User talk: Spintendo

TCL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Thanks Spintendo, I have made some comments and would be grateful if you can spare some time reviewing that. Thanks! --BCHK c (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed your comments. As for the shares of the company, unfortunately I'm not able to review 6 pages of documents discussing in legal language who owns what. However, the citation template does contain a |quote= parameter which allows you to insert the text from the source which verifies the statements you wish to add. I would venture this to be a more efficient way of demonstrating that a source verifies a particular claim. With regards to the outdated company name, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name in articles; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (WP:COMMONNAME) as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, as such names will usually best fit an article's five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering those criteria directly. Regards,  Spintendo  13:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I am afraid this is not the case regarding the outdated company name matter. Those Chinese names in the page are no longer in use to refer TCL Electronics nowadays, perhaps you may want to check with any native editor to vertify this? As for the English company name displayed on top of the infobox, there seems to be a different treatment comparing to Samsung/LG Electronics where both their company names are displayed in full. Any idea on why the TCL's page should look differently? Also, the current displayed address in Hong Kong is not updated and so does the information regarding parent. What additional info is needed to justify the changes? For the share distribution, since we merely suggested to amend the figures of the respective shareholders in that infobox to reflect the current ownership, can you advise where should such citation be placed? Would that be the footer where I cited the source of this claim? --BCHK c (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@BCHK c: (a) I've updated the infobox name to state TCL Electronics Holdings Limited. That is the name displayed in the footer found at their homepage. That states: Copyright © 2008 TCL Electronics Holdings Limited All Rights Reserved. A website's footer — because it contains important links to legal information such as privacy policies and user terms — is generally taken to be the most accurate depiction of what the company chooses to call itself. If the name is to be updated, I would suggest starting there. (b) As far as I can tell, the percentage of investors/owners you have in your proposal is listed as "other", which is something that is not very encyclopedic. (c) To change the Chinese spelling in the infobox, we need to make contact with an editor who is fluent in Chinese and familiar with handling COI edit requests. I will make inquiries for you and get back to you on that one. Thank you for your help! Regards,  Spintendo  10:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Spintendo:. This is much appreciated. For (b), as there's no dedicated source that explains the share distribution of other shareholders, would that be fine if i just include TCL's figures in this case? Would also be great to hear back your feedback on the address and parent part. Thanks! --BCHK c (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything regarding the External links section in the request. As far as the ownership percentage, I covered that above, where I stated that the percentage of ownership requires a reference, while the reference you provided was 6 pages in length and the citation template did not make use of the |quote= parameter in order that the information could be found easily within the document. Regards,  Spintendo  10:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the changes under TCL Electronics Talk page. See if that fits what you are looking for? Sorry i am not good at coding, so if there's any way to trim down unnecessary info, please let me know. Thanks @Spintendo: --BCHK c (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the |parent= and headquarter parameters. The HQ I placed as just cities or the island/ islands (Cayman and Hong Kong). The parent parameter guidance says nothing about including percentages, which are only used by the |owner= parameter. Since TCL is a subsidiary of a company which is, itself, a subsidiary, the owner parameter is not used ("If the company is majority-owned by a single entity and as such is a subsidiary or division, omit the owner field and use the parent field instead. Do not use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent."). Regards,  Spintendo  13:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Spintendo:. I have added any batch of update, so would appreciate if you can spare some time reviewing that. --BCHK c (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Partially implemented Future edit requests do not require notice here on my talk page. Please use {{request edit}} for all requests left on the article's talk page. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  08:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo:, Thanks for your attention on the TCL Electronics page. Can you please suggest on how to amend the second point, in order to pass the guideline? As I can see quite a few companies including LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics also mentioned similar information, including their size of global businesses and global market share. --BCHK c (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  04:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo:, Thanks for your attention on the TCL Electronics page. Changes were made according to your suggestions and guidelines, please check and help to update our page accordingly. Thanks!. --BCHK c (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please use {{request edit}} on the article's talk page for new or revised edit requests. Regards,  Spintendo  08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested edits at Talk:HYPR Corp

I asked Bri like you told me to about the flags and he is OK if an univolved editor remove the flags. Would you please help me with this edit? Thanks for everything. Kriptocurrency (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  01:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks, I replied to you at the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HYPR_Corp#Reply_26-NOV-2019. Kriptocurrency (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I left new comments for you on Talk:HYPR Corp. Regards Kriptocurrency (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  20:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. I've just answered at the talk page. Kriptocurrency (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, I asked about Fortune (magazine) at the reliable sources noticeboard and two experienced editor have agreed on the reliability of the Fortune article. Here is the link (Fortune discussion). Also, I've left a comment on Talk:HYPR Corp with some references that aren't included in the article but could help proving notability, maybe we could add them later. Could you check on these please? Thanks. Kriptocurrency (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the checklist with two of the suggested references. I hope it helps, although it might be better to ask an editor who is more experienced in notability requirements — as my experience is in COI edit requests, which involve only content requirements. Let me know if either of those two sources need to be added to the article, and where they should be placed. Thnks! Regards,  Spintendo  10:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello thanks for your answer, you suggested that I ask an experienced editor about it but I dont know how would take the time to discuss... Anyways, I have to say that I don't agree with you on DarkReading and Fortune articles not being secondary sources. An interview can be considered a primary source, WP:SECONDARY states that a secondary source is one that gives information about a primary source and in these cases the author aren't doing the interview but giving their opinion on something Avetisov said. I don't see clearly why these sources don't qualify. I am sorry to bother you so much, I just want to understand reasons. Thanks again. Kriptocurrency (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are materials directly related to a topic by time or participation, and that includes interviews which provide firsthand accounts about a person, event, or a company. In these instances, Avetisov is the one explaining the items being discussed, and the information that is placed in the Wikipedia article is information that comes directly from Avetisov. If Fortune had conducted its own research along with the interview, and claims from that research were placed in the Wikipedia article, then the source would be considered secondary. Regards,  Spintendo  03:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Updated my request for Honeywell

Hi Spintendo, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I have taken the appropriate steps to fix the request on my sandbox's talk page. Can you take a look here before I add this back to the Honeywell talk page in-case it needs an edit. Also, can you let me know if it looks ready to add back to the article? Thanks! --Chefmikesf (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chefmikesf: In answer to your question, I don't think you should post the edit request as it is formatted now in the sandbox. The request is very long and confusing, as each item to be changed is not easily ascertained. The main issue when posting a lot of information is that the information needs to be easily scanned by the reviewer. That means using certain techniques to make certain parts of the request stand out in the reader's eye line. See this post for an example of how I make edit requests myself. Notice in that request how I give all four needed elements — the old text, the new text, the location of the text and the references (which in that case, was the text). All of the items should be easy to spot, and a clear demarcation should be set between each successive item. Notice how much clearer one set of numbering is from another set:

Difficult and ideal numbering

Difficult numbering: 1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. 2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. 3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. 4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2007. 5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. 6. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. 7. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. 8. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2008. 9. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. 10. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. 11. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. 12. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2011. Ideal numbering: Request A.      1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.      2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.      3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.      4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2007. Request B.      1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.      2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.      3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.      4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2008. Request C.      1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.      2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.      3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.      4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2011.

In the example above, notice how much easier it is to find the correction with the reference dated 2008 in the ideal numbering section, as opposed to how difficult it is to find the reference dated 2008 in the difficult numbering section. Also notice how difficult it is to figure out which text the 2008 reference is supposed to change. In the ideal section, it's obvious which text is impacted by the 2008 reference, because it's grouped together. In the difficult section, who knows if the text to be changed is below the 2008 reference or above it. I'm not saying you need to go to these extremes to demarcate the text, but when you are posting as much information to be changed as you are, it is helpful to be as distinct as possible. If you have any questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask. Regards,  Spintendo  13:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, Thanks for the input. I reformatted the edit requests and will integrate the feedback into my future requests. To your first point, I added Location: to each of the subsections so the reviewer can quickly determine what to update. Next, I changed the font of the requests and reasons to stand out from the "current" or "proposed" content. When appropriate, I made the specifics for the request bold as well. All the references are included in the Reference TalkBox. There may be some duplicates with the old text, new text format. What are your thoughts on the updates? Here is the format I used:

Extended content
Location: 1. Request and Reason: Current: Proposed:

--Chefmikesf (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I see three problems with the styling you've used. (a) The space placed before request and reason only displays the text from that line as a different font in certain browsers. The space bar is not actually a very useful tool in formatting requests. (b) The word location has been placed above the number which presumably contains the information, separating the location from the text to be changed. That may not be problematic with number #1, but by placing the location before the number, by the time you get to #2, the location for number 2 will be connected with the text from number #1. (c) You've mentioned duplicate entries, which never make for easily readable requests. Regards,  Spintendo  02:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, To address this feedback:

(a) You have a good point, the format change may not show up on other browsers. I thought this was OK because it is one of the features/options for formatting in the toolbar bar in the Wiki editor. So there is no confusion, I changed the request and reason line like so: Request and Reason:

(b)I reduced the location to only the main subsections from the content outline. Each new location starts a new set of descending numbers

(c)I initially added the duplicated content so the editor can see the broader concept. I removed this if it makes the reviewers job more difficult.

--Chefmikesf (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo,

Above, I addressed how I updated the edit request in my sandbox. I am following back to confirm I have brought this edit request within the protocols to post back to the Honeywell talk page. Can you confirm your thoughts on the edits? Best---Chefmikesf (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the link to whichever page you're referring to — or if posting your request on the article's talk page, be sure to use the {{request edit}} template. Regards,  Spintendo  08:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, happy new year! I would like to let you know that the error on estimate is much more serious. They have done a blunder.

I read your comments at Talk:Jat people#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2019, and I understand your fair points. I request you to read the follow up comments at Talk:Jat people#Estimated population of Jats, and see how big the error is, now, on the Wikipedia page.

Kindly replace that line with the work of an anthropologist (working at a reputed institution). 178.176.217.24 (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too, and thank you for your comment. With regards to the possible error in calculation of the population of Jat people living in that particular area, I would respectfully suggest that you contact the Hindustan Times in order for them to investigate their assertions and issue any retractions, if necessary, for the claims made in their publication. Once those errors are brought to light, the figures attributed to them may then be corrected here in the Wikipedia article. As Wikipedia editors, our ability to effect a correction of these errors in a foreign newspaper is limited from here. Since the Hindustan Times reported on this data, they are in the best position to investigate its collection and issue any retractions, if necessary. Warm regards,  Spintendo  08:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I am making a suggestion that the work of an anthropologist should be put in the demographics section on that page. That man is a professional expert in the field. The difference in both calculations is massive, and the work of an academician should be valued over the news reporter or at least should be considered at par with that. If you would not like to remove the reference of that article, is it unfair to ask you to mention what Sunil K. Khanna concluded? We have WP: BALANCE. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

In order to achieve balance you must provide secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, i.e., a source which compares the two and then describes why the figures don't match. That would involve providing the URL for the secondary sources or a {{DOI}} for the tertiary sources. If the anthropologist has released their findings, please provide the {{DOI}} for their report as well. Regards,  Spintendo  11:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Khanna (at the time of writing the book: associate professor of anthropology at the Oregon State University, Ph.D. in physical anthropology from University of Delhi, and Ph.D. in cultural anthropology from Syracuse University) on page 18 in his book Fetal/Fatal Knowledge: New Reproductive Technologies and Family-Building Strategies in India (CSCSI), wrote-

According to recent population estimates, the total population of Jats in South Asia is roughly 30 million. This population projection is based on information collected during the 1931 census which was the last to report caste affiliation. At that time, an estimated 8 million Jats lived mostly in India and Pakistan.

Thanks for answering. In 1931, a census (having caste affiliation) was done. The resulting conclusion was that total number of Jats were approximately 8 million in 1931. This academician has also cited that in his book, and based on his professional assessment (he has also written about other things regarding these people in his book), he concluded that their population should be around 30 million (in 2009). The news reporter says 82.5 million in 2012. This is a serious disagreement. Can there be a better moment to use WP:BALACE? Khanna's reliability as a source does not fall below the news reporter, specially on such a topic where Khanna holds experience and expertise. His assessment would have been done more professionally than the news reporter. I think that the news reporter's assessment should be removed and Khanna's should be put on the page, but if an experienced person on how this encyclopedia works may or may not agree to that, at least, Khanna's work deserve to find a place when there is such a massive disagreement over the numbers. Please put his assessment on the page. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Should Khanna's assessment not be mentioned simply because it deserves to be mentioned as he has experience and expertise in his field? This is his area of work. He could not know lesser than the news reporter! 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion to Talk:Jat people#Estimated population of Jats. Please answer there. Thank you- 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dariush Mozaffarian's Page

Hi Spintendo, I addressed your comments/questions on Dariush Mozaffarian's talk page on December 30th, but I have not received a response from you. Could you please respond? Oszabo01 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit requests for the Mozaffarian article need to use the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page. All of the current edit requests on that page have been responded to, and anything which appeared to be missing was mentioned as needing to be supplied. Sorry for the delay, but if you have missing information for an older request, it's best to place it as a new edit request in order for it to be handled expeditiously. Regards,  Spintendo  16:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Input request on Battletoads (video game)

Hi there. I just saw you pinged me asking for input here and while I'm greatly honored to be taken into account, I'm also very curious why my name came up as having a say on this. Cheers! --uKER (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history and randomly picked an editor's name that came up a lot. I was hoping you'd be more familiar with the page and could offer input on whether the requested item should be included. Regards,  Spintendo  08:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Chase Coleman III

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A heads up I've responded to your reply on the Chase Coleman III Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A heads up I've since posted a reply at Chase Coleman III Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  18:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Honeywell

Hi Spintendo, I responded to your reply on the Honeywell Talk Page--Chefmikesf (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.  Spintendo  21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  02:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, Thanks again for your collaboration on this. I kept my response on the Honeywell Talk Page thread but responding here for visibility.--Chefmikesf (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sainthood

Hi! I think you are a patient saint for answering all those edit request so calmly over on Talk:Kent Tate. I saw the talk about older accounts with the same interest. Since you know the article better than I do, would you say this would article would benefit from an SPI? There seem to be a lot of largely SPA accounts, Kent Tate included, interested in this. I feel like some machinations are occurring off-wiki in the production and/or deletion of the article. I am wondering if you have the same sense. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: It wasn't my impression that there was socking going on with this article, but as JBW said, the COI editor has been trying to get a different article approved — getting through the back door what won't fit through the front — but I don't know which accounts were doing this. I suppose it's in an artist's nature to be creative in general, so perhaps the AFD is just another way of creating the article that they want. If anything, I hope it at least clarifies what the article really needs. Warm regards,  Spintendo  01:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up on changes to Julie Brill's page

Hi Spintendo, can you take a look at the changes I made to the COI edit request for Julie Brill? Let me know, thanks so much, TechSeaSpokes2004 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.  Spintendo  21:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Battletoads editors

It appears that the next step is for me to discuss this with some of the significant editors for the article. At this stage, however, I don’t enough about Wikipedia to figure out who they are. If you don’t mind, when you get a few spare moments could you please point me to 2 or 3 of them? BTW, I managed to find a review of the book, as well as a wiki entry. Thanks again for your help. GameMaven (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@GameMaven: Thank you for your question. A good way to gauge an article's user activity is to take a look at the edit history. That shows the editors for a page as well as what type of edits the editors have performed. Another way to seek out assistance would be to post requests for feedback at the talk pages of the WikiProjects which govern the article. Those projects are listed at the top of an article's talk page in the header boxes. Regards,  Spintendo  21:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up on Randy Olson page

Hi Spintendo. I saw you closed the request edit I made for the Randy Olson page with the suggestion that I talk to the editor who added the advertising tag to see their reasoning for placing it there. Ronz, the editor I was working with on the request edit, actually was the one who added the advertising tag.

I’ve tried multiple times, both with request edits on the Randy Olson talk page, and on Ronz’s own talk page, to question them as to what material needs to be removed or changed to remove the tag. After removing all primary sources and anything that sounds too much like advertising, I’m not sure what else to do and Ronz has stopped answering my direct question about what else needs to be removed. You can see in the latest request edit that I asked Ronz several times what to remove and they never answered.

In an earlier request edit, Ronz did say “I don't think the tag should be removed without careful, independent review.” I’m not sure how to go about getting that kind of independent review.

Could you please advise as to what I should do if the person who placed the advertising tag on the Randy Olson page to no longer responds to questions about what needs to be changed and recommends I get an independent review?

Thanks Mattmdavid (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Mattmdavid