User talk:Spintendo

 Edit Request Categories

COI-ER •••••••••••••••••• 57
SP-ER ••••••••••••••••••• 79
EP-ER ••••••••••••••••••• 46

Laurie Patton COI edit request

Dear Spintendo

Please reconsider your decision to decline my requested amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edit on Costa Cruises

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

@Spintendo:You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Angelgreat#Costa_Cruises_02-JAN-2018. (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2018 (CST)

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

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

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

MathWorks

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

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

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

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

Proposed edits to Murdock Trust Page Rejected

Hello Spintendo -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully thanking you in advance.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you User:Spintendo this was incredibly helpful.

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

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

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

Again, I greatly appreciate your help.

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

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

Public Interest Research Group Declined Edits

Hi, Spintendo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, you can change the older "answered" template (when it appears as a smaller box shifted to the right side of the screen) from {{request edit|ans=yes}} to {{request edit|ans=no}} These templates must be activated or re-activated in order for editors to see the request. The software monitoring the site for these templates notifies editor lists which are updated immediately, telling us when a request is ready. You can see an example of one of these monitoring lists in the right hand top of my talk page just below the local time display.
Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Couple things

Thank you, thank you, thank you for all the help in managing the COI edit requests. It's quite an undertaking to not only take on my edit requests, but also everyone else.
I just wanted to touch to follow up on a couple things. Feel free to get around to this whenever you have a moment, no rush:

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

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

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

Reply

1. Arne & Carlos, I replied to your comments on the talk page.
2. Studio71, I assume "formatting" refers to the remaining maintenance template at the top of the article. According to this diff, that template was added by SamHolt6. I urge you to make contact with them to resolve the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

WalkMe page

Hi Spintendo,

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

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

@Sylvia Rosin Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Query on the GAR in progress

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

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

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

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

Follow-up on your contribution

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

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

Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Response to your feedback - M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust Page

Hello User:Spintendo

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

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

I sincerely appreciate all of your help through this process.

18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)ColbyReade — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyReade (talk • contribs) (my apologies. I realized after I hit submit that I failed to sign this note properly)

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

COI edit request for Hensoldt

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

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

Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Nubi: request to move to WP:AFC

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

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

@Spintendo: Thanks! Regards.

Pallister-Hall entry

Dear Spintendo, Thanks for the edits on the copyrighted material. Will work on that. But you also deleted citations to several scientific publications. There was a publication cited after the sentence "Mutations in the GLI3 gene cause Pallister–Hall syndrome." You also deleted the citation that followed the sentence: "Unlike the normal GLI3 protein, which can turn target genes on or off, the short protein can only turn off (repress) target genes." Why did you delete those changes? Les — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliegb (talk • contribs) 17:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit Request for Tiko Kerr article

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

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

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

Suggested Updates for Daniel Weiss Wikipedia Page

Dear Spintendo,

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

Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you for your response. I replied to your comments on the article page.

Academic papers

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

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

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

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

SIL's own desire to reproduce is conflated with the clerk's obviously pregnant body in a brief but significant point-of-view shot from SIL, focusing on the woman's belly, which then immediately cuts to a reaction shot of SIL's face. A brief look of silent understanding passes between the two women and the viewer is asked to identify/conflate the two women through their own looks of mutual recognition. This mirroring and resulting recognition is not a case of Lacanian misrecognition and loss. Rather, this look serves, in the Bakhtinian sense, as a form of mutual authoring, a dialogical intersection of the frontiers between selves.

See what I mean, its brilliant. Her analysis of Species is just under 70 pages long and starts on page 154 (pdf reader page 158).

• Bjornsson, Nina Gudrun (1999). "Terminal Visibility in the Reproductive Zone: Species and the California-Mexico Connection" (PDF). Aliens Within: Immigrants, the Feminine, and American National Narrative (Ph.D. thesis). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. pp. 154–223. Document No.9927491 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

• Gutierrez, Osiel (2001). "Species". The Horrifying Transformation of the Female Monster (Master's thesis). San Jose, CA: San Jose State University. pp. 63–66, 105–109. Document No.1403970 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

• James, Cara Lyn (August 1996). Hideous Progeny: 'Frankenstein' and the Female Monster in Science Fiction (Master's thesis). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University. pp. 17–20. Document No.MM15914 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

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

References

Epidemic Intelligence Service copyright claim

Hello Spintendo.

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

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

User:Turnaphrase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dana Ullman biography, the second stage

I took your advice. Let me know if this works for you..and if not, what do you recommend? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Ullman#Request_for_third-party_advice,_Second_stage DanaUllman^Talk 18:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

YAnswered on article's talk page. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Implementing COI requests

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

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

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

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

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

Studio71

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For your work with COI edit requests. feminist (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Carter Ledyard and Milburn COI Edits

Moved to Talk:Carter Ledyard & Milburn

 – Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Thank you for your prompt response to our requested edits.

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

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

Thanks.

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

References

re: Shelta rejection of link

Dear Spintendo,

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

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

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

As I am retired and have no links to academe I have no idea what an "acceptable" site would be and I have asked if anyone would like to host the document. Would you perhaps have thoughts on how this might be done? For example, does Wikipedia have its own repository for information that is deemed to be of value but which, as a result of such policies, cannot be made available as a link? I hope you will be able to make some suggestions - perhaps you know of someone who may be able to assist? Thanks Chris. Alivebeing (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply 31-JAN-2018

Further information: Wikisource:For Wikipedians, Wikisource:What is Wikisource?, and Wikisource:Help

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

Paul Coleman (sailor)

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

Dominic Barton

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

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

Rittal

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