User talk: Spintendo

Max Lu page

Hi -- just wanted to see if you had anything further for me on this. I haven't had replies to my latest edit on the Talk page for Max Lu's profile and am hoping to resolve it all. Thanks. Portmeirion18 (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any currently pending requests on that talk page. If this is in regards to an older request which wasn't addressed, please submit the un-addressed proposal as a new edit request using the {{request edit}} template placed under a new level 2 heading at the bottom of the talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  04:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Julie Brill photo approval

Hi there, just letting you know the approval for use of the photo was officially received from OSTR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julie_Brill#Reply_13-SEP-2019 Please take a look when you have the chance. Thanks! --TechSeaSpokes2004 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@TechSeaSpokes2004:  Image added. Regards,  Spintendo  01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Checking back in on COI edit for Bloomin Brands page

Just checking back in to see about the COI edit request for Bloomin Brands. Thank you. 50.240.49.9 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  04:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. As I work on addressing your comments, how does this work once all the edits are approved? Do you or someone else physically make the changes to the page? Thanks again. AmyPGPR (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@AmyPGPR: It's usually the case that whomever reviews the request goes ahead and implements the changes. Also, a reminder: be sure to activate the {{request edit}} template on the talk page along with your request when you're ready to proceed. Regards,  Spintendo  03:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Congressman Dan Lipinski page

Hi, have you looked at the latest round of edits to Congressman Dan Lipinski's page? Timestamped (Lipinskistaffer12 (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC))

I believe I followed all your instructions for proper citation. Thank you for your attention to this.

Lipinskistaffer12 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

JWB settings page showing up in CS1 error categories

User:Spintendo/JWB-settings.js is showing up in two CS1 error categories. I think it would help to add a colon at the beginning of each of the Category links, like this: [[:Category:CS1_maint:_Archived_copy_as_title|CS1 maintenance error]]. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

   JWB settings corrected   Thank you for the heads up, I appreciate it. Regards,  Spintendo  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Honeywell Finances Section

Thanks for updating the Honeywell financial data in the infobox.

I'm confused about your removal of the Finances section. I don't agree with you removing the whole section. The encyclopedic statements are sourced prose. How about reinstating the statements?

"For the fiscal year 2017, Honeywell reported earnings of US$1.933 billion, with an annual revenue of US$40.534 billion, an increase of 3.1% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $131 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$108.1 billion in October 2018."

Second, The historical financial data is helpful and informative. When a  reader is coming to Wikipedia, they are looking for historical information. The chart and source gives the reader both the data and the data source. It's not a list or catalogue. Each item gives context to the others - telling a story. When you have a quick moment, how about putting the chart back in?Chefmikesf (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Financial information added I've added a link to the Honeywell financials in the External links section. Since the information was collated by MicroTrends and is displayed on their website, there's no need to reproduce it in full here in the article. The EL section is the appropriate place for information which has already been compiled by others. The statement you mentioned has been re-placed along with its original reftagged source under the 2002-present section. Regards,  Spintendo  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Spintendo, these are good suggestions.

If you have a minute, can you update this with the current data?

For the fiscal year 2018, Honeywell reported net income of 6.765 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.802 billion, an increase of 3.13% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $169 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$120.26 billion in September 2019.

Best, Chefmikesf (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you could point me to the location on the MicroTrends site where that information for Sept 2019 is I'd be happy to update the Honeywell article with it. Please advise. Regards,  Spintendo  20:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Added the references requested. thanks Chefmikesf (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done  The requested prose makes the claim Honeywell reported earnings of 6.765 billion but that figure does not appear in the cited source, nor does the term "reported earnings". Instead, the source uses the terms 'revenue' or 'annual revenue' when describing the subject company financials. If the subject company's Wikipedia article is to use a source's figures, then that article ought to employ an economy of terms by using the same nomenclature already used by the source in their description of the figures. Regards,  Spintendo  22:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see your point about "Honeywell reported earnings of 6.765 billion". Based on the 10K, this should work. "Honeywell reported net income of 6.765 billion"Chefmikesf (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, Initially, I keep the phrase "reported earnings" in the sentence because it was in the article. I agree to use the correct terminology from the reference. Can you take a look at the updated version of my request?

For the fiscal year 2018, Honeywell reported net income of US$6.765 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.802 billion, an increase of 3.13% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $169 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$120.26 billion in September 2019.-Chefmikesf (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References

Corrected citations on Dona Bertarelli's page

Thank you very much for your guidance on the citation style, I have amended in my reply on Dona Bertarelli's Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dona_Bertarelli and would like to see how this could be reviewed again? Any feedback you have for me as to whether I've been neutral enough would also be great, as I have stated, I have a conflict of interest because I work for Mrs Bertarelli. Thank you so much again! MiaNorcaro (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  15:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request edit

Dear Spintendo

First, I would like to thank you for all your help, and to apologize for taking so much of your time. I was new to this and it took me a while to "nail" down the formatting of the edits (hence the large number of them). Also, I was not aware of how Wikipedia works, and I was under the impression that the subject of an article can edit what is written about him/her. I understand your position that this can be problematic, but I did not think that I was bragging about myself. I just wanted to correct some inaccuracies and to balance the references to my work. My last edit is free of errors and I did try to answer your questions. I don't want to waste anymore of your time, but I would appreciate it if you advise me how to proceed.

Sincerely,

Anastasios Tsonis aatsonis@uwm.edu

Aatsonis (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize, I understand that you were just trying to improve the article to the best of your ability, and there is no fault in that. Wikipedia can be daunting for newcomers, so I understand, too, the rough patches that are encountered. Unfortunately however, I'm unable to offer additional help reviewing this request. As a suggestion I would recommend contacting IntoThinAir — they are already eminently familiar with the subject matter and should therefore be able to provide you with quality, in-depth assistance. Warm regards,  Spintendo  15:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

University of Law needs eyes

Could you keep an eye on this article. An IP (79.66.223.58) has been repeatedly adding promotional material to the lead and making other inappropriate changes. Examples I've reverted/removed [1], [2]. I don't think it's a COI case. They seem to be doing this with multiple UK 2nd-tier universities, e.g. [3]. Best Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Regards,  Spintendo  17:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! The IP is very persistent. Perhaps he'll get the hint if more than one person reverts his edits. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: That same IP has added a crest to the article again. There's a hidden message in the markup stating that the crest shouldn't be used, but I wasn't sure who left that message, and thus didn't revert it. What was the consensus on using the crest, is that something that shouldn't be there? Please advise, thanks! Warm regards,  Spintendo  15:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the crest has been there for quite a while, even before my involvement with the article. I think the IP just moved it from the left side to the right side of the section. Per the hidden message meaning: it can to go in the history section (where it is now) but not in the infobox, as that crest has been deprecated by the university as a symbol. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

In search of CoI advice

Hi Spintendo, as you might recall I'm an editor with CoI for UBS-related pages. I'm looking for advice on how to approach a slightly controversial edit of Paul Donovan article.

I noticed that recently someone edited the article adding a statement <"Chinese pig" comment is racial and offensive"> without supplying any source for it. I don't want to get into any conflict but at the same time I feel that this is a subjective sentence that shouldn't be stated in its current form, if at all, on Wikipedia.

Can you advice on whether or not I can propose an edit on it? If yes – should I provide any back-up article or just note that it's not objective?

Regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Claim reverted to status quo ante. I've changed the claim back to the way it was. If this same type of edit happens again, go ahead and make the request on the talk page with the reasoning that subsequent editors have added information which was WP:POV-based and not grammatic — which is what happened in this case. Regards,  Spintendo  12:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, thank you a lot for your help. I will note it for future reference. Regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

Hi! Had a few clarifying questions regarding your response to my COI edit request on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. Please take a look if you get a chance. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  03:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bob Adams (electrical engineer)

Hi! FYI, left you a reply over at Talk:Bob Adams (electrical engineer). Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Requests you accepted at List of serial killers by number of victims

Hey, I just want to let you know I undid the edit requests you approved on the page becuase the sourcrs the IP gave in the edit requests did not even exist. The source http://www.thegaurdian.com/uk/2000/feb/01/shipman.health went to http://ww1.thegaurdian.com/?sub1=c03bcd98-ec2a-11e9-9677-709dbfedd9af  which says the domain is for sale. and the source  http://www.thegaurdian.com/world/1999/Jan/08/ goes to http://btpnative.com which (according to my schools CISCO Umbrella blocks) is an Online Trading site. Please be more careful in the future. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 13:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@LakesideMiners: The correct URL is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/20/chinese-quack-doctor-patients-jail-hu-wanlin . I understood that the URLs that the requesting editor had provided were incorrect, which is why I didn't place them in the article. Since the serial killer article is a stand-alone list, as long as the information from that list is sourced where it appears, references are not necessary per WP:LISTVERIFY.  Spintendo  23:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, oh my god. I’m sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 13:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Organization Wants Edit noticeboard

• Wikipedia:Organization Wants Edit

I proposed this to you in July 2019 at User_talk:Spintendo/Archive_3#Float_idea_-_organization_request_board.

When the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team gets requests from organizations by email to make edits, I am thinking of sending organizations to this board to make their request. Currently that team gets confused about what requests should be private and what should be public. I want to put part of that decision onto the organization and to direct them to make their own request public as the default first option.

Thoughts on the board or process? I am asking you because again, I know that you engage with {{Request edit}} and its surrounding process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 13-OCT-2019

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for your message and for the opportunity to give feedback, it's much appreciated. As I understand it, the current system which has generated the backlog at OTRS operated in the following manner.

An editor with a COI editing need previously had two pathways they could take in requesting an edit:

1. Use CAT:EDITREQ
2. Email to OTRS which was handled by the Volunteer Response Team (VRT). The VRT then had 2 choices:
   1. Direct the editor to use CAT:EDITREQ
   2. Handle the request privately

How OWE's noticeboard fits into the newer COI request system (along with the older pathway) is shown with the following flowchart:

NEED COI editor w/ editing needs

CAT:EDITREQ

OTRS (private) Volunteer Response Team

WP:OWE

The new process is WP:OWE (shown with a dotted line indicating the new pathway; the connection to the older pathway is shown with a dashed line). Using this new pathway, editors who represent organizations will be able to utilize a new forum for their requests to be answered. This noticeboard offers more accountability than that which is generated via the usual pathway of CAT:EDITREQ (which uses the {{request edit}} template).

The term accountability as it's used here is presumably twofold: First, the edit request review would become more accountable in that a detailed — and more importantly — searchable record would be generated for editors to access. Second, the edit request review would be more accountable by becoming more malleable. The current request pathway offers one reviewer to handle each request, a pathway which is limiting for organizations who might otherwise have their requests declined by the reviewing editor. When that occurs, organizations may feel as if there were no other recourse for them to succeed in implementing their edits. A review noticeboard, such as that at OWE, would by comparison bring more voices to the fold, thus expanding an organization's opportunity to find consenting editors willing to review the organization's edit requests.

This process of becoming more malleable should not be seen as a negative. In the current system, if an editor performing the review makes a mistake, it may go unnoticed by the community for some time. Having access to a larger pool of editors enables mistakes to be caught more promptly, and generally helps to ensure that the request process continues in a fair manner faithful to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The work you've done on OWE appears substantial, and is tremendously appreciated by us all. I look forward to seeing how the new system works, in the hope that this will help to improve OTRS — which is itself, an incredibly valuable process important to the running of Wikipedia. Being able to better handle the requests which OTRS receives is a worthwhile endeavor. I'm here to help in any way, if I can. Warm regards,  Spintendo  22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

"Thanks, I posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Organization_Wants_Edit#Spintendo_deconstructs_the_use_case. What you describe above is exactly how I imagined this to work. I want to sit on this feedback maybe until after WikiConference North America 2019 where I would show off the system and your feedback to some others.

"I am considering whether this system should be for organizations specifically, or whether the email queue should refer all sorts of edit requests to this board. The email queue gets many people around the world requesting edits, typically because either they do not know that they can edit or because they are in a state of mind where they will only make a request but not edit themselves. I believe that most invitations for such people to edit instead halt the conversation, and that by sending them to make a request on a board, then at least they might repeat their request there. Posting to talk pages would be best, but my guess is that 80% of the time, users will not try. I think that if there were a dedicated board for requests with some more detailed instructions at the top then more users would post. Once they came to be on wiki, then either the request could be cross-posted, linked, or otherwise make its way to the article talk page, where at least it would be logged in public as a user suggestion.

I have some thoughts about what you said above Spintendo and I will reply soon but for now, this is the additional information that I have from others. I said on that board talk page and I will say here again also - your process, more than any other single intervention, is why I drafted out this experimental board. I am impressed with this process that you have so greatly developed and with the consistently good results you get from users who go through your process. You have a high engagement rate, and within that engagement, a high success rate in terms of getting thoughtful original content submissions and seeming user satisfaction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

15-OCT-2019

Hello, I left my comments on Natalia Toreeva page. Hope you will find time to read it. Thanks!Toreeva 21:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Would you check my comments again, if you have time. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Toreeva:  Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  19:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Would you check my response again. Can you fix if for sure it can be corrected? Thanks, Toreeva 19:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo again. I try to resend you my message that I left reply on my talk page. Also, if you see that it is unsigned, meaning that signature tool does not work, since I signed using 4 ~ or using signed and save. Or may be my talk page redirected, or ... Fix it if you can... Thanks, Toreeva 14:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Toreeva 14:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried again, redirected to other talk page.

Toreeva (talk • contribs)Toreeva 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Toreeva 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo again. I will do my signature by doing 4 ~ as I did before. Please back to the article and my comments to your input. Thanks, Toreeva 22:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Spintendo, I left my comments on my Talk page. Hope you will find time to continue helping in the article. Thanks, Toreeva 01:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The comment you left a few days ago looks like it appended the links perfectly, but since then you've reverted back to using the old manner, which does not append any links. My suggestion would be that you return to whichever way you used when you left this comment:

I tried again, redirected to other talk page. Toreeva (talk • contribs) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also the WP:HELPDESK if you need assistance in getting your signature to display properly. Regards,  Spintendo  21:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Spintendo, I did not revert any text. You can check the history, and any question you asked. And I don't want to ask for any help with the signature. It is minor problem. It looks you lost interest with any help with the article. So, I appreciate for any help you did. Thank you, Toreeva 22:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Toreeva: I did not say you reverted text, I said you reverted back to a different way of leaving your signature. The fact that your sig is still missing links to your talk or user page is not a minor problem. My suggestion that you receive help in fixing the issue should not be taken lightly. I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting on my talk page until the problem with your signature has been corrected. Regards,  Spintendo  18:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo:, I sent request to Help Desk regarding Display of my signature. Thank you, Toreeva 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, Looks the Signature problem is fixed, so if you have time and willingness to help, please back to help with the article editing. Thanks, Toreeva (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ken Xie

Hi! Heads up, I left you a response with clarification at Talk:Ken Xie. Thank you as always! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  00:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

trivago Wikipedia Page

Hi Spintendo,

Hope you're well. You may recall reviewing some requested edits to the trivago Wikipedia page early in September. You were really helpful in pointing me to the information needed to make an accurate edit request in regards to the source citation. I shared another edit on September 27 which I think should work, but wanted to make sure that it was correct and accurate. If you have a chance, could you take a look?

Appreciate your help, --Agrund2 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Clade diagram?

In this edit to Perficient, you changed the "Key acquisitions" section from a standard WikiTable to a clade diagram (and a broken one at that). I don't believe this helped in the understanding of the material; I have reverted back to the table format. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Since the purpose of the Key acquisitions section was to show relationships that the company held, I thought that the cladogram worked well. But as you know the article better than I do, I'll leave it to you to choose which works best. Regards,  Spintendo  17:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far

Hi Spintendo,

Just want to say thank you for your work on the edit requests I've made recently. Sorry for being a slow learner at times. I appreciate your patience.

John at SKDKDigital (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tina Tchen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time's Up (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

   DAB link corrected    Spintendo  09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

COI edits to Mark Lanier profile

Spintendo-- Thank you again for your recent help editing Mark Lanier’s Wikipedia profile. I know that can be time-consuming so I really do appreciate it. I’m writing in reference to the edits made on 10/24 by Smartse. In addition to editing the body of Lanier’s page, he also placed two banners at the top, one of which references COI editing. In my original call for help, I was upfront about the fact that Lanier was a client of mine and that I wanted substantive edits to his page reviewed by an experienced editor, who could then make the final decision as to whether they should be made. My question is, based on the feedback left by Smartse on Lanier’s talk page, was there something I did wrong? As originally stated, I’d like to edit the page in a way that’s transparent and follows Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. Any further help you could provide in doing that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot. WriteJames (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)