User talk: Spintendo
Archives |
|---|
|
#1 24 Sep 2016 to 28 Feb 2018 |
| Threads older than 30 days may be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
- 1 Comments on talk page of Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle
- 2 Jon Rose page
- 3 Your edit to Alex Smith has been reverted
- 4 Your guidance for COI edit requests?
- 5 Color Force
- 6 Table design
- 7 Help requested
- 8 Color Force (Part 2)
- 9 Very unfortunate decisions
- 10 Article: John Ronald Skirth
- 11 Duncan Barrett Article
- 12 Newmont Mining Corporation edits
- 13 Saudi Arabia Economy section
- 14 A barnstar for you!
Comments on talk page of Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle[edit]
Dear Spintendo,
Thank you for taking the time to respond on this talk page. I appreciate your efforts.
Just to clarify a couple of things, neither the suggested edits nor the content of the article consist of anything like every 'title' I have received, and such a statement suggests that the response is not being dealt with neutrally. I am disappointed to see minutes from a Business Committee meeting and a journal article discarded as not being credible independent sources, as well as pages from a number of universities and academic organisations.
Please can you explain your dismissal of these credible sources? Thank you. MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: I notice, Sir, that you are resident in the USA. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the significance of these institutions in the UK. A blanket refusal of all edit suggestions would suggest a lack of considering their individual merit one by one. MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point, sir. In an article featuring the names of the subject's non-notable children, even mere considerations of tact would seem to confirm the claim of a lack of meaningful consideration on individual merits. Spintendo 23:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Would you mind deleting the names of the non-notable children from the article please? Thank you. MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Jon Rose page[edit]
Spintendo, I am addressing your latest requests. The Discography is missing now--please advise. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Spintendo: I have completed all of the edits you requested except the “Reception” section, but I have questions about what I just did that I need your clarification on. 1. As I wrote yesterday, the Discography is missing in the draft version, although I see it in the edit version—maybe no problem. 2. The References, on the other hand, are visible in the draft version, but not in the edit, so I was unable to make the requested edits there—please advise. 3. You wrote that 52 does not have a url—it is not online—it is the exhibition catalogue published by the producer of the event, Carriageworks, Sydney. What to do? 4. You wrote that references 55, 56, and 59 are not RS—I replaced one of them, but I believe two of them are Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National, the national flagship radio, like NPR in the US, except more important and considered the most respected and most neutral. I have left these references for now. 5. I cannot find “AV media notes” in the template to change the citation. Thanks for your assistance, hollistHollist (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Reply 20-OCT-2018[edit]
- When posting on this talk page, please do not create several headings regarding the same subject. The directions at the top of the page which direct editors to "click here" to leave a message are for those who have never posted on the page before. Please add posts to already existing threads by clicking "edit".
- When editing the draft, there is no "references" section per se; that section is created from the references added in the main prose. So changes made to the references need to be made to each individual citation. If 56 needs editing, then looking at 56 in the referenecs and seeing that it cites a quote from Stephen Holden, the quote from Holden is where the citation should be altered.
- The first item which was not a RS was a program listing hosted on the ABC website. A simple program listing is not by itself a reliable source, no matter which reliable website it may be posted upon.
- You've changed a few of those non-RS citations to books, but you haven't entered the
|page=number parameter where the information resides in those publications. - To change the citation template, under
{{Cite book}}delete the word book and type AV media notes — which then gives you the{{Cite AV media notes}}template. - The discography is hidden from view. The numbers I mentioned are not affected by this. I've hidden it because the style of the discography needs to be altered to fit the standard format, which is shown below:
""Name" or "Name" (album or EP/single)" (added between parentheses after Name (album or EP)) from the album ONLY FOR EP/SINGLE: added after Name
- Released: "1992" or "11 February 1992
- Format: "LP/CD/..."
- Label: "Name" or "Name", comma if many
- Writer: "Songwriter name" or "Songwriter name"
- Writers: Use if there are multiple writers, comma if many
- Producer: "Producer name" or "Producer name", comma if many
- Director: "Director name" or "Director name" for music videos
- Chart position: "No. 1 U.S." or "No. 12 UK" or such
- Sales: "3 million sold as of 2005" or such
- Certification: "Gold" or such
- Tracks: " "One", "Two", "Three" ", etc.
- Bonus tracks: "Four" (Japan edition)
- Singles: " "Single", "Other Single" ", etc.
Regards, Spintendo 07:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, thanks to you, Spintendo. I hope this is where I am supposed to add my comment. I have completed the Reception section per your suggestion, much appreciated. These questions remain: 1. The different sections currently have differently sized fonts, and some are underlined. The way I have designed it is simple, and there are not subsections, so each should be equal in size and the same font. I don't know how to do this. 2. It still reads "red" concerning the date June 2013-July 2013--no idea how to correct this. 3. I don't understand your request for the Discography. There are no directors, producers, or composers--the music is free improvisation. I designed this based on the John Zorn Wiki site; then you asked me to remove the LP/CD year, then you provided a template that required the year, which I added back, and then we had a second template. So for me, I would request that we go with the Discography as is. Much appreciated. Anything else? hollistHollist (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- The discographies which were created earlier were done so in the mistaken belief that we were dealing with music which was independently notable by itself (meaning it had its own Wikipedia page). A discography where that would have been the case does not need the type of detail that the entry above offers. You've indicated that none of these releases are independently notable (meaning they dont have Wikipedia pages) so as this will be the only place where this information resides, it needs to be as complete as possible. These are the standards that WP:DISCOGRAPHY has come up with—they are not my own. As you can see from the John Zorn discography, his releases are independently notable, so that was probably not the best article to use as an exemplar in this case. The flagged date issue in the references has to do with the type of dash you're using to separate the two dates. Please ensure you use only em dashes with the
|date=parameter. The template you may use is{{dash}}which would be inserted into the text between the two dates with no extra spaces, like this:
| Wiki-markup | Displays as |
|---|---|
| June 2013{{dash}}July 2013 | June 2013 – July 2013 |
- As far as the headings, a typical article should have the headings flow in and out of certain subjects. An article should not be made up of just seperate level 2 headings. The prose should naturally follow a path. For example, the fact that Rose is a musician is a main level 2 umbrella heading. Under that heading as a musician, he performs his music across many different platforms (Multimedia-level 3). One of those platforms are his environmental works and radiophonic works (both level 4). Another main aspect similar to music making is his instrument building (level 2) which includes instruments he's created for the relative violins (level 3) A third major aspect are his compositions (level 2). The fourth main aspect is his reception (level 2) from which his awards (level 3) are discussed as part of that reception. And so on and so forth. So having different headings is good, but if there are ones that you feel are incorrect, please let me know about them. Meanwhile, I'll get to work on the next round of proofreading. Regards, Spintendo 05:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Spintendo. If you want the headings and sub-headings as they are, fine. Discography: I am unable to supply more information on the Discography. As I said, there would be nothing to insert for: Writer, Producer, Director, Chart Position, Sales, Certification, Bonus Tracks, Singles--all of which seem more appropriate for Pop Music. I have supplied the release date, format, and label--which is all that I am able to supply. Most of them have "tracks", but they are improvised segments, not "tunes", and I don't have copies of them with me to identify each track on each recording. It would seem a shame to have no Discography for a musician, but that's your call. hollistHollist (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Every artist is different, and no two discographies will be exactly the same. So, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the discog guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document Rose's body of work, then it's alright to go with what's best for the article. It should be our goal to provide information in the best way possible, and a strict adherence to the guidelines is not always going to be the best way to accomplish that goal. In an ideal situation however, any deviations from the guidelines should be with a clear purpose that is unique to the particular artist and situation in question. Spintendo 08:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Hollist: I've posted additional proofreading at the Rose draft. Spintendo 19:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks once again for your careful edit, which I have taken care of, but with 3 small questions remaining:
- 1. You wrote:">Karl-Sczuka-PreisThis is a redlink. The term therefore has no Wikipedia page and the WL should be removed (just the link, the term can stay) It is a Wiki entry, but in German--take out the link?
- 2. In 1998, Rose was the first artist to use an interactive bow to modulate the parameters of video (including speed, color, and revolutions) and of sound (pitch including pitch bend, volume, timbre, duration, panning, silence).this reference gives a page range of 9 pages (pp.57-66). This cannot be correct. please give the correct page.[17]--This is a summary sentence of the entire article that discusses the interactive bow only, so I believe the page spread is justified in this case.
- 3. The 3 missing references were there but not showing, so I re-entered them. If there is still a problem, we will have to figure out why they are not showing.
- Again, thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Hollist: I've posted additional proofreading at the Rose draft. Spintendo 19:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Every artist is different, and no two discographies will be exactly the same. So, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the discog guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document Rose's body of work, then it's alright to go with what's best for the article. It should be our goal to provide information in the best way possible, and a strict adherence to the guidelines is not always going to be the best way to accomplish that goal. In an ideal situation however, any deviations from the guidelines should be with a clear purpose that is unique to the particular artist and situation in question. Spintendo 08:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Spintendo. If you want the headings and sub-headings as they are, fine. Discography: I am unable to supply more information on the Discography. As I said, there would be nothing to insert for: Writer, Producer, Director, Chart Position, Sales, Certification, Bonus Tracks, Singles--all of which seem more appropriate for Pop Music. I have supplied the release date, format, and label--which is all that I am able to supply. Most of them have "tracks", but they are improvised segments, not "tunes", and I don't have copies of them with me to identify each track on each recording. It would seem a shame to have no Discography for a musician, but that's your call. hollistHollist (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- To link the German page, enter the following code:
<span class="plainlinks">[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Sczuka-Preis Karl-Sczuka-Preis]</span>which will display as Karl-Sczuka-Preis in the text. - Nine pages seems extreme for this reference. If this is the case, please activate the
|quote=parameter and enter the quoted information from the article for each page. - The missing reference entries have been corrected.
- Reference entry #10 still has an error attached to it. This is because under the
|pages=parameter you have entered the total number of pages for the publication when only a page range is to go under this parameter. If the correct answer is one page only, use the|page=parameter. - The reference entries listed under the collapsible entry below have no URL's attached to them. Please take a moment to ascertain why this is the case in each instance.
| References missing URLs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Spintendo 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Edit completed. As indicated above, the Reference items with no online presence, or no free online presence, are correct in your table. I just double-checked them all. hollistHollist (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo, Just checking in again as I do everyday to see if we can now launch this edit. Thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Spintendo, I'm hoping this page can now be launched. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Your edit to Alex Smith has been reverted[edit]
Hi Spintendo, I undid your edit to Alex Smith because, as Category:CS1 maint: Archived copy as title notes, "Articles in this category should be corrected by replacing the place-holder titles with actual titles." (Emphasis mine.)
Replacing "Archived copy" with "Archived item" simply to keep the article out of that category is not helpful, and will just lead to "Archived item" being added to the list of titles used to populate the category. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- @FeRDNYC: I've changed the 'Archived copy' title to the one actually used by the archived article itself. Doing so revealed that this same article, SN names the 20 smartest athletes in sports is cited another time in the text. This second identical reference should have been consolidated in the reference list when it was originally archived and added. That consolidated entry would then carry, by my count, 3 ref notes altogether, instead of the 2 existing notes plus the one from the extra entry. Since I do not wish to monopolize the carrying out of all these copy-editing tasks, I'm following your lead and leaving this final bit of housekeeping for others to do at their convenience. Thank you! Spintendo 06:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Spintendo: Much appreciated. It was actually a simple cleanup, because all three of those citations appeared in the same place. They were all placed, one right after another right after another, at the end of a single sentence. So I removed two of them. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Your guidance for COI edit requests?[edit]
Hi Spintendo,
You replied to my COI edit request over at Talk:Jo_Ann_Jenkins a few days ago. Looks like I've missed the mark in what I proposed! Thanks for being patient there, and for providing really good line-by-line notes as to the reasoning why that request did not match up with Wikipedia's standards.
There are a few factual errors and omissions in the current article (for example it says she was AARP's first female chief executive, but that is off as AARP's founder who ran the organization for its first decade was female) that should be worth addressing to ensure this BLP is accurate. There is also some level of depth missing in the article, as it does not describe what it is she has done that makes her notable. While not an apples-to-apples comparison, the Jeff_Bezos BLP is useful as it explains--citing reliable sources--the major directional shifts he has implemented at Amazon to evolve that company and bring it into new lines of business. Based on your feedback I think my first draft tried to add this type of context to the Jo Ann Jenkins article but fell short because of sourcing issues and promotional phrasing--things I'd like to correct.
I'd like to take your feedback and start fresh, proposing just one or two sentences worth of edit requests to the Talk page of that article at a time, for you to react to (factoring in the feedback you've already provided). Would that be alright with you, or would you much prefer a string of edit requests all at once, similar to what I've seen on other recent COI edit requests like Talk:Western_Digital#COI_edit_requests? Cheers, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo 17:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Color Force[edit]
A heads up I've responded to your COI edit note at the Color Force Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Spintendo 00:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Another heads up I've responded to your COI edit note at the Color Force Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Table design[edit]
Hi Spintendo, thanks for fixing that wee double the on the Vierling article. I was wondering how you managed to create this table at Talk:Jo Ann Jenkins. Are you using a utility? scope_creep (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Although inspired by Jackmcbarn's Edit Protected Helper script which uses standardized icons and modifiable text responses to answer protected edit requests, there's no particular script I use to add these boxes. Instead, I use a
{{quote box}}template with text carrying<span style="border-style;">formatting and Image with comment templates and{{notes}}all wrapped within a{{collapse top}}template.
Regards, Spintendo 03:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Help requested[edit]
Hey Spintendo, looking for someone to give me some insight on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Federica_Marchionni. I jumped on chat last week and was told I can edit the page since it's in draft status and that I can resubmit the page afterward. This seems to contradict everything I have read or been told about paid contributors handling pages. Can I actually make the remaining edits and submit the page again? BizzBozz (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo 17:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Color Force (Part 2)[edit]
Another heads up I've responded to your COI edit note at the Color Force Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo 13:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Very unfortunate decisions[edit]
Spintendo:
I would ask that you reconsider the wholesale changes you have made to the Wikipedia page on the Colonial Parkway Murders. Eight families are directly impacted by this still unsolved case, and we have tried to use Wikipedia as a resource in a very respectful way. No one is using our loved ones' deaths as a way to promote anything, but rather to put pressure on law enforcement to continue to put resources into a cast that many experts feel is a case that can be solved.
At this moment, it appears that rather than help us, you have made an arbitrary decision to remove dozens of links to stories we have literally shed tears over, both in the interview, writing and research process over 32 years.
If you would like to reach us, please feel free to contact us:
William F. Thomas Brother of Cathy Thomas, Colonial Parkway Murders West Hollywood, CA
917-434-2525
billthom133@gmail.com
Please extend us the courtesy of a reply so that we can make alternative plans.
Thank you.
William F. Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthom56 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Billthom56: Removing those links from Wikipedia does not in any way negate the purpose of those programs nor does it eliminate the fact that those programs exist. The purpose of Wikipedia however, is the dissemination of information, and this takes precedence over the family's quest for justice. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to assist the family in achieving those goals when there are other, more appropriate sites the families can use to accomplish them. In furtherance of this, a Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements in any article should be treated with appropriate weight. As far as the appropriate weight for an external links section, the 20+ programs previously linked there was too much; a more appropriate list would contain the top 5 programs on this case that could be Wiki-linked in the article. If you could gather that list and propose it on the talk page of the article using the
{{Request edit}}template I would be happy to implement them for you. Please advise. Spintendo 19:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 § Final decision, which suggested a similar principle in November 2004.
- Now you are showing flexibility?
- Where was that flexibility when you took every link down?
- Let's save time here. We will go in and undo the 5 deletions that we think are the most critical to researchers, writers and the public developing an understanding of the Colonial Parkway Murders. Last time we checked, that was Wikipedia's mandate.
- Wikipedia has a well deserved reputation for being a nightmare, and this exchange, which we want left up here, is confirmation of your arbitrary and capricious approach.
- Bill Thomas
- Brother of Cathy Thomas,
- Colonial Parkway Murders
- Billthom56 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that your work took much time to put together, and that you feel upset at having it omitted. As editors at Wikipedia, our primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external relationship undermines that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. Keep in mind that a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about your state of mind or integrity. Because of the personal connection with your sister, your role as an editor and your relationship to her are in conflict. In that situation an editor is asked to refrain from editing the article directly, and that is what I have done here. Please allow others to make these changes for you by suggesting them on the talk page. Thank you. Spintendo 22:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, we are done with Wikipedia. Rigid, inflexible, with a righteous streak, as so many people have said over the years. We will take our information on our unsolved murder elsewhere. Several other families, including those of the Golden State Killer have commented today that you did the same thing to them. Please feel free to take the Colonial Parkway Murders page down.
- Please note that I sign my comments with my real name and affiliation.
- Bill Thomas
- Brother of Cathy Thomas,
- Colonial Parkway Murders
- Billthom56 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthom56 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry sir, that that you feel that way. The families should remain an important conveyor for bringing new references and sources to the article, and I hope that in the future they do so through the
{{request edit}}process. That information which meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not for me to remove, and will remain where it is. As far as the Golden State Killer, you can see here that I have never edited that article nor have I ever edited its talk page. Regards, Spintendo 08:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry sir, that that you feel that way. The families should remain an important conveyor for bringing new references and sources to the article, and I hope that in the future they do so through the
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthom56 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Article: John Ronald Skirth[edit]
- 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.
Hello, thank you for explaining why you are going to close the request edit template on the John Ronald Skirth article. Please could you explain what a 'new level 2 heading' is? (I am new to editing wikipedia articles & am finding it very difficult to get my head round especially as I have a COI). *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- @*ptrs4all*:To place a heading under level 2, place two equal signs on either side of the heading at the far left side of the page, like this:
==Edit request==
- For an edit request, you would then add the request template just below the heading, like this:
==Edit request==
{{request edit}}
- If you have several edits to make in one request, it would be a good idea to number them. To do this, simply place a number sign on a new line at the far left of the post, like this:
==Edit request==
{{request edit}}
# (place the text of your request after the number sign, here)
- Continue to add one number sign on each new line for each subsequent edit, making sure to sign the post at the end with four tildes, like this:
==Edit request==
{{request edit}}
# (first)
# (second)
# (third)
~~~~
- The parser will sequentially number each number sign's request that you have in the final published version. To check that everything is formatting correctly, click Show preview before publishing your post. Spintendo 11:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I think I've got that. Still not sure what 'Level 2' refers to though. What is 'Level 1'. Also, if I amend my original post (e.g. in a 'request edit') do I sign it to show I made the amendment, or just leave the initial signature? (This is how the edit ended up with 9 signatures). Thanks for your patience. *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Level 2 tells the software what sized heading should be used. The sizes indicate whether it's a new heading or a new subheading. Level 1 would be considered the entire article itself, and is never used when editing within an article. Level 2 is the highest level editors will work with, and it indicates a new section (topic) of text, both in an article and on the talk page. If you have a correction to your post later on and someone has already posted after you, its best to leave a newer post at the bottom explaining the change rather than to alter an older post. Once someone posts under you, the conversation, as it is, continues on down the line, and newer posts should always be placed at the bottom with newer signatures. If you need to make a change and no one has posted under you, its alright to either leave the original signature or delete the original and leave a new one, but never leave two signatures where only one should be. Spintendo 16:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining all that & for your patience. *ptrs4all* (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Level 2 tells the software what sized heading should be used. The sizes indicate whether it's a new heading or a new subheading. Level 1 would be considered the entire article itself, and is never used when editing within an article. Level 2 is the highest level editors will work with, and it indicates a new section (topic) of text, both in an article and on the talk page. If you have a correction to your post later on and someone has already posted after you, its best to leave a newer post at the bottom explaining the change rather than to alter an older post. Once someone posts under you, the conversation, as it is, continues on down the line, and newer posts should always be placed at the bottom with newer signatures. If you need to make a change and no one has posted under you, its alright to either leave the original signature or delete the original and leave a new one, but never leave two signatures where only one should be. Spintendo 16:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I think I've got that. Still not sure what 'Level 2' refers to though. What is 'Level 1'. Also, if I amend my original post (e.g. in a 'request edit') do I sign it to show I made the amendment, or just leave the initial signature? (This is how the edit ended up with 9 signatures). Thanks for your patience. *ptrs4all* (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2018 (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.
Duncan Barrett Article[edit]
- 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.
Thank you for explaining why my 'request edit' could not go ahead & for the detail given. I don't know what some of the abbreviations mean in the ref/citation templates. Can you point me to a help page (for dummies!) that will explain this. Then I can practise before doing the real thing. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CITE is a good source to learn about our citation requirements. The best place to practice is in your sandbox. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page, and it serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user. You can create your own sandbox by following this link. Regards, Spintendo 12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I think I've put in all the citations now. Some of them need a 'date retrieved' date given, but I don't know where this goes on the citation template. Two names probably need a 'Note' - Ruth Ward & Phil Tomaselli, but I'm not sure how to do this. *ptrs4all* (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- You should only need to place the
|date retrieved=parameter if the|URL=parameter used for the source is likely to change. In all other cases the|date=parameter should suffice. If by "two names" you mean two authors, they should be placed using individual parameters for each entry, such as|last1=and|first1=for the first and last name of the first author and|last2=and|first2=for the second author. Spintendo 13:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)- I do not agree with the edit you have made in the article & have left a comment on the talk page. *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- You should only need to place the
- Thank you for the advice. I think I've put in all the citations now. Some of them need a 'date retrieved' date given, but I don't know where this goes on the citation template. Two names probably need a 'Note' - Ruth Ward & Phil Tomaselli, but I'm not sure how to do this. *ptrs4all* (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Responded at the appropriate venue. Spintendo 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice on the talk page of the article. It might have been more helpful to both of us if you had asked me to condense the information into two sentences before I added all the citations. I am not attempting "to carry on this dispute", simply attempting to convey the facts of the matter according to wikipedia's policies. As previously stated, I am new to editing & my COI makes it quite hard especially when the subject matter is complicated. *ptrs4all* (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Given the complicated nature of the request, I think a good way forward would be for you to present your proposed edits at either one of these routes:
- To maximize editor response you might want to post at both venues simultaneously, but choose only one to have the main discussion at. For example, designate the original research noticeboard as the place for a main discussion while posting at the Wikiproject a message such as "There is a discussion occurring at <link to the noticeboard discussion> which may be of interest to editors."
- Regards, Spintendo 16:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions which are appreciated. Unfortunately, I have already posted a revised edit request on the project page, as you previously suggested. I have only asked for one sentence to be considered & abandoned trying to include information about my study & published article. *ptrs4all* (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @*ptrs4all*: I saw your post there, but I was confused because the sentence you asked for is already in the article and has been for four years. That was why I wanted you to clarify if there was any additional information you wanted placed there. Remember, when asking for something to be added to an article, it's important that you not repeat sentences which are already in the article — your request should only feature the claims that aren't in the article, but which you want added. Since that claim is already in the article, I just needed to know from you which additional 2 sentences you might want placed in the article. Spintendo 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your comments & advice. The 2 sentences referred to (the original & my suggested replacement) are not identical. The one currently in the article is misleading & reads as if all the critics objected to its pacifist politics and questioned its accuracy. I cannot point to a single critic that objected to the book's pacifist politics which is why I think a 'citation needed' tag is required after "pacifist politics". There were critics who questioned the historical accuracy of the book & Phil Tomaselli, is a good example of such, but he definitely didn't question the pacifist politics as is evident in his book review. I wanted to include him because he is a noted family & military historian & his book review was published in a reliable source. It also extends the coverage of the book & balances the good with the not so good reviews. Hopefully, the sentence I have written to replace the existing one is not misleading, gives reliable evidence to support it where possible & keeps open the possibility that there may exist criticism about its pacifist politics which I am unaware of. Regards, *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- @*ptrs4all*: I saw your post there, but I was confused because the sentence you asked for is already in the article and has been for four years. That was why I wanted you to clarify if there was any additional information you wanted placed there. Remember, when asking for something to be added to an article, it's important that you not repeat sentences which are already in the article — your request should only feature the claims that aren't in the article, but which you want added. Since that claim is already in the article, I just needed to know from you which additional 2 sentences you might want placed in the article. Spintendo 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions which are appreciated. Unfortunately, I have already posted a revised edit request on the project page, as you previously suggested. I have only asked for one sentence to be considered & abandoned trying to include information about my study & published article. *ptrs4all* (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The two sentences look identical to me. Spintendo 10:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
| Text as it appears in the Wikipedia article |
Text as it appears in
*ptrs4all*'s Edit proposal |
|---|---|
| However, it came under attack from critics who objected to its pacifist politics and questioned its accuracy. | However, it came under attack from critics who objected to its pacifist politics and questioned its accuracy. |
- Did you look at the Wiki Biography Project talk page? I have revised my edit request on the talk page there so that, hopefully, the changes needed are clear. I have also suggested another additional sentence. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- The sentence above in the right hand column comes directly from your request at that WikiProject. As you can see, your request asks for information which is already in the article. You say this is not the case, but I beg to differ. Your request is ultimately unclear, and chances are it may be unclear to others as well. Unfortunately, this could make it difficult for others to assist you in placing what you want into the article. I've tried to help by making my concerns clear to you — and now that I have, I wish you luck. Spintendo 19:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Did you look at the Wiki Biography Project talk page? I have revised my edit request on the talk page there so that, hopefully, the changes needed are clear. I have also suggested another additional sentence. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2018 (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.
Newmont Mining Corporation edits[edit]
Spintendo,
Thank you for your patience with the edits I've requested on Newmont's entry. And thank you for recasting Section 2.5 in the past tense. Can you kindly explain, however, the rationale for not moving that content out of Section 2.0 Operations and major projects and into 3 Former Operations? As well, the third paragraph of the 2.5 still seems more apt for 4 Controversies. My proposed edit, the second paragraph below, builds upon the existing content with additional examples of controversy. The first paragraph remains the same as the existing, but would simply move.
In 2008, the Indonesian government threatened to terminate the contract of P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara after accusing it of failing to meet its divestment obligations. On April 1, 2009, international arbitrators and its partner sided with Newmont rejecting Jakarta's request to have their contract revoked, which would have forced the company to walk away from the property without any compensation. Instead, Newmont was forced to sell a 17% stake in an Indonesian subsidiary within 180 days.[1]
In August 2010, Batu Hijau workers went on strike, claiming unpaid overtime. Previously, the provincial Manpower and Transmigration Ministry ordered the mine to pay Rp 126 billion (US$13.8 million) in overtime for 1,919 worksers, some dating back two years.[2] Additional strikes over working shifts occured throughout 2011.[3]
Thank you again, as I catch the hang of this. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ McDowell, Robin (April 1, 2009). "Newmont Told to Sell Shares in Indonesian Unit". Associated Press Via ABC. Retrieved 2009-04-02. [dead link]
- ^ Django (3 August 2010). "Miners in Indonesia strike". libcom.org. Retrieved 14 November 2018.
- ^ "RPT-UPDATE 1-Workers at Newmont Indonesia on strike-official". Reuters. 16 November 2011. Retrieved 14 November 2018.
Not all of the information involves controversy, so moving text to that section when it's already easily handled in another section is not necessary, as it balances the article better where it is. The general guidance from Wikipedia is to keep information out of controversy sections, rather than adding to them, per WP:CSECTION. Regards, Spintendo 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia Economy section[edit]
Hi Spintendo, you’ve probably seen but just to note that I responded to your reply to my edit request at Saudi Arabia. Hope that’s not too long now and let me know what you think when you get a moment. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. Spintendo 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
| The Editor's Barnstar | |
| You rock! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |