User talk:Spintendo

Jon Rose page

Spintendo, I am addressing your latest requests. The Discography is missing now--please advise. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo: I have completed all of the edits you requested except the “Reception” section, but I have questions about what I just did that I need your clarification on. 1. As I wrote yesterday, the Discography is missing in the draft version, although I see it in the edit version—maybe no problem. 2. The References, on the other hand, are visible in the draft version, but not in the edit, so I was unable to make the requested edits there—please advise. 3. You wrote that 52 does not have a url—it is not online—it is the exhibition catalogue published by the producer of the event, Carriageworks, Sydney. What to do? 4. You wrote that references 55, 56, and 59 are not RS—I replaced one of them, but I believe two of them are Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National, the national flagship radio, like NPR in the US, except more important and considered the most respected and most neutral. I have left these references for now. 5. I cannot find “AV media notes” in the template to change the citation. Thanks for your assistance, hollistHollist (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 20-OCT-2018

1. When posting on this talk page, please do not create several headings regarding the same subject. The directions at the top of the page which direct editors to "click here" to leave a message are for those who have never posted on the page before. Please add posts to already existing threads by clicking "edit".
2. When editing the draft, there is no "references" section per se; that section is created from the references added in the main prose. So changes made to the references need to be made to each individual citation. If 56 needs editing, then looking at 56 in the referenecs and seeing that it cites a quote from Stephen Holden, the quote from Holden is where the citation should be altered.
3. The first item which was not a RS was a program listing hosted on the ABC website. A simple program listing is not by itself a reliable source, no matter which reliable website it may be posted upon.
4. You've changed a few of those non-RS citations to books, but you haven't entered the |page= number parameter where the information resides in those publications.
5. To change the citation template, under {{Cite book}} delete the word book and type AV media notes — which then gives you the {{Cite AV media notes}} template.
6. The discography is hidden from view. The numbers I mentioned are not affected by this. I've hidden it because the style of the discography needs to be altered to fit the standard format, which is shown below:

""Name" or "Name" (album or EP/single)" (added between parentheses after Name (album or EP)) from the album ONLY FOR EP/SINGLE: added after Name

• Released: "1992" or "11 February 1992
• Format: "LP/CD/..."
• Label: "Name" or "Name", comma if many
• Writer: "Songwriter name" or "Songwriter name"
• Writers: Use if there are multiple writers, comma if many
• Producer: "Producer name" or "Producer name", comma if many
• Director: "Director name" or "Director name" for music videos
• Chart position: "No. 1 U.S." or "No. 12 UK" or such
• Sales: "3 million sold as of 2005" or such
• Certification: "Gold" or such
• Tracks: " "One", "Two", "Three" ", etc.
• Bonus tracks: "Four" (Japan edition)
• Singles: " "Single", "Other Single" ", etc.

Regards,  Spintendo  07:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, thanks to you, Spintendo. I hope this is where I am supposed to add my comment. I have completed the Reception section per your suggestion, much appreciated. These questions remain: 1. The different sections currently have differently sized fonts, and some are underlined. The way I have designed it is simple, and there are not subsections, so each should be equal in size and the same font. I don't know how to do this. 2. It still reads "red" concerning the date June 2013-July 2013--no idea how to correct this. 3. I don't understand your request for the Discography. There are no directors, producers, or composers--the music is free improvisation. I designed this based on the John Zorn Wiki site; then you asked me to remove the LP/CD year, then you provided a template that required the year, which I added back, and then we had a second template. So for me, I would request that we go with the Discography as is. Much appreciated. Anything else? hollistHollist (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The discographies which were created earlier were done so in the mistaken belief that we were dealing with music which was independently notable by itself (meaning it had its own Wikipedia page). A discography where that would have been the case does not need the type of detail that the entry above offers. You've indicated that none of these releases are independently notable (meaning they dont have Wikipedia pages) so as this will be the only place where this information resides, it needs to be as complete as possible. These are the standards that WP:DISCOGRAPHY has come up with—they are not my own. As you can see from the John Zorn discography, his releases are independently notable, so that was probably not the best article to use as an exemplar in this case. The flagged date issue in the references has to do with the type of dash you're using to separate the two dates. Please ensure you use only em dashes with the |date= parameter. The template you may use is {{dash}} which would be inserted into the text between the two dates with no extra spaces, like this:

Wiki-markup	Displays as
June 2013{{dash}}July 2013	June 2013 – July 2013

As far as the headings, a typical article should have the headings flow in and out of certain subjects. An article should not be made up of just seperate level 2 headings. The prose should naturally follow a path. For example, the fact that Rose is a musician is a main level 2 umbrella heading. Under that heading as a musician, he performs his music across many different platforms (Multimedia-level 3). One of those platforms are his environmental works and radiophonic works (both level 4). Another main aspect similar to music making is his instrument building (level 2) which includes instruments he's created for the relative violins (level 3) A third major aspect are his compositions (level 2). The fourth main aspect is his reception (level 2) from which his awards (level 3) are discussed as part of that reception. And so on and so forth. So having different headings is good, but if there are ones that you feel are incorrect, please let me know about them. Meanwhile, I'll get to work on the next round of proofreading. Regards,  Spintendo  05:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Spintendo. If you want the headings and sub-headings as they are, fine. Discography: I am unable to supply more information on the Discography. As I said, there would be nothing to insert for: Writer, Producer, Director, Chart Position, Sales, Certification, Bonus Tracks, Singles--all of which seem more appropriate for Pop Music. I have supplied the release date, format, and label--which is all that I am able to supply. Most of them have "tracks", but they are improvised segments, not "tunes", and I don't have copies of them with me to identify each track on each recording. It would seem a shame to have no Discography for a musician, but that's your call. hollistHollist (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Every artist is different, and no two discographies will be exactly the same. So, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the discog guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document Rose's body of work, then it's alright to go with what's best for the article. It should be our goal to provide information in the best way possible, and a strict adherence to the guidelines is not always going to be the best way to accomplish that goal. In an ideal situation however, any deviations from the guidelines should be with a clear purpose that is unique to the particular artist and situation in question.  Spintendo  08:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I've posted additional proofreading at the Rose draft.  Spintendo  19:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your careful edit, which I have taken care of, but with 3 small questions remaining:

1. You wrote:">Karl-Sczuka-PreisThis is a redlink. The term therefore has no Wikipedia page and the WL should be removed (just the link, the term can stay) It is a Wiki entry, but in German--take out the link?

2. In 1998, Rose was the first artist to use an interactive bow to modulate the parameters of video (including speed, color, and revolutions) and of sound (pitch including pitch bend, volume, timbre, duration, panning, silence).this reference gives a page range of 9 pages (pp.57-66). This cannot be correct. please give the correct page.[17]--This is a summary sentence of the entire article that discusses the interactive bow only, so I believe the page spread is justified in this case.

3. The 3 missing references were there but not showing, so I re-entered them. If there is still a problem, we will have to figure out why they are not showing.

Again, thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

1. To link the German page, enter the following code: <span class="plainlinks">[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Sczuka-Preis Karl-Sczuka-Preis]</span> which will display as Karl-Sczuka-Preis in the text.
2. Nine pages seems extreme for this reference. If this is the case, please activate the |quote= parameter and enter the quoted information from the article for each page.
3. The missing reference entries have been corrected.
4. Reference entry #10 still has an error attached to it. This is because under the |pages= parameter you have entered the total number of pages for the publication when only a page range is to go under this parameter. If the correct answer is one page only, use the |page= parameter.
5. The reference entries listed under the collapsible entry below have no URL's attached to them. Please take a moment to ascertain why this is the case in each instance.

References missing URLs
Note number      13 Exhibition catalogue not available online 17 Journal by purchase only 19 Online but by subscription/purchase only 33 Not available online, which applies to all the rest as well 35 37 38 46 58 60 64 65 78 79 80 127 128

 Spintendo  00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Edit completed. As indicated above, the Reference items with no online presence, or no free online presence, are correct in your table. I just double-checked them all. hollistHollist (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Just checking in again as I do everyday to see if we can now launch this edit. Thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, I'm hoping this page can now be launched. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, Would you have time to move this Jon Rose page forward now and launch it? Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: There remains many marked items still left in the draft which have not been addressed.  Spintendo  02:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Where would I find these new marked items? I don't see the link any more to your current draft. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: The working draft may be found by following  this link .  Spintendo  23:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo: I have completed your requests except that I cannot follow what you are asking for concerning the doi in the Veryan Weston sentence. I don’t see a doi for either citation, or maybe doi stands for something else here. I looked in the Wiki help but still don’t understand. Also, I have no idea which Pier in San Francisco—they don’t remember! Finally, the first paragraph in the Reception is weirdly formatted, and I cannot see how to change that. I have taken out most of the quotes and paraphrased some of them. I have no idea how to use the {{blockquote}} so could not do that. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I may have been mistaken about the DOI for that item, because I see that it is already there. To use blockquote place <blockquote> immediately before the quoted text and </blockquote> right after the text. No line breaks are necessary, as the parser will automatically generate the needed spacing between the quoted material and the surrounding text.  Spintendo  06:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, Spintendo. I added one short quote in block text--I am trying to keep the section pared down per your request. It's the second paragraph in Reception, which I see in the Edit but not in the Preview mode. Please have a look. Otherwise, I've completed all your requests and thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: Pier 40! hollistHollist (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahh ok that's South Beach..... so I was way off then, #40 is nowhere near #27 or #39. Good to know! I'll place that in the article. Shouldn't be long till I'm finished. Thank you!  Spintendo  21:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I need clarification on a point in the draft. It states "Rose was apprehended by Israeli Defence Forces while playing the Separation Fence near Ramallah in the Occupied Territories."

1. I need a date for this
2. "Occupied territories" is a deprecated term. Technically, this area is now called the Palestinian Authority, or PA. Irregardless of when this occurred, we should just say "the Palestinian Authority" because using the term "occupied territories" is considerably pro-one side versus the other and we dont want the article's language to do that. The safe way forward is to use technical and legal labels to describe locations.
3. "Apprehended by IDF" - I'm not sure depending on the time frame whether ID forces would be apprehending people inside the PA (again this is time context dependent) but we need to specify where this occurred. Was it technically within the PA or was Rose just outside of the PA?
4. "Separation Fence" - this term is also deprecated. I believe the name of this is the Israeli West Bank barrier, but that barrier is now a concrete wall (again, time dependent - it may have been more "fence-like" when this happened). Either way let me know if you can (A) when this happened, (B) where exactly did this happen at (i.e., within the PA, just outside of the PA, on what side of the wall/barrier, etc.). Thank you  Spintendo  08:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Thank you for your attention to detail on this. In answer to your questions, A: 14 November 2006; B: it happened at Bil’in near Ramallah on the “Palestinian side” (although the fence went through it, with Palestinian property on both sides) with the IDF on the other side of the fence from where Jon Rose was bowing it (then a fence; now it’s a wall). Thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Just wanted to make sure you saw that I have responded to your questions. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: There are revisions ready for you to fix (in red). I'm going section by section making final copyedits. The yellow sections are finished. When all sections are done the article can go live. Thanks  Spintendo  10:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, I left one comment in and added my comment. Adding the page number to Reference 52 did not work well. I tried many times, kept subtracting stuff, now there is just a 1 sitting there, and don't know how to get the page # in, as in the Web Template there is no Page #. Sorry. hollistHollist (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I've left a reply at the draft. Friendly reminder: please thread your replies made here on the talk page. To do this, use the colon :, repeating the ones the previous editor puts and increasing it by one instance each time a reply is made, which moves the reply further to the right hand side. Thank you!  Spintendo  22:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Spintendo. I have done the edit you requested. I don't understand the colon request but will try now. hollistHollist (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: You can see the colons in the edit page, stacked on the left. They move the conversation down the page, making following along easier to do. There are new edits in the draft ready.  Spintendo  12:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo: I have attended to your requests. Where I cannot provide a more specific reference, I have made notes to you. I have cut and cut, per your requests. I'm happy to cut more, but then we won't know anything about this person. I understand your requests for references. Eight articles on him are coming out this week in a special edition of Contemporary Music Review from the UK. Some things could be supported by these. I'm very appreciative of your assistance, but very confused about the direction the draft is taking. hollistHollist (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Thanks for your advice. I have added specific information about the marathon concerts, which was all in the Uitti article I had cited, plus a link to a Wiki site that mentions one as well. hollistHollist (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Duncan Barrett Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thank you for explaining why my 'request edit' could not go ahead & for the detail given. I don't know what some of the abbreviations mean in the ref/citation templates. Can you point me to a help page (for dummies!) that will explain this. Then I can practise before doing the real thing. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITE is a good source to learn about our citation requirements. The best place to practice is in your sandbox. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page, and it serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user. You can create your own sandbox by following this link. Regards,  Spintendo  12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think I've put in all the citations now. Some of them need a 'date retrieved' date given, but I don't know where this goes on the citation template. Two names probably need a 'Note' - Ruth Ward & Phil Tomaselli, but I'm not sure how to do this. *ptrs4all* (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You should only need to place the |date retrieved= parameter if the |URL= parameter used for the source is likely to change. In all other cases the |date= parameter should suffice. If by "two names" you mean two authors, they should be placed using individual parameters for each entry, such as |last1= and |first1= for the first and last name of the first author and |last2= and |first2= for the second author.  Spintendo  13:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with the edit you have made in the article & have left a comment on the talk page. *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.  Spintendo  14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice on the talk page of the article. It might have been more helpful to both of us if you had asked me to condense the information into two sentences before I added all the citations. I am not attempting "to carry on this dispute", simply attempting to convey the facts of the matter according to wikipedia's policies. As previously stated, I am new to editing & my COI makes it quite hard especially when the subject matter is complicated. *ptrs4all* (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the complicated nature of the request, I think a good way forward would be for you to present your proposed edits at either one of these routes:

1. The original research noticeboard
2. The biography WikiProject

To maximize editor response you might want to post at both venues simultaneously, but choose only one to have the main discussion at. For example, designate the original research noticeboard as the place for a main discussion while posting at the Wikiproject a message such as "There is a discussion occurring at <link to the noticeboard discussion> which may be of interest to editors."

Regards,  Spintendo  16:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions which are appreciated. Unfortunately, I have already posted a revised edit request on the project page, as you previously suggested. I have only asked for one sentence to be considered & abandoned trying to include information about my study & published article. *ptrs4all* (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@*ptrs4all*: I saw your post there, but I was confused because the sentence you asked for is already in the article and has been for four years. That was why I wanted you to clarify if there was any additional information you wanted placed there. Remember, when asking for something to be added to an article, it's important that you not repeat sentences which are already in the article — your request should only feature the claims that aren't in the article, but which you want added. Since that claim is already in the article, I just needed to know from you which additional 2 sentences you might want placed in the article.  Spintendo  22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments & advice. The 2 sentences referred to (the original & my suggested replacement) are not identical. The one currently in the article is misleading & reads as if all the critics objected to its pacifist politics and questioned its accuracy. I cannot point to a single critic that objected to the book's pacifist politics which is why I think a 'citation needed' tag is required after "pacifist politics". There were critics who questioned the historical accuracy of the book & Phil Tomaselli, is a good example of such, but he definitely didn't question the pacifist politics as is evident in his book review. I wanted to include him because he is a noted family & military historian & his book review was published in a reliable source. It also extends the coverage of the book & balances the good with the not so good reviews. Hopefully, the sentence I have written to replace the existing one is not misleading, gives reliable evidence to support it where possible & keeps open the possibility that there may exist criticism about its pacifist politics which I am unaware of. Regards, *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The two sentences look identical to me.  Spintendo  10:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of texts

Text as it appears in the Wikipedia article	Text as it appears in *ptrs4all*'s Edit proposal
However, it came under attack from critics who objected to its pacifist politics and questioned its accuracy.	However, it came under attack from critics who objected to its pacifist politics and questioned its accuracy.

Did you look at the Wiki Biography Project talk page? I have revised my edit request on the talk page there so that, hopefully, the changes needed are clear. I have also suggested another additional sentence. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The sentence above in the right hand column comes directly from your request at that WikiProject. As you can see, your request asks for information which is already in the article. You say this is not the case, but I beg to differ. Your request is ultimately unclear, and chances are it may be unclear to others as well. Unfortunately, this could make it difficult for others to assist you in placing what you want into the article. I've tried to help by making my concerns clear to you — and now that I have, I wish you luck.  Spintendo  19:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newmont Mining Corporation edits

Spintendo,

Thank you for your patience with the edits I've requested on Newmont's entry. And thank you for recasting Section 2.5 in the past tense. Can you kindly explain, however, the rationale for not moving that content out of Section 2.0 Operations and major projects and into 3 Former Operations? As well, the third paragraph of the 2.5 still seems more apt for 4 Controversies. My proposed edit, the second paragraph below, builds upon the existing content with additional examples of controversy. The first paragraph remains the same as the existing, but would simply move.

In 2008, the Indonesian government threatened to terminate the contract of P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara after accusing it of failing to meet its divestment obligations. On April 1, 2009, international arbitrators and its partner sided with Newmont rejecting Jakarta's request to have their contract revoked, which would have forced the company to walk away from the property without any compensation. Instead, Newmont was forced to sell a 17% stake in an Indonesian subsidiary within 180 days.

In August 2010, Batu Hijau workers went on strike, claiming unpaid overtime. Previously, the provincial Manpower and Transmigration Ministry ordered the mine to pay Rp 126 billion (US$13.8 million) in overtime for 1,919 worksers, some dating back two years. Additional strikes over working shifts occured throughout 2011.

Thank you again, as I catch the hang of this. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Not all of the information involves controversy, so moving text to that section when it's already easily handled in another section is not necessary, as it balances the article better where it is. The general guidance from Wikipedia is to keep information out of controversy sections, rather than adding to them, per WP:CSECTION. Regards,  Spintendo  01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Economy section

Hi Spintendo, you’ve probably seen but just to note that I responded to your reply to my edit request at Saudi Arabia. Hope that’s not too long now and let me know what you think when you get a moment. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.  Spintendo  14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, just wondering if you’ve had a moment to look at my response here. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Reply posted  Spintendo  20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for all your advice there. One question I have is that since I’m essentially asking editors to go through this whole thread, some of which is now resolved, would it be an idea to add another subheading, e.g. Requesting input from WikiProjects, start it off with as concise a summary as possible of the remaining points under discussion, and then to point editors at that? Tarafa15 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. If the main discussion area remains the talk page, then editors will be able to see past discussions easily. The main point is to make sure you communicate what it is that you want from other editors (their feedback) and what it is you want their feedback on (that you would like to consolidate the older section that has the Saudi Vision 2030 hatnote with a newer one that covers briefly in summary the SV 2030 article). Not much needs to be covered in that summary, because the main SV 2030 article itself handles that task, and you don't want to be repeating too much. If it's presented in the WikiProjects as a request for input on a simple summary of a larger article (SV 2030) as it would be mentioned in the main KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) page, then that should maximize editor feedback by simplifying what it is youre looking for. Make sure you have a proposal ready for others to give feedback on, taking care to mention which article is being summarized (SV 2030) and where that summary is suggested to be placed (the KSA article).  Spintendo  10:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for this further advice – as for summarizing Saudi Vision 2030, that’s a good point and it actually feeds into another discussion I’m hoping to have about that article. It’s probably better if I start another thread below, which I’ll do now. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You rock! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spintendo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

21-NOV-2018

Hi Spintendo, Thanks for taking up this issue. You ask for information to explain how this situation was arrived at. The reason as I understand it is this. (The conversations I have had with moderators is documented at the foot of this talk page.) The photos that accompanied the article were taken down because moderators were uncertain as to the category of public domain the images were being released into. I was sent an email which I mistakenly thought referred to a failed attempt to upload a different image onto Wikimedia Commons and so ignored it. I later realised, after the four images were removed from the article 'Clive Wilkins' that the email referred to those images which had made available earlier. So, in consequence I have been chasing my tail in order to get the four images reinstated, first onto Wikimedia Commons in the correct category of release and secondly back onto the article 'Clive Wilkins'. The four images in question, incidentally are now back on Wikimedia Commons. We just need to replace them into the article if it is deemed appropriate. I am not sure where all the correspondence relating to this is to be found on Wikipedia, but I include my copies of all correspondence below (numbered from 1 thru 5) for your convenience and for information. Next I will go back to the page where you ask me to add some detail to the yellow box. Hopefully I will get that right. In truth I suspect I am out of my depth dealing with these issues. Wish me luck :-)))

Thanks for your time Spintendo.

Extended content

1. [Ticket#2018052110006475] release of content attached to this email  Count Zapik Thu 31/05/2018, 10:15 I hereby affirm that I represent Clive Wilkins, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email. I agree to publish the above-mentioned works under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Jean Scott Thomson Appointed representative of Clive Wilkins 2018-05-21 [generated using relgen] PC 2.  Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Tue 06/11/2018, 09:08 Dear Count Zapik, We have received your email — thank you for your interest in contributing your work! In order for us to process your contribution, we need to know the specific URL of the page on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded it. To help us do that, please respond to this email by providing a link to that location. If you have NOT yet uploaded the file, please follow these steps: 1. Login to Wikimedia Commons (or create a free account and username if you haven't done so already) at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin>. 2. Click on the words "Upload file" in the left sidebar (<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload>). 3. Click on the large blue button that says, "Select media files to share" and then navigate to the file(s) on your computer that you would like to upload (if you are sharing images through Flickr, click that button instead). 4. The tool will then upload the file(s) to our servers. When done, you will have the option to upload more files (or to add more files from Flickr). If you would like to do this, please feel free. When you are done, click on the blue box that says, "Continue." 5. You will then be asked if the file(s) is(are) your own work or that of someone else. If your own, then select the radio button for "This file is my own work". If not, please select the option for "This file is not my own work" and skip to step 7 below. It is very important that you only claim to have created a file which you in fact did, so please choose honestly. It is perfectly alright to admit that you did not create the file yourself, so long as the file is either in the public domain or you have permission from the original author to upload the file to Commons. Millions of acceptable files on Commons were uploaded by people who did not create them! 6. If you have selected "This file is my own work", you must then release the rights to the file under either the default license (CC-BY-SA 4.0, which is the most restrictive license we can accept) or by choosing another, less-restrictive license (such as the Public Domain license). Then click "Next". You then must select a unique file name by which the file will thereafter be permanently known on Commons, provide a brief description of the file's contents, indicate the date on which you created or first published the file, and choose at least one "Category" for it (for more help with categories, please see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories>). If you are not comfortable choosing a category, you may leave this field blank and another editor will choose one for you at a later date. You may also give location information in degrees latitude and longitude if these are known to you and are relevant to the file. Lastly, you may add any "other information" about the file that you have not included elsewhere. 7. If you have selected "This file is not my own work", you will be asked to provide the file's "Source" (the URL of the web page where you found it, the citation information from the book where it was published, or any other information that will allow another editor to verify its license— see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Essential_information#Source>), its "Author(s)", and you will need to specify the "License" under which it already exists OR under which you intend to provide evidence that the author is willing to release it (see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder> for guidance with this). If you are unsure if the file is in the public domain or don't know what license it exists under or have not gotten permission from its original author to use it, you probably should not upload it to Commons. If you DO know its license, the most commonly encountered licenses are given here in a list for you to choose the matching one. If you do not see the license you need, click on "Another reason not shown above" to be shown hundreds of additional license options. Once you have entered the Source, the Author(s) name(s), and a valid License, click on "Next". You can then complete the file's description information as explained above in Step 6 and officially publish it on Commons! 8. You should then send a reply to this email providing the URL of the web page where the file exists on Commons so that we can process your request. Thank you for taking the time to read and follow all of this. Please get back to us soon! Your "ticket" has now been assigned to me — I will do my best to answer any questions you may still have, and will handle your statement once it comes in. Yours sincerely, Alessio Rutveno -- Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ 21/05/2018 11:02 - Count Zapik wrote: > I hereby affirm that I represent Clive Wilkins, the creator and/or sole owner of > the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email. > I agree to publish the above-mentioned works under the Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 > International.[cid:40249ED3-D2C7-4E60-9558-EBE5E515B79A@lan] > I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a > commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, > provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable > laws. > I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. > I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as > well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. > Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the > copyright holder. > I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or > may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. > [cid:8A214E27-712E-419D-A62F-2B70A9441599@lan] > Jean Scott Thomson > Appointed representative of Clive Wilkins > 2018-05-21[cid:67FFD865-E469-4B74-AC34-937C8D593459@lan] > > [generated using relgen] > [cid:8695923E-B25B-46CC-9279-97D8F6807D12@lan] 3.  Count Zapik Mon 12/11/2018, 08:40 Hi Alessio Rutveno, I have only just caught up with this. I notice the photos of artwork have been taken off the Wikipedia entry for Clive Wilkins. I had made an assumption that the email you sent was in response to a later failed attempt to upload material to Wiki commons and so ignored it. I will read your email and respond soon in order to get the images back on the site- however it’ll be a couple of days until I can find space to do that. I do have complete permission to use the material and it is available for use- I had thought this was agreed since my declaration to state this was submitted and is in your possession (and in Wikipedia’s possession too) . Anyway give me a couple of days to try and sort this out with you. If you could get back to me and explain the problem in a couple of simple sentences I would be very grateful, because in truth I don’t quite understand why there is an issue here. But that’s down to my lack of knowledge concerning these things. Best wishes. Jean Scott Thomson Sent from my phone. 4.  PC Permissions - Wikimedia Commons Mon 12/11/2018, 09:16 Dear Count Zapik, My e-mail was to verify that you had the rights to publish the photos of the artworks. This procedure is in act in order to defend the copyright of the artists. In few words, we need a proof that Clive Wilkins is willing to publish these photos JW Jean Wilkins Mon 12/11/2018, 09:29 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Count Zapik Mon 12/11/2018, 09:32 Thanks for this Alessio, Will sort it ASAP- I’ll need a couple of days until I have a free space- Best wishes Jean Scott Thomson :-))) Sent from my phone. PC Permissions - Wikimedia Commons Mon 12/11/2018, 15:35 Dear Count Zapik, No problems at all. We are looking forward for your e-mails. Thanks again for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons. Yours sincerely, Alessio Rutveno -- Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address 5. Count Zapik Tue 13/11/2018, 11:19 You; Permissions - Wikimedia Commons; Jean Wilkins  Hi Alessio Rutveno, I understand there is an issue with the use of my artwork on the Wikipedia entry for 'Clive Wilkins', which has been compiled by my assistant Jean Scott Thomson and the aid and support of a variety of Wikipedia moderators. You seem to be questioning our right to use the images. I can confirm that I have given permission for the images to be used on Wikipedia and have placed them on Wikimedia commons and moreover have put them into the public domain. There is no problem here as far as I can see. Jean Scott Thomson and I would be very pleased to see the images put back onto the 'Clive Wilkins' Wikipedia entry as soon as possible. If there are any outstanding issues that make it hard to do this please contact us again. Thanks for all your help and great work, not to mention zeal in protecting both myself (Clive Wilkins) and Wikipedia's interests. Wikipedia is an amazing resource and I am proud and extremely delighted to be part of the greatest encyclopaedia in the history of the world. Get back to me on this address Alessio. Let me know if we need to do more to get the four images reinstated on the Wikipedia entry for 'Clive Wilkins' and back into Wikimedia commons archive. Best wishes~ thanks for dealing with this personally. Clive Wilkins _ _ o o ._L_. = V Clive WILKINS cw567@cam.ac.uk 07738183166 ARTIST & WRITER. Artist in Residence. Department of Psychology. University of Cambridge. UK Co-founder of THE CAPTURED THOUGHT thecapturedthought.com

Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Jean Scott Thomson Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request edit - Returning four images of paintings found on Wikimedia Commons to the article 'Clive Wilkins"

Hi Spintendo,

I have changed the request edit to "=no' on the request edit page as you asked. I think I did it right. You may need to check. Your request as I saw it read.

'When you're ready to proceed, kindly switch the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no Spintendo 00:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)'

Thanks for all your help. Wikipedia can seem very daunting sometimes~ but I am endeavouring to get better. I now realise I forgot to give a Subject/headline to my last message to you. Apologies.

Best wishes Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Jean Scott Thomson Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Update to 'Clive Wilkins'

Hi Spintendo, Thanks for your recent work on the article 'Clive Wilkins' and for returning the photos to the page. I like your changes~ they provide me with valuable insight into what constitutes an acceptable entry on Wikipedia. Best wishes Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Jean Scott Thomson Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 759

I don't know why I didn't bring this up earlier. It was probably because of school. Anyways, I checked the Russian version and it does not say 172 people so it must have been edited since. I'll take this to the talk page. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: You need a calculator to spot that figure. 172 comes from the nationalities table. The far right total column reads 145 but all the figures added up equal 172.  Spintendo  22:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Ok you got me, I should have looked more closely. Anyways, I have made minor improvements to non english articles (I made my edit summaries with google translate), and I could fix the table on the Russian version, however I rarely edit non English articles and I need your thoughts and advice on doing this. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: You should revert the changes about the pilots because those claims regarding their names are unreferenced. The NTSB report does not mention the pilot's names at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Spintendo  23:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I got it from the Russian version, but I'll revert the changes. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: I've checked the Russian-linked source, they were using an NTSB report which included the appendices, and the pilot information was listed under Appendix B. So I've reverted your revert and put the information you added back into the article.  Spintendo  23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I actually found that out before you did and I was going to tell you myself, but it doesn't matter now. Anyways, thank you! Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Abington Academy‎

..and now? That was the easy bit- how do you plan to develop these three interrelated articles?--ClemRutter (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Practically no sources have been added to that article since the main wall of unreferenced text was first added 4 months ago. I'd say they've had plenty of time to find sources, if they exist. As far as I know, adding claims and adding references are acts which go hand in hand, not one after the other. But you've asked an excellent question here: How do they plan to develop these three interrelated articles without any references?  Spintendo  03:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Vision 2030

Hi Spintendo, just starting another thread here to keep things clearer hopefully. Regarding summarizing Saudi Vision 2030, I’m hoping to get a discussion going on that as well as that article has some issues. It was recently rated as C-Class, correctly in my view as it’s missing some important information and contains some irrelevant/outdated material. The quality of the copy is not good in places and there are some other problems besides. I understand not everyone welcomes COI editors proposing new drafts, however my posts on the talk page and on WikiProject Saudi Arabia got no response and neither of those pages are active, so I've gone ahead and worked on a userspace draft. I was confident I could make significant improvements while sticking to NPOV, which I believe I’ve managed to do (for example, criticisms of Vision 2030 in reliable sources are actually more multifaceted than the current Critical reactions section suggests – the same section in my draft covers the same concerns plus others which aren’t currently mentioned e.g. Yemen, Qatar, the 2017 recession, capital flight, falling FDI, rule of law). What’s your view on how best to proceed? As the article is only part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, my thinking was to request a significant edit on the talk page, with a link to the draft and a full outline of what I’m proposing and the reasons for it. Let me know what you think when you get a moment, thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't have been more than 3 days ago where I recommended making the request through one of the article's governing WikiProjects. I'm afraid that amount of time is unreliable in determining whether a certain avenue of discussion has been successful or not. Please consider allowing for the standard wait time of 7 to 14 days before arriving at that conclusion. The wheels of Wikipedia may appear to move slowly at times, but they move nonetheless — and your request in the WikiProjects deserves an adequate amount of time for editors to respond to it. Also, the article is governed by 4 other WikiProjects: WP:COUNTRIES, WP:ARAB, WP:WASIA and WP:VA. I would suggest posting in all of them.  Spintendo  17:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In looking at these projects, your best ones to try will be WP:COUNTRIES and WP:VA. It looks like WP:ARAB and WP:WASIA may be non-active.  Spintendo  17:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I should have clarified - my post on Talk:Saudi Vision 2030 was September 26 and this post at WikiProject Saudi Arabia was October 2. The main Saudi Vision 2030 article could be a whole lot better (currently C-class) so I had a go at a user draft. Tarafa15 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again

Hi,

Just wanted to reiterate that you've done very fine work on many articles I've been involved in and it's appreciated. Nextdoor is the only article where I have disagreed with you such that I thought a broader community discussion would be in order. I just happen to disagree with you, stylistically, that long, direct quotations with a strong POV (as opposed to a more neutral summation of the point), are a good idea for Wikipedia, but I know you come to your opinion sincerely and I've seen you use longer quotes, to good effect, on other articles. It's unfortunate that we also disagree on the reliability of a particular source, in this same matter. I just want to reiterate that I continue to see you as fair-minded and very skilled. I hope there's room for a rare disagreement without engendering any bad feelings. I make my suggestions in good faith -- and only would put some point forward that I personally think improves an article under Wikipedia policy. I see your other point about weakness in rest of the article, especially given all the great sourcing available, but this article is one of those land mines where people's emotions run very high. I've tried to offer up major rewrites in the past, but the debates have proven to be exhausting and often, ineffective.----BC1278

Falsifiability as a useful criterion in upholding Wikipedia standards

Hi Spintendo,
I invite you to take a look Wikipedia's Falsifiability article, not because of any problems there, but rather because it may enhance your editing activities elsewhere. On another article's talk page (doesn't matter which, since this is a generic suggestion), someone has identified an instance of an unsourced statement being contradicted by various sources that he has linked to. The purpose of his links is to falsify the hypothesis that the unsourced statement is valid encyclopedic content, so he and you are both singing from the same hymn sheet, i.e. encouraging verifiability. Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted his talk-contribution as a request to incorporate his refutatory links into the article (which you wouldn't want to since they veer too close to original research for anywhere other than a talk page). If you study the Falsifiability article, you will undoubtedly appreciate what the intended message really is. The phenomenon of refutation usually being stronger than confirmation has been written about by quite a few philosophers, so you might also be interested to read, for instance, the Karl Popper article. Wikipedia encourages the use of primary sources on talk pages for refutatory purposes. Happy editing! 88.145.104.248 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate this It's nice to know that there are other editors out there who are familiar with Mr. Popper's epistemology.  Spintendo  17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

COI tags

Hi Spintendo I tagged you in my pages, again, since the COI flags are still there even if the pages were reviewed changed accordingly. I think I followed Wikipedia's rules and if the pages were reviewed than the flag should be removed. Please let me know what else should be done in order to remove these flags. Those entries are important and were written in an honest way. Thank you in advance. Zahira Cohen (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Responded at the talk pages in question  Spintendo  14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Young Blood Transfusion

Hi, In response to your rejection of the edit I made, can I ask you to consider this. The claim in the article is that Dipnarine Maharaj was running the Young Blood Institute trial, which is untrue. (Quote: As of 2018 another organization, the Young Blood Institute, promotes young blood transfusion. Like Ambrosia's, its trial had no control and charged the participants for entry, in this case $285,000 per person.[2] Dipnarine Maharaj was running the trial;) It doesn't say running a trial. Can this be corrected? Also, the reference for The Young Blood Institute and Mark Urdahl is: Please let me know what you think. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you respond to the above please? Thank you --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for all your hard work making Wikipedia better. It is appreciated! Bnmguy (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)