Replied to: Additional revised content proposed for "Icarus" on Bryan Fogel page
Hi Spintendo,
Reaching out here to let you know I've provided a reply with suggested revisions per your comments that were submitted on Aug 19th. I'd very much appreciate your review to help to finalize these revisions and close out the Topic for "Icarus" here. Please scroll to bottom for the latest proposal. Thank you again in advance for your time in reviewing, hoping I've re-written the content to receive your approval for live edits per your helpful suggestions. Jeremycohen333 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you good sir! I’ve added a Reply at the bottom of the Topic section underneath your most recent reply. Please do let me know if these revisions addressed your commentary and recommendations. Many thanks! Jeremycohen333 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spintendo, letting you know I’ve replied to your request and have reviewed and approve your summation of the proposed changes analysis of Fogel in relation to the topic of this documentary and would like to proceed in that next step for another editor to review and offer feedback. Much appreciated when you get the opportunity to post. Jeremycohen333 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do let me know if we can proceed as you suggested, as you were to prepare on the talk page the proper steps to submit.
It appears you’ve been quite busy and I’ve been standing by for some time now.
If you can advise on alternative steps I can take personally to get this proposal in front of another editor to review that would be helpful I’d like to finalize this section please and thank you in advance for your reply. Best, Jeremycohen333 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spintendo, I’m reviewing my proposed revisions to the content for the 3rd party editor. Perhaps I can supply you with the actual content in the preferred order of appearance with the references so it’s clear as to the changes from Fogel’s current article under “Icarus”, therefore you would be more streamlined to be submitted for their assessment of proposed changes? LMK thank you. Jeremycohen333 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I recently made some edits to World Scout Education Congress, which were subsequently removed. I understand that the reason for this was due to the content appearing to be copied from the original website.
I want to assure you that my intention was to enhance the article with accurate and relevant information, and I apologize if it seemed otherwise. I understand the importance of original content on Wikipedia and respect its guidelines on plagiarism.
I would appreciate it if you could provide some guidance on how I could improve my contributions to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am more than willing to revise the content to ensure it is in line with Wikipedia's policies and does not infringe on any copyrights.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback and the opportunity to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.
דור פוזנר Thank you for your response, it's much appreciated! In answer to your question, here are some guidelines that I think work best in order to use someone else's information while providing the correct attribution.
You can copy a limited amount of text from sources, but when you do, you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you can also put all the information in your own words and structure, taking care to place those words in proper paraphrase. This proper paraphrasing is needed because following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so close-paraphrasing is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. After you have crafted a properly paraphrased section of text using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
By following those two guidelines you should be able to steer clear of any future issues with copied text. We appreciate and look forward to your future contributions here. If you have any additional questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask! Regards, Spintendo04:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're well. I wanted to circle back here to chat with you about my consensus posting on Joe Kiani's Talk page. I followed your recommendation to post on the WikiProject Biography page and have not received any responses. I fear that my post has gotten buried on that page. Are there any suggestions you have whether it be other WikiProject pages, or something different I can try to gain some traction on this discussion?
Consensus flowchart I apologize that there has been no movement on this issue. If there is no consensus to remove the information, then the section remains until one is achieved. I believe the fact that there is only one primary source and no reliable secondary sources makes this section problematic (WP:BLPPRIMARY). Perhaps if that avenue had been mentioned in the talk page request for consensus, rather than a focus on WP:NPOV and crystal ball, there might have been additional editor involvement (the section asking editors to place their comments in pro/against columns is also not the right touch[a]). As far as NPOV is concerned, the primary source being used here (a government source) seems biased (as it depends greatly on who is running that part of the govt). However, the article is no stranger to questionable sourcing (Inside Philanthropy, Orange County Business Journal, masimo.com, Patient Safety Movement, etc.) as well as its own use of govt sourcing (Kiani's Senate testimony and HHS documents) highlighting the subject's laurels, enough that it appears to balance the controversy section (WP:BALASP). The request for consensus should stay open though, to allow for editors to comment if they wish.
Notes
^Discussions regarding consensus should be allowed to grow naturally as any other discussion on the talk page does. Those discussion aren't really about placing editors into "oppose" or "support", at least at the outset.
Hi @Spintendo - sorry to bug you here, but I wanted to see if you'd be willing to finish reviewing the partly done edit request posted to Edward Jones Investments' Talk page on November 2nd? I appreciate the edits you've made thus far and was just hoping to bring that to a close. Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe you had trouble accessing the URL I had provided on 9 November in my edit request so I replied to you on the page on 30 November with a new URL and I wondered if you have had chance to review it yet please?
I would be grateful if you can delete: "Quarter Pounder" is a trademark in the United States, but restaurants in other countries have been able to use similar names for their own products, such as the British Wimpy chain's "Quarterpounder."
This is factually incorrect as no other restaurants have been permitted to use Quarter Pounder; any use by British Wimpy is unauthorised. Further, Quarter Pounder is not just registered in the US, it's very widely registered, in 61 countries, so the statement "Quarter Pounder" is a trademark in the United States" is misleading to readers as they may think it is only a US mark.
Hi, regarding the amendment I requested to the Quarter Pounder page, I looked into the old NZ trade mark you sent me the link for on 27 Dec and replied to you on 12 January.
I wondered if you have had chance to consider my reply?
Hello, could you tell us why you deleted content of vishuddhananda Paramhamsa?
Hello Sir, Vishuddhananda Paramhamsa is a great personality who influenced many people and did a great service to humanity. It's disheartening to see his content deleted from wikipedia. Please explain why you did this? Thanks, Lavanya Lavanyaarcot (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text was removed because the entirety of it was copy-pasted from shivayoga.net. You can only copy a small amount of that source's text, and when you do, you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. Aside from limited quotation, any information that you get from sources like these needs to be put in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here. Even when using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research. (SeeWP:NFCCEG for more info about these requirements.) Regards, Spintendo09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, Vishuddhananda Paramhamsa, a remarkable figure who significantly impacted numerous individuals and contributed greatly to humanity, has had his content removed from Wikipedia. Could you please clarify the reason behind this decision? Scsamanta (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad, I thought I was waiting on you. I don't see that every bullet point has a response to it, there are many left unresolved — each one should have done or not done attached to it, that way I can go back and easily check to see what's been addressed. Spintendo15:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Re: your feedback at Talk:Greystar Real Estate Partners – Is the idea that if those business units don't have their own articles, information about them isn't notable enough to be in the company article? Wouldn't best practice be to build up information in the main Greystar article (as RS coverage deems it notable) and then WP:SPLIT if it becomes unwieldy? I haven't been able to find more specific guidance on this, so any insight you're up to share would be really appreciated, and I'll take it into account in my future work. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaryGaulke: Thank you for your question, I think it's a very important one. My viewpoints on including the mentioning of notable companies in articles are best explained in this talk page post where I describe the varying pages of Wikipedia guidance which have shaped my philosophy on this topic over the years. Please feel free to have a look there. For the sake of WP:TLDR, the jist of it would be WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states the following under No. #6:
Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.
The mentioning of various related companies in a subject company's Wikipedia article is, in essence, to list them in that article. I believe that would make WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply. There is also WP:NOTNEWS, which states the following under No. #2:
Ensure that Wikipedia articles do not become merely reporters of news. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (in an article).
Because Wikipedia "considers the enduring notability of persons and events", I believe that asking for the notability of companies mentioned in a subject company's Wikipedia article is an incredibly important step in determining whether or not that information is included in the article. If you have any additional questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask me here in this thread. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo23:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I saw an error in my error log. Looks like it was an http error, which means there was some kind of Internet problem during using the tool. If you were to reinstall it and try again on your next GA, it would probably work. Just wanted to let you know. Happy holidays :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Thank you for reaching out about this, it's unfortunate the script ran into difficulty. If there's one thing I love, it's technological shortcuts — so I was looking forward to trying your script. But no worries, I ended up closing the GA the old fashioned way, so we'll just have to try and give it a shot next time, hopefully it'll be smooth sailing. Thanks again! Spintendo15:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouGov article
Hi Spintendo – happy new year!
Reaching out here to let you know that I’ve provided a reply to your comments regarding my suggested edits on the YouGov page – Talk:YouGov
I’ve removed all of the sources you preferred I avoid using and hopefully we’re closer to making progress.
Thank you for your time in reviewing and do let me know of any further feedback.
Hello Spintendo
Happy new year
You answered not done in the “ Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023” at “Talk: List of best-seling music artists” about Lady Gaga figures
You cited “please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made”. I can’t continue the talk there. The source is indeed the White Hourse, onde Gaga is co-chair of the Arts commite.
There are some considerations the editors need to make:
- 170 million records sold represent Lady Gaga's so-called pure sales.
- First, because this goes against the claimed sales before streaming became standard in the music industry. In January 2016, Billboard reported that Gaga had already sold 27 million albums and 146 million singles, therefore 173 million records. Source: https://www.billboard.com/pro/lady-gaga-signs-caa/ Note that Billboard explicitly uses the term “sold” not “equivalent sales” or otherwise and that this information is 7 years old. According to the article's definitions: “Gold/Platinum certifications issued after 2016, especially on singles, are in some cases more than 50% streaming generated”. Well, we're using an earlier period.
- Second, because Lady Gaga's own team has already revealed the numbers of copies generated by streamings: 275 million in song consumption as stated in the author information section in the book “Channel Kindness: Stories of Kindness and Community” released by her in 2020 (numbers of this year). Source: https://www.amazon.com/Channel-Kindness-Stories-Community/dp/1250245583
- Third, because in a press release released last year for the Chromatica Ball Tour in London, it updated the numbers in 2022: 393 million in song consumption. Source: https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/2022/march/lady-gaga-announces-two-concert-dates-at-tottenham-hotspur-stadium/
- Fourth: Lady Gaga would have more than 75% of sales with certifications.
- Fifth : in fact Lady Gaga's claimed sales are even greater than 170 million, so this number is reasonable.
- Last: Other musicians figures are updated almost monthly, but no update was made for Gaga in years. Is there any explanation for this? By the way, her own Wiki page cites 170 Million Records Matheushpdutra (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing this information. It looks as if the information on the page that you had flagged as needing to be changed was, according to you, not correct in some manner. Just to confirm, is this because the data was not being reported according to how the revised (since 2016) figures were being tabulated by Billboard? Please advise. Regards, Spintendo15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current source for Lady Gaga sales claimes are from February 2014 (almost 10 years ago). For some reason, everytime I request an edit, it’s not approved. The 170 million mark is supported by Billboard and comes from a period before streams take over control. However, at this point, not even with the sources I bring, editors are not willing to update. So, if I may, I ask you to update her sales to 170 million, using the White House page as reference, it’s the most recent (from her nomination to Arts comitee) and are the source from her own Wikipedia page, which is also protected from editors. Matheushpdutra (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your reply. The source that you'd like to use, I believe you called it the "white house" source, is that an official source for these types of figures? I would think that any figures we post on the page ought to originate from an authority which is regularly depended upon to release such figures, That would ensure that any changes we make are lasting. Thank you for your help. Regards, Spintendo09:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we understand that White House - a.k.a. from the US government - is not an official source for it (by the way, I think that and government source should be consider a official source), the numbers (170 millions) is almost the same as the ones cited by Billboard (173 millions). To me, that’s the point. There’s multiple sources to use for 170 million records. Her actual source is from a not so well now aussie newspaper. Matheushpdutra (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darius Jones bio
Hi, I hope I’m not bothering you. I just wanted to make sure I didn’t do something to cause the bio update to be blocked? I revised a few minor things in my edit request (for example, the album title is fLuXkit, not FLuXkit) and I hope those last minute edits didn’t raise a red flag or something. Thanks again ITperson1 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for you to let me know why progress was halted on being able to update the page we were working on? I unsure how to proceed. Thank you. ITperson1 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has gone in and questioned my date of birth and age (for some reason). I was born June 12, 1980 (a fact which had been on my page for years). I'm just wondering what I need to do to verify that and update it.
I responded to the denial of early life information that is missing on this page. I don't know if you have seen it. I have included references which I think were the primary issue. Please let me know what you think. Appreciate your assistance.
Please see copy and paste below of what I wrote. Original on the page.
Is this appropriate to add for the missing Early Life and Education section? Please respond. Thank you.
Text to add:
Early Life and Education:
The daughter of Sicilian immigrants, Moser was born in Hackensack, New Jersey, in 1954 , and in 1976 received a Bachelor of Arts with honors in psychology, a Master of Science in Psychological Services in 1977, and a Doctor of Philosophy in 1981 from University of Pennsylvania with a dissertation under the guidance of Peter J. Kuriloff titled, Correlates of Perceived Role-Taking in Fraternity and Sorority Students[1] She was married to Robert L. Moser, MD , now deceased, Medical Director of Pathology at St. Francis Medical Center, Trenton, New Jersey and Co-chair of Laboratory Council for Trinity Health.
^ State Department of Health and Senior Services, Bureau of Vital Statistics, State of New Jersey. Birth certificate number 129-54-045912, June 16,1954.
^ Official Transcript, Office of the University Registrar, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Record of Moser Rosemarie Scolaro.
^ Office of Vital Statistics and Registry, New Jersey Department of Health. Marriage Certificate of Robert L. Moser and Rosemarie Scolaro, June 4, 1978.
Hi Spintendo, thank you for your ongoing contributions and management of the BPP University page. I wanted to reach out as it feels as though the page is missing some information typical of most academic institutions on Wikipedia pages, namely the academic profile section. I wondered if you would be open to reviewing some suggestions that I proposed last month? Would you agree that this is appropriate information to include on a page of this nature? See the edit request and my message to you in our conversation on the talkpage here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BPP_University#Edit_request_/_BPP_University_Courses
Hello Spintendo, I hope you are well! I am following up on a COI edit request that I previously submitted on behalf of Lubos Pastor for his page. You asked me to reformat the citations in the initial edit request to adhere to CS1. I believe the edit request is now correctly formatted, and would appreciate your review of the proposed changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lubos_Pastor#COI_Edit_Request_Reformatted
Responded on article's talk page. Spintendo 21:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Responded on article's talk page. Spintendo 01:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at
Article in question: Vishuddhananda Paramahansa
Relevant discussion User_talk:Spintendo § Question_about_Wikilinking_companies
