User talk: Spintendo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What exactly does a COI editor have to disclose?

I'm curious about the user Saad Ahmed2983 who has disclosed paid editing related to One America News Network. The payment is from "Unlinked Corp" but I can't find any info on this company. I'm curious whether this editor was tasked specifically to alter the Wikipedia page of One America News Network by this company. I'm also curious what the relationship between "Unlinked Corp" and One America News Network is. Are PAID COI accounts not required to divulge such information? This is an extremely rare instance where I've encountered a PAID COI, so I'm curious how this works. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

In my experience the only requirement for disclosure has been for COI editors to disclose who is paying them, and that they use the |client= parameter in conjunction with the |employer= parameter in the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template to distinguish whom the ultimate target of the paid editing is versus where their paycheck is coming from, which I've always taken to be as the general goal of WP:DCOI. There is no requirement that they prove who is paying them (such as via a pay stub for example). With respect to verification of a claimed entity existing when it appears that the entity may not exist (such as in your search for "Unlinked Corp") that's not too unusual of a situation. I would expect that there are more than a few freelance agencies who offer paid Wikipedia editing who may not show up in cursory searches for them due to their new-ness or size of agency. I hope this better explains things. Regards,  Spintendo  11:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Madrona Venture Group edit request

Hello! Thank you for all your help on the Madrona Venture Group edit request, I put responses on the talk page, is that the best place to add clarifications to questions you brought up? Or should I do another request for edit? Thank you again! Erikashaffer (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Erikashaffer: If you've clarified something that was brought up in an edit request review, it's best to clarify it on the article's talk page just under the post where the review was initially made. In order to be sure that I and other editors see it, be sure to add a {{request edit}} template to the top of your new (or reply) post.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Private business school : misleading content / advertising / abusive pages

Hello As you will read on [my user page], I want to help clean up wikipedia that is being abused by private school - fake accreditations, fake ratings, abusive promotion, etc... I see you are active and would value your inputs support etc.. Will tag you in the pages, for now : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GBSB_Global_Business_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EU_Business_School#misleading_content_/_advertising_>>_updates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Council_for_Business_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EAE_Business_School Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstuBcn (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@EstuBcn: Thank you for your comments. In terms of editing in the areas you've suggested, the only advice I can offer would be the following:

1. While you are free to edit Wikipedia as you see fit, that editing should only be done as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they've been laid out
2. It may not be a good idea to only edit Wikipedia in order to make a point, as you've stated on your user page: "Police wikipedia for private business schools putting MONEY before interests of their students". There are already many other editors experienced in the matters of which you speak ("policing private business schools"). Before jumping in yourself, I would suggest maybe observing some of their work in order to get a better idea of how this type of editing takes place.

In the end, there is a whole universe of different editing needs here to be taken care of, from Common mistakes for the newbie editor to new article patrol and articles for deletion for the more experienced editor. It would be a shame if you were to limit yourself only to one sort of task when there are many others that could be taken up. Whatever area you choose to edit in, be sure to work with the consensus of other local editors whom you will come across. Their participation is important, and you will help to foster a healthy editing environment when you include others input into your own editing decisions. I wish you success! If you have any questions along the way, I'm always here to help. Regards,  Spintendo  20:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

:@Spintendo: Many thanks for such an extensive answer. I get your points. WP policy is well noted, and I did read with interest the conflict of interest noticeboard. I am looking forward to seeing experienced editors deal with the promotion aspects I layed out, especially seeing [Singapore Management University COI] case which is very interesting in terms of promotion. I will go over my latest changes to make sure they are pondered. regards. EstuBcn (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

creation of company page under disclosed COI

Hello @Spintendo: I am a paid editor and have disclosed my COI on my talk page. I recently submitted draft:goldgenie which was deleted under G11 criteria by user:K.e.coffman as they deemed it to be an advertisement. I want to recreate the page but would like to know what to avoid when writing company pages. As far as I am aware the company meets the guideline on notability and does have sufficient secondary sources and even a tertiary source courtesy of the British government. I think wires may have been crossed because back in 2011 the company did upload a page without declaring COI, something which my client regrets. My client has expressed a commitment to abide by the rules of this platform and does not want to violate any native advertising laws. If I recreate the draft would you be willing to check it to make sure the draft is suitable for inclusion? Many thanks Turtle neck ninja (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Turtle neck ninja: Not knowing the specifics of the case, I would have to rely on the advice of K.e.coffman, who is a very highly qualified editor. If you have questions about why the draft was deleted I would suggest contacting them for more information. Regards,  Spintendo  17:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Pace U.

Hi,

Left a note on the Pace University Talk page, but thought I'd let you know that I asked them to make fixing the citations a priority and they said they'd assign someone to it very soon. I have already volunteered a lot of hours for them (aside from getting paid for part of the work, as disclosed) and will volunteer more to make sure they do a good job. And they disclose COI even for citations. Tracking down new citations for dead URLs, or finding the same page at a new URL, is something someone who knows Pace University very well is going to be able to do much more quickly than me. And they can use a little training on creating correct citation formats in case they ever propose a COI edit in the future. I was discussing this with Pace when the other editors came in and made their comments and edits. This article could become GA with enough work, but it's not something I have time for right now. Thanks for your review. BC1278 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278

I went ahead and converted the article's remainder of stray references (about 10 or so) over to WP:CS1. There was one reference I wasn't able to transfer over, a document with a URL that indicated it would have only been accessible to users of Pace's shibboleth. Because I am not one of those users, I was unable to view the document in order to find any identifying information (such as a DOI, etc.) In lieu of placing the reference for that item I went ahead and inserted a citation needed template. So anything you or other COI editors for that article in the future would like to add, you can go ahead and place the citations as CS1 in your edit requests and you'll be good to go. Thanks for your help.  Spintendo  22:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I stumbled across your very detailed COI edit request response at Talk:Jim Wilkes#Reply 24-MAR-2019 and was very impressed. I see you do a lot of outstanding COI-related work. Thanks for all your contributions! — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Much appreciated!  Spintendo  14:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request at Novartis

Hello Spintendo

Thank you for your feedback on the Novartis edit. Could you kindly confirm the only information I should disclose on my talk page is the the |employer= parameter in the connected contributor template?

After the disclosure, should I respond directly to your comment on the article talk page?

Rusoke365 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. If you are being paid to request edits on behalf of a corporation or other such entity, please use the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template and be sure to fill out the |U1-client= and |U1-employer= parameters of the template accordingly. Place the template below the talk page header material (just below where it says archive = Talk:Novartis/Archive %(counter)d}}). Once this is done, you may reactivate the {{request edit}} template by switching the answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no.  Spintendo  10:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo. Thank you for your advice and clear guidance. I have added the template to the Novartis talk page and also reactivated the request by setting the ans=no parameter. Thank you again for your feedback and I will be happy to amend the request if anything does not fit Wikipedia standards. Rusoke365 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Spintendo: Thank you for the pointer about the citation style. I have re-written the request with Citation Style 1 and resubmitted the edit request. Rusoke365 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Spintendo: I have updated the article based on the feedback from the preliminary review of Novartis. Would it be possible to review it? Thank you for your feedback, I realize it is just one of very many you review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusoke365 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Review completed at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  23:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Geisinger Health System edit request

Hi Spintendo,

Thank you for your feedback and guidance on the Geisinger Health System edit request. I have followed your suggestions and updated the talk page with the updated request. Many thanksMlsobieski (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 Review completed at the article's talk page; all approved changes implemented.  Spintendo  21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Proteus 706

Thanknyou. I thought j wa correct anyway Emojibop613 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The BEA found a myriad of factors which caused this crash, including

1. the Proteus pilots deviation from their route;
2. the Aeronautical Information Service and their vague policy regarding transponder use while operating under visual flight rules, which at that time could have been interpreted as optional
3. and the use of two different controllers for aircraft in the same area.

These factors really needed to happen all at the same time, otherwise the accident might not have occurred. Regards,  Spintendo  12:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

General question

Hi Spintendo, When requesting multiple edits to a page, is it preferred to request edits in smaller chunks or to request multiple edits within the page's sections? THank you for any guidance.Mlsobieski (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mlsobieski: There are no overall guidelines which answer that question, and each reviewer may have their own preferences. Longer edit requests seem not to be as popular with many reviewers as are shorter ones. As for myself, I don't have any preferences for one over another — either size is fine with me. Some articles require longer edit requests — especially in cases where the changing of elements in one section, say the infobox, require that elements in another section, like the lead, be changed simultaneously (because of a shared reference used in both locations, for example).

I would suppose that the most well-written articles require longer edit requests, because the information in them may be more densely packed, with phrasing that flows from one section to another. Like the menu of a 5-course meal, if one dish is changed or put out of sequence, all the surrounding dishes might be disrupted. If text in one section no longer meshes with a following or preceding section, the article may suffer. Really large edit requests are rare, but they do occur. I would suggest making your request as small or as large as you like, depending on your comfort level and the article's needs.

Regards  Spintendo  20:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mlsobieski: In the case of the most recent edit request at Geisinger Health System, I noticed that I neglected to leave individual reasons why the items requested were either approved or declined. (I usually do provide these reasons, but in this instance they were overlooked.) Those reasons have now been added to my reply on the talk page. I apologize for any confusion which may have resulted from these reasons being omitted. Regards,  Spintendo  20:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting tag removal

Hi Spintendo,

This is regarding the page of Girish Jhunjhnuwala. I sincerely request you to please remove the tag - This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (March 2019) - as I have provided additional citations for verification. Citations such as Entrepreneur, Forbes, The Standard are significantly detailed stories about him. Looking forward to a positive response. Thank you.--At My Unicorn Party (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for the claim that the office complex in Hong Kong's Central business district was developed into the first Ovolo serviced apartment. There is a reference preceding this claim, but it is unknown if that source verifies the claim which follows it. There is also the need for a reference for the claim of the subject's degree. Regards,  Spintendo  18:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

Spintendo, Good luck on your nomination! Best, hollistHollist (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Herman Melville assessment

Thanks for your edit of the GAN for Herman Melville last week. The reviewing editor seems to be on Wikibreak for several weeks now and I am wondering if you might be able to kick-start the assessment to start to move the review forward. CodexJustin (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@CodexJustin: Taking a very preliminary glance at the article, there are a few pre-review improvements which haven't taken place yet. Those would include:

1. Several sources which list large gapped page ranges (i.e., 412-478, etc.) when what is needed are precise pages or page ranges where the information would be found. For a reference which is sourcing only a single sentence, a page range of over 20 pages is not likely. Examples: Ref tags #121, 123, 124, 131, 169, 175, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195.
2. Some references give no page numbers at all where there would expect to be one. Examples: Ref tags #180, 181, 182, 187, 198, 199, 203.
3. Other references are given neither |URL= nor |ISBN= parameters. These sources should at least be given the |OCLC= parameter. Examples: Ref tags #76, 128, 142, 190, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 205. Regards,  Spintendo  16:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up. The previous editor from 4-5 year ago apparently did not know how to annotate 'facing pages' properly which I took care of by keeping the primary page and indicating optional follow-up reading. The ISBNs and ASINs I have also filled in where available, the last cite you gave me was actually to a BBC web article which I checked for still being linked and active. Your notes here are really useful and possibly you might consider moving the GAN assessment further forward since the reviewing editor appears to be on extended Wikibreak. Your comments have been worthwhile to improvements in the article. Let me know if this might be possible for you. CodexJustin (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding to clarification request on Pacific Equity Partners page

Hi Spintendo, thanks for your comments. I have sought to respond to each of your points: 1. The request does not state what it is about the information that is incorrect. Response: The information is incorrect because it describes these select few investments as “notable”. These are not the most notable by size or by value and is therefore not an accurate representation of notable investments by Pacific Equity Partners. Notable seems subjective anyway. The information is also out of date, in that recent activities have not been included. By deleting the paragraph and adding the names of all investments we felt that created a more complete picture. However, given the advice from VQuark that said we shouldn't have an extensive list, we think it would be better to not have any individual investments listed and to keep it brief and factual. We propose removing the current information under “investments” and replacing it with these two sentences only: PEP has made more than 30 operating company investments as well as 100 bolt-on acquisitions since its founding more than 20 years ago.

2. DELETE "based in Newark, California" because the Western Digital headquarters is in San Jose, California, not Newark.

3. In the Sidebar (Box) REPLACE "Type: Private" WITH "Type: Brand of Western Digital"

4. In the Sidebar (Box) REPLACE "Headquarters: Newark, California" WITH "Headquarters: San Jose, California"

5. In the Sidebar (Box) REPLACE "Key People" WITH "Founders" to accurately reflect that these individuals were Tegile founders, not Western Digital founders. AnneElizH (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  08:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

clarification

I don't want to give the impression I am following you around. I am following around one particular paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: No worries here Regards,  Spintendo  18:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

seeking clarification

Hi Spintendo You have been helping me in relation to the Noble Group article, for which many thanks. I would like to try to understand something. I am trying to be a good citizen and putting up my edit request on the talk page, following the wikipedia rules to the best of my ability. But whilst I have been going back and forth with you, it seems that others have been amending the article (often with no references and incorrect information) and removing sections or rewriting them (for example they have removed the reference to Goldilocks which I was seeking to amend - so now I no longer need to make that change). Could you explain two things: (1) what is the benefit to me in following the process I am following - will my edits be "locked" in some way once you approve them or will others simply be able to rewrite or delete anything we agree? (2) can anyone simply edit an article without going through the "request edit" system and the talk page? If so why, should anyone bother with that process? I am not being rude or angry, just trying to understand. Any explanation would be greatly appreciated. Timothy Ferdinand (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Timothy Ferdinand: Thank you for your questions. I'll answer them in the order you asked them.

1. The benefit to you in using the edit request system is that it is in accordance with the generally established, community-approved way of COI editors making changes to an article. However, the edits that are made through edit requests are not "locked in" because anyone is open to edit, for that is the nature of Wikipedia. Those edits which follow approved suggestive guidelines for how to make edit requests are seen by the community as having more merit in the long run, but they have no superior status over any other edits which are made (and which follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines). For example, the edits made by the other editor to the article that you mentioned will likely be seen as having less merit, and might be reverted (more on that below).
2. Anyone can edit an article, as there is no prohibition on editing for those with a COI. The only requirement is that all edits to Wikipedia must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is a policy which states that editors who use a username that implies they are affiliated with a company cannot make edits to articles. This means that the edits you referred to in your post by the editor WeAreNoble run the risk of being reverted and that user runs the risk of being blocked because their username implies that they are a part of the company. So in this case, relying on their edits may not work out in the end, demonstrating that your best chance for having the changes you want made in the long run still rests with having a neutral third party (be it myself, or any other editor who is not affiliated with Noble Group) make the edits for you by using the edit request system.

I would like to add that my ability to implement well written and well formatted edits is only as good as the completeness of the edit requests which I receive. If there are issues with the wording or the formatting, then those issues can cause delays in getting the edits made, if they are made at all. But working together to solve the issues is easily done, and I'm more than happy to work with you on the issues which your request presents. Regards,  Spintendo  04:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Fully understood, many thanks, I'll stick with the task and hopefully we can get there. Timothy Ferdinand (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

/* Some proposed changes */ Follow-up on Beacon College proposed edits

Spintendo: I left this response on the Beacon College talk page, but since I had not seen a response I wasn't sure I followed the procedure correctly, hence this direct follow-up.

Thank you for your feedback.

Unfortunately, your proposed remedy places an unachievable burden on Beacon College.

Beacon College is a tiny niche school founded 30 years ago by a group of parents for students with learning disabilities. Situated in a small city in Lake County, and with fewer than 200 students just a mere six years ago, the school, by and large, has not been on the radar of the breed of non-parochial publications that would lack the “homer” bias that you imply the sources cited in this edit request would have.

Thus, the suggested sources you provided to search through for Beacon College content is largely moot. We searched those databases and found less than a handful of articles that we could swap with the Orlando Sentinel articles [they would simply repeat the same factual data that we footnoted with the Orlando Sentinel articles]. But we are certainly happy to do this. Still, without the articles in The Orlando Sentinel, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning newspaper that until recently positioned itself among its competition as a Southeastern regional newspaper based in Orlando, the history of the college will be mostly bones without flesh.

The fact of the matter is few national publications/outlets have covered the history and important events of Beacon College in the granular fashion required to provide the robust chronicling that this Wikipedia article entry edit request does.

The articles written by outfits outside our geographical orbit that were not cited in this edit speak generally and in a macro fashion about the college's concept and mission if that.

The only coverage that a small, niche college like Beacon naturally would expect came courtesy of the local community newspaper (The Daily Commercial) and the regional metropolitan daily, the twice-Pulitzer-Prize-winning, The Orlando Sentinel (for the record, Beacon College is more than an hour away from the Orlando Sentinel office, and thus, in the strictest sense, doesn’t seem to qualify as its "neighborhood school").

Moreover, as you know, journalists are not at our beck and call (no matter how often we may reach out). Therefore, it is only reasonable that most of the granular history and facts — particularly the mundane bits — would find a home not in an outside editorial outlets but rather the college's own publications and website.

Indeed, that is the case with another college who operates in the LD space, Curry College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry_College), whose Wikipedia page posts a relatively long article with five footnotes (three of which are sourced from the school's website). Likewise, Elon University's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_University) posting contains 44 footnotes, most of which are Elon-sourced. And there there's Rollins College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollins_College), another Orlando-area school, whose Wikipedia page stands sans editor's notes, yet features in the lion's share of its 104 footnotes Orlando-based or Rollins-college-generated sources (i.e. The Orlando Sentinel, The Sandspur [Rollins College student newspaper], the Rollins' website, The Winter Park Chronicles (Rollins College is based in Winter Park), Rollins Magazine, local TV and radio outlets, etc.). We're can't understand what appears to be defacto inconsistency.

Certainly, we understand and honor the need for protocols and have labored to satisfy yours (including beefing up secondary sources and disclosing my conflict of interest, etc.). And certainly, our intent is not to instigate a virtual screaming match.

Nevertheless, your panacea for Beacon College is all but a Sisyphean task — one that we're undertaking because not only have our stakeholders suggested it was time, but because we are cognizant that increasingly everyone (from students to lending organizations) turn first to Wikipedia for a quick read on colleges.

We realize that placement in Wikipedia is a privilege not a right. However, it seems rather an unnecessarily exclusionary practice for an information portal meant to democratize and broadcast information to compel an organization to produce as alternative substantiation sources that simply don’t exist — especially when unadulterated facts reported under journalistic ethics already has been presented in this edit request.

We look to a second look and reconsideration of this matter.

Darrylowens312 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Darrylowens312 (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  05:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Spintendo, I was unaware of the errors you pointed out and will now address them in the draft. Thank you for your politeness too.MrMistral (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Did I ever thank you for the amount of time you're spending on answering edit requests, detailledly, clearing a backlog that few other editors would be able to keep empty? I am amazed by your work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition, it's much appreciated. Warm regards,  Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

requested edit for Victor Vescovo has been updated

Hello Spintendo, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victor_Vescovo updated request from your feedback with a different citation with the dive date for confirmation. Thank you, it is "Deepest Ever Submarine Dive Made by Five Deeps Expedition". The Maritime Executive. 2019-05-14. Retrieved 3 June 2019.--177.67.80.61 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

/* Some proposed changes */ Follow-up on Beacon College proposed edits

Good morning, Spintendo:

As before, this message previously appears on the Beacon College talk page.

Again, I appreciate your gracious response.

You ponder the reason why the Orlando Sentinel would "devote a substantial portion of its reporting to Beacon."

First of all, any major metropolitan newspaper worth its salt boasts a higher education reporter, and sometimes more than one (a large metropolitan area like Boston, with the embarrassment of riches it enjoys in institutions of higher learning, might task several reporters to cover the higher education beat).

Consequently, a higher education reporter writes articles about the higher education institutions within the newspaper's geographic coverage area.

In the case of the Orlando Sentinel, these institutions would include Rollins College, the University of Central Florida, Seminole State College, Valencia College, Stetson University, (sometimes Florida A&M and Bethune-Cookman), Lake-Sumter College, and, when warranted, Beacon College.

As such, this charge of "regional bias" doesn't compute. Obviously, a newspaper that covers higher education would cover news of the institutions of higher education in its regional coverage area. That would not be classified as bias. That would be classified as the newspaper doing its job.

Moreover, Beacon College received coverage by the Orlando Sentinel because of the school's novelty — Beacon College is one of only two colleges in the United States dedicated to educating students with learning disabilities, ADHD, and other learning differences. These are students who before 1989 when the school was founded had few options in pursuing postsecondary education.

Novelty is news. Therefore, of course, any newspaper — including The Orlando Sentinel — would cover novel news in its geographic area. That is the function of a standard newspaper operation — not evidence of regional bias.

Moreover, the chart that you included MAKES the argument I advanced.

Your chart rightly shows that the institutions noted have existed far longer than Beacon College. Yet, despite their maturity, their Wikipedia articles still rely on a preponderance of regional news coverage and self-generated sources.

Your argument suggests that given their longer operating lives that these schools should have been able to produce far more "non-regional/independent" and "non-biased" sources than their Wikipedia articles contain.

And yet they don't.

Yet, their articles pass muster.

So, returning to my main point, regarding the "dearth of independent sources," there was no way 30 years ago when the school was founded nor anyway today to compel news outlets outside the region to write articles about a small niche school outside their coverage areas. Nor is there any way Beacon College can jump into Dr. Who's Tardis and return to the past and compel or cajole news outlets, book authors, think tanks and others to pen articles about the Beacon College-related happenings that the Orlando Sentinel rightly chronicled.

The historical coverage of Beacon College to this point is what it is. There are no other sources to be found in the countless databases we search. You can't turn up what doesn't exist.

Given the reliance that many people across the globe now have with using Wikipedia articles as their go-to source for information about a subject, we recognize the importance, value, and desperate need for Beacon College to have a comprehensive — and accurate — Wikipedia article available for individuals researching the college. What currently exists is woefully out-of-date and woefully inadequate.

What recourse does Beacon College have in this matter?

Darrylowens312 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Wyss Foundation

Hello. Earlier last month, I noticed you removed an entire section about the Wyss Campaign for Nature from the Wyss Foundation article. I asked for clarification at Talk:Wyss Foundation, but haven’t received any feedback yet. I understand a standalone subsection may not necessary, but since the campaign is ongoing and has received plenty of coverage, I’m wondering if mention of the Wyss Campaign for Nature should be added back in a reduced or present-tense form. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on your feedback, and given the amount of coverage received, I've proposed adding back a short mention of the campaign on the article's talk page. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Need some help responding to your question

Greetings Spintendo. I tried to respond to your last question on Talk:Kai Staats but for some reason my response doesn't show up on that page. It's there in the edit history but doesn't show on the page unless I'm logged in. I checked all the shortcodes and cannot figure out what I'm doing wrong. You've been kind enough to provide a lot of help on this article already, but this has me stumped. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.

EDIT: I can see my last edit now that you've responded (thanks) but I'm still curious why I couldn't see it (unless logged in) earlier. Any ideas?

Astro3.142 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your work with COI editors. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Valereee submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Spintendo to be Editor of the Week for tireless work with COI editors making edit requests. Almost by definition these are not edits or articles Spintendo is interested in, and yet his contributions history has many instances of responses to this kind of help request. This kind of work is often tedious, as many COI editors aren't experienced enough to follow the instructions that make the work easier for the responding editor. This is in general pretty thankless work -- the COI editors in question are often not happy with the outcome, and many other editors are actively hostile to COI editors so don't appreciate the time and effort. But this is important work and helps protect those articles from being affected by the COI, and I appreciate all the instances I've seen Spintendo respond politely and with laudable patience to these requests, both on the article talk pages and on Spintendo's own talk page.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Extended content

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}} Editor Spintendo Spintendo   Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 9, 2019 Does important work protecting articles from "Conflict of Interest" editors while responding politely and with patience. Many editors can be actively hostile to COI editors and so they don't appreciate the time and effort that is required to communicate solutions. Recognized for Assisting and training COI editors Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dhivya Suryadevara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Question re feedback on Bloomin Brands Talk page

Thanks for your feedback on my latest edit request. Citations 1, 4 and 6 in the current article can be removed as text was updated and cited using other works in my edit request. Is this all that is needed to bring this to resolution and have edits approved? Thank you. AmyPGPR (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to Proteus Airlines Flight 706

I am bewildered by your justification for totally reverting my edit being that I "removed sourced information". I did nothing of the sort. It appears that that you have only skimmed the edit record and have missed that fact that I combined two paragraphs (one of which was only one sentence long), in order to unify the point about the Cessna's transponder not being turned on. I would appreciate it if you would check what I actually did and then undo your reversion.

Tullyvallin (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Tullyvallin

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Since you're easily the most productive editor handling edit requests I figured you deserved some recognition; thank you for working so hard to keep the requested edit queue down to a minimum. Yunshui 雲水 07:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Halsey Minor

Hi there. As you have previouly commented I want to bring this section to your attention so you can comment if you desire, thanks Talk:Halsey_Minor#request_for_draft_article_replacment - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response made on the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  20:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed Citations for Ansell Proposed Changes to citation style 1

Thank you for considering my proposed edits on Talk:Ansell. I apologize for the incorrect citation style I initially used. I edited my initial request to reflect citation style 1 and published the changes. Will editors now be able to view my proposed changes again? Or will it still say unable to review due to the citations, even though I have changed them?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.247.195 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

144.121.247.195 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes: Please place edit requests on the talk pages where changes are requested to be made.

I cannot do that owing to COI. You can see that is what I am responding to and have nowhere else to put that. You have the free time, could you please put that on the talk page for Danielle Cadena Deulen? Thank you. --MinimumMax (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@MinimumMax: "have nowhere else to put that." Actually there is, Talk:Danielle Cadena Deulen has been provided as the perfect location for requests to be made. Regards,  Spintendo  17:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo That worked. Thank you! --MinimumMax (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Spintendo  17:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Halsey Minor

HI there, many thanks for your review. If there is anything you could help to address your concerns that would be appreciated. I see you are a good article contributor and many thanks for your contributions. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dave Butler

A heads up I tagged you in a note at Talk:Dave_Butler_(basketball,_born_1964/1965). NinaSpezz (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  23:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Brahma_Kumaris -Restore_blanked_sections_and_logo

Hi there. I have redrafted the deleted sections and found a new reference for them. I would also appreciate if you could explain why the deleted logo can't be restored at this present time and how to resolve that.

Relevant talk page : Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Restore_blanked_sections_and_logo_v2

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove any logos from that article, so I can't explain why they cannot be restored. Your request did not include a filename to be added to the article, so that is the reason why no logo was added in my edit request review. Regards,  Spintendo  17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor had removed the logo. It seems that the logo PNG was deleted anyway as a non-free media file about a month ago making the edit request for the logo redundant.

Are the other two new edit proposals on the article talk page OK?

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  20:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

please check my revisions of katherine hoover

Hello Spintendo, while i am defined as having a COI, I have added references, hopefully corrected errors and chronologically sorted her selected works all with a neutral pov. inactivity on the talk page is the only reason for my actions. It is important that my edits follow acceptable protocol. thank you , Mkoronowski (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Strawberries are a delicious thank you gift.

Your efforts are very appreciated! Tuuzi (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Omniscriptum Talk page

Dear Spintendo,

I am sorry to bother you. Could you please help once you have time. I was wondering about suggested correction on Omniscriptum page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniScriptum, there is one sentence I was wondering about, could it be possible to take it out? Could you please assist?

Kind regards, VarisGrin (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  07:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris

Please respond on Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Hospital_and_UN_items_to_be_placed_at_start_of_Activites_section Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover Citations

Thank you for the guidance. Why are citations from WorldCat prefered over Katherine's publisher? Also, it is a guess, bit likely that WorldCats 147 citations includes 3 categories: 1)compositions, 2)recordings of her performances and 3)others performing her music. In terms of formality, how should the tables be divided? How should the tables be sorted? Much gratitude, Martin, Mkoronowski (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply

@Mkoronowski: Information released by the publisher is included in WorldCat's database, which contains all the cumulative publisher information in a standardized form using {{OCLC}} and {{ISBN}} as the main indentifiers. With regards to how the table should be formatted, there are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate compositions in a discography. Of course, there are several ways it can be done. In all cases, please keep the following hints in mind:

• Sort the compositions, e.g. ascending by date (since a discography is in some sense a chronology),
• If you use tables, use wikicode, to make the list easier to maintain.

A simple way to list compositions could be:

1. First composition (year of release)
2. Second composition (year of release)

Note that composition titles should be in italics and each composition should be given a reference using the WorldCat permalink (which will provide the {{OCLC}} and {{ISBN}} identifiers.

One way of using a table could be:

Title	Release date	References	Publisher
Medieval suite: for flute and piano	1986		T. Presser
Seven haiku : soprano and flute	1987		Papagena Press

Regards,  Spintendo  17:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Pan Am Flight 759 Appendix B

So the link to appendix B actually just leads to another copy of the NTSB report, which could be redundant. We can just use the original copy and use the rp template. We already know the pages containing the flight crew information: 78 to 79. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Whichever way you think is best is fine with me. Regards,  Spintendo  18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

TASIS The American School in England

Dear Spintendo,

We have submitted the information to update the page as you advised. Please, let us know if you need anything else. We just want Wikipedia to show accurate and up-to-date information. We have no interest in promoting the school via Wikipedia but it is important that our prospective parents have a true picture of our current status.

Thanks, Angel Lozano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malozanog (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  18:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

COI Re: Proud Boys Talk Page

Why did you write in the talk reply that I have a Conflict of Interest? I have no affiliation with them what so ever, I was just looking them up and noticed how inaccurate the Wikipedia page is about their political stance. There is a lot of unusual behavior going on lately in regards to pages relating to any controversial political figures and organizations on Wikipedia, it seems to be a back and forth of whoever gets there first from either side of the political spectrum is selectively editing pages and blocking any edits that go against their own personal political beliefs. I see that the article is locked to a certain extent, which is good, but when I add a comment to the talk page regarding a poorly cited characterization I am assumed to have a conflict of interest? On what basis? If Wikipedia becomes politicized what will be left? Is nothing sacred anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hoohunglow: The template that you activated on the talk page was the conflict of interest {{request edit}} template. Editors who have a conflict of interest use that specific template to make suggestions to articles. I assumed that because you chose this template, it meant that you had a conflict of interest. I apologize for the misunderstanding. For future reference, the template to use for making edit requests to that particular article if you don't have a conflict of interest would be the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I've just now placed your request with the correct template and removed my reply message to the incorrect template. Regards,  Spintendo  14:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Omniscriptum Talk page

Dear Spintendo, thank you for your reply in regard of possible edits Omniscriptum page could have. I have made a suggestion on Omniscriptum Talk page, thus I was wondering could you please take a look on it once you have time? VarisGrin (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi Spintendo You implemented an edit request I made a couple of months ago – thank you. On a page for which I've declared COI. I have since made further edit requests but have not heard any feedback. I wonder what I can do to have further requests implemented.

Thanks very much.

JT at JMLtd (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@JT at JMLtd: Thank you for your question. To ensure editor feedback in edit requests, please doublecheck that the {{request edit}} template has been placed within the text of your request on the talk page of the article in question. Regards,  Spintendo  07:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Article talk page

Hi Spintendo,

Would really appreciate it if we could progress these proposed edits Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Hospital_and_UN_items_to_be_placed_at_start_of_Activites_section.

If there is a problem please let me know

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  13:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have made an attempt to address the remaining concerns at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Reply_14-JUL-2019.

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Responded again.

BTW, do you want me to post on your talk page or do you already have the article Talk page on your watchlist?

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not watchlisted for this article, so notifying me here is fine.  Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

OK will do. I just responded to the "University" question. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just done a search for UN verification. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Request implemented  Spintendo  03:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this. Apologies that it took me some time to understand exactly what was required but in the end we got there and I learned something! Appreciate your patience and understanding during the process. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Float idea - organization request board

Hello, thanks for addressing the COI queue. I hope that you find this process flow satisfying.

I volunteer at WP:OTRS where by email several hundred people write in requesting COI edits. OTRS is stable in some ways and changing policy in other ways. Different people address these requests in different ways, and I think that this space may be open for policy proposal and suggesting best practices.

I know that you respond to {{Request edit}} and the workflow around that. While this has worked for you, I think you would understand if I said this is a non-standard wiki workflow. I know it is based off {{Help me}} and follows that precedent. Personally, I view noticeboards to be more traditional and accessible for being a single place where anyone can see a rolling list of issues and responses.

I am writing to float a potential workflow to you and ask you what you think. Here is the process -

1. COI editor wants to do something
2. for all requests, direct them to first post on the talk page of the article which they want to edit
3. now they must request review
   1. currently, the next step is that they post {{Request edit}}
   2. proposal for change - instead they post to a noticeboard, maybe "request edit for organization"
4. people from that noticeboard respond to the edit
   1. noticeboard is a permanent public searchable archive of all requests through this queue
   2. mark outcome, resolved, etc
   3. archive in the manner of a noticeboard

What do you think? Does any part of this strike you as problematic or unorthodox? Thanks.

I really would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. The "everyone else" requested edits could be a positive space that many regular wiki people would like, I think. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for your question. As I understand it, you're framing the issue as the difference between a single person answering edit requests in the de-centralized style of {{help me}} versus the more centralized style of noticeboards. But before I comment on that, I wanted to understand more your assertion that you would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. I'm not sure that I understand what those differences are, or what a COI organization is. I'm guessing that a COI individual is anyone with a COI, although I'm not sure how that is different from everyone else. If you could define those terms better it would be most helpful. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I am proposing two layers of complication. I might be mistaken that this would be useful.

One layer is just applying the noticeboard model to this recurring issue.

The other layer is not just applying one noticeboard, but several. Now that I think about this, maybe this would not be a good way to start. It would be better to have one board then split it if it is overwhelmed.

A "COI organization" is an entity with paid people trying to make the edits. A "COI individual" is a person who wants edits about themselves. To me, the big difference between these is with individuals a wiki discussion will include some familiar elements of routine person to person human interaction. With organizations the conversation is business to business, so typical wiki customs like peer to peer favors go to robots which cannot really appreciate them or socialize. Another big difference with administration is that we have a greater need for data management around corporate requests because those get much more traffic (probably 1000x on average) and there is greater public demand to scrutinize entities of broad public interest.

I think I want to revise my proposal - while I think that that multiple boards could be useful, maybe it would be simpler to start with one board.

If there were one board and we directed all COI requests to get logged there, could you see a net benefit in that? Any major drawbacks? Is this a reasonable thing to do? If it is reasonable, why has this not happened before?

You do not need to answer all this, but I would like your overall impression. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, it's much appreciated. Use of a noticeboard raises some practical questions as I see it. It's my understanding that a noticeboard already exists for making edit requests. Although it's probably true that the current noticeboard doesn't really function in that manner, it still holds the potential for doing so — based on the response given by the {{request edit|D|S}} template (which urges the requestor to "escalate" their request to the noticeboard) as well as advice at the noticeboard itself which suggests that This page is not for ... material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument... (which implies that contentious material may be brought to it). So my first question would ask how this new noticeboard and the current noticeboard would work, together or separately?

Another question would be the role of consensus in this new noticeboard. Would consensus be required only for larger requests? If smaller requests need only the participation of one reviewer, and if that one reviewer handles the shorter request and the COI editor comes to find that they don't appreciate the outcome, does the COI editor need only ask for more editors to weigh in, in an attempt at a different outcome? When that happens, what is to be done with the initial decision made? Is it held in abeyance until everyone is satisfied? Those are some of the questions which come to mind, and I look forward to your reply. Regards,  Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discussion.

My motivation for proposing the board is to promote cataloging and discovery in a new place but to leave the community discussion process the same. I prefer to direct everyone to discuss on the talk page of the article which is the target of the request. The role of consensus in the new board is that posting to the board would constitute sufficient notice of making a request with a COI.

I am not imagining overlap with WP:COIN, because that is a noticeboard for flagging and escalating problems. It is not a board for logging edit requests. I see continued value in COIN, because there is a community there who responds to problems, whereas at a request board most posts will not be problems.

Some benefits that I want from a new board are the following:

1. A central board where we can direct all COI editors to post their edit requests (we would require two posts from them - one on talk page, and one on this board only to bring attention to the talk page). Currently there are many workflows. One that I really want to end is requests by WP:OTRS, and to instead direct the many emails going there to on-wiki posting.
2. A central board would make requests discoverable to more editors who would address requests. Responding to posts on boards is an intuitive workflow in wiki; the current template request process has to be learned or taught
3. having the board log requests would establish a searchable index of edit requests, which does not otherwise exist with our technology
4. The board would divest some labor burden from the wiki community to COI editors. COI editors would learn that when they want attention, they have to make a request on a talk page, and they have to flag the board. When they go to the board they can see posts from their own kind and gain some insight into their place in the broader system.

Thanks for your feedback to this point. I see you as an authority in this space for the number of requests you have managed so speak up if I have an error or gap in my thinking. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Theatre for Young People, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alastair Duncan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

   WL to DAB corrected    Spintendo  08:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

In search of CoI advice

Hi @Spintendo:, I'd like to ask for your advice as you are an experienced Wikipedia editor and often deal with Conflict of Interests issues. After a recent change of Axel A. Weber's photo I received feedback from German-language editor that I could have changed it on my own (which I didn't consider fine in the context of CoI).

Is it ok for me to implement some minor factual changes on my own? I feel that this could save the time of other Wikipedia editors but I don't want to cross the line. Could you please share your opinion on this?

[Another example of a seemingly minor edit is a change of Sergio Ermotti's role at the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce (from Chairman and President to Board Member only) which I'm about to propose.]

Best, WROanna1862 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 24-JUL-2019

@WROanna1862: Thank you for your question. If I read it correctly there are two parts to your question:

1. Is it OKAY for a COI editor to change the photograph of the subject of an article for which that editor has a conflict of interest?
2. Are there other instances where it's OKAY for a COI editor to make changes on their own to articles where they have a conflict of interest?

My answer to your first question is YES, I would agree with the German language editor here. A photograph of a person is a visual representation of that individual, and unless the person pictured in the photograph is obviously shot with different angles, expressions, etc, there is virtually no way that a visual representation can be affected by a conflict of interest. Quite simply put, a photograph of actress Halle Barry smiling while looking into a camera would be indistinguishable from any other photograph of Halle Barry smiling while looking into a camera. Thus if the COI editor wanted to change between two photographs, this would not really need the assistance of a neutral third party editor to make the change.

My answer to your second question is also YES, there are indeed edits which the community finds acceptable for a COI editor to make themselves. Those are known as uncontroversial edits and they are listed under WP:COIU. It's important to note that the edit would only be uncontroversial if you are correcting already established information. For example, in the case of the member of the Swiss Chamber of Commerce who is no longer chairman and president, that would be an uncontroversial edit if the article already states that the person is chairman and president and they are no longer in these positions. However, if the article does not already state that they are chairman and president, and you would like to add that they were formerly chairman and president, that edit should be proposed as an edit request — because in that instance you would be adding information to the article. Uncontroversial usually means correcting something that's already in the article. Make sure that your edit summary notes WP:COIU along with your description of the change made as being an uncontroversial edit (i.e., "The subject is no longer chairman and president, per NYTimes source. Reference added and title changed to read "Former chairman and president (2012–2019)" as an uncontroversial edit, per WP:COIU") would be an excellent edit summary in that circumstance.
Regards,  Spintendo  14:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Reply 25-JUL-2019

@Spintendo: Thank you a lot for the comprehensive explanation. I'll proceed as advised.

Best reagrds, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Art Peck (birth date/age)

Hi there - thanks for providing feedback on the proposed update to Art Peck's page. I'm hoping you can provide a little guidance here: if there are no online publications that list his actual birth date/age, what's the recommended approach for updating this information?

Benzeeful (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  00:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this further! Appreciate your help.

Benzeeful (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I added references for the National Constitution Center

I added references to the edits i had previously suggested on the National Constitution Center wiki page.Housefinch1787 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  20:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help editing the Upfront Ventures page! I believe I will not have to request any more edits for this page now. Spncrinc (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Mariana Atencio request

I went ahead and inserted the changes where they should appear if approved. Thanks Rominotmichelle (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rominotmichelle: Please remember that requests are supposed to be placed on the article's talk page and not the article itself. Every main page of Wikipedia has its own talk page. Think of it as the back side to a regular piece of paper. On the front of that paper would be the main article. The other side of the paper would be the talk page. It's on the talk page that editors are able to post messages to each other when discussing anything having to do with the main article. All requests to add content should be placed on the talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  06:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for all the back and forth. I think I was able to make it correctly on the talk page. Thank you for your patience. Rominotmichelle (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Request partially approved. Specific details are available at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  01:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

On the Rahul M Jindal page.. Note

Hi Spintendo. When I edited the talk page today I chenged the answer from yes to no as you mentioned, but it said T|D there prior I think. Not sure I did that right, and my apologies if it screwed something up. Also, if you need me to make any changes I'll be watching the talk page. Thank you for all your help, I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuuzi (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your helpful guidance in improving our page revision requests on the Hillrom talk page. It's much appreciated. I have revised the requested inclusions. Have a great evening.

Jack at Hillrom (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Please note that any new edit requests at the Hill-Rom talk page ought to be placed at the bottom of the page under a new level 2 heading.  Spintendo  01:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again for your help, Spintendo. Jack at Hillrom (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your revisions are great. Much appreciated, Spintendo. Jack at Hillrom (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

corrections in Omniscriptum Wikipedia page

Dear Spintendo,

thank you for all the advices and implemented corrections. Could you please, once you have time, take a look on the following request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniScriptum

I wanted to know would it be possible to re-add a list of imprints that belongs to Omniscriptum publishing house. I made a request some days ago, but maybe my request is missing additional details. In any case I will be glad to hear from you.

Kind regards, Varis

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance (COI)

Hi, there is a pending COI request at Hack Forums talk page. I would very much appreciate if you could review it and come to a conclusion on what is to be done. Also, I created the Hack Forums page, can I review COI requests as well? I don't know this because it is literally the first time I have to deal with something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalerionV (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@AvalerionV: Just because you created the page doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest. The now banned editor has stated at COIN that Recently the creator of the page was banned from my site for violating policies then threatened to alter the Wikipedia page unless unbanned and then went ahead with his threats by doing so. I believe you when you say that they are wrong and that they are mistaking you for someone else. While you have no conflict of interest here, sometimes local editors can be "too close" to an article. It's my feeling that sometimes it may be best to leave the request to someone who has never edited the page before. But that is purely up to you. That being said, since you are a frequent local editor who knows the page well, your input on those requests would be very much valued by whomever handled the request. Regards,  Spintendo  20:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand. This is exactly why I needed your assistance on the matter. Thank you so much for your fast response. AvalerionV 21:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roundup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

   WL to DAB corrected    Spintendo  07:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Maskless lithography edits

Hello, Spintendo. Thanks for your time reviewing my edits, and for your patient clarifications of the declined request. Since I'm still a novice here, I am not sure what is the right way to proceed. I would like to address the point you made and add more substantial quotes, since I do think it will improve the article somewhat. Shall I add another edit request to the article talk page or create a new section with a new version of quote text? Best regards, Quantum quirrell (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Quantum quirrell: In placing quoted material, care must be taken that the text which is inserted into the parameter is formatted correctly. Journal articles often use formatting which is based on a printed typeset. As such, when cutting and pasting text from a journal article into another medium — say Wikipedia — this formatted text will be shown as skewed in the end result, so that a sentence which originally stated "The sand termite Psammotermes allocerus generates local ecosystems, so-called fairy circles, through removal of short-lived vegetation that appears after rain, leaving circular barren patches" will instead appear like this:

The sand termite Psammotermes allocerusgenerates local ecosystems, so-called fairycircles, through removalofshort-lived vegetation thatappears afterrain, leaving circularbarren patches.

As you can see from the pasted text above, the formatting originally made for printed text means some of the words above when cut from the journal are pushed together when pasted into Wikipedia, so that two words appear as one. In one of your quoted articles this has occurred. Thus, care must be taken to fix the spacing of the text.

With regards to the main claim of your request, the statement is that Due to a wider range of tip-sample interaction forces and yet the quoted text in none of the sources indicates that scanning probe lithography used for nanopatterning is due to a "wider range", which itself is vague about what a wider range indicates — wider than what? If these techniques are all being currently used, then this wider range cannot be described as wider than what is currently being used. These two points, the formatting of the quotes and the meaning of "wider range", I believe both need to be clarified. Regards,  Spintendo  18:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks

Thank you for your approval of the revised edits of the Intertextuality page. I will also do my best to work within the guidelines you offered, and will get back to you with any COI issues. In the meantime I will try mostly to focus on topics where COIO will not come into play. The Handbook I mentioned is one of only a small number of reference compendia in the field (and not textbooks), but I will try as much as possible to rely on the couple edited by others. Methodical 19:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbazerman (talk • contribs)

Suggested Addition for Robert A. McDonald

Hi Spintendo, Last month you suggested the following could be added to the article for Robert A. McDonald on the talk page:

"In 2014 McDonald led a community-based task force to help the city of Cincinnati renovate its Museum Center. As a result of this work, the Hamilton County Commissioners added a tax levy known as Issue 8 to the ballot in the fall of 2014 which passed, adding an additional sales tax to assist in paying for the renovations."

I am in agreement with you but am uncertain if you can approve the above content to be published live on the article from your comment, or, if you require me to create a new section with the above content so it can be approved. Please let me know if you require me to do the above and I'll be happy to proceed. Thank you.Tsmith47 (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tsmith47:  Claim implemented. Regards,  Spintendo  19:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this.Tsmith47 (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

COI edit request to Bloomin' Brands page

Regarding your feedback on my COI edit requests to the Bloomin' Brands page, I posted in June that I made your recommended changes to the edit request. Does that mean you are able to implement these edits to the page? Or is there something further I need to do? Thank you for your help. AmyPGPR (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  20:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Change X to Y

Where is that template? I need to edit it slightly. Thx. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: The response I left on Environmental Working Group is not a template, its my own. I've found it useful when formatting in a request is off. But if it needs to be fixed let me know and I'd be happy to fix it.

Thank you for handling that request. I saw it was a non-starter, but wanted the COI editor to get the formatting of their request right. Some say the important thing in a review is to just "cut to the chase" (which is what you did). But I think formatting and content go hand in hand, and that getting them to respect the way claims are formatted in articles (using WP:INTEGRITY, etc.) just might help them to also respect other requirements like SYNTH. I could be wrong, but I guess that's another discussion (any feedback you may have on this, and the issue above would be greatly appreciated). Thank you for your help. Warm regards,  Spintendo  13:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Simple fix: it's Kelvin, not degrees Kelvin :-) It's interesting that at last we have an open admission of being paid to try to whitewash the ERG article after years of drive-by SPAs. Your approach was perfectly Wikipedia. I am an evil bastard. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's OK, you're our evil bastard and we love you for it! Thanks again.  Spintendo  14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

Long ago (well, December anyhow) you requested Mr. Kurt Werner, a member of Oath Keepers, propose changes to make the article non-biased. I have since gone in and proposed those changes and made those edits, only to have them instantly reverted. I was told to take it up on the talk page and build consensus. I've attempted to discuss it with others on there, and they continually vandalize the request and mark it as closed (Deacon Vorbis).

Long story short: 1) I made very simple suggestions for changes, and supported them with clear reasoning 2) In response, others have demanded that I prove a negative, which is impossible 3) I've attempted to discuss this with them on the topic, and they loop back to #2 above

There's more on the talk page about it, I'm trying to get it resovled, but I literally feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. I just want the article to stop being so blatantly biased (I've given an example at the bottom of that section) Barwick (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article this is in reference to, if you could provide the link here that would be helpful. Thanks!  Spintendo  13:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I fail at Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Barwick: I've had a look at the talk page. Let me first apologize for the feelings of frustration you've had over this process. It can seem daunting, but there are additional steps available to you to try and solve the issue. Those steps are listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. I usually limit my own review of COI edit requests to those which are generally non-controversial in nature, so I'm afraid I won't be able to offer any assistance here. But it looks as if your dispute might benefit from having additional editor input, which you should be able to obtain by following the strategies listed at that link. Regards,  Spintendo  07:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Ok thanks, will do Barwick (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI If you're still able to do anything, created a dispute resolution to try to resolve this. I thought you could help since you were originally the one who asked us to provide {rough quote here} "What would you like to see changed? Please state the detailed changes". Resolution board is here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

COI edit request 22-AUG-2019

Hi Davodd, there was recently a COI edit request involving ANGI Homeservices Inc., a page which you had edited. The COI editor has asked that the name of the company be changed back to the original name. I was hoping you'd be able to weigh in on that discussion. Any help you can offer would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time! Regards,  Spintendo  21:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

ANGI Homeservices Inc. and Angie's List are now two separate articles. Moving this to your talk page. Davodd (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! Warm regards,  Spintendo  06:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

COI Question Please

Can you please check the 'talk' page for Victor Vescovo. Just trying to get some guidance, sir. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlvescovo (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  04:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Updated Page

Hey there! Thank you for answering my question on editing with a COI. I added extra information, but wasn't sure how to have it reviewed again. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction? For reference, the page was Comparison of instant messaging clients Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Client4 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Client4: Still waiting to get local editor feedback on this. Regards,  Spintendo  03:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks for the update! Client4 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

COI feedback clarification

Thank you for reviewing my latest request for a change in the article about SC Johnson. I am writing for additional clarification on your feedback as I continue to rework my requested edit. I hope it is ok to post the question here. I wasn't certain how to ask without opening a new COI request.

In your feedback you wrote that I should not characterize the plaintiff’s inability to provide a sworn affidavit as a “failure to refute the expert witness affidavit”. Can you give me more detail as to where you feel I am doing this so I might try to rephrase? Are you referring to sentence 4 of the edit? (shown below)

Preclusion was deemed an appropriate ruling because the case was already under appeal in Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals, the plaintiff did not present any additional evidence, witnesses or affidavits, and both sides were treated equally with the expectation that they produce evidence to sufficiently argue their position.

Thanks again for your help. Wax86 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your question. The judge made a point of stating that the plaintiff failed to follow procedure. Because those procedures were not followed, a fulsome review of the allegations could not take place. The proposed language in the edit request however strongly implies that a resolution of the fraud took place, when the only resolution which actually occured involved court case procedure in handling the fraud allegations. Regards,  Spintendo  11:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes

WikiConference North America 2019

You seem to be enjoying yourself on-wiki. I am not sure if you want to make the jump to in-person engagement but if you did then I think you would fit in nicely.

I am writing to invite you to WikiConference North America in Boston in November.

• https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2019/Main_Page

It seems from your user page that you live in the United States.

I cannot say that a submission you post or a travel sponsorship request that you made would definitely be accepted, but the theme this year is "reliability" and you seem more active than anyone else on the subject of institutional encroachment of Wikipedia. I am not aware of anyone else who plans to speak on this, and I am not aware of anyone who has comparable experience to what you do. If you do make a submission then ping me and I would endorse it.

Thanks for what you do on wiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Gary P. Naftalis

A heads up I've responded to your reply on the Gary P. Naftalis Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@NinaSpezz:  Claim revised. Regards,  Spintendo  16:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice

Hey. I don't mean to be a pain, but would you be able to review the edit request on this talk page? It's been 10 days and no editors seem to have considered fulfilling it. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done. The request was reviewed by me on Thursday, August 29. Regards,  Spintendo  00:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I made a new request following the points you made in the reply you've cited and it hasn't been reviewed for over 10 days. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The review I made on August 29 still applies to the newer request. Even though that request "follows the points I made", it follows them in date only — being posted one day afterwards — and does not incorporate them. Regards,  Spintendo  21:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I don't understand what you mean. I made the newer request with verbatim text and accompanying references as per your points. I don't think I have to copy the code of my entire draft to illustrate the proposed changes word for word when I (and other editors) haven't had to do so in previous requests. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 02:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The instances in your request where you refer to information which is located elsewhere — namely "in the draft" — there are 12 examples of this, where all the information needed to process the request is not located on one page.  Spintendo  03:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's really frustrating that you've decided to be so anal with detail when it comes to this particular request, when you've previously implemented changes on previous ones with much less detail like this one. I don't see why I should have to rewrite the entire article in the talk page when I couldn't have been more clear with the proposed changes, where they should be made and why they should be made. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a new request on the talk page with all the proposed content present "located on one page" as you've asked. If somehow that request still isn't sufficient, then I don't know what else I'll have to say or do for you or anyone else to finally implement the changes. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 01:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: The new request is still awaiting a response. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I do not wish to keep nagging you, but I would appreciate a response at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice#Questions and comments on proposed changes. No other editors besides Willbb234 seem to be interested at the moment and the request has remained unimplemented for over 2 weeks. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Young Presidents' Organization // Request for infobox

Hello, Splintendo.

I hope all is well. I wanted to check in to see if you had any suggestions on the most appropriate way to go about adding an infobox to the Young Presidents' Organization page. It seems like it's a relevant addition to the page and I'd love to help in any way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YPO Clay (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Infobox implemented. @YPO Clay: I've added the infobox, but please note that the article suffers from a lack of sources for claims made while it uses outdated broken links for others. In my opinion, since you are the COI editor for this article your priority should be to find sources for the information displayed there. The adding of an infobox is merely window dressing which does nothing to improve the article's standing with references. To help with this, I've placed some search suggestions at the top of the article's talk page. Simply click on the search engine's name that you want to use and your browser will effect a search of YPO-related results in a new window. If anything is found that can be used, please be sure to suggest it on the article's talk page. Thank you for your help with this. Regards,  Spintendo  21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Great. Thanks very much for the suggestions. I will make those a priority and get to them ASAP. YPO Clay (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Abcam page edits

Hello! I resubmitted the amends to the Abcam wiki page. Did my best to follow your advice. Hope they are to your liking! - Much obliged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickfromabcam (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

COI responses

I must say, I have always admired how you chose to work in an area that is a source of conflict (no pun intended) on Wikipedia and always persevere with a cool head. It is a thankless job but, unfortunately, one that needs to get done.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it really helps! Chaud321 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, I'm glad I'm able to help. And thanks to both of you for the work that you do, It's very much appreciated. Warm regards,  Spintendo  03:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Julie Brill photo approval

Hi there, just letting you know the approval for use of the photo was officially received from OSTR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julie_Brill#Reply_13-SEP-2019 Please take a look when you have the chance. Thanks! --TechSeaSpokes2004 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@TechSeaSpokes2004:  Image added. Regards,  Spintendo  01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Max Lu page

Hi -- just wanted to see if you had anything further for me on this. I haven't had replies to my latest edit on the Talk page for Max Lu's profile and am hoping to resolve it all. Thanks. Portmeirion18 (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any currently pending requests on that talk page. If this is in regards to an older request which wasn't addressed, please submit the un-addressed proposal as a new edit request using the {{request edit}} template placed under a new level 2 heading at the bottom of the talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  04:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Congressman Dan Lipinski page

Hi, have you looked at the latest round of edits to Congressman Dan Lipinski's page? Timestamped (Lipinskistaffer12 (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC))

I believe I followed all your instructions for proper citation. Thank you for your attention to this.

Lipinskistaffer12 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

JWB settings page showing up in CS1 error categories

User:Spintendo/JWB-settings.js is showing up in two CS1 error categories. I think it would help to add a colon at the beginning of each of the Category links, like this: [[:Category:CS1_maint:_Archived_copy_as_title|CS1 maintenance error]]. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

   JWB settings corrected   Thank you for the heads up, I appreciate it. Regards,  Spintendo  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Corrected citations on Dona Bertarelli's page

Thank you very much for your guidance on the citation style, I have amended in my reply on Dona Bertarelli's Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dona_Bertarelli and would like to see how this could be reviewed again? Any feedback you have for me as to whether I've been neutral enough would also be great, as I have stated, I have a conflict of interest because I work for Mrs Bertarelli. Thank you so much again! MiaNorcaro (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  15:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request edit

Dear Spintendo

First, I would like to thank you for all your help, and to apologize for taking so much of your time. I was new to this and it took me a while to "nail" down the formatting of the edits (hence the large number of them). Also, I was not aware of how Wikipedia works, and I was under the impression that the subject of an article can edit what is written about him/her. I understand your position that this can be problematic, but I did not think that I was bragging about myself. I just wanted to correct some inaccuracies and to balance the references to my work. My last edit is free of errors and I did try to answer your questions. I don't want to waste anymore of your time, but I would appreciate it if you advise me how to proceed.

Sincerely,

Anastasios Tsonis aatsonis@uwm.edu

Aatsonis (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize, I understand that you were just trying to improve the article to the best of your ability, and there is no fault in that. Wikipedia can be daunting for newcomers, so I understand, too, the rough patches that are encountered. Unfortunately however, I'm unable to offer additional help reviewing this request. As a suggestion I would recommend contacting IntoThinAir — they are already eminently familiar with the subject matter and should therefore be able to provide you with quality, in-depth assistance. Warm regards,  Spintendo  15:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

In search of CoI advice

Hi Spintendo, as you might recall I'm an editor with CoI for UBS-related pages. I'm looking for advice on how to approach a slightly controversial edit of Paul Donovan article.

I noticed that recently someone edited the article adding a statement <"Chinese pig" comment is racial and offensive"> without supplying any source for it. I don't want to get into any conflict but at the same time I feel that this is a subjective sentence that shouldn't be stated in its current form, if at all, on Wikipedia.

Can you advice on whether or not I can propose an edit on it? If yes – should I provide any back-up article or just note that it's not objective?

Regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Claim reverted to status quo ante. I've changed the claim back to the way it was. If this same type of edit happens again, go ahead and make the request on the talk page with the reasoning that subsequent editors have added information which was WP:POV-based and not grammatic — which is what happened in this case. Regards,  Spintendo  12:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, thank you a lot for your help. I will note it for future reference. Regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

Hi! Had a few clarifying questions regarding your response to my COI edit request on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. Please take a look if you get a chance. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  03:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Checking back in on COI edit for Bloomin Brands page

Just checking back in to see about the COI edit request for Bloomin Brands. Thank you. 50.240.49.9 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  04:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. As I work on addressing your comments, how does this work once all the edits are approved? Do you or someone else physically make the changes to the page? Thanks again. AmyPGPR (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@AmyPGPR: It's usually the case that whomever reviews the request goes ahead and implements the changes. Also, a reminder: be sure to activate the {{request edit}} template on the talk page along with your request when you're ready to proceed. Regards,  Spintendo  03:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bob Adams (electrical engineer)

Hi! FYI, left you a reply over at Talk:Bob Adams (electrical engineer). Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Honeywell Finances Section

Thanks for updating the Honeywell financial data in the infobox.

I'm confused about your removal of the Finances section. I don't agree with you removing the whole section. The encyclopedic statements are sourced prose. How about reinstating the statements?

"For the fiscal year 2017, Honeywell reported earnings of US$1.933 billion, with an annual revenue of US$40.534 billion, an increase of 3.1% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $131 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$108.1 billion in October 2018."

Second, The historical financial data is helpful and informative. When a  reader is coming to Wikipedia, they are looking for historical information. The chart and source gives the reader both the data and the data source. It's not a list or catalogue. Each item gives context to the others - telling a story. When you have a quick moment, how about putting the chart back in?Chefmikesf (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Financial information added I've added a link to the Honeywell financials in the External links section. Since the information was collated by MicroTrends and is displayed on their website, there's no need to reproduce it in full here in the article. The EL section is the appropriate place for information which has already been compiled by others. The statement you mentioned has been re-placed along with its original reftagged source under the 2002-present section. Regards,  Spintendo  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Spintendo, these are good suggestions.

If you have a minute, can you update this with the current data?

For the fiscal year 2018, Honeywell reported net income of 6.765 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.802 billion, an increase of 3.13% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $169 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$120.26 billion in September 2019.

Best, Chefmikesf (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you could point me to the location on the MicroTrends site where that information for Sept 2019 is I'd be happy to update the Honeywell article with it. Please advise. Regards,  Spintendo  20:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Added the references requested. thanks Chefmikesf (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done  The requested prose makes the claim Honeywell reported earnings of 6.765 billion but that figure does not appear in the cited source, nor does the term "reported earnings". Instead, the source uses the terms 'revenue' or 'annual revenue' when describing the subject company financials. If the subject company's Wikipedia article is to use a source's figures, then that article ought to employ an economy of terms by using the same nomenclature already used by the source in their description of the figures. Regards,  Spintendo  22:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see your point about "Honeywell reported earnings of 6.765 billion". Based on the 10K, this should work. "Honeywell reported net income of 6.765 billion"Chefmikesf (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, Initially, I keep the phrase "reported earnings" in the sentence because it was in the article. I agree to use the correct terminology from the reference. Can you take a look at the updated version of my request?

For the fiscal year 2018, Honeywell reported net income of US$6.765 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.802 billion, an increase of 3.13% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $169 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$120.26 billion in September 2019.-Chefmikesf (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References

University of Law needs eyes

Could you keep an eye on this article. An IP (79.66.223.58) has been repeatedly adding promotional material to the lead and making other inappropriate changes. Examples I've reverted/removed [1], [2]. I don't think it's a COI case. They seem to be doing this with multiple UK 2nd-tier universities, e.g. [3]. Best Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Regards,  Spintendo  17:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The IP is very persistent. Perhaps he'll get the hint if more than one person reverts his edits. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: That same IP has added a crest to the article again. There's a hidden message in the markup stating that the crest shouldn't be used, but I wasn't sure who left that message, and thus didn't revert it. What was the consensus on using the crest, is that something that shouldn't be there? Please advise, thanks! Warm regards,  Spintendo  15:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the crest has been there for quite a while, even before my involvement with the article. I think the IP just moved it from the left side to the right side of the section. Per the hidden message meaning: it can to go in the history section (where it is now) but not in the infobox, as that crest has been deprecated by the university as a symbol. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Requests you accepted at List of serial killers by number of victims

Hey, I just want to let you know I undid the edit requests you approved on the page becuase the sourcrs the IP gave in the edit requests did not even exist. The source http://www.thegaurdian.com/uk/2000/feb/01/shipman.health went to http://ww1.thegaurdian.com/?sub1=c03bcd98-ec2a-11e9-9677-709dbfedd9af  which says the domain is for sale. and the source  http://www.thegaurdian.com/world/1999/Jan/08/ goes to http://btpnative.com which (according to my schools CISCO Umbrella blocks) is an Online Trading site. Please be more careful in the future. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 13:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners: The correct URL is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/20/chinese-quack-doctor-patients-jail-hu-wanlin . I understood that the URLs that the requesting editor had provided were incorrect, which is why I didn't place them in the article. Since the serial killer article is a stand-alone list, as long as the information from that list is sourced where it appears, references are not necessary per WP:LISTVERIFY.  Spintendo  23:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, oh my god. I’m sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 13:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ken Xie

Hi! Heads up, I left you a response with clarification at Talk:Ken Xie. Thank you as always! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  00:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Clade diagram?

In this edit to Perficient, you changed the "Key acquisitions" section from a standard WikiTable to a clade diagram (and a broken one at that). I don't believe this helped in the understanding of the material; I have reverted back to the table format. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Since the purpose of the Key acquisitions section was to show relationships that the company held, I thought that the cladogram worked well. But as you know the article better than I do, I'll leave it to you to choose which works best. Regards,  Spintendo  17:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far

Hi Spintendo,

Just want to say thank you for your work on the edit requests I've made recently. Sorry for being a slow learner at times. I appreciate your patience.

John at SKDKDigital (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tina Tchen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time's Up (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

   DAB link corrected    Spintendo  09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

trivago Wikipedia Page

Hi Spintendo,

Hope you're well. You may recall reviewing some requested edits to the trivago Wikipedia page early in September. You were really helpful in pointing me to the information needed to make an accurate edit request in regards to the source citation. I shared another edit on September 27 which I think should work, but wanted to make sure that it was correct and accurate. If you have a chance, could you take a look?

Appreciate your help, --Agrund2 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

15-OCT-2019

Hello, I left my comments on Natalia Toreeva page. Hope you will find time to read it. Thanks!Toreeva 21:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Would you check my comments again, if you have time. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Toreeva:  Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  19:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Would you check my response again. Can you fix if for sure it can be corrected? Thanks, Toreeva 19:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo again. I try to resend you my message that I left reply on my talk page. Also, if you see that it is unsigned, meaning that signature tool does not work, since I signed using 4 ~ or using signed and save. Or may be my talk page redirected, or ... Fix it if you can... Thanks, Toreeva 14:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Toreeva 14:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried again, redirected to other talk page.

Toreeva (talk • contribs)Toreeva 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Toreeva 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo again. I will do my signature by doing 4 ~ as I did before. Please back to the article and my comments to your input. Thanks, Toreeva 22:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Spintendo, I left my comments on my Talk page. Hope you will find time to continue helping in the article. Thanks, Toreeva 01:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The comment you left a few days ago looks like it appended the links perfectly, but since then you've reverted back to using the old manner, which does not append any links. My suggestion would be that you return to whichever way you used when you left this comment:

I tried again, redirected to other talk page. Toreeva (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also the WP:HELPDESK if you need assistance in getting your signature to display properly. Regards,  Spintendo  21:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Spintendo, I did not revert any text. You can check the history, and any question you asked. And I don't want to ask for any help with the signature. It is minor problem. It looks you lost interest with any help with the article. So, I appreciate for any help you did. Thank you, Toreeva 22:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Toreeva: I did not say you reverted text, I said you reverted back to a different way of leaving your signature. The fact that your sig is still missing links to your talk or user page is not a minor problem. My suggestion that you receive help in fixing the issue should not be taken lightly. I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting on my talk page until the problem with your signature has been corrected. Regards,  Spintendo  18:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:, I sent request to Help Desk regarding Display of my signature. Thank you, Toreeva 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, Looks the Signature problem is fixed, so if you have time and willingness to help, please back to help with the article editing. Thanks, Toreeva (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

COI edits to Mark Lanier profile

Spintendo-- Thank you again for your recent help editing Mark Lanier’s Wikipedia profile. I know that can be time-consuming so I really do appreciate it. I’m writing in reference to the edits made on 10/24 by Smartse. In addition to editing the body of Lanier’s page, he also placed two banners at the top, one of which references COI editing. In my original call for help, I was upfront about the fact that Lanier was a client of mine and that I wanted substantive edits to his page reviewed by an experienced editor, who could then make the final decision as to whether they should be made. My question is, based on the feedback left by Smartse on Lanier’s talk page, was there something I did wrong? As originally stated, I’d like to edit the page in a way that’s transparent and follows Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. Any further help you could provide in doing that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot. WriteJames (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@WriteJames: I've read what Smartse has wrote on the Lanier talk page and I agree with their application of those templates. What SmartSE's check of available sources turned up was that the handling of two of Lanier's cases — the talc case and the DePuy case — showed that not all of the information concerning those cases was being presented in Lanier's article. None of the edits which you've requested incorporate these other sources which discuss the outcomes of those cases — which while not suprising — does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. That ostensibly would be the reason why SmartSE applied the {{disputed}} template to the article.

Your question asked what you did wrong here. My answer would be that you didn't undertake a search of all available sources in order to present a more WP:BALANCED article. That you didn't do this as I said earlier, is understandable, in that you are not paid to uncover unflattering information about your employer — which is why these edits are placed under a review system in the first place. My thanks goes out to SmartSE for their investigative tendencies in this case — that was clearly something that I missed. In order to remove the {{disputed}} template, this additional information ought to be placed in sufficiently paraphrased format and requested to be placed in the article. Regards,  Spintendo  22:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Request for edit follow up: Scanlan International

Hi Spintendo,

Following up on your previous note about which request for edit template to use when creating a new page with a COI! You mentioned the {{request edit}} template should only be used for articles which are already established (which makes sense to me) and indicated I should follow the WP:AFC 's directions on how to submit a request/create the page. I went ahead and followed all that - the only part that's confusing is the edit request page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests ) the WP:AFC links you to says to use the {{request edit}} template, as does the simple conflict of interest edit request ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request ) page.

Don't mean to be dense! Just wondering if there's something super obvious I'm missing here? Main problem is I can't find the correct template to route the edit request to that's not the {{request edit}} template.

Appreciate any insight!

Bold North (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)BoldNorth

@Bold North: Thank you for your question. WP:AFC is for use by COI editors when the article is in the drafting stage. The reviewing editors there decide whether an article meets the notability requirements needed to create an article. Once those requirements are met and the article is created, a COI editor would then use the {{request edit}} template placed on the article's talk page to request changes to the article. A reviewing editor then grants or declines those requests based on Wikipedia's content requirements, which are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. It goes without saying that an article which has been newly created ought not to have too many requests to add or delete information in the time period shortly after being created, as those changes would ostensibly have been covered by the WP:AFC process. Regards,  Spintendo  21:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

@Spintendo: Got it, I think I understand! I've submitted it for review so editors can decide whether it meets notability requires before I use that request edit template. Thanks so much for the help and patience!

Vintage Film Awards

Hi Spintendo,

I was so sad to see your denial of my edit request for Vintage Film Awards (VFA). I'm not sure what to do next, and I hope you can advise me.

This is a personal project of mine, into which I've poured countless hours (and more money than I care to count). The emails, texts, photos and personal letters I've received from the winners have kept me going, despite a total lack of sponsorship. I believe it's a great project that gives overdue recognition to films that have stood the test of time, be they library staples like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" or foreign indies like "Jeanne Dielemann." I can't change that Wikipedia is the top hit on Google for VFA, which is quite a bummer when winners google it and they are not there. It's kinda killing the project, and it is the reason I've delayed the 4th ceremony.

After the 3rd ceremony, I did indeed hire someone to update the Wikipedia page. There were so many freelancers offering the service on Upwork; I didn't know this was a violation of Wikipedia policy. As one who also creates crossword puzzles, I'm a major Wikipedia user and a decent Wikipedia donor - but I'd never really delved into anything beyond the Article pages before this experience.

Regarding your comment that references should be from reliable secondary sources "which are not connected to the awards presenter," please note that I am in no way affiliated with Brussels Express, which has covered the awards for the past few years. Nor am I paying the Brussels Press Club to host the awards - they volunteered their space to me after the first year because they like the project.

Regarding your point that awards articles shouldn't list the winners but address the purpose/impact of the awards on society: I agree. And it's fair to say that this is already covered in the article (albeit not with the best of sources - these might be better: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/why-clueless-oscar-panel-got-it-wrong-over-alicia-1.56854, https://www.rtbf.be/culture/cinema/detail_jeanne-dieleman-de-chantal-akerman-selectionne-pour-les-vintage-film-awards?id=9241079). As for the Oscars, the purpose of the VFA is unlikely to change year-to-year. (A separate article on the 3rd VFA ceremony might mention that we gave special recognition to Sidney Poitier, who starred in three of the nominated films from 1967.)

I've just looked at the articles for some other awards, for example those from the San Sebastian festival and the Oscars. Would you think it better that there is one "generic" page about VFA, and then separate pages listing the winners from each year? If so, I am happy to propose those edits and page creations.

Thank you, as we say at VFA, for your (re)consideration.

JamesRbel (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@JamesRbel: Thank you for your question. I apologize for the decline, but I'm afraid that the content you wished to add to the article was predominantly of a list nature — the listing of winners and nominees. This is not permitted by one of Wikipedia's content requirements, which states that articles should not contain merely lists of information without any context. The idea of creating a central page from which list articles may be generated is a good one — one that is followed by articles such as the Academy Awards — but please note that list articles themselves have notability requirements and that notability is not inherited. This means that any information found in those list articles must demonstrate its own notability by having significant coverage in multiple established, independent sources. Regards,  Spintendo  22:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for the notice! Warm regards,  Spintendo  22:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up About Logitech Page Refresh

Hello Spintendo!

Thank you so much for your helpful comments on how my suggested edits for the Logitech should be formatted. I've gone through and put my suggested edits in the format that you recommended and would love if you would be able to review them when you have a moment.

Best,

Ciara

CiaraAislingLoughnane (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  05:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven Linne edit request

Hello,

I am the subject of the article Steven Linne and I want someone to second check the article for bias so the self declaration of bias can be removed.

--TheWolfius (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheWolfius: I have replaced the COI userpage template that you had applied to the article with the {{COI}} template that would normally be used in instances where an editor may be related to the subject of the article, which is the relationship that you are claiming. Please note that individuals with a COI are strongly advised not to directly edit articles themselves, but to use the {{request edit}} template — and to use it before changes are made to the article, rather than after — as was done in your case. Regards,  Spintendo  03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)