User talk: Spintendo

Edit Request at Novartis

Hello Spintendo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits to Daily Kos page

Hello Spintendo, I made the changes you asked for to my edit request. Please let me know if it works now. Thanks!

Meow panda (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Meow panda:You've removed the bracketed numbers which were placed in the article without links. Unfortunately, that problem is only one side of the coin. The other side is that the claim statements which contained those bracketed numbers still require references. Those references should be placed at the exact spot in the text where the claim statement referenced by the source resides — in other words — the exact locations which the bracketed numbers previously occupied. Regards,  Spintendo  23:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks very much for your feedback. I made those changes as you specified, please review and let me know. Meow panda (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes, it's much appreciated. I will review the request shortly. Regards,  Spintendo  05:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I made the final edit of disclosure, let me know if this looks okay. Thank you! Meow panda (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Reply left at the talk page in question.  Spintendo  20:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Fixed -- please let me know if this works. Thank you. Meow panda (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you very much for your help with the revisions. There is just one that I believe you did not include: the correction to the status of Big Tent Democrat/Armando, per my notes in the talk page on Daily Kos. Please review and let me know if you need any further information. Meow panda (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is because the proposal states "Same section also has outdated (or incomplete) info on Armando, not mentioning the fact he returned for the second time in 2011 and has remained an active member of the site since: "For two months, Armando would resurface periodically, and all of his comments were accompanied by a signature line stating that he would be returning to blogging in December 2006. Armando did indeed resurface, albeit under a user ID, "Big Tent Democrat," in September 2006. Armando "Big Tent Democrat" then left the Daily Kos site again in March 2007, citing "differences with the Management." The proposal does not include the form that this correction should take — namely, it does not suggest how this correction should be worded in the form of "Change x to y using z" — which gives the solution to the problem of missing information by suggesting verbatim how that information should be worded in the text. The proposal states informally that Armando "returned and remains active" but does not suggest how that return should be reflected in the prose. It only provides the x component — the verbatim text that should be changed — but still requires the y component — the verbatim text that should be inserted. Additionally, the most recent proposal does not provide the z component, a reference for the date of this return. The reference which was provided is to a listing of their posts, but does not immediately identify the date of the first return post, which is the main thrust of the claim, that "he returned for the second time in 2011". That source expects the reader to search through eight years of posts in order to verify that a return was made in 2011, when a more direct approach to referencing is to be preferred. A solution would be to omit the date of 2011 and state that this contributor currently makes additions to Daily Kos or otherwise specify a source which states the dates of work succinctly. Regards,  Spintendo  22:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes

@Meow panda: I've finally located the reference for the subject's publishing history at Daily Kos. Owing to that source, I've changed the date of their return to February 2011. Needless to say, that is the reference I should have been provided with when the request was first made. Let me know if anything else remains to be done in that article, preferably on the Daily Kos talk page along with an active {{request edit}} template. Regards,  Spintendo  02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Geisinger Health System edit request

Hi Spintendo,

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

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

Proteus 706

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

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

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

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

General question

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

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

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

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

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

Herman Melville assessment

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

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

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

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

Requesting tag removal

Hi Spintendo,

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

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

GA nomination

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

Review of Proposed Changes

Hi Spintendo,

I was wondering if you could offer any feedback on the many proposed changes I have made on the talk page for Bob McDonald (businessman) that are pending. Thank you. Tsmith47 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Review completed at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  14:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and examples of the citation format. It is much appreciated.Tsmith47 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I made edits yesterday to your recent review of Bob McDonald (businessman) the controversies content. For some reason, the submission I made seems to be missing or was reverted. Do you need me to re-submit it as a new section in order to be reviewed? Thank you.Tsmith47 (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tsmith47: If there are changes to be made to an older edit request, it's best to make a newer one instead of altering the older request. The general rule for talk pages is that you may re-edit your own posts as long as no one else has posted after you. Once that happens, nothing should be changed in an older post unless you use strikeout font for items that are to be ignored and underlined font for anything added. Your last edit to that page before the revert removed large portions of an older request. My response to that request included points I made regarding the text of your proposal. By removing this text, my posts would no longer make sense to an editor who comes along reading the exchanges and who may be trying to get a sense of the discussion. Their idea of what was being discussed will be at a disadvantage because of that missing text. For example, lets say editor A and editor B are having a discussion on a talk page. Editor A tells editor B that they had a great time taking editor B's mother out the night before on a romantic date. Editor B reads this, and knowing that their mother is married, gets upset at editor A and starts accusing them of being a liar. Editor A then goes back and alters their original post to say that they took their own mother out to dinner for mothers day. Anyone coming along afterwards who reads this discussion will wonder why Editor B is yelling at editor A and calling them a liar for treating their own mother to dinner. That fictional example illustrates why the refactoring of ones talk page comments after another editor has posted a reply is generally not looked upon as Ok to do, except of course on your own talk page, where editors have more leeway on what they can edit on their own pages. Regards,  Spintendo  13:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability of organizational awards

Hi. You removed some citations to awards given out by notable organizations in the Mark W. Moffett article, and said "Awards which were not independently notable were omitted. An award is independently notable if it has its own Wikipedia page."; I see nothing in WP:N that suggests that an award by a notable organization has to have its own independent WP article in order for the award to be mentioned in an article. The Explorers Club and the Association of American Publishers are good examples of very notable organizations, so a reference to an award given by such an organization seems perfectly within the boundaries of notability, when a link to both the organization itself and a properly-sourced cite for the award itself have both been provided. I would like to restore these citations without having to ask for arbitration; there are ample parallel examples that can be found on other biographical web pages of academics, which have not been so restrictively-edited. See for example the article for another living entomologist, Michael S. Engel, which references several awards without citations (also lacking notability by your criterion): "In Spring 2014 he was awarded the Scholarly Achievement Award of the University of Kansas for his contributions to the evolutionary and developmental origins of insect flight; and in 2015 the International Cooperation Award from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In 2017, Engel was elected as a Fellow of the Entomological Society of America and received the society's Thomas Say Award." There are three awards listed in this one sentence, all of which have no "independent notability", but are still included in the article. I also see clear evidence that Dr. Engel is the primary editor of his own WP article, via an IP account (129.237.92.226), and has not been prevented from doing so. The point is that the criterion you state is arbitrarily enforced; if you intend to apply such a stringent standard, then this criterion should be applied to every article in WP equally. Dyanega (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dyanega: As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is not really the issue here. Information should not be included in the article solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Consensus is that awards listed which are not independently notable themselves have a wide discretion on whether they should be included or not. Without this safeguard on what types of awards are included, who is to say that anyone couldn't give themselves an award, talk about that award in a biographical write-up submitted by them to National Geographic, and then claim that reference from National Geographic as justification for having the claim of that award listed in their article. In the case of the Moffett article, there is a requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, and it cannot be stated that the listing of various awards won by the subject along with the various media appearances by the subject along with little else about the subject does not constitute self promotion.  Spintendo  21:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate a link to any RfC or other discussions where this "consensus" has been established, otherwise I have no evidence that there are any other editors who agree with such a narrow interpretation. Receiving an award from the Association of American Publishers is not equivalent to someone who "gives themselves an award". These are not awards fabricated for the purpose of self-promotion, they are legitimate awards from notable organizations. You'll note that I did not restore the link to the award from the "Roy Chapman Andrews Society", which is NOT a notable organization. I would hope that we could agree that awards from notable organizations are fair game for inclusion, though you seem to be claiming that because the link was originally included by the subject of the article, it can never be included because it is self-promotion (and not NPOV), and I don't agree with that; awards from notable organizations can certainly be included without violating NPOV guidelines. If your claim is that there is not enough text in the article explaining who this scientist is, and what makes him notable OTHER than his awards and media appearances, I agree that the lede is very skimpy and could be edited to reflect more of his career; the link you deleted to Google Scholar shows that he is fairly prolific and has published a variety of works other than popular science books, and perhaps this could be used to provide more information - or are there prohibitions on using Google Scholar as a source of information? Dyanega (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dyanega: WP:NACADEMICS states that once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. Many of the awards cited by the subject were informed by a biographical worksheet drawn up by the subject himself and submitted to the various publications for posting on their websites. As this information ultimately comes from the subject, without any other external verification, these awards would be considered controversial, meaning the sources provided with them would not be widely accepted as reliable sourcing.  Spintendo  02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just now returning to this. The details and cites you removed with your edits were not controversial (there is no one disputing any of them), and several of them were independent 3rd-party sources. You allow for, in an earlier comment, the use of "wide discretion", and I'm going to act accordingly with wide discretion. Care will be taken not to allow this article to become a tool for self-promotion, but the point remains that this individual is notable, with numerous accomplishments, and the article will be maintained in a manner similar to those of parallel articles of similar academic BLPs (I examined nearly 20 of them to establish a baseline idea of editing and sourcing), which routinely incorporate information that ultimately can be traced to the subject of the article. I also looked carefully at WP:CONTROVERSY, just in case it might pertain, and saw no red flags raised, and also note this comment there: When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced in the article; indeed, it would be prohibitive to force editors to provide a reliable source for every claim. However, a verifiable source does have to exist in the world, even if not cited in the article. Something as simple as a claim that person X has an affiliation with institution Y seems perfectly reasonable in this regard; if institution Y does not bother to list their affiliates online, that does not mean the fact cannot be easily confirmed through other means, nor should an editor be prohibited from asserting an affiliation until and unless institution Y provides a new webpage for the purpose of verification; that's an unreasonable expectation. Dyanega (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dyanega: I appreciate what you're trying to say, that certain associations should be allowed, and on that point we agree. My concern with this article arose from what I was seeing: an esteemed scientist's article being micromanaged by editor(s) adding information which was — and I think you'd agree — unique for its appearance on the Wikipedia page of a man of science. Studies and investigations on the nature of biodiversity in the tropics — now that is something I would expect to see plenty of edits on. How many times the subject appeared on Conan O'Brien or the Today show — not so much. I've seen many scientist articles padded with content covering the minutiae of every appearance in any forum. This article appeared to be going that route. Unfortunately, much of the important and worthwhile information you've relayed to me through this thread has sidestepped a very real risk that the article is currently facing. The evidence for this risk is clear: conflict of interest editing measurably degrades an article's content over time. The Moffett article has a long history of single purpose accounts making edits to the article which are of dubious value. As long as that continues, with COI editors believing in the infallability of their own contributions and refusing to voluntarily abide by the suggestions for COI editing, this article will continue to be at risk of sliding into mediocrity.  Spintendo  00:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes

I was not looking back at the edit history very much, and I do see your point. It was not so much the content itself (in many cases), but the "promotional" tone; I think it's possible to strike a balance so long as there's a watchful eye. That being said, not very many academics do get to appear on TV more than once, nor have popular books published, or exhibitions of their photos, so it's a longer (and less purely academic) list of notable points than is typical. This is especially true compared to other entomologists, which is why I looked primarily at other notable entomologists' articles for comparison. Bringing this article more into line with those should not be difficult. Dyanega (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding to clarification request on Pacific Equity Partners page

Hi Spintendo, thanks for your comments. I have sought to respond to each of your points: 1. The request does not state what it is about the information that is incorrect. Response: The information is incorrect because it describes these select few investments as “notable”. These are not the most notable by size or by value and is therefore not an accurate representation of notable investments by Pacific Equity Partners. Notable seems subjective anyway. The information is also out of date, in that recent activities have not been included. By deleting the paragraph and adding the names of all investments we felt that created a more complete picture. However, given the advice from VQuark that said we shouldn't have an extensive list, we think it would be better to not have any individual investments listed and to keep it brief and factual. We propose removing the current information under “investments” and replacing it with these two sentences only: PEP has made more than 30 operating company investments as well as 100 bolt-on acquisitions since its founding more than 20 years ago. <ref> Mendoza, Carmela. "Australian mid-market private equity thriving", [Private Equity International], 24 July 2018.<ref> The firm has raised more than AUD 8 billion across five funds in that time and is the largest PE firm in Australia with deal flow nearly double that of the next largest firm since at least 2014. <ref> Mendoza, Carmela. "Australian mid-market private equity thriving", [Private Equity International], 24 July 2018.<ref>

2.Request does not state what it is about these investment funds which requires their being listed in the article. Response: Please see previous response. We would suggest not having the full list at all given recent advice. 3. Citation Response: Apologies, will try to be more mindful. Thanks for pointing this out. StaceyCretella (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@StaceyCretella: These new sentences are much more inline with a summary, which is a move in the right direction. But I'm afraid that terms such as 100 bolt-on acquisitions and deal flow are part of a nomenclature which is not easily accessible to most readers. The terms used in articles need to be understandable by a wide margin of the readership, and those not fluent in the language of business may find these sentences incomprehensible.  Spintendo  14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A well-deserved thank you for your many contributions handling edit requests and other COI-related questions. It is greatly appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you It's much appreciated!  Spintendo  15:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fog Robotics COI Edit Request

@Spintendo:Thank your prompt response for acceptance. But a citation numbered 1 is removed from mainspace. Can you please add the reference as this page leads readers to know more about the fog robotics project information?Krish1804 (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and placed the reference using doi:10.1109/nca.2018.8548077, as this appeared to be the best overall reference for these claims, and placed the ref tag according to the guidelines at WP:INTEGRITY. As the article uses two different citation styles, I've also placed a Citation style maintenance template to alert local editors of the need for a consensus to be achieved on using one style instead of two (one or the other, it doesn't matter which). Regards,  Spintendo  07:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you again. But a citation related to the Fog Robotics project title(research section) is missing. For example, all projects of the research section are cited to their sources. So, I feel that readers can get the latest information by visiting the source. I would like to inform that the source is a website of mine but it is linking directly to the current work of Fog Robotics project, invited talks, latest publications along with other information. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Regards Krish1804 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Krish1804: If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that a ref tag note — similar to the one placed at the end of this word^[1] is missing from a section heading in the article. Only it's not missing — I placed it in the main body of the text because ref tags are not meant to be placed in section headings, per WP:CITEFOOT ("Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings") and MOS:HEAD ("Section headings should not contain citations or footnotes"). Additionally, the use of {{visible anchor}} in place of the standard headings is incorrect, per guidance from the template's documentation: "This template should not be used within section headings." Regards,  Spintendo  06:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Sorry, I don't know about this rule and thank you very much for the information and correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish1804 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about Southwestern Advantage awards

Hello, thank you for your guidance, I will present my case on the coi notice board. I wanted to ask what can I do if the awards cannot be wikilnked? is it necessary for an award to be wikilinked in order to be accepted? It does has independent sources. Kind Regards, Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the award. Awards that are WikiLinked are the easiest to mention, because they have a built-in notability that makes their being mentioned in an article uncontroversial. If the award is not Wikilinked but the organization that gives the award is notable (and is known for giving out awards, as opposed to a company that award-giving is not their primary purpose), then that is the second most easist to add, and so on and so forth all the way down the line. Likewise, the referencing for each type of award is easist at the top, and gets more stringent and restrictive the lower down the line the award goes. For example, an Academy Award need only be referenced by any publication, because it is very notable. "Time Person of the Year" may be referenced just by Time. The "Seiversville Schoolteacher of the Year" award will need to be referenced not only by the school, but also a reputable news publication outside of Seiversville. In other words, the less notable an award is, the more references and substantiation that the award needs to prove itself as noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Awards that are not entirely notable and only have the giving organization as a reference (or a publication closely aligned with the industry in which the award is given used as a reference) will be controverisial and thus less-likely to be added. Regards,  Spintendo  04:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Max Price

I'm sorry that my post did something odd to your page! Hope this one does no harm.

Thank you for the feedback. I am new at editing biographies in Wikipedia. I would like guidance on how to do so. I am not sure how one avoids some inevitable overlap between a biographical article and a published CV, but I do understand the need to paraphrase substantially and add to something if there already exists a coherent article in the public domain. I will work on rewriting it.

I would like to suggest that you comment on a few paragraphs at a time to say whether these meet the criteria, rather than my doing a full edit of the whole draft and then finding it has not met the paraphrasing criteria.

I have placed two paragraphs on the article’s Talk Page (article = Max Price). These, I believe, add appropriate information to the original stub and mostly add information that was not in the articles you referenced as being too similar to the earlier draft. Look forward to feedback. Also feedback on whether I should submit a few paragraphs at a time, or the whole article reworked.

If the 2 paragraphs are OK, will you add them to the article?

CritthinkCT (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  00:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Max Price

Thanks Spintendo for your detailed reading and very helpful feedback. CritthinkCT (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My Edit Request denial at British Virgin Islands

Hello Spintendo!

I mean no disrespect, but i am a little confused by the synthesizing information statement. When you read the official press release from the government of the British Virgin Islands, the very first paragraph states:

Premier and Minister of Finance for the British Virgin Islands, the Honourable Andrew A. Fahie announced today the forming of a partnership with the company, LIFElabs.io, for the purposes of providing Rapid Cash Response in the event of an emergency, and also creating an alternative digital currency payment method for facilitating overgoing financial transactions across the network of islands

http://www.bvi.gov.vg/media-centre/bvi-and-lifelabsio-enters-first-its-kind-partnership-provide-blockchain-based-financial

Additionally, the combination of my sources do not take different pieces of information (A + B) to form a new conclusion (C). In this case, by reading those three sources, and now, the ever growing news sources, my collaboration of sources merely mirror each other from both party ends. Do you still consider this synthesizing, and if so, what more official documentation would be needed beyond a press release from the Premier of the British Virgin Islands and their government webpage?

V/R BobTheFirewall (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Your claim is that as of three days ago, BVI became the first country to adopt cryptocurrency as an alternate currency. Nowhere in the references you've provided does it state this. In the United States, cryptocurrencies are available to use as "alternative digital currency payment methods" in many enterprises. The US government has sanctioned this, but no one would suggest that something like Litecoin is an alternate currency to use in the US in place of the dollar. That would be the case in the BVI as well. If I were at the end of my vacation on Tortola, and decided to check out of my hotel and pay the bill, I would not be able to pay for it using Bitcoin. If I wanted to take a taxi to the airport, I would not be able to pay for it using Etherium. Upon arriving at the airport, if I were to purchase airfare to come home, I would not be able to pay for it using XRP. And yet, if these are all viable "alternate currencies" as of last Thursday — as it states in the proposed claim — then I should have been able to pay for all of them using the cryptocurrency wallet in my phone. The fact that I would not be able to means the claim as presented has been synthesized. Regards,  Spintendo  11:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For your support pointing me to the talk page of the article rather than my own page.

Regards,

Arlan Lesterhuis (Lesterhuisa) Lesterhuisa (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic

Hi, Spintendo! I clarified a couple points in my Mayo Clinic request if you are still able to review. Thanks! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)