Jump to content

 User talk:  Spintendo 

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lesliegb (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 29 May 2018 (→Your Pallister-Hall note: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks, and a question

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

It's usually a good idea to change the edit request answer parameter from yes to no, that way it gives other editors a chance to add their input if they'd like to, plus it keeps all the past actions for that particular aspect of a request together in one spot in case other editors want to see how the request has been handled at other times. In this case I'll go ahead and look at that request.  Spintendo      19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the talk page, some of my questions have been answered, but others I would like input on to help me to better understand. So I've pinged other editors who have greater experience with the article to get their feedback, hopefully they will be able to help out on this subject. Regards,  Spintendo      19:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's been about a month, and no one has offered up any constructive feedback. I don't want to pull you into what feels like an already hostile situation, so I'm curious if you have any suggestions for other places I might be able to get someone to take a look at the proposed changes themselves, rather than antagonize me with assumptions about my work. I truly appreciate that you review my changes on the content itself and hold me to a high standard, and I respect your opinions when it comes to these situations. Am I being incredibly obtuse here, or do you think that my perception that I'm being judged by my character rather than my work holds water?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what article was this about? .spintendo⋅⋅) 23:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have specified. I was referencing the re-opening of the edit request here.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@FacultiesIntact: Was there an edit request that you wished to reopen? If so, please place the request in a new heading at the bottom of that page with a new template. Looking at the history of the page, it shows that I was the last person to edit it, about one month ago. So there is neither new nor reopened requests that I can see. Please advise. .spintendo⋅⋅) 05:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago I had reopened the edit request about the Attitude to deficit reduction section on David M. Cote (at your suggestion). You gave me a very well-thought out and fair response, and ultimately deferred to a discussion between the previously involved editors. Instead of commenting on the proposed content, however, they chastised me for my perceived behavior of attempting to "negotiate" the article content. You were kind enough to set the record straight, but there's still been no discussion between any of the other editors beyond that. I'm not asking you to jump back in, because I don't think that's fair to you, or really your problem at all. I'm just curious to hear your opinion on the matter, as I said above, because I respect you and the work you do, as well as the standards you've held me to on my other edit requests. Am I out of touch for thinking that I'm being antagonized for my COI, rather than my work itself? And if so, do you know of an appropriate place to discuss the issue?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all that — but seeing as how I'm not a WP:MINDREADER, if you could just describe what it is about the attitude to deficit reduction section that you'd like changed, maybe I can help. Please advise. .spintendo⋅⋅) 02:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rose article

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

Perfect, I'll take a look at it and get back to you. Thanks!   SPINTENDO          00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
@Hollist: I've had a look at the draft - that was a lot of work you did, and it looks great. The only things left that need to be corrected now are the areas of the reference list which are in red font, as these will need to be corrected before being implemented. It appears that these are mostly titles of the references which were used. To get the title, simply visit each website linked to a reference with a red title missing mark and note the title that the article or webpage uses. Then insert that title into the reference under the parameter marked "title=" right after the equal sign. The next step is to address some paraphrasing concerns. All articles need to be written in your own words, and there are a few areas of this draft which are insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. A list of what needs to be fixed may be found here. Not everything on that list will need to be rewritten. Titles of tracks and albums of course cannot be changed, but the software flags it as a copyvio anyways. Just ignore those instances. The areas to be concerned about are the first 4 or 5 paragraphs. When these changes are completed we can begin checking the references and moving portions into the article itself. Regards,   spintendo          03:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. I've fixed all the redlinks that had to do with page errors. Those were instances where you had both the page parameter and the pages parameter filled out, when the system only takes one or the other. The redlinks that are now left are ones where there is no title entered. You need to access each reference where this is the case and go to the URL to ascertain what the title of the page is, then, come back to the redlink reference and enter the title into the reference so it looks like this: |title=Example Title|.
  2. When you fix these redlinks, its helpful to have a second page opened in non-editing mode because, as you mentioned, when you're in editing mode they don't appear as red. Use the second page to help guide you to the redlinks.
  3. As far as the reference numbers not being aligned, the system computed numbers (shown in the "References" box, which currently numbers up to 102) and the numbered references that you listed below that (which are numbered up to 136) will never add up to the same number. This is because references to the same source are not supposed to have separate entries. They are supposed to have one entry that shares a note number. Now when you entered the references you listed them all separately and the system gave them all separate numbers, but there are several that I have been entering that have one note number used in several areas. You can tell which ones are duplicated, as those will always have superscript letters next to the numbers in the references list, like this:

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

    The above example shows that note number #1 is repeated in 3 different areas of the text, indicated by the letters a,b and c. So when entering numbers, ignore the system generated count (this number will always be lower than the number your list lands on, 136) and just go by the list that you numbered to find the right placement in the text, because while the system generated count will vary depending on what references are duplicated, the numbers you had in the text are the ones that should align with the numbers in the numbered list (the list below the references box). You can use this diff to double check that the old and new numbers align. Also, there is one reference which has not yet been entered: "Rose notes. “It’s the measuring stick, the reality check.” [FMU p. 634] This one does not have a computer generated note number next to it (in superscript), meaning there is no reference assigned to it. .spintendo⋅⋅) 09:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Hollist: Thank you for your work on this. I have fixed the last two redlinked references. Now that the article is properly formatted, we can move on to the next step. FYI, the article implementation road-map that we're using is displayed below, showing the steps we've already taken and the ones we still need to complete:
  1. Formatting requirements
    1. Generate an iThenticate report to check for insufficiently paraphrased text (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE)✓Completed
    2. Insertion of all references into their proper locations within the text (WP:CITE)✓Completed
    3. Fix all redlinks found within the references section (H:CE)✓Completed
  2. Content requirements
    1. Check each individual reference for URL errors (WP:LINKROT)✓Completed
    2. Verify article's summary style (WP:SS, WP:LENGTH)
    3. Verification of each individual claim statement (WP:PSTS; WP:INTEGRITY; WP:SOURCE)
Under the Formatting requirements section, I took care of #1 while you took care of #2 and #3. In the Content requirements section, you'll take care of #1 while I do #2 and #3. I've already begun work on #2, so if you'd begin #1 it would be appreciated. Any link you come across that is dead, try to find a newer link through Google search. If the link is not fixable, the reference may be able to be saved, depending on what the reference is. Let me know which ones you find. Also note that there should be no need to verify any links that you may have already checked while repairing the reference redlinks just recently, as those are assumed to have been working. Thank you! .spintendo⋅⋅) 05:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

29. This is missing. It is also cited later, and can both have today’s access date: Scaruffi, P. 1999. “Jon Rose.” http://www.scaruffi.com/avant/rose.html, accessed 7 December 2017.

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

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

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

54: This is actually two different references. The first one is Silsbury, E. 2012. ”Innovators take a bow.” Adelaide Advertiser, 18 October. No url. The second one is |title=Jon Rose with K-Bow Interactive Violin at Horse Bazaar Melbourne| and the url is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bddNDOQuyU

59: This newspaper article should really have the full citation: |title=Pannikin: Jon Rose| by John Slavin, October 11, 2005, The Age. https://www.theage.com.au/news/arts-reviews/pannikin-jon-rose/2005/10/10/1128796461245.html

80 This should have a url: Taylor, H. 2017. “Birdsong has inspired humans for centuries: is it music?” The Conversation, 26 July. Here it is: https://theconversation.com/birdsong-has-inspired-humans-for-centuries-is-it-music-79000 accessed 21 May 2018.

93 = 94 and should be combined.

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

 

Jon Rose
Article Implementation
Road Map
  1. Formatting requirements
    1. Generate an iThenticate report to check for insufficiently paraphrased text (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE)✓Completed
    2. Insertion of all references into their proper locations within the text (WP:CITE)✓Completed
    3. Fix all redlinks found within the references section (H:CE)✓Completed
  2. Content requirements
    1. Check each individual reference for URL errors (WP:LINKROT)  In progress
    2. Verify article's summary style (WP:SS, WP:LENGTH)  In progress
    3. Verification of each individual claim statement (WP:PSTS; WP:INTEGRITY; WP:SOURCE)

.spintendo  10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I did indeed notice that, thank you. Now while I work on the last two sections, what you could do is write a lead section. I noticed that the lead section is not really that succinct, and what it needs is to summarize the main parts of the whole article in about 5 sentences, if you could do that it would be great. As far as the picture, what kind of picture did you want to replace it with? keeping in mind licensing requirements. Do you know the person who took the picture, is it that kind of picture you want to use... or is it a random picture? .spintendo  00:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you checked the URL's, did you look to see if any of the references which didn't have a URL attached, if there were any that could be attached? For instance, if it's a published book it would be listed on WorldCat. If it's a journal article, you can look for the DOI in Crossref and if its a newspaper article you can check google. There are still a lot which have no URL linked. .spintendo  00:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Spintendo. Intro redo: I’m using Jon Rose’s colleague John Zorn’s Wiki entry as a model (and Frances-Marie Uitti). I tried making it go more in order of what the article does, but that just makes it longer. What about this: We cut this sentence entirely: He gave up formal tuition at the age of 15.[2] Then we move these 2 sentences to the beginning of the 2nd paragraph in the section Early career: Central to his practice has been “The Relative Violin” project, a unique Gesamtkunstwerk (or total art form) manifesting in all-embracing, diverse outcomes on, with, and about the violin and string music more generally.[2] He has been described as ‘undoubtedly the most exploratory, imaginative and iconoclastic violin player who has lived in Australia.”

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

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

I meant to say that the photo is by David Watson, who has given it to me with permission for this entry. Thanks so much, hollistHollist (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The only URL's to place in references should be from WorldCat or DOI.org. Amazon should not be used. Almost anything on amazon will be on WorldCat.
  2. On each worldcat entry page, there is a link at the top right hand side of the page that says permalink. Click on that and copy the url that it gives you.
  3. When you're in edit mode of the draft, place your cursor where you want the reference to appear in the text (if replacing a non-URL's ref entry, place the cursor just before the old <ref> tag)
  4. Click Cite at the top of the editing box until the wedge ► is facing downwards ▾
  5. A dropdown box will appear below this. Click where it says Templates and choose cite book.
  6. A window will appear with blank fields. Place the URL you copied from WorldCat in the URL field and click the magnifying glass search icon. The system will populate the blanks fields.
  7. Click preview to make sure it looks alright, then click insert.
  8. Delete everything up till the closing </ref> tag of the old reference.
  9. The picture you have needs to be uploaded by you to Wikipedia before it can be added to the article. Photographs that have been given to you personally are more difficult to license, as you have to email the particulars to WP:OTRS.
  10. On Wikipedia there should be WP:NORUSH because there is no deadline. Do what you're able to do, and anything you don't get to can wait until later.
.spintendo  10:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Alan Sabrosky

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

Your signature

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

Thank you for your message! I'll get to work on fixing it.   spintendo          16:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac:I have redone my signature. The revised size is now 287 characters. That involved the removal of 316 characters - a 52.4% reduction in overall size. I have also removed the resize template, so that now the signature is substituted only. This, as you know, is allowed as long as the editor monitors the substituted page diligently, which I do. I thank you for bringing this to my attention, and while there is no question these changes needed to be made, I would point out the circumstances in which they occurred, whereby my signature came to your attention through my efforts at offering assistance to a COI editor who knew little about Wikipedia. I knew little about the topic of the article they wanted edited, physics, but I did know enough about Wikipedia to know exactly where to look for help. That drive to offer assistance to another editor is what brought me to the physics talk page, where I posted and received not just amazingly quick help from the very informed editors there - but also, curiously, a rebuke for my signature transgressions. Just as your reminder was both necessary and justified — so too, was it confirmation, for me, of the age-old axiom which states no good deed goes unpunished. .spintendo⋅⋅) 07:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The League

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

Dana Ullman

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

Because you are a good neutral 3rd party, are you able to comment on this...or to do anything to resurrect my bio? It is remarkable that Wikipedia has chosen to delete the bio of a person who TIME magazine and ABC's 20/20 news program have deemed to be a leading spokesperson for the field of homeopathic medicine. Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals (NOTE: I certainly admit that there are also "negative" trials too...but as in ALL areas of medicine and science, there are studies with positive and negative results. DanaUllmanTalk 23:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it seems that a person seeking to get me site banned (!) because once in the past 10 years (!!!) I edited an article (which does NOT mention "homeopathy" in the article itself at any time where I quoted the President of the British Medical Association (!) from an article in the British Medical Journal (!). My contribution did not mention "homeopathy" and it seems that the British Medical Journal is not a fringe source, nor is the President of the British Medical Association a fringe person.
This effort to get me site banned is evidence of the extreme efforts of select individuals to censor a reasonable voice. As a neutral source, can YOU provide some of your wisdom here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DanaUllman DanaUllmanTalk 22:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, you are banned from discussing homeopathy on Wikipedia. That is completely unambiguous and you were blocked for violating that ban a few weeks ago. You know the ban applies across the entire project. Crucially, you could have made your request without engaging in proselytising, but instead you violated your topic ban. Again. I don't think you can help it. I don't think you accept that your advocacy is problematic or that the restriction is legitimate, and I don't think you have any interest in Wikipedia other than as a venue to try to promote yourself and your beliefs. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanaUllman: I'm sorry that this is has happened, and I'm sure you must feel frustrated. As I've said before, the only time I've felt necessary to lend my voice was in the one discussion regarding the COI edit request that you made and that I happened to review concerning the use of a quote from a district attorney in a publication. I'm not able to offer anything of substance beyond that because I don't know anything about alternative/complimentary-type medicines.  .spintendo⋅⋅) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

{{paid|employer=Hormel}}

As long as it looks just like the example above (when you're in "edit this page" mode only) making sure to use the "curly" braces with none of the "nowiki" tags added to it, it should display just fine. You may place that on your own talk page, or if you prefer, you may place any kind of personal statement which you feel might enhance other editor's knowledge about your relationship to those who are paying you. In addition to this you may also use the Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) at the top of any article's talk page that you make requests on, which I believe you've already been placing, so I thank you for that. If you have any questions please let me know here or at the conflict of interest help board. Thank you! .spintendo⋅⋅) 00:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've fixed the {{paid}} notice on their userpage, and placed the CC(P) template as well, since these things can get weird when you're using VE and/or new to this. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
 Thank you very much! .spintendo⋅⋅) 13:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilson Cleveland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Another World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

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

 Fixed .spintendo⋅⋅) 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Group Selection page

Hi Spintendo, I'm just responding to your comment to me. Sorry you had to revert the page. Just to clarify, was your reversion with regard to the first bullet point only, or did you see any problems with the format of quotes or of paraphrasing? I assume that your issue was with this [1]. I sent a query to the editor about it. I won't make any further edits until I get a response. I may try to paraphase some of the quotes on my working draft, but I think that it will be difficult and unfair to the author, as I may misrepresent his ideas. I was a bit confused, because it looks like the reference is an anthology with 23 contributors, but there is only one copyright statement for the entire document, so I'm not sure whether each contributor holds the copyright to their section, or whether the copyright applies to the entire document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flags in 'Passenger nationalities' table

Hi Spintendo.

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

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

Thanks for COI help on Charlie Ergen page

Just a note of thanks for picking up the suggested edits to the Charlie Ergen page. I am new to this, so I appreciate your patience in my learning process. You gave great feedback and I'm working to update the request for some of the items you chose not to implement for the reasons you stated. Again, very much appreciate the insight and guidance. --Editor4Good (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Hi ! I wish to thank you for your quick response to my Conflict of Interest Edit Request to the Wiki Page of 'Bhanushali'. I am particularly very happy for your directive allowing me free edit right to 'notable persons' and 'surnames'. I truly appreciate your inclusive and open minded approach!!

I had to raise this Conflict of Interest since earlier a user has edited this page for notable persons and surnames. However, the user jethwarp falsely accused us of vandalism and deleted all our updates. Your decision has given me a new lease of confidence to provide true and relevant updates to the Bhanushali page. Thanks once again !! Checkmate87 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

New entry

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

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

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

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

Your Pallister-Hall note

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spintendo&oldid=843548939"