were supported or not. I simply made the determination that my assistance with their request could not advance further because they did not provide me with the information I needed to proceed. If this is an error for me to be making, than it is, at least, an error on the side of caution. You could have come here and told me gently about WP:Why MEDRS? and I would have been happy and even interested to learn more about it. Instead, you've come here today to revert my page, to accuse me of accusing you of invalidating my edit request review (which I never did), blaming me for wasting people's time by erring on the side of caution (my asking for page numbers is a request for clarification, NOT a denial of the request) and to generally act indignant towards someone who, until now, has never had a problem with you. I don't know what else is going on with you today and why you're in such a bad mood, but this approach and response was very unsettling. I guess I'll stick with being the only one of us here to apologize and leave it at that. Regards, {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 21:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

::You can be combative if you wish but this would not be an optimal approach.

::Everything starts with sources. If the sources someone is bringing are not OK then there is no point in going further. It really does waste everyone's time.

::This thread has become a mess so I will leave it there for now.

::Some valid points were raised in the ANI about your reviews, and I am going to be checking in from time to time.

::I hope you are willing to improve. If all of our interactions turn into battles then I am going to recommend that you be prevented from doing these reviews.

::The two take aways here - are 1) Don't edit your comments after some one has responded to them; and 2) if content is about WP:Biomedical information, please be sure the sources comply with MEDRS.

::If you need help understanding either of those things, do let me know.

::and there is no need to post on my talk page or to ping me - I saw your responses here on my watchlist, and I will see the next, should you reply.

::Thanks again for being willing to do these COI edit request reviews. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your reply. You mentioned {{tq|"please be sure the sources comply with MEDRS."}} I've taken time to read through WP:MEDRS, and I would suggest that my request for page numbers fulfills a salient step listed there. From Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Don't_just_cite_the_abstract:

It is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions. To access the full text, the editor may need to visit a medical library or ask someone at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source and summarize what it says; if neither is possible, the editor may need to settle for using a lower-impact source.

:::::We do not ask for page numbers for journal articles. It is not a normal requirement and it is not reasonable for you to demand this from conflicted editors. Again I have never cited a page number in a journal article. Never. If you do not have access to a paywalled reference then it is reasonable for you to ask the person if they can send you the whole ref, or you can ask someone else like me.

:::::But you don't need the whole ref to judge whether it passes MEDRS (which is a different and more fundamental step than asking if the ref supports the content). You can tell this from the pubmed abstract and information about the journal itself. This particular COI edit request was dead from the get-go because the content was biomedical information and the references failed MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

{{unindent}} Again, I appreciate your help on this. You mentioned that it is not reasonable for me to make this request a prerequisite for my assistance. I understand that you are relying on your wisdom and experience with this matter to arrive at that determination. For editors who have not shared that same experience, it would be helpful if you could point to the policy where it states this type of request as being banned. If this isn't a written policy, and instead is in effect merely through practice, then I'm sure you can see how editors like me might make this mistake, as it takes time to learn policies based on practice alone. Indeed, if that is the case, then it seems premature to ask that an editor not practice a type of editing where the mastery of it requires practice. {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

:It isn't banned, but it isn't reasonable. Please have a look at WP:PAG - policies and guidelines are not "rules" - they aren't written in great detail. They are ~kind of~ (very weakly) like laws, that are further described by regulations put out by regulatory agencies, which then have yet further guidelines and standard practices - the more detailed you get the less is actually written down. We rely very much on everybody understanding the spirit of the policies and guidelines and there is always lots of latitude per WP:IAR. This interplay is described in WP:CLUE - people who are most persuasive in WP understand what works and what doesn't, and you have to listen carefully in discussions to understand the ethos of the community and what it bases decisions on.

:I encourage you to get practice editing in general, and editing about health as well, so you can see what works and what doesn't. After you understand it in your own hands, you can much better help other people. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Checking in if you're interested in continuing our dialogue at Talk:Ken Xie. I've posted a thoroughly updated request and also replied to several of your previous comments. Let me know. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

:I've updated the article with the changes you've suggested. Let me know if I've missed anything. {{smiley}} {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:Broadridge Financial Solutions|Revised edit request: History|ts=22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)}}

Your further comments would be welcome. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

:Rittal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rittal check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rittal?client=notify fix with Dab solver])

::added links pointing to Miranda and San Fernando

:Night of the Proms ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Night_of_the_Proms check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Night_of_the_Proms?client=notify fix with Dab solver])

::added a link pointing to Blanche

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

{{corrected}} {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 17:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, Thank you for your help as I send numerous edits and learn how to navigate Wiki. My question/confusion....The reference Rocky Citro that I used for my edit was already on Wikipedia. I had edited a few words of the sentence the ref was used for. I took out the word "largest" in the original edit as you stated it was promotional so I changed wording for now until I can find a second source that Chessmaster is the "largest" computer chess game. Since I used the same reference that was already on Wikipedia, can't it be reused? I am just not understanding why it's no longer acceptable. Thank you so much for your advice/help.

Opala22 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

:The claim that it is the largest chess program uses a descriptor which would be very difficult for most references to prove. For instance, some of the questions its use would inevitably raise would be largest how? Does this mean it is physically the largest program? Does it refer to its computing power? Or perhaps it refers to the size of its memory - but then would that be its operating memory or its storage memory? None of those answers are given by saying it is the largest. That is what I meant by the word not being initially acceptable for usage. One way to include this word would be to have several prominant references which all made the same claim that it is the largest, then it could be placed into the article. {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You were kind enough to help my BIO page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Ullman

However, a long-time antagonist to me and to homeopathy has reverted this information...and other information. He actively works to delete any information that may seem to provide a positive side to homeopathy or to me.

This editor chose to say that the link to the article in the famed BERKELEY BARB was not RS...and yet, this same editor has allowed a statement below into my bio for the past SEVERAL years (!) even though it is sourced to a BLOG:

"Kimball Atwood coined the "Dull-Man Law" in vein of Godwin's Law to characterize Ullman's persistent, irrational, and self-serving arguments in online discussions defending homeopathy, which states "In any discussion involving science or medicine, being Dana Ullman loses you the argument immediately…and gets you laughed out of the room."[13]

It seems that as long as the information is antagonistic to homeopathy or me, it is OK to have it posted and protected.

This editor reversed some other material for which the primary players in a research study were referenced as per their direct correspondence. "Just the facts, 'mam." DanaUllman^Talk 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:I'm sorry to hear that this happened. It was claimed that the source used was an alternative newspaper and that the link was a copyright violation, which is odd considering the newspaper is open access. Alternative sources are used on Wikipedia all the time, and the way I used it — as a primary source for the quotation of an interviewed public official only (the district attorney) I felt was an acceptable, non-medical use of the source. But Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit — even those who might feel they're on a moral crusade. And although editors like the one you're speaking of who may have strongly negative views of the subject of a biographical article should, in a perfect world, be especially careful to edit those articles neutrally — unfortunately this is not always the case. I'm afraid there is nothing that my involvement would do to change that. There are of course remedies open to you if you feel that the article depicts you in a bad light; you should contact WP:BLPN, as they may be able to help you in this regard. {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 06:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

::Before I go to WP:BLPN, does it make sense for you to ask this editor to explain the issues that you raised above...and to compare the RS with a "blog" that this editor left in the article? And if an adequate explanation is not provided, could you do a reversal? It would seem that this editor is not acting in good faith with his explanation to date. DanaUllman^Talk 13:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid there is not much for me to offer that could help. I think the editors at WP:BLPN would be of more assistance, and that is definitely something you should try first. I definitely don't think this is anything a simple talk with the editor involved would solve. I'm sorry that there isn't more I can do. Regards, {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You asked for me to provide a reference for the requested change on Dave Snowden, but as far as I can see I provided it along with links to an article which described that field. I'm confused therefore as to what else you need -----Snowded ^TALK 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

:What is needed is a reference to verify the information which you would like to be added. You suggested checking another Wikipedia article in order to get that information. The map in particular which you mentioned, I see the information is linked to the picture, and you mentioned that your name is in the top right quadrant of the picture. But I'm not sure why you couldn't provide those links here. Having editors perform difficult searches for information that you could more easily provide works against garnering assistance for the changes you'd like made. What is needed is for you to provide assistance by supplying outside references that substantiate the information you wish to have added to the article, rather than having others perform the searching for you. There are several names linked through this picture, which is not easy to navigate (there is no "search" button for instance). If you could provide the links which are connected to your name in the picture this process might be less confusing. Regards, {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 02:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

::I think technically that might be original research, i.e. guessing the sources used by the academic at Kent State to create that chart which is a who's who of complexity science an long accepted on wikipedia. I've otherwise replied on the talk page of the article itself -----Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, You have implemented some of my edits for Josh Waitzkin in Early Life section. Thank you. When will I actually see them on his Wikipedia bio. Thank you.

Opala22 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

:Thank you for your question. The edits which I implemented from your request may be found here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joshua_Waitzkin&type=revision&diff=835828088&oldid=833840221&diffmode=source 1.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joshua_Waitzkin&diff=prev&oldid=833839501&diffmode=source 2.], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joshua_Waitzkin&diff=next&oldid=833684807&diffmode=source 3.]. To see these changes, you may need to WP:PURGE the article's cache. Regards, {{resize|0.80em|2= Spintendo         }} 16:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Spintendo. It's taken me a while, but I have now had a chance to review the cladogram you proposed at Talk:Teradata with people at Teradata who are most knowledgeable with regards to this information, and I've posted a reply to you on the article's talk page. I also asked about adding information about the Teradata Analytics Platform to the "Technology and products" section instead of as a bullet point in the "Company milestones" section. Thanks for taking another look. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

:That was just one suggestion, but I don't want you to feel like you're stuck with that layout if there is another one that you'd prefer. It would be great to see what your top choices were on this again. Let me know how I can help. {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 17:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

::Hi, Spintendo. I saw your note on the Teradata talk page, and I've replied to you there. Thanks again for your work on the cladogram. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 00:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:::I've implemented those changes. Thank you for your help. {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

::::Hello again! I saw your updates to the article. Thanks again for your help. I did have a couple questions, though, which I've posted at Talk:Teradata. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 19:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

::::: I posted a 'thank you' message on the article's talk page, but wanted to thank you here as well. You've been a great help! Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Appended a LONG work-up on my entry as a point of departure, and have just learned that Seraphim System is "wikibonked" (!) I am really amateurish about working with Wikipedia, will try and leave a message there, and would appreciate greatly ny assistance at all you could give with bringing Seraphim System into play or anything else. Many thanks, AlanDocbrosk1941 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your signature has two major issues in it. First, signatures should not contain templates (per WP:SIG#NT); you are using {{t|resize}}. Second, signatures should be ideally no more than 255 characters (per WP:SIGLENGTH); yours is a whopping 603! The template must be removed, and the length needs to be dropped significantly. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

:Thank you for your message! I'll get to work on fixing it. {{smiley}} {{resize|0.75em|2=  spintendo         }} 16:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|Primefac}}I have redone my signature. The revised size is now 287 characters. That involved the removal of 316 characters - a 52.4% reduction in overall size. I have also removed the resize template, so that now the signature is substituted only. This, as you know, is allowed as long as the editor monitors the substituted page diligently, which I do. I thank you for bringing this to my attention, and while there is no question these changes needed to be made, I would point out the circumstances in which they occurred, whereby my signature came to your attention through my efforts at offering assistance to a COI editor who knew little about Wikipedia. I knew little about the topic of the article they wanted edited, physics, but I did know enough about Wikipedia to know exactly where to look for help. That drive to offer assistance to another editor is what brought me to the physics talk page, where I posted and received not just amazingly quick help from the very informed editors there - but also, curiously, a rebuke for my signature transgressions. Just as your reminder was both necessary and justified — so too, was it confirmation, for me, of the age-old axiom which states no good deed goes unpunished. .spintendo⋅⋅) 07:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

:::Thank you. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, a few months ago you were working on The League (app). An anonymous user — perhaps a COI user? — seems to be starting an edit-war, although I created a new section in the talk page and asked him (or her) not to systematically delete a template (User talk:69.143.107.97), assuming his (or her) content is not original research or just fake data. Would you please help us? Thank you Adrin10 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I appreciated your thoughts on the Berkeley Barb, though none of the detractors to my work have replied to your thoughtful comment and research. Sadly, in the meantime, a decision was made to delete my bio at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Ullman_(2nd_nomination)#Dana_Ullman

Because you are a good neutral 3rd party, are you able to comment on this...or to do anything to resurrect my bio? It is remarkable that Wikipedia has chosen to delete the bio of a person who TIME magazine and ABC's 20/20 news program have deemed to be a leading spokesperson for the field of homeopathic medicine. Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals (NOTE: I certainly admit that there are also "negative" trials too...but as in ALL areas of medicine and science, there are studies with positive and negative results.

DanaUllman^Talk 23:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

:Now, it seems that a person seeking to get me site banned (!) because once in the past 10 years (!!!) I edited an article (which does NOT mention "homeopathy" in the article itself at any time where I quoted the President of the British Medical Association (!) from an article in the British Medical Journal (!). My contribution did not mention "homeopathy" and it seems that the British Medical Journal is not a fringe source, nor is the President of the British Medical Association a fringe person.

:This effort to get me site banned is evidence of the extreme efforts of select individuals to censor a reasonable voice. As a neutral source, can YOU provide some of your wisdom here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DanaUllman DanaUllman^Talk 22:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

:: Dana, you are banned from discussing homeopathy on Wikipedia. That is completely unambiguous and you were blocked for violating that ban a few weeks ago. You know the ban applies across the entire project. Crucially, you could have made your request without engaging in proselytising, but instead you violated your topic ban. Again. I don't think you can help it. I don't think you accept that your advocacy is problematic or that the restriction is legitimate, and I don't think you have any interest in Wikipedia other than as a venue to try to promote yourself and your beliefs. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

:::{{ping|DanaUllman}} I'm sorry that this is has happened, and I'm sure you must feel frustrated. As I've said before, the only time I've felt necessary to lend my voice was in the one discussion regarding the COI edit request that you made and that I happened to review concerning the use of a quote from a district attorney in a publication. I'm not able to offer anything of substance beyond that because I don't know anything about alternative/complimentary-type medicines. .spintendo⋅⋅) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanx for your reply, Spintendo. I respect your iimitations. Because I am so inexperienced in working on Wikipedia (I've made ONE edit in 10 years!), I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this worthy project. Can you give some suggestions on how I might find some neutral editors to evaluate this situation because, as you can see, there are some Wiki editors would have extreme, non-neutral POV on me and the field of homeopathic medicine. That said, I personally don't think that one has to be knowledgeable about this subject to see when there are neutral and non-neutral POVs of this subject. Despite what JzG asserts, my one edit came from a highly respected medical journal (THE "British Medical Journal")...and this article that I edited did not mention the word "homeopathy" in the article itself once! It would seem that ANY editor who is neutral can comment on these obvious facts. DanaUllman^Talk 15:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilson Cleveland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Another World ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Wilson_Cleveland check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Wilson_Cleveland?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{fixed}} .spintendo⋅⋅) 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Spintendo, for letting me know I should update my profile. I did a suggested update. If you are able to let me please know if my update is appropriate and within the WP guidelines, I would appreciate it.

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

:Hi Mary, thank you for your reply. Right now, the template you're using is not displaying well to the system. If you were to alter it just a bit, it would display the information better:

{{paid|employer=Hormel}}

::For what it's worth, I've fixed the {{t|paid}} notice on their userpage, and placed the CC(P) template as well, since these things can get weird when you're using VE and/or new to this. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) {{tps}}

:::{{Thank you very much}} .spintendo⋅⋅) 13:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Spintendo and User:Primefac for helping get my page and info in order. Much appreciated! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I'm just responding to your comment to me. Sorry you had to revert the page. Just to clarify, was your reversion with regard to the first bullet point only, or did you see any problems with the format of quotes or of paraphrasing? I assume that your issue was with this [https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection|reference]. I sent a query to the editor about it. I won't make any further edits until I get a response. I may try to paraphase some of the quotes on my working draft, but I think that it will be difficult and unfair to the author, as I may misrepresent his ideas. I was a bit confused, because it looks like the reference is an anthology with 23 contributors, but there is only one copyright statement for the entire document, so I'm not sure whether each contributor holds the copyright to their section, or whether the copyright applies to the entire document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Wcrea6}} Thank you for your message. To answer your question, the largest portions of text were taken from Edge.com, particularly from [https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection? this interview with Steven Pinker], which clearly states at the top that it is an Edge original essay. While Mr. Pinker's ideas would normally be alright to present minimally as quotes, say perhaps one or two sentences, it would not be alright to present large quotes nor would it be alright to present large portions of text without attribution. You added 5,180 words to the Group selection article, and 58% of your additions — 2,985 words to be exact — were copied from [https://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection the Edge article], some of which being insufficiently paraphrased text while other parts were lengthy, unnecessary quotations. That is why the text was removed. Regards, .spintendo⋅⋅) 03:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo.

There is a discussion at Talk:Cubana de Aviación Flight 972#Flags regarding the use of flags in the Passenger nationalities table. I just read your post at Talk:American Airlines Flight 191 and I think it states very clearly the reasons for said information to be included. I was wondering if there is no problem to add your comment in the Cubana's talk page, because I strongly think it will greatly increase to the discussion, in which your participation will be highly welcomed.

Wishing you a great day! Felviper (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note of thanks for picking up the suggested edits to the Charlie Ergen page. I am new to this, so I appreciate your patience in my learning process. You gave great feedback and I'm working to update the request for some of the items you chose not to implement for the reasons you stated. Again, very much appreciate the insight and guidance.

--Editor4Good (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've completed your suggested changes for the Jon Rose page, Spintendo. Thanks again for your excellent assistance. I've yet to see the page go up online. hollistHollist (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

:Perfect, I'll take a look at it and get back to you. Thanks! {{resize|0.70em|2=  SPINTENDO         }} 00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|Hollist}} I've had a look at the draft - that was a lot of work you did, and it looks great. The only things left that need to be corrected now are the areas of the reference list which are in {{red|red font}}, as these will need to be corrected before being implemented. It appears that these are mostly titles of the references which were used. To get the title, simply visit each website linked to a reference with a red {{red|title missing}} mark and note the title that the article or webpage uses. Then insert that title into the reference under the parameter marked "title=" right after the equal sign. The next step is to address some paraphrasing concerns. All articles need to be written in your own words, and there are a few areas of this draft which are insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. A list of what needs to be fixed may be found [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=838147770&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.australianmusiccentre.com.au%2Fartist%2Frose-jon here]. Not everything on that list will need to be rewritten. Titles of tracks and albums of course cannot be changed, but the software flags it as a copyvio anyways. Just ignore those instances. The areas to be concerned about are the first 4 or 5 paragraphs. When these changes are completed we can begin checking the references and moving portions into the article itself. Regards, {{resize|0.725em|2=  spintendo         }} 03:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo: I have tried for 2 weeks to understand this or to get assistance on this from someone local—and failed. Sorry. I cannot figure out how to do what you suggest. Here are my stumbling blocks: I assume that I must do the edit in the edit section and not the talk section. But in the Edit version, the red “title=” and other red marks do not show up. So, I have to have two versions up in Safari, one in Talk and one in Edit—but then the numbers of the references do not match either. Should I do this in Talk or in Edit? Also, there are some references where I have given the page numbers of the chapter, for instance, and then the specific page from which the item under discussion is referred to—and in red is “ More than one of |pages= and |page= specified”. Should I list only the exact page from where the reference is? Many thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

:#I've fixed all the redlinks that had to do with page errors. Those were instances where you had both the page parameter and the pages parameter filled out, when the system only takes one or the other. The redlinks that are now left are ones where there is no title entered. You need to access each reference where this is the case and go to the URL to ascertain what the title of the page is, then, come back to the redlink reference and enter the title into the reference so it looks like this: |title=Example Title|.

:#When you fix these redlinks, its helpful to have a second page opened in non-editing mode because, as you mentioned, when you're in editing mode they don't appear as red. Use the second page to help guide you to the redlinks.

:#As far as the reference numbers not being aligned, the system computed numbers (shown in the "References" box, which currently numbers up to 102) and the numbered references that you listed below that (which are numbered up to 136) will never add up to the same number. This is because references to the same source are not supposed to have separate entries. They are supposed to have one entry that shares a note number. Now when you entered the references you listed them all separately and the system gave them all separate numbers, but there are several that I have been entering that have one note number used in several areas. You can tell which ones are duplicated, as those will always have superscript letters next to the numbers in the references list, like this:

1.^ ^{a b c} Rose, J. (1986) "Example Reference" p.1

As always, Spintendo, thanks for your guidance, so appreciated. I have completed the addition of titles to url references. It was hard to figure, but now I have gotten it. Also, I note that in the Talk section, reference #87 has the url listed twice, but i don't see that when i look at it in the Edit format. Please check. Then, is there anything else? More paraphrasing? Also, Mr Rose has given me a photo that he prefers to the one that someone put up there, and so it would be good to change, but I don't know how. Thanks so much! hollistHollist (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

{{Outdent|3|reverse=yes}}

:::{{ping|Hollist}} Thank you for your work on this. I have fixed the last two redlinked references. Now that the article is properly formatted, we can move on to the next step. FYI, the article implementation road-map that we're using is displayed below, showing the steps we've already taken and the ones we still need to complete:

:::#Formatting requirements

:::##Generate an iThenticate report to check for insufficiently paraphrased text (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE){{marked}}Completed

:::##Insertion of all references into their proper locations within the text (WP:CITE){{marked}}Completed

:::##Fix all redlinks found within the references section (H:CE){{marked}}Completed

:::#Content requirements

:::##Check each individual reference for URL errors (WP:LINKROT){{marked}}Completed

:::##Verify article's summary style (WP:SS, WP:LENGTH)

:::##Verification of each individual claim statement (WP:PSTS; WP:INTEGRITY; WP:SOURCE)

:::Under the Formatting requirements section, I took care of #1 while you took care of #2 and #3. In the Content requirements section, you'll take care of #1 while I do #2 and #3. I've already begun work on #2, so if you'd begin #1 it would be appreciated. Any link you come across that is dead, try to find a newer link through Google search. If the link is not fixable, the reference may be able to be saved, depending on what the reference is. Let me know which ones you find. Also note that there should be no need to verify any links that you may have already checked while repairing the reference redlinks just recently, as those are assumed to have been working. Thank you! .spintendo⋅⋅) 05:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Spintendo. I have checked all urls and made the changes I knew how to do. I note the following things that still need to be done:

URL issues:

10 = 11 (Fringe Benefits); these could be made the same, with one access date—even today’s.

13 = Colli, I. 2012. “The musical iconoclast.” Limelight Magazine, September, pp. 44-52. http://www.ilariocolli.com.au/writing/35/jon-rose, accessed 5 February 2018. This is no longer online. I suggest removing the url and access date but keeping in. I have a hard copy, so I know this is a real article. (Can send to you if you wish.)

29. This is missing. It is also cited later, and can both have today’s access date:

Scaruffi, P. 1999. “Jon Rose.” http://www.scaruffi.com/avant/rose.html, accessed 7 December 2017.

45 and 99: This link currently does not work, as they are redoing their site. I have a pdf and a hard copy; since it was also published in hard copy, I suggest removing the url and access date. (Can send to you if you wish.) Knowles, J. 2013. “Jon Rose’s The Music of Place: Reclaiming a Practice.” RealTime Arts 115, 10 July 10. http://www.realtimearts.net/article/115/1121, accessed 10 January 2018.

22 = 74. Maybe change both access dates so they can be combined? Wesley-Smith, M. 2012. “Larrikin par excellence.” Resonate Magazine, 21 March. https://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/article/larrikin-par-excellence, accessed 13 February 2018.

30 = 75 Gill, A. 2013. Maybe change both access dates so they can be combined? “Jon Rose, Rosin (ReR).” The Independent, 5 January. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/album-review-jon-rose-rosin-rer-8437081.html, accessed 7 February 2018.

54: This is actually two different references. The first one is Silsbury, E. 2012. ”Innovators take a bow.” Adelaide Advertiser, 18 October. No url. The second one is |title=Jon Rose with K-Bow Interactive Violin at Horse Bazaar Melbourne| and the url is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bddNDOQuyU

59: This newspaper article should really have the full citation: |title=Pannikin: Jon Rose|

by John Slavin, October 11, 2005, The Age.

https://www.theage.com.au/news/arts-reviews/pannikin-jon-rose/2005/10/10/1128796461245.html

80 This should have a url: Taylor, H. 2017. “Birdsong has inspired humans for centuries: is it music?” The Conversation, 26 July. Here it is:

https://theconversation.com/birdsong-has-inspired-humans-for-centuries-is-it-music-79000

accessed 21 May 2018.

93 = 94 and should be combined.

Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

{{quote box|width=50%|align=center|1= 

::::::::Jon Rose

::::::::::{{od|4|reverse=x}}

:::::::::::Article Implementation

::::::::::::{{od|2}}

::::::::::Road Map

1. Formatting requirements
2. Generate an iThenticate report to check for insufficiently paraphrased text (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE){{marked}}Completed
3. Insertion of all references into their proper locations within the text (WP:CITE){{marked}}Completed
4. Fix all redlinks found within the references section (H:CE){{marked}}Completed
5. Content requirements
6. Check each individual reference for URL errors (WP:LINKROT) {{inprogress}}
7. Verify article's summary style (WP:SS, WP:LENGTH) {{inprogress}}
8. Verification of each individual claim statement (WP:PSTS; WP:INTEGRITY; WP:SOURCE)

.spintendo  10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

}}

{{clear}}

Spintendo--Just want to make sure you notice I have completed my work. Also, the photo of Jon Rose needs to be replaced. Can you assist me with this? Many thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

:I did indeed notice that, thank you. Now while I work on the last two sections, what you could do is write a lead section. I noticed that the lead section is not really that succinct, and what it needs is to summarize the main parts of the whole article in about 5 sentences, if you could do that it would be great. As far as the picture, what kind of picture did you want to replace it with? keeping in mind licensing requirements. Do you know the person who took the picture, is it that kind of picture you want to use... or is it a random picture? .spintendo  00:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

:Also, when you checked the URL's, did you look to see if any of the references which didn't have a URL attached, if there were any that could be attached? For instance, if it's a published book it would be listed on [https://www.worldcat.org WorldCat]. If it's a journal article, you can look for the DOI in [https://search.crossref.org Crossref] and if its a newspaper article you can check google. There are still a lot which have no URL linked. .spintendo  00:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Spintendo. Intro redo:

I’m using Jon Rose’s colleague John Zorn’s Wiki entry as a model (and Frances-Marie Uitti). I tried making it go more in order of what the article does, but that just makes it longer. What about this:

We cut this sentence entirely: He gave up formal tuition at the age of 15.[2]

Then we move these 2 sentences to the beginning of the 2nd paragraph in the section Early career:

Central to his practice has been “The Relative Violin” project, a unique Gesamtkunstwerk (or total art form) manifesting in all-embracing, diverse outcomes on, with, and about the violin and string music more generally.[2] He has been described as ‘undoubtedly the most exploratory, imaginative and iconoclastic violin player who has lived in Australia.”

That gives us this for the lede:

Jon Rose (19 February 1951) is an Australian violinist, composer, and improviser. He was born in England and began playing violin at age 7 after winning a music scholarship to King's School in Rochester.[1][1] Since the 1970s, he has been at the sharp end of new, improvised, and experimental music and media.[3] He has created large environmental multimedia works, engaged with interactive electronic systems, built experimental music instruments, performed with numerous colleagues from the fields of new music and improvisation, created radiophonic works, and written cultural criticism, as well as improvised violin concertos with orchestra.[4] “Rose doesn't fit into any easily described categories - he does not swing, stomp or generate an ambient haze,” writes The Guardian critic John L. Walters, “but all his albums create a violin-shaped world that is all his own, shot through with wild humour.”[6]

Adding urls:

I can click on the link for WorldCat and CrossRef and go and get even more urls—I guess you mean like books for sale on Amazon or something, but I would have no idea how to place them in the current article. it looks like there is |url= but then a lot of information that I see in the current edit for other references—I have no idea how much I need to do and how much will just be automatically populated—and if so what I would need to do in order for that to happen. Can you assist me with really specific instructions. I’ll get right on it. I only have 5 days to complete this before I am outback for a month, often with no internet, so I’m really trying to do everything now and feeling panicked. Thanks so much, hollistHollist (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say that the photo is by David Watson, who has given it to me with permission for this entry.

Thanks so much, hollistHollist (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:#The only URL's to place in references should be from WorldCat or DOI.org. Amazon should not be used. Almost anything on amazon will be on WorldCat.

:#On each worldcat entry page, there is a link at the top right hand side of the page that says permalink. Click on that and copy the url that it gives you.

:#When you're in edit mode of the draft, place your cursor where you want the reference to appear in the text (if replacing a non-URL's ref entry, place the cursor just before the old tag)

:#Click Cite at the top of the editing box until the wedge ► is facing downwards ▾

:#A dropdown box will appear below this. Click where it says Templates and choose cite book.

:#A window will appear with blank fields. Place the URL you copied from WorldCat in the URL field and click the magnifying glass search icon. The system will populate the blanks fields.

:#Click preview to make sure it looks alright, then click insert.

:#Delete everything up till the closing tag of the old reference.

:#The picture you have needs to be uploaded by you to Wikipedia before it can be added to the article. Photographs that have been given to you personally are more difficult to license, as you have to email the particulars to WP:OTRS.

:#On Wikipedia there should be WP:NORUSH because there is no deadline. Do what you're able to do, and anything you don't get to can wait until later. {{smiley}}

::.spintendo  10:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

:Thank you for this, but it is not I who allows you to make edits on Wikipedia, that is just how the system has been put in place. Anyone is free to edit a Wikipedia page, as long as the information they place there is done so with accompanying references which validate any additions. I can't say if the additions you had planned to make to the page were appropriate or not, only that according to the rules of Wikipedia, you should be allowed to make those additions, as long as they were done so according to Wikipedia's five pillars and didn't involve yourself. Regards, .spintendo  22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick update. Several professionals who know me and I work collaborated on a new page. It lastd less than 3 days before @Seraphim system reverted it to the one he/she had done last August, with all of the original errors (e.g.,listing me as a retired Marine officer when I wa/am neither of those things)> A couple of days later, my Israeli "friend" did his vandalism. And FYI the reason the sourcing on me IS somewhat sparse is simply because excluding my middle name has that effect - which is why I want it used.

Not sure where I can go from here. Requesting a new edit won't matter if the original editor is that dense (sorry, this is how I feel about someone had the original factual errors pointed out nd chose to ignore them). Since you caught several yourself, I am open to suggestions.

Many thanks in dvance - AlanDocbrosk1941 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

:I don't know that user, but from what I can see they appear to be an experienced editor. Which article was this again? .spintendo  22:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

hi Spintendo

Thanks for the note on the Pallister-Hall edits. Here is the thing - one cannot and should never "put into their own words" diagnostic criteria for a disease - they must be literally copied to eliminate ambiguity and avoid any possible misimpression that the criteria have been changed or modified. So, how do we deal with this? Should I go to Wiley-Blackwell and ask for copyright permission?

Thanks again,

Les — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliegb (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Lesliegb}} I'm sorry can you remind me which article this was about again, and I'll take a look. Thanks! .spintendo  02:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo. In January you answered to proposed changes concerning the Lottoland article. Thank you. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALottoland&type=revision&diff=843613647&oldid=843612361 responded] to your comments on the talk page. Can you look again? Thx. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{responded}} .spintendo  16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Spintendo,

You've been great in devoting so much time to How(book) and Dov Seidman. Since you're spending a lot of time of the request edit queue (which is great!) your opinion is very important to me, as a COI paid editor.

That said, I do strongly disagree with you on those last two items requested for How: the addition of the short introductory sentence about the How philosophy and the mention of the 2011 edition of the book with the President Clinton forward. The world won't end without these two sentences, but I think the encyclopedia article would be much stronger if they were included.

I'm not trying to change your mind with this message. But I want to know if you'd take offense if I involved more editors just on these two sentences. Maybe through an RfC or maybe by posting a notice on a WikiProject for additional input. But I'm very dependent on you for all my other work on request edit, so I don't want to take steps that are going to make you think I'm ungrateful for getting the How (book) article in much better shape or, that will interfere with your other reviews of my edit requests. So I want to check in advance to maximize collegiality and ask you for your preferred way to handle this.

Ed -BC1278 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

:{{tq|"ask you for your preferred way to handle this."}} If by "this" you mean what is my preferred way of handling conflict of interest edits, all I can say is that when I've been faced with COI editing before, my preferred way to handle it has been to not edit pages where COI situations would arise. Because I'm rarely faced with COI's,{{efn|The most recent example I can think of when I was confronted with a conflict of interest edit actually happened just recently. In the edit request queue there is a request to edit the Nintendo 64 article. Normally, usernames that are identical to or slightly similar to well known company names like my username would not be allowed. If by chance a username is allowed, Wikipedia guidance is that the user strenuously avoid any editing of the article about the similarly named business, because doing so, even innocently, could easily imply a shared account, which is forbidden. So in the case of the Nintendo article, my preferred way to handle it is to avoid editing the article, even as a COI review editor. And because I wont handle that page, you'll probably see the Nintendo 64 request sitting there for quite some time, unfortunately, before it finally gets an answer.}} I can't say that your question comes up a lot, but when it has, my two preferences in dealing with a COI scenario is to (1) restrain myself from editing the page or (2) use the COI edit request system. I hope this answer helps! .spintendo  04:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

{{notelist-talk}}

::Hey. Thanks for the reply. But I think I wasn't focused enough in what I meant to ask. I am interested in getting some more editors to weigh in about including the sentence describing the basic premise of the book (how you do things matters more than what you do). But I want to proceed in the most collegial, friendly way possible, since I respect your opinion and you've been generous in improving the article. You've helped me capture some of the more nuanced discussions very well. I could put up an RfC, for example, about just this one sentence, but the last thing I would want to do is have you think this is anything more than a request to have a collegial discussion among a few editors. (When I put up an RfC, I disclose I have a COI and I don't vote - I just give my opinion.) It seems to me like RfCs often become really tense and confrontational. I don't want that here. So I am checking in advance if my putting up an RfC about this one sentence is going to bother you? (I found a reference for the NY Times best seller and will add that as an edit request) Best -BC1278 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

:::Ah OK I misunderstood you — in which case my last reply would not have been very helpful, sorry about that! So in this case my input would be the same as WP:OTHERPARENT which states that when multiple issues exist, the raising of the individual issues on the correct project pages may be reasonable. Hope this answer works better. .spintendo  01:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

I have responded here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barclays_Africa_Group#Name_change, but can't work out how to tag you... Thanks so much for your assistance, much appreciated.

And I am learning, rapidly, which is great!Nicola Mawson (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{responded}} .spintendo  01:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UIUC College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Urbana and College of Liberal Arts and Sciences ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/UIUC_College_of_Liberal_Arts_and_Sciences check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/UIUC_College_of_Liberal_Arts_and_Sciences?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{resolved}} .spintendo  13:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see the request I've left on the talk page of Bob Enyart on the claim the he supports the death penalty for homosexuality. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.59.62 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

:Mr. Enyart makes some fairly straight-forward claims in that video. He first mentions that enablers of homosexuality are "millions of people who are in rebellion against God, that they like being lied to so they can feel that God is a liar while every man is a truth-teller" (31:48). He then says "When America was founded there was actually the death penalty for homosexuality" (36:40) but that these enablers who are in rebellion, like John Adams, went on to make liberal laws which outlawed the death penalty. He said that those laws are not real laws, mentioning that the real laws were ones like 1 Timothy, where he states "Paul wrote that God gave the law, and that the law is good if we use it lawfully." We must know this he says, "that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners." (32:58) His claim is that real laws like the ones in Timothy and Romans, prove that God gave up on these men who have vile passions, saying "men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (35:15) Finally, he mentions what the real penalty ultimately is and ought to be - the only law that matters - by citing Romans 1, where he says "And so God warns 'Don't do these things. They're worthy of death.' The reason is because they bring death to millions of people, even innocent victims - but to be nicer than God is to hate everyone but yourself." (39:32) Following this line of reasoning we can graph out Enyart's argument pathway:

{{chart top|Enyart Logical Argument Pathway|collapsed=no}}

{{chart/start|align=center}}

{{chart| | | | AL| | | | | | | |AL=I. Enablers challenge God
(e→c)}}

{{chart| | | | |!| | | | | | | | }}

{{chart| | | | HEL|P|P|DCW| | | | HEL=II. These challenges
create false laws
(c→f)
∴ e→f|DCW=III. God says real laws deal with sinners by putting them to death
-(-f→d)}}

{{chart| | | | | | | | | |! | | | | }}

{{chart| | | | | ||| |CH|P|P|SID| | | | |CH=IV. Timothy and Romans
are God's laws
because they deal
specifically with sinners
(-f⊅d)⊃(-f→-d)|SID=V. God made laws that deal harshly w/ Gay people
and these laws are ideal to
the false laws created by enablers
(d→f)⊃(f→g)
∴ -d→-g }}

{{chart| | | | | | | | || | | | | |! | | | | }}

{{chart| | | || | ||||||| | IS| | | IS=VI. Conclusion:
Because Gay people
do not follow God's laws
(which are the only laws which matter)
and because they cause
the deaths of others,
they themselves are worthy of death
-(d→f)⊅(f→g)
∴ (-g→-d)⊃(g→d)}}

{{chart/end}}

{{chart bottom}}

:Looking at this, I'd have to say that no, the speaker doesn't say "The law should immediately be changed to make the death penalty legal for Gay people" but I'll tell you what he has done instead is taken his audience on a predetermined path leading to that conclusion. To help his audience arrive at this destination he's taken a large swath of previously impassable foliage and cut out all the growth to make a clearing. Upon that clearing he laid down a sturdy and fortified brick road, festooned all along the way with brightly-lit floodlights illuminating the path. Finally, he posted large directional signs along the route, telling those walking upon it exactly where they were headed and how long till they got there. On the journey of persuasion it takes a lot more than just simple words strung together to get others to see your line of reasoning. There must be a coherent narrative, richly explained with lush details. We can be assured that Enyart's messaging was purposefully chosen, as no preacher worth his weight in gold would allow his flock to get lost along the path to righteousness. That was the best way for him to convey such a message, in the language of his laity. Suggesting that he meant anything other than this is intellectually dishonest.  spintendo  09:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting, but it seems to make a few big leaps. At 35:15, he seems to specifically say that the verse shows that homosexuality leads th o self-destruction, and that it's basically a self-inflicted punishment.

Your "logical string" is pretty loose, but 36:40 seems to be the most relevant part. Within the context of the other, he *does* seem to be suggesting that it was better when there was a death penalty for homosexuality. However, he also repeatedly mentions that when that was law, no one was put to death, but now, with gay marriage, millions are "put to death" by their own sin.

So, I'd like to change my request for removal to a request for an edit. While Mr. Enyart does not seem to promote the idea that homosexuals should be put to death, he does seem to support a death penalty for homosexuality as a sort of prevention method, and it seems that he doesn't actually want people to be put to death based on his repeated mentions that no one was in early America.

If it would be alright, I'd like to change the wording on the page myself. Thanks. 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

An FYI I left you a note over at Talk:Robert Thomson (executive). I look forward to your input. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{responded}}  spintendo  20:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Understand your removal of subscription packages and channel lineups for Sling TV. If we remove them from Sling TV, shouldn't the same be done for Philo (company), PlayStation Vue, YouTube TV and DirecTV Now? Thanks. Msw1002 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Msw1002}} Your question is a good one, and I think getting the answer to that is worthwhile, so I've started a discussion over at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Channel_lineups_and_pricing_tiers_in_articles_about_Media_providers Village pump] to garner feedback from other editors. Your input would be welcomed.  spintendo  02:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

I saw your most recent edits on the Google bus protests article, and they are a good improvement, thanks for doing them. (I didn't have a good place for the San Francisco housing shortage link, thanks for putting it somewhere better. Is it common/normal to use italics for "See also...."? If so, I'll try to start doing that.

I'm curious why you removed the blockquote from the reference I added?

I put blockquotes in references because I believe that it makes it much easier for a reader to mouse-over the reference and see the relevant lines from that source which support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Also many times (definitely in this case) the blockquotes give greater detail (numbers) which might be too much information in the article directly, but if a reader has interest, they allow an easy way to see more info (easier than clicking on the link and reading the entire article). I don't know what percentage of users will click a link to read the reference (does Wikipedia keep any info on this?) but simply mousing over a link gives more info if a blockquote is included. (and more readable than regular quote).

Your thoughts? Avatar317 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

:Thank you for your reply. I placed a hat-note at the beginning of the Gentrification section which links to the very important article which you wanted to add, and I appreciate your contribution of it, as I hadn't thought of including it before now. It's certainly an important part that factored in to the protests. As far as the blockquote in the reference, in most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source; readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. It can be useful to include additional annotations in the footnote to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting, particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source. But in this case the quoted information came from one source, with the quote discussing not just San Francisco, but Houston as well — including details such as the number of jobs added in that city and the number of dwellings built there — information which I felt went above and beyond what the Google bus protest article's scope is. But in any event, I truly appreciate what you brought to the article. I think it is much better because of it. {{smiley}}  spintendo  23:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)  

::Thanks for your reply. I agree with your point that the number of jobs in Houston is irrelevant to this article. I'd still like to include the blockquote but only use the first sentence, which QUANTIFIES the degree of housing shortage in S.F. The strength of this shortage is what is causing the dramatic rise in rents. A minor shortage would not have such problematic consequences.

::"San Francisco's metropolitan area added 373,000 net new jobs in the last five years[2012 - 2017]—but issued permits for only 58,000 units of new housing."

::I understand your idea about what is sufficient in a reference, but I feel that Wikipedia's goal is not to do the minimum deemed necessary, but to do our best to serve the higher goal of providing as easy access to information as possible to our readers and to do our best to inform them. Thanks! ---- Avatar317 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Please be very careful on these pages, and take your time with them. Please look at the notice of general sanctions at the top of Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency) (really please look at it, and follow the link to see what the sanctions are, on these topics). Please allow COI requests to sit a bit to get feedback from current talk page watchers before you implement. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

:Yuck...Based on what I've read so far, these articles sound like toxic waste - I don't want to go near them for fear of getting contaminated....I don't want to have anything to do with them. Thank you for the heads up, I appreciate it! {{smiley}}  spintendo  16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir for your feedback on the draft article. I will take care to edit the article once again as per your guidelines.Vinodbasker (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo - Thanks for your message about my updates to the page 'Peter Pastreich.' Peter is a client of mine and I used a previous biography written by Peter himself to update his page. This bio has indeed been published in theatrical and symphonic programs, but, again, it was written by him. Is it possible for me to send you permission from him to use that biography? Let me know at your earliest.

Thanks!

Kevykev1978 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)kevykev1978

:Copyright clearances can be given to the Open-source Ticket Request System by sending the information to one of the email addresses located at Wikipedia:Contact OTRS. Make sure your email explains the situation and that you would like to offer a release for the information. A volunteer editor should reply with further instructions. Regards,  spintendo  01:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't seem to understand how all the work Ive done is a copyright problem. Everything that I have used I had taken from other appropriate articles from Wikipedia itself. You also removed the entire Egypt subsection of the article. Can you elaborate your reasoning as you undid absolutely everything that I did without making any distinction between what was appropriate and what wasn't. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.114.246 (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

:Thank you for your reply. Part of the information which you had added was taken word for word from a source which exists under copyright. That information was removed. Additionally, other information that you had added apparently was done so without a broad consensus from the community for its addition, as evidenced by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&type=revision&diff=842872109&oldid=842867249&diffmode=source this revert] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&type=revision&diff=842881046&oldid=842875230&diffmode=source this revert]. If there was information I reverted which had community consensus to add, then I apologize. Please let me know which information this is and I will re-add it to the article. Regards,  spintendo  02:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am a member of the Gideons (with my application being approved a few days ago); I was trying to imply that without blurting it out because I did not want a robot at headquarters (like places I've worked use to monitor comments on social media) to flag it as if I am requesting the edit on behalf of or as a representative of the organization. Being new to the organization, I didn't know if they would appreciate that. I am honestly flattered by your comments about my editing experience and level of respect on the encyclopedia project. I would feel comfortable removing the sentence per WP:BOLD if you don't think doing so would be controversial or seen a form of whitewashing because the edit I am proposing is more for the integrity of Wikipedia than anything else. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

{{responded}} {{smiley}}  spintendo  03:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Thank you and apologies. The Hormel 10-year relationship with Temple Grandin error is mine. Can I hopefully mend with continued good faith? I had the Hormel link (that spells out the 10-year relationship) in one of two documents on my computer but did not paste it along with my signature.

Moving forward, is there any way to continue to work together? And possibly include a quote or Temple mention with an explanation of her 10-year relationship with Hormel?

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

:Please use the template on the article talk pages.  spintendo  23:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|Hello-Mary-H}} The easiest way to get the information into the article about Ms. Grandin is to find a source reporting on her visit to the Hormel facility. This source should not be industry-related in any way, and would best be a news report from a broadcast news or newspaper source, preferably one not residing in the same city as the facility — since those publications can be seen as beholden to the companies which largely employ the same people who constitute their viewers. If I were to place it now with scant sourcing, it would be easier to remove as being biased. With better sourcing, the claim would sit with a stronger foundation in the article. Regards,  spintendo  03:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Spintendo, I just wanted to thank you for your patience and your help with my COI edit requests for AIG. I imagine you come under a lot of scrutiny from both sides, so I wanted to let you know that whether you're approving my edits or rejecting them, I appreciate that you're taking the time to review them at all. Going forward, I was curious if it would be better to reach out to you here for minor updates that may have been overlooked, or to edit or create a new edit request for review. For example, I realized that I mistakenly listed the removal of Bernard Connolly twice from the See also section rather than Bernard Connolly and MBIA. Similarly, would it have been best to change the answer parameter to "no" on David Cote request? At the time I wasn't aware that this would be an appropriate measure, but after your advice on AIG I was curious if that's your preferred way to flag you when I respond. I'll defer to your expertise, but I wanted to confirm if the conversation was fully closed at that point after you asked for guidance on my requested edits. Thanks again for all the help.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

:It's usually a good idea to change the edit request answer parameter from yes to no, that way it gives other editors a chance to add their input if they'd like to, plus it keeps all the past actions for that particular aspect of a request together in one spot in case other editors want to see how the request has been handled at other times. In this case I'll go ahead and look at that request. {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

::After reviewing the talk page, some of my questions have been answered, but others I would like input on to help me to better understand. So I've pinged other editors who have greater experience with the article to get their feedback, hopefully they will be able to help out on this subject. Regards, {{resize|0.82em|2= Spintendo     }} 19:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:::It's been about a month, and no one has offered up any constructive feedback. I don't want to pull you into what feels like an already hostile situation, so I'm curious if you have any suggestions for other places I might be able to get someone to take a look at the proposed changes themselves, rather than antagonize me with assumptions about my work. I truly appreciate that you review my changes on the content itself and hold me to a high standard, and I respect your opinions when it comes to these situations. Am I being incredibly obtuse here, or do you think that my perception that I'm being judged by my character rather than my work holds water?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry, what article was this about? .spintendo⋅⋅) 23:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I should have specified. I was referencing the re-opening of the edit request here.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

{{unindent}}I'm sorry, I don't see any current requests there. New or re-opened requests, like all posts, would go at the bottom of the page, and I don't see any there. As for a Fix the Debt article, that would go to WP:AFC. Regards, .spintendo⋅⋅) 02:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|FacultiesIntact}} Was there an edit request that you wished to reopen? If so, please place the request in a new heading at the bottom of that page with a new template. Looking at the history of the page, it shows that I was the last person to edit it, about one month ago. So there is neither new nor reopened requests that I can see. Please advise. .spintendo⋅⋅) 05:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

::A month ago I had reopened the edit request about the Attitude to deficit reduction section on David M. Cote (at your suggestion). You gave me a very well-thought out and fair response, and ultimately deferred to a discussion between the previously involved editors. Instead of commenting on the proposed content, however, they chastised me for my perceived behavior of attempting to "negotiate" the article content. You were kind enough to set the record straight, but there's still been no discussion between any of the other editors beyond that. I'm not asking you to jump back in, because I don't think that's fair to you, or really your problem at all. I'm just curious to hear your opinion on the matter, as I said above, because I respect you and the work you do, as well as the standards you've held me to on my other edit requests. Am I out of touch for thinking that I'm being antagonized for my COI, rather than my work itself? And if so, do you know of an appropriate place to discuss the issue?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

:::I appreciate all that — but seeing as how I'm not a WP:MINDREADER, if you could just describe what it is about the attitude to deficit reduction section that you'd like changed, maybe I can help. Please advise. .spintendo⋅⋅) 02:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

::::Hi Spintendo, I'd suggest adding the Fix the Debt information to a Fix the Debt section of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget page. I found two other members of this committee, Antonio Villaraigosa and Peter Peterson that have similar information on their page and believe it would be more encyclopedic to move them. Specifically, Kevin Connors quote "They are spending millions, but they are protecting billions in defense contracts and tax giveaways that would otherwise be on the chopping block" doesn't make sense to be on David M. Cote's BLP.

::::In Peter Peterson's case: Fix the Debt redirects From Wikipedia search, to Peter Peterson's page. It's more intuitive navigation for it to redirect to Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, or to a new dedicated article.

::::In Antonio Villaraigosa's case: The section has a bias against the organization, but in any case, this could be added to the Fix the Debt page.

After he left the mayor's office, Villaraigosa was involved in Campaign to Fix the Debt, a movement for entitlement reform to cut Social Security and Medicare, which Democratic strategist Nathan Ballard said is "not just touching the third rail — it’s an act of public self-immolation."

::::I don't have a COI with the other members of this committee, but it seems the best way to improve Wikipedia on the whole is to reform the entire Fix the Debt page. DGG, you, and I all agreed that there should be an article to consolidate this information. Shall I present a sandbox of this? How do you suggest we move ahead with this?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

:::::I think a Fix The Debt section of the CRFB page might be a good idea if you want to propose it there, or if you would like it on its own page, then maybe it could go through WP:AFC (since they handle COI requests for article creation). I'm not entirely familiar with that process.  spintendo  02:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

{{unindent}}Hey, hope you've been doing well. I've been working on creating a new article on Fix the Debt, with content from the aforementioned articles, as well as some other research. I was wondering if you were interested in or had the time to take a look at it and offer any suggestions on how to further improve it before I submit it to the AfC process. I know it's not exactly COI-related, but I always appreciate any feedback I can get. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|FacultiesIntact}} I've placed feedback on your draft.  spintendo  18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Thanks so much for your work and detailed explanations on the additions/subtractions I suggested on

the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cinereach talk page for the Cinereach Article].

Just a quick message to let you know that I took your notes and fixed a couple of the points accordingly, below the explanations you created. If you have time to revisit the talk page and check out my brief response with header "Response to reviewer decisions and feedback 21-JUN-2018," I'd be grateful! Otherwise, would you advise that I add an edit request tag to submit my changes to others in the editor community?

Many thanks again for your careful attention,

--RevaGoldberg (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{responded}} {{smiley}}  spintendo  01:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exact Sciences (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Exact_Sciences_%28company%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Exact_Sciences_%28company%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

{{resbox|{{fixed}}}}  spintendo  09:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bhanushali].

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Checkmate87 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{responded}} Thank you!  spintendo  23:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi spintendo,

Is there something I need to do in Talk for Hormel WP about a "hidden category"? I have 3 edit requests and it looks like they are in a hidden category. I can't figure out if and how to remedy this or if "hidden category" prevents editors like you from seeing these requests.

Thank you,

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

:There is nothing hidden there, the text which was submitted as an edit request required additional information, so once it was deemed as "reviewed" it was placed under extended content and readied for archiving. The request should then be resubmitted along with the missing information under a new edit request template under a new heading, as you've done. If we were to continue working on the older, already-reviewed text, this would have unnecessarily held up the talk page's "flow". By placing the request under a new template, the entire conversation is easier to follow. Please note, your edit requests often make use of multiple templates in one setting. This is not needed, and only serves to clutter the page. In the future, please activate only one request template at a time. The template is versatile, and can cover many different subheadings of requests. FYI  spintendo  23:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I really hate to pursue this further, but your handling of Talk:David Cay Johnston#Inaccuracy on when I taught at Syracuse leads me to believe you are not taking sufficient care in reading edit requests. You initially templated the user with a statement that {{tq|it is unclear what specific changes you'd like to be made}}, when their requested changes were crystal-clear. The issue was in fact that they had not provided a reliable source. If you must use a template, you should ensure it actually says what you mean. You then suggested that the user had not provided links for the second part of their request, when they clearly had, they had simply omitted the URI scheme ({{tq|http://}}), causing the parser not to detect them as links (which I have since fixed). You would have noticed this if you had looked their request over in detail. Anyway, not meaning to pick a fight, just some things to think about. Wishing you nothing but good karma. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|TheDragonFire}} Thank you for your feedback. The difficulties with this edit request were numerous:

:# Not indicating which references were to be used

:# Not providing clear links to the references they wanted to use

:# Giving less than clear directions about which text was to be changed

:# Making their requests from within a densely packed string of sentences saddled with unnecessary discourse and quotations (e.g., "I assume this is just a typo but would someone of the nice people who created and have updated this page please fix this." and "Nov 11, 1986 - It took five trials and almost seven years for Tony Cooks' nightmare to end, but Monday in a Compton courtroom, a jury found him innocent of a ... Long Ordeal of a Murder Suspect : Tony Cooks of Compton, a Victim of..." and "Nov 13, 1986 - On Monday, in a fifth trial, Cooks was acquitted, partly on the basis of new ... It's been almost seven years since Tony Cooks of Compton could ... Murder Suspect Will Go on Trial for Fifth Time : Guilt, Innocence to Be...")

:When all of these distractions are factored in, the entire breadth of the edit request was indeed unclear as to what specific changes they wanted to be made. Perhaps they would take care to note for future reference the following:

:* Quotations from the references are not needed. In fact, their inclusion in an edit request only confuses the situation, as it will be initially unclear to the reviewer whether or not this is text that the COI editor wishes to add to the article. They certainly didn't specify that these were merely quotations that no one had asked for.

:* The citations that are to be placed in the article ought to be styled using the citation style of the article. If this had been done, the URLs would have been plain to see.

:* If the problem is merely to change a date, then just say so. There does not need to be guesstimates provided about other editors making mistakes. Placing the dates to be changed in bolded text also helps. Indeed, an incorrectly listed date needing to be changed such as the one asked for in this edit request would count as the correction of a typographical error. These types of changes do not need the assistance of an edit request template, as they are considered to be uncontroversial edits that the COI editor may make themselves, per WP:COIU.  spintendo  09:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

::I think what I'm trying to say is that there are two types of edit request; those from corporate relations teams that are being paid to argue with us, and those from reasonable BLP subjects who are just trying to correct inaccuracies in what we are publishing about them. The former deserve being held to your above standards, whereas the latter are actually doing us a favour, and we should treat them as such. In fact, we refer users from various other help channels to the {{tl|edit request}} system with the understanding that the request is waiting for an editor with an interest in the subject who will at least perform WP:BEFORE-style due diligence before declining. If there is community consensus that {{tl|edit request}} is merely a procedural bureaucracy, then I will have to keep users on {{IRC|wikipedia-en-help}} and OTRS (which is often heavily backlogged) in the future, where I can ensure quality of service. I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but I cannot safely refer users to {{tl|edit request}} if I then have to micromanage how they are handled, because it creates nasty situations as above and nobody wins. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

:::{{ping|TheDragonFire}} It's been said that a well-asked question is already half of the way towards being answered, and so it would seem to be the same here, where a well asked COI edit request is already half of the way on its journey towards being implemented. While I agree that two main divisions of COI edit requester's exist, I would find disagreement with your statement that a conscientious COI editor's misshaped request is any less frustrating than a paid COI editor's abusive relisting. They are two sides of the same coin. As there is no Divine Right of editors here, the onus is on all of us to be responsible and considerate. By making requests with irrelevant, errant text as well as forgetting to insert the correct code to highlight URLs, the editor was being less than considerate in how they approached the edit request system — no matter how inadvertent this approach may have been — since the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would hate to think that responses made here would alter how your side of the operation functions as far as suggestions made to editors, so instead of describing what didn't work with Mr. Johnston's request, perhaps it would be more illustrative here to counter-factually show what his request should have looked like:

:::::::::::::{{Outdent|10|reverse=yes}}

{{quote box|width=50%|align=center|1={{color box|#b0e0e6|1.) Text to remove:}} "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Morbi gravida libero nec velit."
{{color box|#b0e0e6|2.) Text to add:}} "Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus."
{{color box|#b0e0e6|3.) Reference to use:}} {{cite journal |last1=Juergens |first1=Norbert |title=The Biological Underpinnings of Namib Desert Fairy Circles |journal=Science |date=29 March 2013 |volume=339 |issue=6127 |pages=1618–1621 |doi=10.1126/science.1222999 |url=https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222999 |language=en |issn=0036-8075}}
{{color box|#b0e0e6|4.) Reasons:}} The previously placed text did not show adequately when the subject worked at the location. The replacement text gives this information much more succinctly.}}

:::::{{od|20}}

{{clear}}

Owing to the general Wikipedian population being less than-familiar with markup than most, this means that when it comes to edit requests, the weight of those received arrive to us placed in archaic, prose structured sentences (like Mr. Johston's) rather than being placed in a much-more efficient and accurate, table-standardized version shown above.  spintendo  01:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

:I forgot to mention, there remains only one CN tag in the article that needs to be addressed. All of the other concerns noted by the COI editor in their request have been resolved. Again, thank you for your input! {{smiley}}  spintendo  18:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Just to draw your attention to changes on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barclays_Africa_Group. It's under name change, last entry on page at the moment.

Thanks so much! (Much pressure on our side with all these changes)

N

Nicola Mawson (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

{{responded}}  spintendo  13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)