User talk: Spintendo

Changed Citations for Ansell Proposed Changes to citation style 1

Thank you for considering my proposed edits on Talk:Ansell. I apologize for the incorrect citation style I initially used. I edited my initial request to reflect citation style 1 and published the changes. Will editors now be able to view my proposed changes again? Or will it still say unable to review due to the citations, even though I have changed them?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.247.195 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

144.121.247.195 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes: Please place edit requests on the talk pages where changes are requested to be made.

I cannot do that owing to COI. You can see that is what I am responding to and have nowhere else to put that. You have the free time, could you please put that on the talk page for Danielle Cadena Deulen? Thank you. --MinimumMax (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@MinimumMax: "have nowhere else to put that." Actually there is, Talk:Danielle Cadena Deulen has been provided as the perfect location for requests to be made. Regards,  Spintendo  17:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo That worked. Thank you! --MinimumMax (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Spintendo  17:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Halsey Minor

HI there, many thanks for your review. If there is anything you could help to address your concerns that would be appreciated. I see you are a good article contributor and many thanks for your contributions. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

please check my revisions of katherine hoover

Hello Spintendo, while i am defined as having a COI, I have added references, hopefully corrected errors and chronologically sorted her selected works all with a neutral pov. inactivity on the talk page is the only reason for my actions. It is important that my edits follow acceptable protocol. thank you , Mkoronowski (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Brahma_Kumaris -Restore_blanked_sections_and_logo

Hi there. I have redrafted the deleted sections and found a new reference for them. I would also appreciate if you could explain why the deleted logo can't be restored at this present time and how to resolve that.

Relevant talk page : Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Restore_blanked_sections_and_logo_v2

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove any logos from that article, so I can't explain why they cannot be restored. Your request did not include a filename to be added to the article, so that is the reason why no logo was added in my edit request review. Regards,  Spintendo  17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor had removed the logo. It seems that the logo PNG was deleted anyway as a non-free media file about a month ago making the edit request for the logo redundant.

Are the other two new edit proposals on the article talk page OK?

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  20:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dave Butler

A heads up I tagged you in a note at Talk:Dave_Butler_(basketball,_born_1964/1965). NinaSpezz (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  23:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Strawberries are a delicious thank you gift.

Your efforts are very appreciated! Tuuzi (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Omniscriptum Talk page

Dear Spintendo,

I am sorry to bother you. Could you please help once you have time. I was wondering about suggested correction on Omniscriptum page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniScriptum, there is one sentence I was wondering about, could it be possible to take it out? Could you please assist?

Kind regards, VarisGrin (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  07:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris

Please respond on Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Hospital_and_UN_items_to_be_placed_at_start_of_Activites_section Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

TASIS The American School in England

Dear Spintendo,

We have submitted the information to update the page as you advised. Please, let us know if you need anything else. We just want Wikipedia to show accurate and up-to-date information. We have no interest in promoting the school via Wikipedia but it is important that our prospective parents have a true picture of our current status.

Thanks, Angel Lozano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malozanog (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  18:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 759 Appendix B

So the link to appendix B actually just leads to another copy of the NTSB report, which could be redundant. We can just use the original copy and use the rp template. We already know the pages containing the flight crew information: 78 to 79. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Whichever way you think is best is fine with me. Regards,  Spintendo  18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover Citations

Thank you for the guidance. Why are citations from WorldCat prefered over Katherine's publisher? Also, it is a guess, bit likely that WorldCats 147 citations includes 3 categories: 1)compositions, 2)recordings of her performances and 3)others performing her music. In terms of formality, how should the tables be divided? How should the tables be sorted? Much gratitude, Martin, Mkoronowski (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply

@Mkoronowski: Information released by the publisher is included in WorldCat's database, which contains all the cumulative publisher information in a standardized form using {{OCLC}} and {{ISBN}} as the main indentifiers. With regards to how the table should be formatted, there are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate compositions in a discography. Of course, there are several ways it can be done. In all cases, please keep the following hints in mind:

• Sort the compositions, e.g. ascending by date (since a discography is in some sense a chronology),
• If you use tables, use wikicode, to make the list easier to maintain.

A simple way to list compositions could be:

1. First composition (year of release)
2. Second composition (year of release)

Note that composition titles should be in italics and each composition should be given a reference using the WorldCat permalink (which will provide the {{OCLC}} and {{ISBN}} identifiers.

One way of using a table could be:

Title	Release date	References	Publisher
Medieval suite: for flute and piano	1986		T. Presser
Seven haiku : soprano and flute	1987		Papagena Press

Regards,  Spintendo  17:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Omniscriptum Talk page

Dear Spintendo, thank you for your reply in regard of possible edits Omniscriptum page could have. I have made a suggestion on Omniscriptum Talk page, thus I was wondering could you please take a look on it once you have time? VarisGrin (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

COI Re: Proud Boys Talk Page

Why did you write in the talk reply that I have a Conflict of Interest? I have no affiliation with them what so ever, I was just looking them up and noticed how inaccurate the Wikipedia page is about their political stance. There is a lot of unusual behavior going on lately in regards to pages relating to any controversial political figures and organizations on Wikipedia, it seems to be a back and forth of whoever gets there first from either side of the political spectrum is selectively editing pages and blocking any edits that go against their own personal political beliefs. I see that the article is locked to a certain extent, which is good, but when I add a comment to the talk page regarding a poorly cited characterization I am assumed to have a conflict of interest? On what basis? If Wikipedia becomes politicized what will be left? Is nothing sacred anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hoohunglow: The template that you activated on the talk page was the conflict of interest {{request edit}} template. Editors who have a conflict of interest use that specific template to make suggestions to articles. I assumed that because you chose this template, it meant that you had a conflict of interest. I apologize for the misunderstanding. For future reference, the template to use for making edit requests to that particular article if you don't have a conflict of interest would be the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I've just now placed your request with the correct template and removed my reply message to the incorrect template. Regards,  Spintendo  14:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Float idea - organization request board

Hello, thanks for addressing the COI queue. I hope that you find this process flow satisfying.

I volunteer at WP:OTRS where by email several hundred people write in requesting COI edits. OTRS is stable in some ways and changing policy in other ways. Different people address these requests in different ways, and I think that this space may be open for policy proposal and suggesting best practices.

I know that you respond to {{Request edit}} and the workflow around that. While this has worked for you, I think you would understand if I said this is a non-standard wiki workflow. I know it is based off {{Help me}} and follows that precedent. Personally, I view noticeboards to be more traditional and accessible for being a single place where anyone can see a rolling list of issues and responses.

I am writing to float a potential workflow to you and ask you what you think. Here is the process -

1. COI editor wants to do something
2. for all requests, direct them to first post on the talk page of the article which they want to edit
3. now they must request review
   1. currently, the next step is that they post {{Request edit}}
   2. proposal for change - instead they post to a noticeboard, maybe "request edit for organization"
4. people from that noticeboard respond to the edit
   1. noticeboard is a permanent public searchable archive of all requests through this queue
   2. mark outcome, resolved, etc
   3. archive in the manner of a noticeboard

What do you think? Does any part of this strike you as problematic or unorthodox? Thanks.

I really would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. The "everyone else" requested edits could be a positive space that many regular wiki people would like, I think. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for your question. As I understand it, you're framing the issue as the difference between a single person answering edit requests in the de-centralized style of {{help me}} versus the more centralized style of noticeboards. But before I comment on that, I wanted to understand more your assertion that you would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. I'm not sure that I understand what those differences are, or what a COI organization is. I'm guessing that a COI individual is anyone with a COI, although I'm not sure how that is different from everyone else. If you could define those terms better it would be most helpful. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I am proposing two layers of complication. I might be mistaken that this would be useful.

One layer is just applying the noticeboard model to this recurring issue.

The other layer is not just applying one noticeboard, but several. Now that I think about this, maybe this would not be a good way to start. It would be better to have one board then split it if it is overwhelmed.

A "COI organization" is an entity with paid people trying to make the edits. A "COI individual" is a person who wants edits about themselves. To me, the big difference between these is with individuals a wiki discussion will include some familiar elements of routine person to person human interaction. With organizations the conversation is business to business, so typical wiki customs like peer to peer favors go to robots which cannot really appreciate them or socialize. Another big difference with administration is that we have a greater need for data management around corporate requests because those get much more traffic (probably 1000x on average) and there is greater public demand to scrutinize entities of broad public interest.

I think I want to revise my proposal - while I think that that multiple boards could be useful, maybe it would be simpler to start with one board.

If there were one board and we directed all COI requests to get logged there, could you see a net benefit in that? Any major drawbacks? Is this a reasonable thing to do? If it is reasonable, why has this not happened before?

You do not need to answer all this, but I would like your overall impression. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, it's much appreciated. Use of a noticeboard raises some practical questions as I see it. It's my understanding that a noticeboard already exists for making edit requests. Although it's probably true that the current noticeboard doesn't really function in that manner, it still holds the potential for doing so — based on the response given by the {{request edit|D|S}} template (which urges the requestor to "escalate" their request to the noticeboard) as well as advice at the noticeboard itself which suggests that This page is not for ... material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument... (which implies that contentious material may be brought to it). So my first question would ask how this new noticeboard and the current noticeboard would work, together or separately?

Another question would be the role of consensus in this new noticeboard. Would consensus be required only for larger requests? If smaller requests need only the participation of one reviewer, and if that one reviewer handles the shorter request and the COI editor comes to find that they don't appreciate the outcome, does the COI editor need only ask for more editors to weigh in, in an attempt at a different outcome? When that happens, what is to be done with the initial decision made? Is it held in abeyance until everyone is satisfied? Those are some of the questions which come to mind, and I look forward to your reply. Regards,  Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi Spintendo You implemented an edit request I made a couple of months ago – thank you. On a page for which I've declared COI. I have since made further edit requests but have not heard any feedback. I wonder what I can do to have further requests implemented.

Thanks very much.

JT at JMLtd (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@JT at JMLtd: Thank you for your question. To ensure editor feedback in edit requests, please doublecheck that the {{request edit}} template has been placed within the text of your request on the talk page of the article in question. Regards,  Spintendo  07:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Article talk page

Hi Spintendo,

Would really appreciate it if we could progress these proposed edits Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Hospital_and_UN_items_to_be_placed_at_start_of_Activites_section.

If there is a problem please let me know

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  13:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have made an attempt to address the remaining concerns at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Reply_14-JUL-2019.

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Responded again.

BTW, do you want me to post on your talk page or do you already have the article Talk page on your watchlist?

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not watchlisted for this article, so notifying me here is fine.  Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

OK will do. I just responded to the "University" question. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just done a search for UN verification. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Request implemented  Spintendo  03:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this. Apologies that it took me some time to understand exactly what was required but in the end we got there and I learned something! Appreciate your patience and understanding during the process. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)