User talk: Spintendo

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)

Greystar Real Estate Partners

Hi! Left you a reply at Talk:Greystar Real Estate Partners. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Clarified claims implemented   Regards,  Spintendo  03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Reached out here, but FYI, the editor who placed the COI flag on this article appears no longer to be active on Wikipedia. Is there another way I can seek review of that flag? WP:WTRMT states that "Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} ... strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed". That seems to be the case here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the problematic material which was added at the time the template was placed has since been removed, so I removed the template. Regards,  Spintendo  19:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Replied there again! Provided a ref for the updated lead. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Migdia Skarsgård Chinea.

Can you please add info to my page. I added When it rains release date and it looks self serving. Thanks and love. MiG Mig (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Migdiachinea: I have omitted the mentioning of the film, because that film is not yet independently notable in Wikipedia. When it has its own page in Wikipedia, that will be the time to mention it. I've also applied the {{COI}} maintenance template, as you appear to have added much of the content yourself to the article, which is not recommended. More information about conflict-of-interest editing may be found at WP:PANDSCOI. Regards,  Spintendo  03:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Restated request for recourse on Beacon College Wikipedia page

Hello Spintendo:

I am reposting here this missive from June that received no response. I've been busy on several projects for the college and couldn't return my attention to this matter. That has changed, and I'm back to trying to resolve this matter.

Reposting this reply [looking for response and recourse] Good morning, Spintendo:

Again, I appreciate your gracious response.

You ponder the reason why the Orlando Sentinel would "devote a substantial portion of its reporting to Beacon."

First of all, any major metropolitan newspaper worth its salt boasts a higher education reporter, and sometimes more than one (a large metropolitan area like Boston, with the embarrassment of riches it enjoys in institutions of higher learning might task several reporters to cover the higher education beat).

Consequently, a higher education reporter writes articles about the higher education institutions within the newspaper's geographic coverage area.

In the case of the Orlando Sentinel, these institutions would include Rollins College, the University of Central Florida, Seminole State College, Valencia College, Stetson University, (sometimes Florida A&M and Bethune-Cookman), Lake-Sumter College, and, when warranted, Beacon College.

As such, this charge of "regional bias" doesn't compute. Obviously, a newspaper that covers higher education would cover news of the institutions of higher education in its regional coverage area. That would not be classified as bias. That would be classified as the newspaper doing its job.

Moreover, Beacon College received coverage by the Orlando Sentinel because of the school's novelty — Beacon College is one of only two colleges in the United States dedicated to educating students with learning disabilities, ADHD, and other learning differences. These are students who before 1989 when the school was founded had few options in pursuing postsecondary education.

Novelty is news. Therefore, of course, any newspaper — including The Orlando Sentinel — would cover novel news in its geographic area. That is the function of a standard newspaper operation — not evidence of regional bias.

Moreover, the chart that you included MAKES the argument I advanced.

Your chart rightly shows that the institutions noted have existed far longer than Beacon College. Yet, despite their maturity, their Wikipedia articles still rely on a preponderance of regional news coverage and self-generated sources.

Your argument suggests that given their longer operating lives that these schools should have been able to produce far more "non-regional/independent" and "non-biased" sources than their Wikipedia articles contain.

And yet they don't.

Yet, their articles pass muster.

So, returning to my main point, regarding the "dearth of independent sources," there was no way 30 years ago when the school was founded nor anyway today to compel news outlets outside the region to write articles about a small niche school outside their coverage areas. Nor is there any way Beacon College can jump into Dr. Who's Tardis and return to the past and compel or cajole news outlets, book authors, think tanks and others to pen articles about the Beacon College-related happenings that the Orlando Sentinel rightly chronicled.

The historical coverage of Beacon College to this point is what it is. There are no other sources to be found in the countless databases we search. You can't turn up what doesn't exist.

Given the reliance that many people across the globe now have with using Wikipedia articles as their go-to source for information about a subject, we recognize the importance, value, and desperate need for Beacon College to have a comprehensive — and accurate — Wikipedia article available for individuals researching the college. What currently exists is woefully out-of-date and woefully inadequate.

What recourse does the college have?

Darrylowens312 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Darrylowens312 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions and comments. While I see your point, the issue with the Orlando Sentinel's conflict of interest is not imaginary. You said it yourself — A newspaper that covers higher education would cover news of the institutions of higher education in its regional coverage area. With that, there is a built-in obligation on the part of the newspaper to cover this school — and the school knows that. Over time, this obligation can easily become a two-way street, with the school having an expectation that every story they release, no matter how insignificant, would be reported on by the paper. In this manner, the school exists within the Sentinel's blind spot — in that their role as an objective provider of news can easily come into conflict with their role as the expected reporter of information coming from the school. There's just no denying that.

This doesn't make every story the paper does on the school rejectable, it only means that extra caution needs to be taken when choosing which stories are appropriate to use as references. I would assume that most of the Sentinel's coverage about the school is purely news — this location of the school opened, or that class is now available — that sort of thing. The only problem is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, meaning items covered by a local paper about a local school which is news to the paper and the area's residents is not necessarily the best content for use in Wikipedia.

When you say that the school recognizes the need for comprehensive information to be available for individuals researching the college what you mean is potential students, and the need to promote the college to them. While Wikipedia appreciates the power of its reach, it does not exist for the promotion of the school. You're correct in saying that the school should have a comprehensive article, which I believe is an achievable goal. Also achievable, is an article which is vigorously checked to ensure WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTPROMO.

In practical terms that means that the University may submit items for inclusion using itself as the reference when those items are non-controversial, such as employee numbers, faculty, etc. Items that are presented that call attention to the school's unique characteristics, such as its work with students who learn differently than mainstream students, this would be something that the Sentinel may report on (to a degree). Any items which are of major consequence, such as a claim of efficacy of certain styles of teaching for example, ought to be referenced by multiple, independent, reliable WP:SECONDARY sources (as those claims would naturally receive the most scrutiny). Claims to be accredited with/ certified by/ registered for/ allied with, etc. ought to be referenced by whichever organization is doing the accrediting/certifying/licensing, etc. Those organizations also ought to already be independently notable in Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Regards,  Spintendo  22:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Good morning, Spintendo:

Thanks for your prompt response.

Rather than investing more time in another round of debate (although I will say to one point, it is not only potential enrollees who rely on an accurate comprehensive Wikipedia page about the college, but also researchers, journalists, etc.), I'll pivot to the central theme in my previous communication which was not addressed in your latest response: What recourse do we have? What are the next actionable (and realistic) steps we can take to have the revised Beacon College page pass muster?

Grace to you and peace,

Darryl E. Owens

Darrylowens312 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Good morning! I actually answered that question in the last paragraph of my reply message. In that reply, I specified which types of references would be appropriate for different types of claims. Regards,  Spintendo  19:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice signature!

I was passing through various articles, doing a bit of editing as normal and came across a reply you'd given on a talk page. Just wanted to say how great I thought your signature was! Formulaonewiki 22:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for guidance on COI Request Edit protocol

Appreciate your clear explanations. Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, you have very kindly (and patiently!) been responding to my edit requests on the Selecta article, thank you. I've just seen that you left a note on my page because I forgot to disclose my COI on my last request, and I wanted to apologise / thank you for flagging! I thought it did it automatically now because I had disclosed it on my talk page, but obviously not. Do I need to go back and add it now? Also, my apologies, I'm not sure of the best way to reply, but I hope you see this. Many thanks EmilyRH31 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Although you have disclosed your COI on your talk page and on the article's talk page, it might not be immediately apparant that there is a COI to those editors dropping by the article's talk page specifically for the requested move discussion. That's because the link from the requested move page takes editors to a position on the talk page which is below the COI disclosure of yours which is posted at the top of the talk page. That's why I suggested that the COI be mentioned again in the requested move statement, just to be sure. You may add a single sentence to your statement if you like, re-stating your COI. Regards,  Spintendo  09:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with formatting an edit request correctly

Hello, I've posted two requests for recommended edits to the Northeastern University Wikipedia page, but you've responded to both that I haven't formatted my requests correctly. I thought I'd done so correctly the second time by adding a line for Citation Style 1 for each recommended edit (where applicable). I'm new to the editing process for Wikipedia, and I'd kindly ask your assistance by explaining what exactly I'm doing wrong. Is part of the issue that I'm providing too much information, including a line "References supporting change" that include bare URLs? I used the format based on a template I found on Wikipedia for requesting edits.

Thanks so much for your help and your patience. Best, G.stmartinNU (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ideally the references should be formatted according to the style already used in the article, which is Citation Style 1 (CS1). An example of how CS1 references are styled is shown below:

CS1

Citation Style 1 markup: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Paramjit|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2019|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=2}}</ref> Which renders as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. References Here is a single citation shown as markup on the left and rendering on the right: Markup Renders as {{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}} Sjöblad, Tristan (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. When used with ref tags, it places a superscript number within the text. Note the <ref> & </ref> placed at either ends of the citation in the markup: Markup Renders as <ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}</ref> The full citation then displays at the bottom like so: References

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. Regards,  Spintendo  22:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. However, the request already includes Citation Style 1 for every specific edit/change, where applicable. (Some recommended edits simply involve removing copy, thus no need for a citation.) Again, is the issue that the request includes too much explanation, and you'd prefer the request be shortened to simply include only what each change should be using Citation Style 1?

Also, you stated in your Notes section under "a." that the references I provided are to Northeastern's website and because the information already exists on the website it doesn't need to be reproduced on the Wikipedia page. I don't understand the issue here. The purpose of our request is to update information on the Wikipedia page that is out of date or incorrect, and the Wikipedia page currently cites references to Northeastern's website in the sections where we're proposing edits.

Please advise. I appreciate your time and help with this, and I want to make this as straightforward as possible. Best, G.stmartinNU (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@G.stmartinNU: Thank you for your questions, I'll answer them in order.

• Although Wikipedia's main article text appears to be separate from the references section — which appears at the bottom of an article — in actuality the citation formatting is inextricably linked with the text that is seen in an article's main page. These two elements cannot be separated, inasmuch that any request to move text from one location in an article to another location within the article will still require that any references pertinent to that portion of the text being moved be moved alongside it. Thus, your request to re-position text from the article must also be placed with the references which accompany it.
• It is up to an individual editor to decide what amount of self-referenced information an organization's Wikipedia page may reproduce. Some editors are quite accommodating for this, while others are less so. If this information already exists in the article once my review is requested, my procedure is to ignore information which has already been implemented in favor of reviewing only that which is being added, deleted, or modified in some way.

The information that you've requested to be updated is not information that I would have initially placed into the article to begin with. Thus, any request to modify that information is not one that I would accept making on behalf of a COI editor. That information — as far as my review would be concerned — is left in limbo so to speak, since moving it or updating it myself, in effect, is to place my stamp of approval on it when in fact I believed it should not have been included in the article because it already exists elsewhere on the organization's own website.

In situations like this, it's best to leave the information alone. The reason behind that is that information in Wikipedia never really goes "out of date". A claim regarding the construction of a lecture hall in 2016 would not become "invalid" simply because the construction of that lecture hall ended in 2018. The claim is still factually correct because a lecture hall was indeed built around the specified time.

The only information which should be updated is information which is clearly no longer the case — such as a claim that a university's current enrollment is 15,000 students when the enrollment is actually 12,000 — and even then, the issue is not with the invalid state of the information itself, but rather, with the clear mistake made by the original adding editor who labeled the enrollment as "currently", a practice which is actually discouraged by the editing guideline MOS:RELTIME. I hope this helps to answer your question. Warm regards,  Spintendo  15:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ken Xie

Hi! I left you a reply at Talk:Ken Xie. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  09:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with declined edit request

Hi Spindendo,

I'd like to ask your help please with the wikipedia process for requesting reconsideration of a declined edit request.

On the Quicksort page you declined my edit request with the following reasons: request edit|D|Per WP:SPS, WP:NOR. I don't believe either of these is applicable.

For the SPS concern, I am the author of the article, not the publisher. The articles are reviewed by ACM referees, DDJ editors, or university professors, as the case may be, and then published by those respective institutions. See the 'publisher' tag on the citations to note that they are not me, my blog, nor any other unreviewed sources. The types of publications cited are listed as reliable sources.

For the NOR concern, original research is not being introduced by the edit request. So-called original research refers "to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". The edit request cites research that is published elsewhere, as reliable sources and not SPS.

How should I provide this feedback on the Quicksort talk page and request reconsideration and removal of the '|D|Per WP:SPS, WP:NOR' from my edit request based on the information above?

Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@JohnBoyerPhd: Thank you for your questions, I'll answer them in order:

1. As far as the WP:SPS concerns, two of the four submitted references were from conferences and symposiums, which means that those were not traditionally published. The remaining two references were published by (a) the University of Southern Mississippi and (b) the Dr. Dobb's Journal. The University of Southern Mississippi is not, itself, a peer-reviewed journal. Likewise, Dr Dobbs — when it was actively published — was a magazine, and not a peer-reviewed journal.
2. You stated that The edit request cites research that is published elsewhere, as reliable sources and not SPS. This ostensibly means that the sources you've submitted were those used in the commission of the articles that you did initially submit as references. And yet, those sources were not submitted to buttress the four sources that you did submit as references. Thus, those four sources appear as the only ones being submitted for the request, for surely WP:V is not meant to include all unknown sources that the submitted sources may have used but that were not included with the request. Regards,  Spintendo  16:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Hi @Spintendo:

I'd like to ask that we engage in the Wikipedia negotiation process on this decision. The first part of the compromise I'd like to make is to eliminate the History section content because the style of the section forces me to mention my name in the text and so eliminating that content removes the major source of COI. It also removes the burden of having to provide the earliest references to linked list quicksort, which eliminates references about which you expressed greater concern. Finally, I believe removing the history content also removes any concern of undue emphasis, since the remainder of the content is a few sentences in the Variants section that comprise neutral factual content about the existence and performance of quicksort variants.

I'd like for us to separately negotiate the two parts, linked list quicksort and partially declarative quicksort.

The ask that I have of you is if you could please review the standards of reliable sources and reconsider your classifications. I don't believe it is supported by Wikipedia that all references must come from peer reviewed journals. The Wikipedia literature banning self-published sources refers to blogs, social media and the like, as well as predatory journals and the vanity press where authors pay to have their works "published." Neither Dr. Dobb's Journal nor the ACM Document Engineering conference fall into these categories.

Dr. Dobb's was a respected computer industry journal that paid its authors (not the other way around) and whose editors carefully selected and reviewed materials before publication as they were responsible to over 150,000 paying subscribers. The endorsement of the editor of Algorithm Alley appears at the beginning of the cited article.

As for ACM Document Engineering, it has a good rank among computer science conferences, and its proceedings are indexed by DBLP and ResearchGate. Although other symposia may not referee their conference papers, good computer science conferences including ACM DocEng do referee their papers before acceptance, and authors revise their papers to address the points in the referees' reports. By following the DOI in the reference, 10.1145/3342558.3345397, one arrives at the ACM digital library page that does show that the paper was refereed and the conference acceptance rate -- and hence 1 - rejection rate (on the publication tab).

These are the reasons that the two sources are reliable for the purposes of supporting the revised proposed Wikipedia content below.

Linked List Quicksort

The Quicksort is typically taught using a bidirectional partition method appropriate for in-place exchange of array elements. In this variant, the partitioning method is performed by a unidirectional iteration of each partition in which nodes with a lesser key than the pivot node's key are unlinked from their current list location and then inserted into the sublist before the pivot node. This variant enabled empirical commparison of linked list Quicksort with linked list merge sort, which performed faster due to optimal halving of partitions. The merge sort is well-suited to linked lists.

References

Boyer, John M. (May 1998). "Sorting and Searching Linked Lists in Java". Dr. Dobb's Journal (285): 126–129, 137–138. Retrieved November 23, 2019.

NOTE: This reference already appears in the article, except the year of volume 3 third edition is 1998 (only volume 1 third edition has a 1997 copyright): Donald Knuth The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 3: Sorting and Searching, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1998. ISBN 0-201-89685-0. Pages 113–122 of section 5.2.2: Sorting by Exchanging.

Robert Sedgewick Algorithms in C++, Part 3: Sorting, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1998. ISBN 0-201-35088-2. Page 366 of Section 8.7: Linked-List Implementations of Mergesort.

Partially Declarative Quicksort

In this variant, the partitioning method implicitly performs a unidirection iteration of each partition by using declarative expressions to select the set of elements having a key less than the key of the pivot element. The declarative expressions appear within a constant number of multi-paradigm programming language commands that remove the set of lesser keyed elements from the partition and then insert the set into a location that is logically before the pivot element's location.

Boyer, John M. (September 23–26, 2019). On the Expressive Power of Declarative Constructs in Interactive Document Scripts. ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2019. Berlin, Germany: ACM. pp. 6.1–6.10. doi:10.1145/3342558.3345397. Retrieved November 23, 2019.{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

References

In the two years I've been reviewing edit requests, I can tell you that it isn't often when an author of information pushes for themselves to be the ones to source that information when it is added to an article. Those requests have rarely occurred, and when they do, they are usually unsupported by other scientists making those same claims. So you can understand why I would be hesitant about adding these claims referenced by your own work. If the claim statements made in your proposed text are verified by others, then those other sources besides yourself should also be used to confirm these statements. If there are no other sources, then this work falls under the rubric of original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Surely you can see by this requirement, that it is ultimately in your best interest to provide other sources beyond yourself for confirmation, because any reviewing editor will certainly require that other scientists reaching the same conclusions be provided in order to stave off an accusation of WP:NOR. Specifically, please show where the following claims are confirmed in publications other than your own:

1. Bidirectional partitioning enables empirical comparison of linked list Quicksort with linked list merge sort, performing faster due to optimal halving of partitions.
2. Partially declarative quicksort implicitly performs a unidirection iteration of each partition by using declarative expressions to select the set of elements having a key less than the key of the pivot element.
3. The declarative expressions appear within a constant number of multi-paradigm programming language commands that remove the set of lesser keyed elements from the partition and then insert the set into a location that is logically before the pivot element's location.

Regards,  Spintendo  08:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Notes

re Rudy Rotter page

Thanks for your response.

I am about to have a link to http://rudyrotterart.com published in RawVision magazine (https://rawvision.com).

The Wikipedia page will be a prominent link on the website. It would be very helpful to have to the "This article has multiple issues." history removed. How can that be accomplished? Thanks. Randy000 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Randy000

@Randy000: Thank you for your question. Each maintenance template contains directions for which actions are needed to be taken in order for the template to be removed. I suggest following the directions posted for each template in order to place the article in a state where they may be removed. If you have a conflict of interest with regards to editing that page, it is suggested that you leave requests for changes on the article's talk page rather than making any changes yourself. Regards,  Spintendo  22:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Boundless Immigration public charge update

Hello! I noticed your recommendation to add context to the public charge rule while updating the Boundless Immigration article. Was checking in to see if this satisfies what you're looking for. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canonicale (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicale: "Was checking in to see if this satisfies what you're looking for." I'm not sure what is meant by the use of the word this in that sentence, so I'm unable to answer your question. Please provide either a WP:DIFF or an enhanced clarification to help me better understand what it is that you're looking for. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  22:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I now see which article and what changes you are referring to. I'm assuming that by "my recommendation to add context to the public charge rule" you're referring to my suggestion that you go ahead and make any changes to the draft yourself. That would be correct then — making changes to the article as you did while in draft mode was perfectly fine. Unfortunately your changes did not result in the article being approved, but as it is in the draft stage, it can be continually worked on. Just be sure to work along with any other editors who may also be trying to improve the page. Discussing changes with other editors on the talk page is always encouraged. Regards,  Spintendo  22:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Why were all of my edits reversed?

Hello,

Last week I spent a significant amount of time updating the wiki page for Brentwood College School. I uploaded their most current logo, added information about their new athletic building, and took away incorrect information about an athlete who should not be on the list of Olympians. Plus I added recent photos. Is there a reason all of this work was reversed? I am relatively new to editing and was proud of the work, and quite disappointed when it was all undone.

Is there a reason, or something I should have done differently?

Thanks, YYJYYJ (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@YYJYYJ: As part of my work with CopyPatrol, we received this notice that insufficiently paraphrased text had been added to the Brentwood article. That text was reverted along with additional text which contained unreferenced material (including material referenced only by the college itself), trivia, and claims which appeared to mimic information found in a college course catalog (such as detailed listings of classes offered). These were all omitted and/or limited per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, WP:NPOV, WP:HTRIV, WP:NOTACATALOG, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Regards,  Spintendo  15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting edits on a draft article

Hello Spintendo—thank you again for your help with Draft:Boundless Immigration. I have a couple of new questions where I'd be grateful for your advice:

1) A very new editor with no user description page, Canonicale, made a series of edits to the article last week that, in my view, failed to improve it. Is it okay for me to revert those edits?

2) It appears this editor, Canonicale, resubmitted the article for approval—very prematurely, as far as I understand this process. As a result, another veteran editor, DGG, declined the article, citing "written like an ad" and insufficient sources for notability. What does this do to the draft process?

3) When I am ready to resubmit the article, should I take the new draft through the AFC process rather than leaving it where it currently is?

Thanks again for any advice you can give me. Messier6 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Messier6: Thank you for your questions. I'll answer them in order:

1. It is ok for you to revert their changes (by "OK" I mean that is something you are allowed to do while the article is in the drafting stage). That being said, it would not be recommended as the first step in dealing with edits that are not working for the article. The first step should be to approach the other editor either on their talk page or the draft's talk page and discuss what may be wrong with the edits they implemented, with a goal of getting them to agree with how you see it — or at least re-appraising your view of their changes. A pragmatic approach to editing is always recommended as the best way to go.
2. The second answer depends on how many "declines" the draft has received. A first "decline" from WP:AFC merely prevents the page from attaining 'article' status by keeping the draft in its current stage. It does not delete the draft, nor does it close off any additional edits made with the intention of improving the draft. You and any other editors may continue to add and remove information from the draft as you and other editors see fit. A second decline will eventually move the draft closer and closer to being deleted, so the number of declines should be kept to 1 or 2 at most; 3 would be the draft's death knell and should be avoided.
3. By "new draft" I'm assuming you mean a revised version of the 'declined' draft, rather than an entirely different draft under a different name with similar information. I mention this because you had stated that there was another editor complicating things with their edits — and starting anew with a different draft that you began yourself under a different title would be one way to sideline them from editing the draft. But if you mean to stick with the current draft, then it's not a question of should you take the draft to AFC — rather, you must take the draft to AFC. That is the only pathway for it to becoming an article.

I hope this answers your questions! Regards,  Spintendo  22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Requested edits to National Cancer Institute page

Thank you for the instructions you left on my Talk page regarding my suggested edits for the National Cancer Institute page. I am trying to learn the ways of Wikipedia and value any guidance offered.

I have re-edited my request on the Talk:National Cancer Institute page per your instructions and the the guidelines at WP:REDACTED as best I could. Please let me know if the request is acceptable now. Thank you DarylM at NCI (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  07:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sanjeev Gupta talk page

--Ben at GFG (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Hi @Spintendo - I responded to your feedback (very helpful, thank you) and provided some new suggested edits to the Sanjeev Gupta bio on the talk page. I'd be grateful if you are able to take a look. Thanks :) --Ben at GFG (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben at GFG (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  05:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

TCL

Hi Spintendo,

Many thanks for your comment on the TCL Electronics Talk page. I have made the edit request per your guidelines and would be grateful if you can have a look and see if they look alright. Thanks and have a great day. --BCHK c (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  10:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethnocracy: Difference between revisions

Dear Spintendo

Wikipedia turned to prof. YIftacel that this page has changed and his name been removed or changed location with other scholars. I am Irit, prof. Yiftachel assistant and he asked me to edit this page to the correct one that he made. I am new at this and do not understand exactly where did I go wrong, since my correction has been deleted. it was hard for me to edit, do to knowledge in coding for reference and catch, since I do not have the knowledge. can I send you the correction and you will update the page? or can you help me understand how to do it the right way, so it won't be deleted by you.

Thank you Irit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orenirit (talk • contribs) 00:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Orenirit: Thank you for your question. Changes to an article should be submitted on the article's talk page, using the verbatim text that you wish to include, for a neutral editor to review and implement if acceptable. When doing so, please make sure to use the {{request edit}} template and to sign all posts you leave using four tildes (⇧ Shift+~ x4). A sample edit request for how this should be done is shown below:

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." 2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." 3. Using as the reference: Paramjit Harinath (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. 4. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards,  Spintendo  00:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo and thanks again for your time on Masrour Barzani. It's minor but I noticed there's a comma missing between "Kurdistan Region" and "since June 2019" in the first sentence, which means the end of it could be read as the KRG having been the official ruling body of the region since June 2019. Do you mind fixing that? Thanks. Halgurd1 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)