User talk: Spintendo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Uncited-info removal on Lady Eleanor Holles School

In this edit, you removed a lot of material with the edit-summary "Unreferenced information removed." But lots of the content you removed does/did appear to have references. The very first paragraph you removed was about Good Schools Guide, and has a cite to goodschoolsguide.co.uk. Later you removed material about GCSE cited to best-schools.co.uk. Then later a whole section about expansion to China cited to gsa.uk.com. In many other places, there appear to be a bunch of sentences on a topic with a cite at the end of the paragraph, and you removed all/most except the final sentence. That is in keeping with the latter part of your edit-summary ("Every novel item of information added to the article must have reference notes immediately after the mention in the text, per WP:INTEGRITY.") but I think you are overly strict with "immediately" (a word that does not appear in that guideline)--"The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment". Spot-checking, it seems like some are clearly supported. WP:NOCITE, part of the same guideline, recommends using {{cn}} for specific details of concern. Please double-check that you did not accidentally remove cited content, or at least more clearly tag/explain specific concerns. DMacks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@DMacks:WP:INTEGRITY states that references should be placed as close as possible to their mentions in the text. As you can see from this diff the passages of information I removed did not have references attached, and represented information for which no source could be easily inferred. Placing references at the end of a paragraph is simply not enough. The ref notes need to be directly placed in the text next to the passages which they reference. As for the alumni, it would seem that the need to have these names referenced in the first place should be the priority of the article over offering auxiliary descriptions of these individuals.  spintendo  04:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example from your edit:

The Independent Schools Inspectorate Integrated report in 2013 said "It aims to develop well-rounded individuals while striving for academic excellence," and later "Throughout the school, personal development is excellent, ", and "The curricular and extra-curricular provision is wide-ranging, demanding, enriching and inspiring."

Notes

References

That appears to be a sentence with a ref at the end. It's quite clear from the sentence and even the notes that it's all from the same ref. If on the other hand you think (and I agree) that this is a long run-on mess with lots of details, you appear to have done exactly what the guideline warns you against. You moved the ref from the very end to only the beginning, which is exactly the type of pitfall the guideline warns against. "John's report says A and B and C"(cite=John's report). Feel free to clone that cite to A and B even though it's only proximate to C, even though WP:CITEFOOT disagrees with this being necessary in such a direct case. The WP:CITETYPE guideline is explicit that a cite after a paragraph is acceptable if it supports the paragraph, and leads to the WP:REPCITE essay. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@DMacks:The passage above was shortened because the purpose of the article's Notes section is not to act as a repository for quotes from prospectus reports (WP:NOTQUOTE WP:NOTMIRROR). Owing to your acceptance in this article of unreferenced claims, perhaps the passage above would be more acceptable to you if it were placed with no references, rather than the "miss-attributed" one I added. Whichever reference you think is appropriate to keep is fine with me.  spintendo  06:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for this discussion. I had raised the question about the ISI notes on the talk page and am happy to see those go if that is the consensus (although a comment on the talk page would have been appreciated). On the wider point of the other deletions I have suggested a way forward on the article talk page for the history section and raised queries about the reasoning for some of the other deletions. If either of you care to respond there, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Rhanbury (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you for your help with requests and continued patience and wisdom. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Valamis Group Ltd. naming issue

Hello Spintendo,

Regarding your question about naming of Valamis Group Ltd.

- think it's my bad, main issue is that the main product name is "Valamis", it is a software, so I've used the legal name for this page. Technically, Valamis Group will work to differentiate pages in the future.

What can be done to fix this?

Technically there can be 2 pages in the future:

• Valamis Group (organization)
• Valamis (software)

-- Ivan.Andreev (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ivan.Andreev: For now there only needs to be one article. Determining which type of article that should be would ask the question: Which is referred to most in the cited sources on the subject, the software or the group? The answer to that should guide whether or not the article is altered. If its primarily a software, then the name can be changed and the infobox will need to be changed as well. Then the article would exist under the precepts of WP:NSOFT. If the article remains as a business, it would exist under the precepts of WP:NCORP. To some degree WP:PRODUCT can help to determine whether the article should be a product or a business (or both – roughly how it exists now). But be aware that while it may seem prudent to do nothing now because the issue is not really on the community's radar now, attempting to address the question earlier rather than later is best, because there is no guarantee that the question wont be forced on the article in the future, where it will have to decide which type of article it is in order to survive WP:AFD process, or other similar challenges to WP:N.  spintendo  00:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, it's definitely article about the company. I was talking that approximately in the future, an article about the product can be created. -- Ivan.Andreev (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Salwa Canal edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you.Murchison-Eye (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

on further analysis it may have been accidental, however you deleted a whole sentence here and not just the "be be" error. Murchison-Eye (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's actually a combination of both. I had a question over the timeframe discussed, and had highlighted the text to remind me of the spot where I was going to rewrite it with an improved timeframe. As I looked through the RT source for details on dates, I got distracted and, upon returning to the article and thinking I had only made the change to the be/be and nothing else, I hit publish. Sorry about that. I then removed the RT ref's when I saw that RT was originally quoting another source. If the mention of the dates comes from the Makkah source then that is who should be cited, not RT. Additionally, the description in the article does not sufficiently paraphrase what is being said in the RT source, rather, it copies it word for word, and really should be rewritten. In any event, I've placed a timeframe template in the hopes that another editor can fix the three months reference I had originally wanted to fix. It's not clear from what point the three months refers to. If the endpoint is three months from June, cant we just say 'in September', instead of 'after three months'? Thank you!  spintendo  08:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have re-written that first sentence so that its better paraphrased and clearer with regards to the timeframe. I also added the Makkah source reference, and deleted a second common error found, that of a double usage of the word "and".  spintendo  13:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Robert Thomson (executive)

An FYI I responded to your recent feedback at Talk:Robert Thomson (executive). NinaSpezz (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  22:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Chase Coleman III

A heads up I tagged you in two separate notes at Talk:Chase Coleman III re: Reply 18-JUN-2018 and Disputed content / Use of Daily Mail as a source 18-JUN-2018. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Response made at the article's talk page.

 spintendo  18:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Robert Thomson (executive)

An FYI I left you a note with a couple questions over at Talk:Robert Thomson (executive). Looking forward to your input when you have a moment. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@NinaSpezz: Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  02:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

An FYI I responded to your recent feedback at Talk:Robert Thomson (executive). NinaSpezz (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Responded  spintendo  18:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for your hard work and ongoing patience on the Hormel page. I appreciate it! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

25-JUL-2018

Dear Spintendo So much thanks for helping with editing my page. You suggested that I ask Rayman60 what needs to be done about removing the template "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". But I am afraid that I haven't figured out how to get in touch with him. I would be so grateful if you could tell me how to make progress with this. I'd be very glad to have anything controversial removed but can't see what that might be. (The article started as a stub and I haven't done anything except update it factually.) If it's easier, my normal email is david.papineau@kcl.ac.uk. (I'm not sure where I should look to see if you have replied to this.) Much thanks for all your good word. David Papineau Davidpapineau (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply 25-JUL-2018

Thank you for your message. To contact that user, leave a message for them on their talk page at User talk:Rayman60 just as you did here, taking care to do two things:

1. At their talk page, state in your message to them what article this is regarding. Ask if they can take a look at the article and give you their opinion on what needs to be done to improve the article in order for the template to be removed.
2. Listen to the feedback that the editor gives to you, and based on that feedback, either make an edit request incorporating the changes they suggest, or message me back here (or another editor if you like, if you haven't received a response from them after one week) and ask how else to proceed.

Regards,  spintendo  14:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Western Digital edit request

Hi! Checking in on my COI edit request at Western Digital. You responded to part of it and I replied, but I'm not sure if you saw. This one has been in the queue for a while now, so touching base to see if there's anything I can do to move it forward. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

30 June 2018 OK, Spintendo, I’m back from the outback. Here is where we left off: is the new proposed lead OK? If so, can I make those changes? Can I just delete the text that I suggest and move the other to where I suggest in a simple cut-and-paste, or do I need more explanation from you? I don’t see our previous discussion on your page anymore—hopefully we can resume work on this.

Current: Jon Rose (19 February 1951) is an Australian violinist, composer, and improviser. He was born in England and began playing violin at age 7 after winning a music scholarship to King's School in Rochester.[1][1] He gave up formal tuition at the age of 15.[2] Since the 1970s, he has been at the sharp end of new, improvised, and experimental music and media.[3] He has created large environmental multimedia works, engaged with interactive electronic systems, built experimental music instruments, performed with numerous colleagues from the fields of new music and improvisation, created radiophonic works, and written cultural criticism, as well as improvised violin concertos with orchestra.[4] Central to his practice has been “The Relative Violin” project, a unique Gesamtkunstwerk (or total art form) manifesting in all-embracing, diverse outcomes on, with, and about the violin and string music more generally.[2] He has been described as ‘undoubtedly the most exploratory, imaginative and iconoclastic violin player who has lived in Australia.”[5] “Rose doesn't fit into any easily described categories - he does not swing, stomp or generate an ambient haze,” writes The Guardian critic John L. Walters, “but all his albums create a violin-shaped world that is all his own, shot through with wild humour.”[6]\

NEW: Jon Rose (19 February 1951) is an Australian violinist, composer, and improviser. He was born in England and began playing violin at age 7 after winning a music scholarship to King's School in Rochester.[1][1] Since the 1970s, he has been at the sharp end of new, improvised, and experimental music and media.[3] He has created large environmental multimedia works, engaged with interactive electronic systems, built experimental music instruments, performed with numerous colleagues from the fields of new music and improvisation, created radiophonic works, and written cultural criticism, as well as improvised violin concertos with orchestra.[4] “Rose doesn't fit into any easily described categories - he does not swing, stomp or generate an ambient haze,” writes The Guardian critic John L. Walters, “but all his albums create a violin-shaped world that is all his own, shot through with wild humour.”[6]

Summary of what I did on the Intro redo: I’m using Jon Rose’s colleague John Zorn’s Wiki entry as a model (and Frances-Marie Uitti). I tried making it go more in order of what the article does, but that just makes it longer. What about this: We cut this sentence entirely: He gave up formal tuition at the age of 15.[2] Then we move these 2 sentences to the beginning of the 2nd paragraph in the section Early career: Central to his practice has been “The Relative Violin” project, a unique Gesamtkunstwerk (or total art form) manifesting in all-embracing, diverse outcomes on, with, and about the violin and string music more generally.[2] He has been described as ‘undoubtedly the most exploratory, imaginative and iconoclastic violin player who has lived in Australia.”

Adding a jpeg/picture: I’m not finding where to upload it.

Adding urls: I added one book url. I don’t see any others that need it. All articles that are online do have a url; those that are not, don’t. Please let me know if there is something more to be done. And again, thanks for your assistance. hollistHollist (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose discussion content from the talk page archive

Here is all the archived talk page discussions regarding the article. I moved a copy of them here for easier reference.  spintendo  18:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I moved that material back to the archive. It is not needed here. The proofreading draft is posted below.  spintendo  05:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, just making sure that you saw my latest questions from 30 June. I'm not sure if I should post them on the Talk page of the Jon Rose page or on your page. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: The proofreading draft with feedback is located here As it is a work in progress, please do not make any edits directly to that page until I have completed it. Thank you!  spintendo  22:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist:The proofreading of the draft is about 1/3 of the way completed. When I've finished adding feedback and comments, I will transfer the draft to one of your user subpages in order for you to be able to work on it. Let me know if you have any questions.  spintendo  05:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Thanks for your continued work on this. Do you want me to just wait until your completion before I do anything? I will assume so unless you say otherwise. hollistHollist (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I have only 3 more sections left to proofread. You may begin making alterations, but please only make those alterations to your version of the draft (which I copied from to make my version). Comparing the two side by side is the best way to ensure all changes have been made. Thank you!  spintendo  17:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I've completed my proofread of the draft, FYI.  spintendo  19:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Spintendo, Again thanks for the edit. I have now incorporated all of your suggestions, with the following questions/issues:

I hope the references will renumber automatically.

  Reply: They should.  03:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

In this bit, you asked me to define “improvisation,” a vast subject: “the development of free improvisation in Australia.” Can it be Wiki-linked to this? I don’t know how. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_improvisation

  Reply: This WikiLink is perfect to use.  03:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ditto with this link that could be added to “noise rock band from this time.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_rock

  Reply: To WikiLink noise rock (or any article) place the article's name in between 2 pairs of brackets, like this: [[noise rock]]   03:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You asked me to list “Releases”, which I am titling “Major Works” under the Compositions heading, but I have no idea how to format this, so please check.

  Reply: You can use the table shown here. Be sure to copy the table's WikiFormatting and place it in your draftspace.   03:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a citation to Violin Factory—is it correctly done?

Wiki links again to add to: “bowed much like a hurdy-gurdy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurdy-gurdy

Sonic Ball project: you said it needs to be wiki-linked but again no idea how.

  Reply: There doesn't appear to be an article for sonic ball, so this will have to be described manually.  03:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Do I have to add all recordings or can it just be Selected Releases? Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  Reply: I think just the major releases here would do fine.   spintendo  03:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist:I began proofreading your latest version. It can be found here.  spintendo  12:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Is “hurdy-gurdy” ok as a Wikilink now, or does it need still more explanation? Ditto for “improvising musician.” You suggested a possible hat note, and I found some templates online but wasn’t sure which one to use or what I needed to say.

I removed the Rosenberg Museum section and put it in the Instrument Building section, but I left in the sentence about the rest of the collection that is not his own instruments. Otherwise, it would be a major omission, and there’s no other place to put it now.

I am sure you will check the Discography Table. I’m wondering if when copying the template if I got any extra text beginning or end. Also, you asked me to remove the LP label, but the template seems to have “LABEL”. But there is no apparent year, which I do want to add. Could you please check—I’ve pasted in the template. If it’s the wrong template, I don’t want to do it twice. Thanks.

Also, is this what you are thinking for a photo of the bow? He took this photo himself. OK--i cannot paste it in for you. Don't know how to show it to you. Text will be: Jon Rose with the interactive K-Bow: a bow fitted with seven controllers that measure movement, speed, angle, and distance. Again, thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

jon rose page

Thanks again and over to you with a few questions and new edit. hollistHollist (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Added information for Zebra Technologies edits.

Hello Spintendo,

Thank you for making my proposed edits on the Zebra Technologies page!

I just wanted to let you know I added the missing information you asked for on the talk page to fix the last three broken links. Please advise at your earliest convenience; I really appreciate it.

Mara Nasui (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC) A reply was made on the article's talk page at 17:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC).  spintendo 

Goldman Environmental Prize Edits

Hi Spintendo,

Thanks for making the changes to the Goldman Environmental Prize page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Environmental_Prize)

I did follow up to answer a couple of the missing questions, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goldman_Environmental_Prize

Thanks!

Ilank75 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Perhaps you are away. Just checking in about the edit/questions of Aug 3. Many thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My most recent draft is here.  spintendo  09:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Surescripts page

Hi Spintendo. I am not expecting immediate feedback, but I don't know whether you've seen my response to the latest Surescripts edit request (perhaps I didn't reply correctly).

I've reproduced it in full below:

Question: Narrow down what data Gawande is talking about in the AofS article. Gawande mentions several points in the article and we need to narrow down which of these are the ones we are speaking of.

Answer: 81% of pharmacies are enabled to receive computerized opioid prescriptions but only 8% of physicians are in practices that have enabled that capability and use it.

Question: What that data tells us.

Answer: The data tells us that EPCS technology exists but is under-utilized among healthcare providers.

Question: How this demonstrates, from what the data is telling us, that Surescript's strategy can be an effective tool in mitigating the ill-effects of the opioid crisis from a supply-side view.

Answer: Gawande’s proposal – wider adoption of electronic prescribing for opioids among healthcare providers – might help to mitigate the ill-effects of the opioid crisis because EPCS, as Gawande writes, prevents forged prescriptions, reduces dosing errors, allows physicians to cross-reference prescriptions in prescription monitoring program databases and simplifies prescribing between the physician and patient.

Thanks!

Cjbradley 81 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  09:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The EndUp

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The EndUp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The EndUp

The article The EndUp you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The EndUp for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Student enrollment at Full Sail University

Hi, Spintendo. You recently reviewed and implemented an edit request to update the student enrollment numbers for the Full Sail University article. However, your edit was reverted by User:Justlettersandnumbers. I would think the U.S. Department of Education is a more appropriate source than Peterson's.

Do you mind revisiting this discussion? Inkian Jason (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Just in case you don't have the article on your watchlist, another editor has weighed in, and I've provided additional sourcing for consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the discussion stalled, and Full Sail is working with Peterson's to update the website, I've moved the edit request template to another section. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Spintendo, I have completed the requested edit in the improvising section. I would point out the following for this section:

You wrote "This still does not explain what Improvising musician is" about "free improvisation":

I have placed a Wiki-link on free improvisation. This seems consistent with all the improvising musicians whose Wikipedia articles I have checked, like John Zorn, where there is a link, not a definition. I have added “genre” to clarify. I am very happy for you to add something if you feel it needs it.

You wrote "This tells us his influences but that is not the topic of this section" about: Rose's improvising vocabulary is influenced by virtuoso classical violin technique, jazz instrumentalists, and world music, to which he adds his own technical innovations and radical performance strategies.[10] [11]

I disagree—this tells us what his improvisations sound like and where they come from, so it is crucial to this section and consistent with other Wikipedia entries for improvising musicians.

You wrote "This does not clarify why this is relevant. It appears to be a mention of a collaboartion, but this section is the improvisation section. Was this performance an improvisations? What made it so?[2]" about this: In 2006, John Oswald (composer) invited Rose to improvise a solo part for the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto with the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra.

My comment: Rose's contribution to the concerto was improvised; he is the only violinist I am aware of who has done such a thing. Oswald’s part was to “invite”, as a curator; Rose’s part was to improvise. I don’t know how to put it more clearly, but am very happy for you to change the words if you can think of something.

Many thanks, and I look forward to your comments about the rest as you have the time, especially the Discography question/template. hollistHollist (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of the expansive explanations you've offered here would be best placed in the article where I indicated that explanations should be placed. The only area where your explanation led to more questions is in the area discussing his influences in improvisation, specifically, the fact that "world music" influences his music tells us nothing, and feels like filler rather than real information. Other types of music would naturally be expected as influencing agents on any musician, and thus mentioning this as an influence feels redundant. I will continue my proofreading as I gain more time to do so. Thank you for your help!  spintendo  21:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sampoerna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlboro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

   WL to DAB corrected    spintendo  10:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

ez wider

Hi: I followed the instructions from the last associates advice.

I went to the ez-wider page and brought it up on the articles talk page as his suggestion. I also put many more citations as he requested.

Please advise. Thank you, Burton Rubin Burt Rubin (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any requests on the Talk:E-Z Wider page. Make sure you place your requests on that talk page.  spintendo  11:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Questions about FXCM

Hi, Spintendo. First of all, thanks for looking at the numerous edit requests on FXCM due to my conflict of interest. I left a comment on the talk page that was unanswered but it was likely missed due to the amount of content so I thought I would come here. Basically, I stated that I have quite a few proposed edits but wanted to do them in smaller chunks so they would be easier to review. However, I can do simply make one request with everything if you like. Just let me know what is easier.

Also, I have a question about two comments you made. First, you declined to implement one edit because it was not in chronological order. The second time it was denied for the same reason, but you stated there was an exemption for things that happened in the same context. My first request was in the same context so I am not sure which one should be correct. Please let me know. I messed up with the second request and transposed two sentences but I am going to correct that and propose it again. If there is something that I am doing wrong, please let me know so that I am on the same page with you. Thanks again. --Formilds (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.  spintendo  12:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Foundation Medicine

Hi Spintendo. I left you a reply over at Foundation Med's talk page. I wasn't sure if I should put a new edit request or not. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Thanks, Fmidan (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"Common error"

In Michael Thomas Sadler, you have now for the third time edited British English text to make it ungrammatical/unidiomatic. Each time your edit tag claims you are 'correcting a common error' and makes no attempt to justify yourself beyond that bald assertion. This is not courteous to those of a contrary opinion to you on this point of Parliamentary terminology. The first reversion of your erroneous edit explained where your error lay, and you have made no attempt to engage with that . Bills are "brought in" to the UK Parliament, and whatever phrasing may apply in other legislatures or other versions of English they are announced as to be brought in "in the next session": it is also grammatical/idiomatic to say they will be introduced "next session". Your preferred version of "brought in the next session" falls between the two acceptable stools, and introduces an error. Rjccumbria (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rjccumbria: I've just added the appropriate markup to the original version of that page so that the automated tool used to locate the in/in error does not capture and attempt to fix it again.  spintendo  19:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jansher Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

   WL to DAB corrected    spintendo  11:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Just wanted to thank you for the good work you do responding to edit requests, specifically with regards to disclosed COI editors. A largely thankless task I'm sure, but your efforts don't go unnoticed. Marquardtika (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you this is much appreciated  spintendo  05:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Hi Spintendo, Just checking in to see if there is anything I should be doing to move this along? I check this daily and am anxious to complete it and graduate when you think it's there! Best, hollis hollistHollist (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I can't seem to find the link to the current version. Where was it again? TX!  spintendo  05:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The link is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Rose&action=edit You reviewed the first section and I'm waiting for the rest as time permits. I think this is what you are asking for. Thanks hollistHollist (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is, thank you!  spintendo  22:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: Here is my latest proofread of the article User:Spintendo/JonRoseDraft2. Also the discography table still hasn't been filled out with their releases.  spintendo  08:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thomso (festival)

Hi Spintendo.

Thomso is the annual cultural festival of my institute. Can you tell me how to make this page better so that it doesn't get reverted back. How can I add references about the participation in the event without unintentionally promoting it??

Thanks!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomso_(festival) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishake.kumar5 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have a connection to this institute, it is best to leave the page completely alone, and let other, un-connected editors edit it. If you feel that you must make additions to the article, please make use of the edit request system by making requests for others to review material you wish to add. You can make those requests on the article's talk page by placing the {{request edit}} template at the top of your post. If you choose to make those requests, you must also disclose to the community whether or not you are getting paid to make them. Let me know if this is what you'd like to do so I can give you the information about making the correct disclosures and where. Thank you!  spintendo  09:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Roth Capital Partners request

Hi Spintendo. Would you mind taking a look at my edit request here? I've tried to mitigate accountability concerns by creating and exclusively using this account and I'm very eager to hear any constructive criticism you might have about my draft. Thank you, Quknpnfl (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to make much headway with your request, which for various minor technical reasons could not be implemented, such as:

1. Misplaced references
2. References missing authors
3. The use of vague replacement texts (i.e., replacing the claims of several identified sources with phrases using words like "many sources have reported", per MOS:WTW)
4. Replacing negative claims with dubious ones (i.e., removing claims mentioning lavish parties and replacing them with claims discussing those party's list of discussed topics, as if everyone who went to them really discussed blockchains and crypto-currencies while simply ignoring all the topless Asian dancers)
5. Replacing negative claims with off-topic positive claims (i.e., replacing text mentioning the parties with text discussing raising "approximately $50 billion for small-cap and private companies" — a claim which ostensibly belongs in another part of the article).

Nevertheless, in some areas where text was requested to be removed, I was able to do so — not for the reasons you asked for — but for the same, technicality-based reasons that hobbled your request (i.e., insufficiently paraphrased text, or text which was taken from an editorial source).  spintendo  08:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spending time on this. I think my main mistake here, aside from the technical issues with the references, is that I presented content that I believe should be added as a replacement for content I believe should be deleted, where I really should have framed most of the additions and deletions as separate, discrete requests. Did I understand correctly? I intend to follow up with another request, and I hope you'll take a look once it's ready. Thanks again! Quknpnfl (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have one very specific question. You wrote in your reply (note 7): "This part of the edit request proposal was declined because it contains a reference which is not formatted according to the reference style in use in the subject article." Which particular reference was problematic in this section and how can I fix it? Thanks, Quknpnfl (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

1. It is best to separately address requests for additions and deletions, preferably showing requests for the same section as one after another.
2. In the case of Reply note #7, the authors of both these references are missing.

Regards,  spintendo  01:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the changes made in the Festember page

Greetings!

I am a student of NIT, Trichy and a part of the Content team of Festember, the annual extravaganza of NIT, Trichy. I had recently edited the wiki page of Festember, and noticed that the changes have been undone and that the article has been restored to the previous version. Quite naturally I was baffled by this and was hoping to know the reason behind this. I kindly request you to enlighten me about the mistakes I have made and help me edit this article in a better way. Thank you for your support and hoping a positive reply.

--~~Siddarth Arvind S — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIddarthArvind (talk • contribs) 10:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As you are a current student of this institution, you have a conflict of interest with regards to adding information to the article. In this case, it is best that you propose additions to the article using the COI edit request system. More information about how this system works may be found here.  spintendo  01:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

jon rose page

Spintendo, thanks for the new edit, which I will do today. You mention that the Discography has not been filled out. As I wrote at the last edit, you advised to drop the label and only have the title and year, but the template you put up for me has Label. Please suggest whether now you do want the label. If not, I need another template, I guess. thanks, hollist2001:44B8:F13:A504:44D6:2701:4892:2B2B (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was to drop the name of the release's production studio (as this is not necessary) but include the release's own title.  spintendo  01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, thanks again as always for drilling down on the best edit. I've completed your suggestions. Please check the layout of the Discography, as I am not great with code. Also, you asked about an image for the interactive bow. I have a photo but don't know how to send it to you or post it. Caption: Jon Rose with the interactive K-Bow: a bow fitted with seven controllers that measure movement, speed, angle, and distance. Thanks so much! hollistHollist (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've redone the table. What is needed now are references for each release. I think WorldCat would be a good place to start for those. The picture you should upload to Wikimedia Commons as long as you feel that you have the correct licensing for it.  spintendo  17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, again. I have gotten the WorldCat CD and LP links but have no idea exactly where to insert them. Please advise. Also, a few don't show up in the search--what to do with those? I know they exist, because I have copies.

And I have uploaded the photo per your instructions. How do I enter the photo of Jon Rose with the interactive bow in the article? Here is what I got:

To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page:

Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Paste the reference at the very end of the row after style="text-align:center;"|. Make sure you enter the entire reference markup. For example, for Violin Music for Supermarkets, the markup for the reference would like look like this: <ref>{{cite AV media |title=Violin Music for Supermarkets |date=1994 |publisher=Megaphone Records |url=http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/221896803 |language=English}}</ref> That would display the note number in the far right cell like this:

1994

Violin Music for Supermarkets

Megaphone Records

The picture we can leave out for now until we place it in the article.  spintendo  06:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

References

I have put in the Violin Music in Supermarkets--please check it. Do they all get the words "cite AV media"? Can I assume that none of this is automatic, and that I have to completely input all the information each time? Also, I see various numbers, sometimes 2, sometimes 3--I'm not doing anything with those. thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

They should all get the AV media template if they are audio or video references. I corrected the reference you added. Please be aware that when adding a row, if the top row of a column is commanded to repeat for three rows—the studio column for example—only that top-most row needs to be filled out. The next two rows of the studio column should be left empty. If a lower row is filled out when a higher row commands to repeat for three rows, you'll have the subsequent column (in this case, the reference column) jutting out of the table as it did with Violins for supermarkets. Since these are references for individual releases, they should each have their own reference.  spintendo  03:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foursquare

Hi. Please comment on Talk:Foursquare#RfC on COI edit requests. COI editor wants to make changes and I suggested to use Rfc but I don't know if someone will show up. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Edits to Wafic Said's Wikipedia Page

Dear Spintendo

You very kindly advised me recently on how to make edits to Mr Said's Wikipedia page. As requested, I have now reformatted the edits and resubmitted. Please do take a look at them and let me know if they seem reasonable or if any further changes need to be made. The copyright holder of the new image we wish to use has also given permission for the image to be used and signed the appropriate document. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes Ann MarieAnn Marie Bennett (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Responded on the article's talk page.  spintendo  14:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

I've completed the Discography to the best of my untrained ability. Lacking instructions to my question of what to do when there is no link, I did my best. Please advise and thanks again, hollistHollist (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist:The discography formatting is off. You've commanded the table to display every single year twice, then instead of deleting the second year, you've placed it in every row, so now the table is giving each release a two year date. This needs to be placed so every release has only one year. Remember, if you have three releases all in the same year, you only need to list the first instance of the date commanded to display 3 times, which means it will repeat the next two instances and you dont need to place any dates in the next two rows which follow it.  spintendo  19:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Thanks, Spintendo. I'm a senior citizen with no training in coding, if that is what this is. I cannot accomplish your suggestion without more assistance, unfortunately. I copied your one example exactly. I read what you have written today but am unable to do it. I'm really sorry. I know this must be frustrating for you. I have really tried! Don't know what to do now. hollistHollist (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's precisely why there is a "Show preview" key that enables editors to view the changes they've made before implementing them. And while Wikiformat is similar to coding (which is much more complex) I don't see how being a senior citizen has anything to do with either activities. Frankly, if you know how to bake a cake in a kitchen, you know how to code. That's because a recipe is just like a program while a cook is like a computer. The recipe would be a list of instructions that you write for the cook to follow just like a coding program is a list of instructions for a computer to execute. Both carry out a list of instructions sequentially, and both show where one instruction line can use any result from executing prior instruction lines (just as shown in the table below in purple). Some recipes even have if-statements: if cooking for 2, 4 or 8, etc. The good news here is that you don't have to actually write any code: the table parameter uses code written by others—it's like using an already made item in a recipe such as cake flour mixture that comes in a box.

// The making of a cupcake

// First steps:

$ npm install cake-mix

$ npm install cupcake-pan

Tables in WikiMarkup are like the kitchen itself. They allow you to execute lines in your recipes by using built-in modules like your oven and sink. I've placed markers below showing you where the info in our Jon Rose kitchen is to be placed (shown here in yellow):

Extended content

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: yes; margin-right: no; border: none;" |+ class="nowrap"| Select Discography |- |colspan=4 style="background-color:#ddd;text-align:center;font-size:100%;"|'''LP''' |- |style="background-color:#ddd;text-align:center;font-size:80%;"|'''Year'''||style="background-color:#ddd;text-align:center;font-size:80%;"|'''Title'''||style="background-color:#ddd;text-align:center;font-size:80%;"|'''Label'''||style="background-color:#ddd;text-align:center;font-size:80%;"|'''Notes''' |- | rowspan≠"2"|1978|| ''Solo Violin Improvisations''||style="text-align:center;" rowspan="3"|Fringe Benefit Records||style="text-align:center;" rowspan="1"| This is where you place the reference info  |- |''Fringe Benefit No. 24''||style="text-align:center;"| reference  |- |1979||''Decomposition''||style="text-align:center;"| reference  |- |rowspan="2"|1984||''Tango''||style="text-align:center;"|HOT Records||style="text-align:center;"| reference  |- |''Kicking as Artform''||style="text-align:center;"|Fringe Benefit Records||style="text-align:center;"| reference  |- |1985||''The Relative Band''||style="text-align:center;" rowspan="2"|HOT Records||style="text-align:center;"| reference  |- |1986||''A Room with a View''||style="text-align:center;"| reference  |- |1987||''Vivisection''||style="text-align:center;"|Auf Ruhr||style="text-align:center;"| reference  }}  FYI: Rowspan 2 commands the year to be repeated in next line so the year doesnt have to be entered in subsequent lines                     ➡➡➡

On each line the only thing that needs to be added are the references, shown in yellow. If you can take care of that it would be great. But don't change any other lines! Hope this helps. Thank you!  spintendo  03:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolving Talk:Honeywell#15-AUG-2018

I saw that another user closed the request there, but I recently finished reviewing the content that you pointed out as problematic. It’s confined to the Business units section of the article. The affected subsections were as follows: Aerospace, Honeywell UOP, Honeywell Process Solutions, Electronic Materials, Resins & Chemicals, and Specialty Materials. I trimmed and rewrote the content. Here's a link to the diff. When might you get a chance to look at this? Should I reopen the request there, or can you handle if from here? If I need to do additional work on this, I'd like to be prepared. After the corrections and verification, can I expect this to be good to go?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Advice for a COI Editor

Spintendo, I wanted to thank you for all of the advice and directions you have given me. I am slowly learning the process and coding requirements; apologies for all of my missteps so far as I get familiar with being a Wikipedian (which is really fun and interesting). I realize I have been pinging you a lot and don't want overstay my welcome, so if I become too intrusive, please let me know.

I was hoping you could provide some advice for how to tackle the content of the Booz Allen page as a whole. The page has long been flagged for a lack of NPOV. It's written in a choppy, disjointed way, and could be supplemented with a lot of new neutral information. When I compare it to comparable companies (Accenture, Deloitte, IBM, and Strategy& (a.k.a Booz&Co)), the disjointed writing style, story organization, and lack of POV are really apparent.

I have been with Booz Allen for many years, and have long been frustrated by the quality of the article. There are even discussions in the talk section about quality issues, but no one has engaged to fix them, or even have much of a discussion about them. I know I can't rework this myself, but have given considerable thought to how I would rework it if I could. I even have a fully rewritten draft (call it wishful thinking).

I am hoping you can help me by advising me on the following:

• Would it make sense for me to put my thoughts into a user space draft and request that someone review? If so, how do I solicit someone's help? My goal would simply be to make sure my suggestions are neutral, sufficiently cited, and improve the overall quality and readability of the article.
• Assuming someone from the community reviews and agrees with the overall direction, what would be the next best step? Would it be a series of template edit requests, or would there be a different process?
• Would it be appropriate to flag a particular section with a questionable NPOV, and put in a template edit request with my proposed solution?

Again, so sorry to bombard you with questions. Appreciate any advice you can offer. Thanks! 71.163.181.115 (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

All the advice I've given through the BAH talk page has been to Kemples and not an IP editor. But if they were to ask me why the article is not comparable to IBM I would guess that this is due to (a) them not being as well-known as IBM and (b) what little is known about them comes from controversial topics such as their government work or Edward Snowden. There are alternatives to the COI edit request system, and I would suggest starting with posting requests for editor's assistance at any one of the 3 WikiProjects which govern the article. These are listed at the top of the BAH talk page. Regards,  spintendo  19:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Thanks, Spintendo. I spent 4 hours putting in the Discography references two days ago and saved them. Now they are all gone. I understand now about what you are saying about repeat years, I believe, but I don't understand why all of my work is gone. This is what you gave me as the reference template:

Please advise if that is what I am supposed to put in again where you have made a yellow Reference as a guide. Is there no way to get that back? I'm sorry to bother you--I really am trying my best. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

This page shows the differences between your changes and how the table should look. On the left you can see where you added the references (everything between the <ref> tags). Where this needs to be moved to on the right is right after where it says "text align center|" thats all that needs to be done here, is to cut and paste the ref tag info to the space just after the text align center. (note that the very first entry says row column 1, place the reftags after that entry on the first line only. Do a couple of these and click "show preview" if its not placing the note number in the far right column, then something is wrong, stop entering them, and message me back.  spintendo  19:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again so much, Spintendo. I have re-done the Discography table. Two things I was not sure of: clicking Preview, I just got prompted to leave the page (which I did and lost my work). So I have not seen the preview. I had to alter some dates, and I now understand how to do the number of entries with the same date. I copied all of the references and placed them where you suggested. I'm not sure if the ones with no WorldCat link are correct. I really hope so. Again, thanks and over to you. hollistHollist (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If you could take a look at the table as it existed before, shown here (youll have to scroll down the page to see the table under the expandable section) take a look at the second item on the list, it's a release called Fringe Benefit # 24. This release is missing from the table you just completed. Do you know where it went? Also, you've entered something called "Forward of short leg" onto your table. This release was not in the table prior to your changes. All the formatting for the ref's and the dates has been set according to having all the releases already entered being present. So when one release is removed and another one which wasnt there has been added, this will throw off the entire table. Have you entered or removed any items from the table? I see where the problem with the table was. I thought all the releases you had filled out for the table were finished and that only the references needed to be added. Apparently I was wrong, because you added several items to the list that were not there before. Those new items did not take into account the formatting that was in place for the items that were moved. I have now fixed the list's formatting to take into account the new items that added. Items which did not contain a URL were omitted.  spintendo  15:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance again, Spintendo. This recent Discography edit reflects, as did the previous one that had to be reversed, the refinements I made after consulting WorldCat. This meant that I discovered that Fringe Benefit # 24 was the same as Solo Violin Improv, according to WorldCat. And I adjusted dates to fit the WorldCat entries. Forward of short leg was already in there but got removed in one of your edits, but I replaced it again. Sorry if the formatting got changed as a result of these. My intention was to reflect exactly what WorldCat had. So, we need to add photos, but otherwise complete? Thanks again, hollistHollist (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon

Hello, Spintendo! Dropping you a quick note that I left you a message at Talk:The Bank of New York Mellon. Firstly, I wondering if it is possible to adjust the formatting to your new graphs so they stay contained within the Historical data section. Secondly, can we add a brief description of what these charts represent? The graphs are composed of data for "The Bank of New York Mellon," the company's New York state-chartered bank and an FDIC-insured depository institution, not the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, the consolidated parent company. I left proposed language on the Talk page that you can review. Thank you in advance for considering, Danilo Two (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

International Anti-Corruption Academy

Dear Spintendo many thanks for your efforts on the International Anti-Corruption Academy. I was mentioning you several times on the talk page. While there is obviously no need, obligation, nor any other compelling reason for a reply from your side, I would be pleased to know whether I should wait for your reply before potentially seeking opinions from other contributors. Best regards --WiR IACA (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but my settings are such that I do not receive pings or notices of mentions. If my name is mentioned on a talk page somewhere, I am never notified of it. Now that you've told me of a message there, I will check that talk page and respond. Thank you  spintendo  10:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the talk page in question and I don't see any comments directed towards me. All I can say about the discussion featured there is that I have less of a bias against the use of the {{cite thesis}} template than my colleague appears to have. My guess is that anyone who has gone through the process of writing a dissertation is more inclined to see their benefits and therefore to use them in Wikipedia, having a greater understanding of what goes into them whilst having a greater appreciation of the struggle through which the processes of writing that dissertation brings in the form of questions over what to include and what sources to feature and discuss. My colleague stated that dissertations are just someone's writings written in order to get a degree. But what that overlooks is how the writer of a dissertation in order to get that degree must demonstrate how to identify and then use other sources to confirm or strengthen their understanding of whatever the dissertation's topic is—be it a person, place, object, concept or occurrence. Those are valuable skill-sets which are ultimately used everyday by editors all over Wikipedia.  spintendo  14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

No need for an apology, everything is fine :)

I just thought you might have been interested in my answer to your answer here or share your thoughts on the recent changes. Once again many thanks for your work an my apologizes for potentially being annoying. Best regards --WiR IACA (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Roth Capital Partners follow-up

Hi Spintendo, thanks for continuing to be generous with your time. What I'm looking for here is simply for neutral editors to review my proposed changes to Roth Capital Partners and implement them to the extent they deem appropriate. If I've made a suggestion that others see as unreasonable or overreaching, I would be happy to hash out why I disagree - or possibly concede the point. I don't know if that falls under the category of "third opinion" or "dispute resolution," but I'll gladly accept your offer to post somewhere on my behalf.

Either way, perhaps you could already remove the two lines that are blatant misrepresentations of the sources? The first is where Cypresscross presented Roth's "buy" rating for Amerco as some kind of fraudulent activity, while the WSJ source makes no such implication. The second is where Cypresscross wrote that Roth arranged a "reverse merger" for CELM, while the WaPo source does not say this about Roth, but about another company. Those are about as uncontroversial as it gets.

Thanks again, Quknpnfl (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I will take a fresh look at these sources and the claims entered in the article under them and remove anything that is not correct when I get a chance. It would be helpful if you quoted the passages from the article in a list or table form, which would then compare either the matching text from the source, or it should easily identify in cases where no matching text is found. The table should be permanently placed within the talk page so that all editors and future editors can be aware of it. It should state according to the table why a particular phrase is not allowed. This will make the individual items easier to identify.  spintendo  18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Claim	Source	Action
"During the 1990s they discovered that red was blue."	"During the 1990s red was always red."	ADJUST —✓—Claim says 'red'
"In 2013 the sky fell down"	NOTHING FOUND	REMOVE —✗—No claim exists in source

Hi Spintendo. I've started a clean-up at Roth Capital Partners, after doing the same (with help) at Ligand Pharmaceuticals where user:Cypresscross has a very clear conflict of interest but will not admit it (see its talk page). It's already evident that user:Quknpnfl raises a valid point about the first of the misrepresentations they mention above (about Amerco), so I've removed that from the article. At the moment I'm fleshing out some of the early history of the company. —SMALLJIM  20:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. A lot of what Cypress has added seems sensationalist, but not being too familiar with Cypress or their edits at different articles I was reluctant to remove it outright without other editor's input on whether this was legitimate material or not. Some of the material appears to be referenced, but its tawdry nature makes it feel like the editor is grave dancing by adding it. I appreciate the extra set of eyes on this very much.  Spintendo  21:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Although the article is still imperfect, I've pretty much finished with it and have posted a brief summary on its talk page.  —SMALLJIM  20:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Your help is much appreciated!  Spintendo  07:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Hi Spintendo, Just re-checking to see if we are now complete short of the jpegs, which I'll need instruction on. Many thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: The latest pre-copy-edited page is here. None of the musical compositions are Wiki Linked. If you could go through the draft and add in the Wikilinks that would be great.  Spintendo  23:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes

dead-url=unfit

Was there some consensus that all instances of |dead-url=unfit should be converted to |dead-url=yes en masse? Because the documentation still supports "unfit" to suppress specific kinds of links. The green maintenance green text can be turned off for individual accounts as needed, but its existence doesn't indicate that the item needs to be altered. czar 10:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The unfit setting of the |deadurl= parameter is intended to identify original URLs that point to live (not dead) sites that are inappropriate, such as spam, advertising or pornography. The guidance found at the error's main page states that Citation Style 1&2 templates in pages listed in the category should be checked to ensure that the unfit keyword is correctly applied, and that instances where the URL is dead are not to be considered as unfit. In those cases the guidance states that editors should set |dead-url=yes instead. I'm not sure what the issue is with usurped. I understand that they are similar, but as far as a bug is concerned I don't see where the instance of it existing is mentioned as being unfit, only usurped, and in all the cases where a change was made by me it was for the unfit setting only. I don't see a consensus where it was decided not to do anything about this, if I'm wrong please let me know, I'd appreciate it.  Spintendo  10:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: In any event, I won't make any more changes to that parameter until I hear otherwise from you. Thanks!  Spintendo  10:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine as long as you clarify the edit summary.

Instance where "deadurl" parameter was marked as "unfit" in the references changed to read as "dead-url=yes" to resolve the resulting CS1 maintenance error.

reads as if you're systematically patrolling green maintenance text to "resolve errors" (make the green text go away) by converting all "unfit" params to "yes", rather than simply checking whether the param remains unfit. If the original URL is just plain ol' dead or no longer a spam landing page, then it would be sufficient to just say so: e.g., "changed "unfit" param to "yes" because the original citation URL is a 404". Thanks (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 11:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the way I was wording it does appear confusing. If I choose to tackle fixing the parameter again I will change the edit summary to make it clear that I've checked the URL's and they no longer work. The ones that do work I leave set to unfit/usurped with the expectation that the green notice is supposed to remain in those cases by design (according to the talk page you linked to earlier). Thank you for your help, it's much appreciated!  Spintendo  11:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to reset the "deadurl" parameter back to "unfit" on the pages where I had set this, but to clarify, I am using "unfit" where the content may actually be present on the live url, but because the format of the content has changed, and based on my judgement that the archived url is preferable in some respect, such as it being simply more convenent to read. So in other words, just because the live url actually has the appropriate content, don't assume that the "unfit" setting is a mistake. Fabrickator (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Or if you'd like, you can give me a list of the pages and I'll self revert. Whatever's easiest for you. Sorry for the trouble.  Spintendo  19:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Spintendo. I've just reverted your change from 'unfit' to 'dead' in the Battle of Svitlodarsk article. While I understand that you're making a number of such changes in good faith, the parameter is both correct and edifying for editors who update refs. I know that I've used it in order to alert myself to the fact that it could possibly have been 'archived' multiple times, but that there are no usable working captures. I think that, unless there is some form of community discussion establishing that it's a hindrance, it's best to leave details such as this alone as it pulls up potentially controversial articles from editor watchlists, distracting us from following up up on more serious content changes. I'm a pedant to the nth degree, so I understand where you're coming from... but... Cheers, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: No problem Iryna, I'm sorry for the trouble I caused, and thank you for notifying me. I've learned that this issue is one I should have researched better before making these changes. Yours and everyone else's comments I appreciate very much in helping me to edit better. Take care!  Spintendo  17:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, Spintendo. There is no manual on how and where to start editing, and I don't think anyone has found a viable alternative to 'feet first'! I'm the original belly-flop kid... --04:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

2018–19 West Bromwich Albion F.C. season

Thanks for making this fix. I wasn't entirely sure how to interpret the citation parameters in this case as those web pages are not "dead" but very much live and still under the same ownership (no 404 error, spam or cyber-squatting issues). Because they are being constantly updated, however, only the snapshotted versions that I archived can be used to verify the information in the article. I assume from your fix that we should therefore treat these as if they were dead links? I'm wondering if the guidelines in the citation template (Template:Cite web) could be made clearer on this point, as a "dead" url would suggest one that is broken or unreachable rather than one that no longer contains a specific piece of content. --Jameboy (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jameboy: Just to clarify, if the original link is not working, then the parameter may be changed to read as dead-url=yes. If the URL marked as original is working (so that there would be two working URLs, the original and the archived URL) then the parameter should be set to deadurl=unfit. When both links are working, that is an indication that the editor who originally placed the reference wanted the original link hidden for some reason, either because it linked to spam or advertising, or any other number of reasons. That way, only the link to the archived page would display. So in your case if the original link is working then the template needs to be changed back to deadurl=unfit, which I've just done. Thank you for letting me know, I apologize for the confusion. Looking at the page itself, there is a pop-up window which displays when you go to the link that grays out the rest of the page, which in my haste I thought had said "Error" on it, which led me to believe the link was dead. That was my mistake. The green maintenance error message is now back again, and will remain displayed to those who can see it—but it can be safely disregarded because the setting is supposed to be set to deadurl=unfit. Thank you!  Spintendo  17:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned that there was no spam or other issues with the original link, but I do see that there is advertising there, and that would count as one of the reasons why an editor might want to place it under the unfit setting, so IMHO I think it would be best to play it safe and leave it set as unfit.  Spintendo  17:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Thanks, Spintendo. The only composition to be wikilinked that I could find was the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto. The example showed the composition inside piece--with a up and down line before the last brackets. But your instructions before indicated just the brackets. Also, in Wiki, it's listed as Violin Concerto (Tchaikovsky), but that would be odd to write it that way in the text. I will re-do if incorrect. Jon Rose compositions do not have their own Wiki page. Again, thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Shourd page

Thank you for the response to my request in the following talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Shourd

Sarah is a Journalist and currently a JSK Fellows at Stanford University. My request is for the creation of a standalone page for her independent of the hiking incident that the current page redirects. I did paste in her current bio from the JSK website that I administer, but I can craft a more streamlined version of the information about her if that is not to wikipedia standards. Should I add the revised text to the talk page above so a page can be created rather than the redirect to the hiking page? Jjwalkers (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The best thing to do would be to write a draft version of how you would like the article to look and what you would like it to say, and to submit that draft to articles for creation. Please keep in mind that for a subject to merit an article through AFC it must meet the following:

1. Either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined under WP:BIO
2. It not be excluded under the what Wikipedia is Not policy.
3. You must disclose whether you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, and if so, by whom.

More assistance with creating an article can be sought from WP:AFC. Regards,  Spintendo  22:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Betway page

Could you please take a look at my re-edited Betway page and see if the updates could now be approved? (185.104.97.1 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)) Responded at the appropriate venue.  Spintendo  21:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Anthony "the Mailbox" Joshua

Please make the following edit to Anthony Joshua's page... I think it would please him

Nickname of Anthony AJ Joshua Anthony, The Mailbox, Joshua. Nickname coined on the Graham Norton show on January 28, 2018. Tom Hanks and AJ were discussing the postbox that belongs to him in Watford, Hertfordshire. Joshua can be quoted as saying "I deliver" as his slogan for his name, Mailbox.

BBC Graham Norton Show Anthony Joshua is nicknamed The Mailbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethinker1602 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Net Worth what is thenet worth,earning of anthony joshua & List of all his fights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.191.215.226 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Gillespie Page

Thank you for your helpful responses on the page Mark Gillespie (entertainment_manager) While I understand the maintenance tags cannot be removed yet, is it possible for me to request the page just be deleted? I've read the criteria for speedy deletion, and I don't perfectly fit one of the cases.

Shaniathreesixzero (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)shaniathreesixzero

You're correct that the page does not meet WP:CSD. Nevertheless, you should learn the article's fate by Sunday SEP-30th at the earliest.  Spintendo  23:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: The result of the discussion was to redirect. Currently, the page redirects to the Three Six Zero page, which itself is now under an AfD discussion. The tally of that discussion is below.  Spintendo  17:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep	Delete	Redirect
-	4	-

Jon Rose page

Hi Spintendo, Just hoping we can launch this page soon. I was hoping to add the photo you suggested. When you have time! thanks so much, hollistHollist (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

COLD FX

Hi Spintendo,

My changes were supposed to be suggested edits not editing the page directly. I followed the COI page and declared my COI with COLD FX. Please consider the changes as they are all based on actual facts, please point out sections with which you disagree with or that should not be edited.

Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TekConnect (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Responded at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  08:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Your hard work is appreciated! Thank you. Hello-Mary-H (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

ValueJet 592

Hi Spintendo,

I see that a bot reverted my addition to the crash investigation under the ValueJet 592 Everglades topic. Let me add that I was the primary Subject Matter Expert (SME) brought in by the FAA Security Division and NTSB to evaluate the oxygen generator aspect of the crash. I was at the time the regional Dangerous Goods expert for Lufthansa Cargo based in Miami Florida. At that time only one FAA Special Agent was fully trained in DG transportation by aircraft under US and ICAO regulations, that being Mark Gentile. Mark enlisted my help knowing LH was the world leader in DG by air. As a result of my work on the investigation I was offered a job by then Asst. Administrator Bruce Butterworth and Southern Region Director of Security Jackson Smith. I was also the first FAA DG Special Agent to become an International Inspections Transportation Security Specialist. RISPA rewrote the regulations for O2 transportation by air based on my findings. The edit to 592 is factually correct. I may be the only one that still has possession of an oxygen generator, which I used in DG safety seminars for years.

For additional information on my background, after 9/11/01 I was the DOT Interim Federal Security Representative (IFSR) for Tampa International Airport, and subsequently hired by TSA. I retired at the end of 2015 from TSA as the Administrative Officer for the Greater Tampa Bay Area. I am currently a Senior Aviation Security Analyst (AVSEC). I just finished assessing and recommending security upgrades at all 27 commercial airports in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) for GACA. The edit to 592 is factually correct. I believe that I am the only one that still has possession of an oxygen generator from flight 592, which I used in DG safety seminars for years.

FYI, I was also the primary discoverer of the falsifications of documentation on the Fine Air crash in Miami while an FAA Agent. This was facilitated by my being a Loadmaster for Lufthansa Cargo and understanding the flight Plan documentation process. I had fellow agents go to the handling agent's office and collect the documents, and knowing how they may be manually redone from time to time, I had them empty all the garbage and bring it to me. I then found the official document in the flight plan package was not signed by the Captain and one in the garbage was signed. I used that to recreate the proper pallet positions for the flight and determined the cause, as I was at the crash site and observed all pallet locks were down on the main deck, and made a report to the US Attorney's office and provided the basis of prosecution. Agent800Salmen (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply 04-OCT-2018

• I'm assuming that your research was a supplement to the official NTSB investigation and that it was performed by you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a prohibition against adding original research to articles. Articles should not be an exposition into all known details about an accident, but rather, a summary of accepted knowledge regarding their subjects. These summarized findings from the NTSB are generally sufficient for describing the particulars of this crash. Just because other incidental findings may have been discovered does not necessarily mean those findings ought to be included in Wikipedia.
  
• If you were an investigator during this crash, you may potentially have a conflict of interest (COI). COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.
  
• COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, as editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Editors with a COI are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Furthermore, COI editors are advised to not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on the article talk pages instead.
  
• You mentioned that the falsification of documents before the crash of Fine Air in 1997 was discovered by you, and that you made a report to the US Attorney's office whereby information you provided went on to form the "basis of prosecution". But I'm not aware of any prosecutions which were effected upon Fine Air or Aeromar in that case. The procedures used by Fine Air and Aeromar to prepare and distribute cargo weight pallet distribution forms and final weight and balance load sheets were inadequate in ensuring that those documents correctly reflected the true loading of their aircraft. Fine Air’s maintenance logs for the crashed aircraft seemed to suggest a practice of logging significant maintenance discrepancies on return flights, where repairs were completed. Apparently such practices may have been widespread in the industry at the time.
  

If you still seek to add this content, I suggest you first read Wikipedia's sections on summary style and COI editing and make those requests on the talk page. If this research cannot be corroborated by neutral, secondary sources then I'm afraid it likely won't be added.
 Spintendo  07:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

San Francisco tech bus protests

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, I see you reverted all my improvements at this article. Obviously I'm not going to start a discussion over a bunch of minor copy edits on the talk page, as it's a waste of everyone's time. You've clearly put a lot of time into the article - can I ask you to maybe leave it alone for a few days and see if other interested editors have an opinion on the changes? thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: The changes you have made are fine, but the edit summary you've left for them is not. Not every editor who uses wikipedia will be familiar with the shorthand you prefer to use in edit summaries, shorthand which you use to save yourself time. Your speed becomes other's delay, as this shorthand gives no meaningful reason for the actions you've made to those with uninitiated eyes. In order for your changes to be more efficiently understood by others, may I suggest rethinking the way you communicate your actions to others, especially in articles where your editing has never been made previously. If anything, you will certainly save other editors time in having to decipher your cryptography.

Have a pleasant day.  Spintendo  06:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for the suggestion - it's good advice. However, the edit summary I left was fine - 'cl' is a common abbreviation here. On the other hand, your edit summary "not an improvement...talk page" was not apparently what you meant. Can I suggest that if you mean something like "I don't like the abbreviation used", you just write that in your edit summary?

Have a great weekend. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone is familiar with WP:ESL and listing your changes without descriptions of why they were changed on the talk page meant you weren't afforded the reception you obviously deserved. That is exactly what I meant.  Spintendo  04:42, 6 October 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.

Jon Rose page

Hi Spintendo, Just checking in again to see if we can launch this edit finally. Many thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.  Spintendo  01:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I've added more proofreading suggestions to the draft version.  Spintendo  17:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Thanks, Spintendo. I have made your suggested changes. Please note that the different headings now have various fonts and sizes. I don't know how to change that. Also, I see you asked about the "Improvising musician" section--if it should go under the Performances section. These are one and the same. If you prefer, it can be titled "Improvising violinist" but since he sometimes plays cello and other instruments, it's probably best as is. Also, you wondered about more information on the instrument building sentence, etc.--that is later in the piece, so that sentence serves to tie it together. I left your comments in but can remove them unless you want to do it. Much appreciated, hollistHollist (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC withdrawn and restated

You had !voted at an RfC. I withdrew and restated it. See RfC on the intersection of WP:BLPSPS and WP:PSCI restated Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look at it. Thank you for letting me know!  Spintendo  16:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance

Hi Spintendo,

May I request your guidance and suggestion on this Talk:Jonathan Herald#Reply 07-OCT-2018

Also in here : Talk:Iain Collings#Asking for suggestions. there's no COI in here.

Auyon (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Responses given at the talk pages of the articles in question.  Spintendo  12:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks Spintendo. I apologise for my errors. I will be in touch again. Very best Ann MarieAnn Marie Bennett (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose page

Hi Spintendo, Just hoping we can launch this draft now. Please let me know. Thanks for your assistance, hollistHollist (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The draft is still under review. Check to see the latest suggestions. When issues are corrected, the proofreading marks should be deleted.  Spintendo  11:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: The latest proofread draft is available for copy-editing. Remember—the proofer's marks should be deleted by you after each identified issue is fixed. Thank you!  Spintendo  07:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

FXCM

I know that it is a burden to go through my edits requests. I am sorry and wish I knew an easier way for both of us. I also understand there are issues with the company that must be documented to have a neutral article. I am just tasked with making sure everything is done correctly and isn't promotional for the company or written in a way that makes the company seem like the devil. Thanks for your help with these. Hopefully we can get through them all. --Formilds (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Nashville Zoo Logo

Thank you for re-uploading the Nashville Zoo logo. Christopher Rath (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The license for the previous version I had uploaded on Wikimedia was rejected through the efforts of one editor who claimed that the silhouette of a giraffe from the neck up was an original work—a stunningly absurd argument. Nevertheless, the logo should be allowable under the fair use exemption that I've applied to this newer, lower resolution version.  Spintendo  13:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello, thank you for your feedback re the edit request for The Reluctant Tommy page. I will do as you suggest.*ptrs4all* (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think your argument has merit and the article in the Canadian military journal was well referenced. The only hurdle I see here is WP:NOR and of course the time difference. The claims in the Reluctant Tommy have had a head start on persuasion, meaning, that book has had how many years now of acceptance from the general public, while newer claims—no matter how more accurate they are—generally take time for people to accept before they can then abandon the older, inaccurate claims. This means the newer research will have an uphill battle for acceptance. That will require a much larger group of editors to approve adding the claims to the article, more so than I alone would have been able to offer as review editor. The editors at MILHIST should take good care of the request, they really are top notch people. But of course, there are no promises.  Spintendo  13:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Further Edits to Wafic Said's Page

Dear Spintendo

On 27 September, I proposed some smaller changes to Mr Said's page based on your advice and recommendations. The text is below. hank you very much for your reply. I apologise for the delay in responding.

Given most of these corrections are purely correcting factual information that’s not available in the third-party public realm, the only real citations we can use for these facts (when Mr Said arrived in Saudi Arabi, where he owns homes, when the office become a charity in Syria) are Wafic Said Foundation assets. However, we’ve removed the requested edits that are seeking to add more information to the page.

Additionally, we’ve kept in the requested edit emanating from the FT article.

As always, thank you for your help, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Are you able to assist with this please? Best wishes Ann Marie Ann Marie Bennett (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. When there is a need for changes to be made to the article, please be sure to activate the {{request edit}} template on the talk page. That way, myself and the entire community of other editors who specifically monitor the use of that template will be able to answer your request in a fair and impartial manner. Thank you!  Spintendo  16:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Spintendo - I have made the requested edit on Mr Said's Talk page and used the request edit tag and format as requested. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and thank you for your guidance! Ann Marie Bennett (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Hello Spintendo and thank you very much for implementing many of the changes I had requested. I understand the concern for avoiding duplicative information. Ideally, my hope is to aggregate all of the acquisitions in a single Wikipedia entry for ACCO as they all contribute to the worldwide footprint of the company. In this regard, I wonder if you might consider adding the paragrpah below that plainly outlines the more recent acquisitions abroad. Thank you again for your consideration:

ACCO Brands expanded its presence in Australia and New Zealand with its 2016 acquisition of Pelikan Artline, added European business with the acquisition of Esselte in 2017 and built business further in Mexico by aquiring GOBA International in 2018.

Richnelson84 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

References

You need to make these requests on the talk page of the article in question. The template should not be used in user talk pages. If you've made these requests before as you claim to have, then you should know this already.  Spintendo  20:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments on talk page of Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle

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

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

1. 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".
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The missing reference entries have been corrected.
4. 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.
5. 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
Note number      13 Exhibition catalogue not available online 17 Journal by purchase only 19 Online but by subscription/purchase only 33 Not available online, which applies to all the rest as well 35 37 38 46 58 60 64 65 78 79 80 127 128

 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)

Hi Spintendo, Would you have time to move this Jon Rose page forward now and launch it? Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: There remains many marked items still left in the draft which have not been addressed.  Spintendo  02:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Where would I find these new marked items? I don't see the link any more to your current draft. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: The working draft may be found by following  this link .  Spintendo  23:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo: I have completed your requests except that I cannot follow what you are asking for concerning the doi in the Veryan Weston sentence. I don’t see a doi for either citation, or maybe doi stands for something else here. I looked in the Wiki help but still don’t understand. Also, I have no idea which Pier in San Francisco—they don’t remember! Finally, the first paragraph in the Reception is weirdly formatted, and I cannot see how to change that. I have taken out most of the quotes and paraphrased some of them. I have no idea how to use the {{blockquote}} so could not do that. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I may have been mistaken about the DOI for that item, because I see that it is already there. To use blockquote place <blockquote> immediately before the quoted text and </blockquote> right after the text. No line breaks are necessary, as the parser will automatically generate the needed spacing between the quoted material and the surrounding text.  Spintendo  06:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, Spintendo. I added one short quote in block text--I am trying to keep the section pared down per your request. It's the second paragraph in Reception, which I see in the Edit but not in the Preview mode. Please have a look. Otherwise, I've completed all your requests and thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: Pier 40! hollistHollist (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahh ok that's South Beach..... so I was way off then, #40 is nowhere near #27 or #39. Good to know! I'll place that in the article. Shouldn't be long till I'm finished. Thank you!  Spintendo  21:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I need clarification on a point in the draft. It states "Rose was apprehended by Israeli Defence Forces while playing the Separation Fence near Ramallah in the Occupied Territories."

1. I need a date for this
2. "Occupied territories" is a deprecated term. Technically, this area is now called the Palestinian Authority, or PA. Irregardless of when this occurred, we should just say "the Palestinian Authority" because using the term "occupied territories" is considerably pro-one side versus the other and we dont want the article's language to do that. The safe way forward is to use technical and legal labels to describe locations.
3. "Apprehended by IDF" - I'm not sure depending on the time frame whether ID forces would be apprehending people inside the PA (again this is time context dependent) but we need to specify where this occurred. Was it technically within the PA or was Rose just outside of the PA?
4. "Separation Fence" - this term is also deprecated. I believe the name of this is the Israeli West Bank barrier, but that barrier is now a concrete wall (again, time dependent - it may have been more "fence-like" when this happened). Either way let me know if you can (A) when this happened, (B) where exactly did this happen at (i.e., within the PA, just outside of the PA, on what side of the wall/barrier, etc.). Thank you  Spintendo  08:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Thank you for your attention to detail on this. In answer to your questions, A: 14 November 2006; B: it happened at Bil’in near Ramallah on the “Palestinian side” (although the fence went through it, with Palestinian property on both sides) with the IDF on the other side of the fence from where Jon Rose was bowing it (then a fence; now it’s a wall). Thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Just wanted to make sure you saw that I have responded to your questions. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: There are revisions ready for you to fix (in red). I'm going section by section making final copyedits. The yellow sections are finished. When all sections are done the article can go live. Thanks  Spintendo  10:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, I left one comment in and added my comment. Adding the page number to Reference 52 did not work well. I tried many times, kept subtracting stuff, now there is just a 1 sitting there, and don't know how to get the page # in, as in the Web Template there is no Page #. Sorry. hollistHollist (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I've left a reply at the draft. Friendly reminder: please thread your replies made here on the talk page. To do this, use the colon :, repeating the ones the previous editor puts and increasing it by one instance each time a reply is made, which moves the reply further to the right hand side. Thank you!  Spintendo  22:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Spintendo. I have done the edit you requested. I don't understand the colon request but will try now. hollistHollist (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: You can see the colons in the edit page, stacked on the left. They move the conversation down the page, making following along easier to do. There are new edits in the draft ready.  Spintendo  12:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo: I have attended to your requests. Where I cannot provide a more specific reference, I have made notes to you. I have cut and cut, per your requests. I'm happy to cut more, but then we won't know anything about this person. I understand your requests for references. Eight articles on him are coming out this week in a special edition of Contemporary Music Review from the UK. Some things could be supported by these. I'm very appreciative of your assistance, but very confused about the direction the draft is taking. hollistHollist (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Thanks for your advice. I have added specific information about the marathon concerts, which was all in the Uitti article I had cited, plus a link to a Wiki site that mentions one as well. hollistHollist (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: There are new copyedits to be addressed in the draft. Regards,  Spintendo  17:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: Was wondering if you were able to take a look at the recent copyedits that are available to be fixed.  Spintendo  23:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Thanks for your work. I have addressed all your concerns. I agree it's fine to move the Multimedia section to where you suggest, but since the section it would go into is in Yellow, I thought perhaps you would want to do it. I added the intro to free improv, removed semicolons, removed the second "in the 1980s" (there are no published dates although I have them but no journal giving the dates), and added dates for String 'em Up festivals. All best for the new year, hollistHollist (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hollist: The final draft located at  this link  is now ready for you to look over. I removed the yellow background so you could get a clearer idea of how the article will look. All I need for you to do is re-read the entire article to make sure there are no obvious omissions or errors. Also, the picture for the infobox needs a caption telling the reader when it was taken and where. That should be placed under the |caption= parameter. Another parameter we need is |birth place=. Add any instruments to the |instruments= parameter if you like and check the |years active= to make sure that is correct (I guessed). Also, we need to clarify his nationality. He was born in the UK but the article states he is an Australian. Does he hold Australian citizenship? If so, he should be described as 'British-born Australian'. If he does not have Australian citizenship then he should be described as 'British' or 'British living in Australia.' Thank you.  Spintendo  05:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, Again, big thanks. I have done your requests. Nationality--dual national, Australia and UK. Since he has not lived in the UK for 40+ years, he lists the Australian nationality as his point of reference. Photo, I have had this question for a long time, how to change from the old photo to a more current and better one. You gave me instructions on how to upload, but I don't see any photo there, so I cannot provide a caption. Also, you suggested a photo of the interactive bow, which I also have if you still would like it. Thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hollist: The photo is there, it's just placed under WP:INVISIBLE markup because it's not authorized to be displayed anywhere outside of the article, draft space included. You can see the photo by itself here. I took a guess at where it was located based on the filename and gave it the caption "Rose at STEIM in Amsterdam, 2009". Let me know if that is correct. If the image of the interactive bow is a file that you own the license for, it should be uploaded through Wikimedia's Commons Wizard. If someone else holds the photo's license it needs to be uploaded through Wikipedia's Wizard. Regards,  Spintendo  11:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Spintendo. The image I want to use is this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jon_Rose_performing_at_The_Stone_NYC_2013.jpg

And the caption is Jon Rose performing at The Stone, New York City, 2013. I have uploaded it to Wikimedia months ago but don't know how to add it. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hollist: The problem with that pic is that you've attached a Creative Commons license to the image, but that image's license holder is David Watson, and only the person who holds the license may relinquish their rights to a file. You said on the image's page that you have Watson's email address should Wikipedia wish to get a hold of him — but it's actually the other way around — Watson needs to contact Wikipedia through the Open-Source Ticket Request System (OTRS). Only OTRS can identify the license holder and grant the request to assign a Creative Commons license to the file. You cannot do this for them. If you can, have the individual send an email to OTRS to begin that process. I'm not sure if they need a registered account, but that would make the process go faster if they did. I apologize for what may seem to be a labyrinthine process to go through in order to use one photo, but it's Wikipedia's Image Use Policy.  Spintendo  10:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't argue with policy. David says he's too busy to wade through this. So we'll have to keep the current photo. And your caption is good. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two more sections of text shown here and here which require additional paraphrasing. Thanks!  Spintendo  08:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. hollistHollist (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, hoping the draft can go up now. Thanks, hollistHollist (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo--It's been 10 days since completion--really hoping this can launch now. Thanks! hollistHollist (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hollist: The draft version has been moved to the article. Regards,  Spintendo  03:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Alex Smith has been reverted

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?

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)

Table design

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)

Color Force

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)

   Requested changes made  

     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)

Help requested

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)

Very unfortunate decisions

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. 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

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)

Article: John Ronald Skirth

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)

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.

Color Force (Part 2)

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)

Newmont Mining Corporation edits

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.

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. Additional strikes over working shifts occured throughout 2011.

Thank you again, as I catch the hang of this. K Wyatt at Works Design Communications (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You rock! Hello-Mary-H (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Duncan Barrett Article

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)

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:

1. The original research noticeboard
2. The biography WikiProject

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)

The two sentences look identical to me.  Spintendo  10:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of texts

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)

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.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spintendo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

21-NOV-2018

Hi Spintendo, Thanks for taking up this issue. You ask for information to explain how this situation was arrived at. The reason as I understand it is this. (The conversations I have had with moderators is documented at the foot of this talk page.) The photos that accompanied the article were taken down because moderators were uncertain as to the category of public domain the images were being released into. I was sent an email which I mistakenly thought referred to a failed attempt to upload a different image onto Wikimedia Commons and so ignored it. I later realised, after the four images were removed from the article 'Clive Wilkins' that the email referred to those images which had made available earlier. So, in consequence I have been chasing my tail in order to get the four images reinstated, first onto Wikimedia Commons in the correct category of release and secondly back onto the article 'Clive Wilkins'. The four images in question, incidentally are now back on Wikimedia Commons. We just need to replace them into the article if it is deemed appropriate. I am not sure where all the correspondence relating to this is to be found on Wikipedia, but I include my copies of all correspondence below (numbered from 1 thru 5) for your convenience and for information. Next I will go back to the page where you ask me to add some detail to the yellow box. Hopefully I will get that right. In truth I suspect I am out of my depth dealing with these issues. Wish me luck :-)))

Thanks for your time Spintendo.

Extended content

1. [Ticket#2018052110006475] release of content attached to this email  Count Zapik Thu 31/05/2018, 10:15 I hereby affirm that I represent Clive Wilkins, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email. I agree to publish the above-mentioned works under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Jean Scott Thomson Appointed representative of Clive Wilkins 2018-05-21 [generated using relgen] PC 2.  Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Tue 06/11/2018, 09:08 Dear Count Zapik, We have received your email — thank you for your interest in contributing your work! In order for us to process your contribution, we need to know the specific URL of the page on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded it. To help us do that, please respond to this email by providing a link to that location. If you have NOT yet uploaded the file, please follow these steps: 1. Login to Wikimedia Commons (or create a free account and username if you haven't done so already) at <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin>. 2. Click on the words "Upload file" in the left sidebar (<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload>). 3. Click on the large blue button that says, "Select media files to share" and then navigate to the file(s) on your computer that you would like to upload (if you are sharing images through Flickr, click that button instead). 4. The tool will then upload the file(s) to our servers. When done, you will have the option to upload more files (or to add more files from Flickr). If you would like to do this, please feel free. When you are done, click on the blue box that says, "Continue." 5. You will then be asked if the file(s) is(are) your own work or that of someone else. If your own, then select the radio button for "This file is my own work". If not, please select the option for "This file is not my own work" and skip to step 7 below. It is very important that you only claim to have created a file which you in fact did, so please choose honestly. It is perfectly alright to admit that you did not create the file yourself, so long as the file is either in the public domain or you have permission from the original author to upload the file to Commons. Millions of acceptable files on Commons were uploaded by people who did not create them! 6. If you have selected "This file is my own work", you must then release the rights to the file under either the default license (CC-BY-SA 4.0, which is the most restrictive license we can accept) or by choosing another, less-restrictive license (such as the Public Domain license). Then click "Next". You then must select a unique file name by which the file will thereafter be permanently known on Commons, provide a brief description of the file's contents, indicate the date on which you created or first published the file, and choose at least one "Category" for it (for more help with categories, please see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories>). If you are not comfortable choosing a category, you may leave this field blank and another editor will choose one for you at a later date. You may also give location information in degrees latitude and longitude if these are known to you and are relevant to the file. Lastly, you may add any "other information" about the file that you have not included elsewhere. 7. If you have selected "This file is not my own work", you will be asked to provide the file's "Source" (the URL of the web page where you found it, the citation information from the book where it was published, or any other information that will allow another editor to verify its license— see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Essential_information#Source>), its "Author(s)", and you will need to specify the "License" under which it already exists OR under which you intend to provide evidence that the author is willing to release it (see <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_NOT_the_copyright_holder> for guidance with this). If you are unsure if the file is in the public domain or don't know what license it exists under or have not gotten permission from its original author to use it, you probably should not upload it to Commons. If you DO know its license, the most commonly encountered licenses are given here in a list for you to choose the matching one. If you do not see the license you need, click on "Another reason not shown above" to be shown hundreds of additional license options. Once you have entered the Source, the Author(s) name(s), and a valid License, click on "Next". You can then complete the file's description information as explained above in Step 6 and officially publish it on Commons! 8. You should then send a reply to this email providing the URL of the web page where the file exists on Commons so that we can process your request. Thank you for taking the time to read and follow all of this. Please get back to us soon! Your "ticket" has now been assigned to me — I will do my best to answer any questions you may still have, and will handle your statement once it comes in. Yours sincerely, Alessio Rutveno -- Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ 21/05/2018 11:02 - Count Zapik wrote: > I hereby affirm that I represent Clive Wilkins, the creator and/or sole owner of > the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email. > I agree to publish the above-mentioned works under the Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 > International.[cid:40249ED3-D2C7-4E60-9558-EBE5E515B79A@lan] > I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a > commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, > provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable > laws. > I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. > I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as > well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. > Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the > copyright holder. > I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or > may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. > [cid:8A214E27-712E-419D-A62F-2B70A9441599@lan] > Jean Scott Thomson > Appointed representative of Clive Wilkins > 2018-05-21[cid:67FFD865-E469-4B74-AC34-937C8D593459@lan] > > [generated using relgen] > [cid:8695923E-B25B-46CC-9279-97D8F6807D12@lan] 3.  Count Zapik Mon 12/11/2018, 08:40 Hi Alessio Rutveno, I have only just caught up with this. I notice the photos of artwork have been taken off the Wikipedia entry for Clive Wilkins. I had made an assumption that the email you sent was in response to a later failed attempt to upload material to Wiki commons and so ignored it. I will read your email and respond soon in order to get the images back on the site- however it’ll be a couple of days until I can find space to do that. I do have complete permission to use the material and it is available for use- I had thought this was agreed since my declaration to state this was submitted and is in your possession (and in Wikipedia’s possession too) . Anyway give me a couple of days to try and sort this out with you. If you could get back to me and explain the problem in a couple of simple sentences I would be very grateful, because in truth I don’t quite understand why there is an issue here. But that’s down to my lack of knowledge concerning these things. Best wishes. Jean Scott Thomson Sent from my phone. 4.  PC Permissions - Wikimedia Commons Mon 12/11/2018, 09:16 Dear Count Zapik, My e-mail was to verify that you had the rights to publish the photos of the artworks. This procedure is in act in order to defend the copyright of the artists. In few words, we need a proof that Clive Wilkins is willing to publish these photos JW Jean Wilkins Mon 12/11/2018, 09:29 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Count Zapik Mon 12/11/2018, 09:32 Thanks for this Alessio, Will sort it ASAP- I’ll need a couple of days until I have a free space- Best wishes Jean Scott Thomson :-))) Sent from my phone. PC Permissions - Wikimedia Commons Mon 12/11/2018, 15:35 Dear Count Zapik, No problems at all. We are looking forward for your e-mails. Thanks again for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons. Yours sincerely, Alessio Rutveno -- Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address 5. Count Zapik Tue 13/11/2018, 11:19 You; Permissions - Wikimedia Commons; Jean Wilkins  Hi Alessio Rutveno, I understand there is an issue with the use of my artwork on the Wikipedia entry for 'Clive Wilkins', which has been compiled by my assistant Jean Scott Thomson and the aid and support of a variety of Wikipedia moderators. You seem to be questioning our right to use the images. I can confirm that I have given permission for the images to be used on Wikipedia and have placed them on Wikimedia commons and moreover have put them into the public domain. There is no problem here as far as I can see. Jean Scott Thomson and I would be very pleased to see the images put back onto the 'Clive Wilkins' Wikipedia entry as soon as possible. If there are any outstanding issues that make it hard to do this please contact us again. Thanks for all your help and great work, not to mention zeal in protecting both myself (Clive Wilkins) and Wikipedia's interests. Wikipedia is an amazing resource and I am proud and extremely delighted to be part of the greatest encyclopaedia in the history of the world. Get back to me on this address Alessio. Let me know if we need to do more to get the four images reinstated on the Wikipedia entry for 'Clive Wilkins' and back into Wikimedia commons archive. Best wishes~ thanks for dealing with this personally. Clive Wilkins _ _ o o ._L_. = V Clive WILKINS cw567@cam.ac.uk 07738183166 ARTIST & WRITER. Artist in Residence. Department of Psychology. University of Cambridge. UK Co-founder of THE CAPTURED THOUGHT thecapturedthought.com

Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Jean Scott Thomson Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request edit - Returning four images of paintings found on Wikimedia Commons to the article 'Clive Wilkins"

Hi Spintendo,

I have changed the request edit to "=no' on the request edit page as you asked. I think I did it right. You may need to check. Your request as I saw it read.

'When you're ready to proceed, kindly switch the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no Spintendo 00:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)'

Thanks for all your help. Wikipedia can seem very daunting sometimes~ but I am endeavouring to get better. I now realise I forgot to give a Subject/headline to my last message to you. Apologies.

Best wishes Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Jean Scott Thomson Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Update to 'Clive Wilkins'

Hi Spintendo, Thanks for your recent work on the article 'Clive Wilkins' and for returning the photos to the page. I like your changes~ they provide me with valuable insight into what constitutes an acceptable entry on Wikipedia. Best wishes Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Jean Scott Thomson Jean Scott Thomson (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 759

I don't know why I didn't bring this up earlier. It was probably because of school. Anyways, I checked the Russian version and it does not say 172 people so it must have been edited since. I'll take this to the talk page. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: You need a calculator to spot that figure. 172 comes from the nationalities table. The far right total column reads 145 but all the figures added up equal 172.  Spintendo  22:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Ok you got me, I should have looked more closely. Anyways, I have made minor improvements to non english articles (I made my edit summaries with google translate), and I could fix the table on the Russian version, however I rarely edit non English articles and I need your thoughts and advice on doing this. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: You should revert the changes about the pilots because those claims regarding their names are unreferenced. The NTSB report does not mention the pilot's names at all, so I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Spintendo  23:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I got it from the Russian version, but I'll revert the changes. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: I've checked the Russian-linked source, they were using an NTSB report which included the appendices, and the pilot information was listed under Appendix B. So I've reverted your revert and put the information you added back into the article.  Spintendo  23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I actually found that out before you did and I was going to tell you myself, but it doesn't matter now. Anyways, thank you! Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Abington Academy‎

..and now? That was the easy bit- how do you plan to develop these three interrelated articles?--ClemRutter (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Practically no sources have been added to that article since the main wall of unreferenced text was first added 4 months ago. I'd say they've had plenty of time to find sources, if they exist. As far as I know, adding claims and adding references are acts which go hand in hand, not one after the other. But you've asked an excellent question here: How do they plan to develop these three interrelated articles without any references?  Spintendo  03:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Economy section

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)

Hi Spintendo, just wondering if you’ve had a moment to look at my response here. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Reply posted  Spintendo  20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for all your advice there. One question I have is that since I’m essentially asking editors to go through this whole thread, some of which is now resolved, would it be an idea to add another subheading, e.g. Requesting input from WikiProjects, start it off with as concise a summary as possible of the remaining points under discussion, and then to point editors at that? Tarafa15 (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. If the main discussion area remains the talk page, then editors will be able to see past discussions easily. The main point is to make sure you communicate what it is that you want from other editors (their feedback) and what it is you want their feedback on (that you would like to consolidate the older section that has the Saudi Vision 2030 hatnote with a newer one that covers briefly in summary the SV 2030 article). Not much needs to be covered in that summary, because the main SV 2030 article itself handles that task, and you don't want to be repeating too much. If it's presented in the WikiProjects as a request for input on a simple summary of a larger article (SV 2030) as it would be mentioned in the main KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) page, then that should maximize editor feedback by simplifying what it is youre looking for. Make sure you have a proposal ready for others to give feedback on, taking care to mention which article is being summarized (SV 2030) and where that summary is suggested to be placed (the KSA article).  Spintendo  10:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for this further advice – as for summarizing Saudi Vision 2030, that’s a good point and it actually feeds into another discussion I’m hoping to have about that article. It’s probably better if I start another thread below, which I’ll do now. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again

Hi,

Just wanted to reiterate that you've done very fine work on many articles I've been involved in and it's appreciated. Nextdoor is the only article where I have disagreed with you such that I thought a broader community discussion would be in order. I just happen to disagree with you, stylistically, that long, direct quotations with a strong POV (as opposed to a more neutral summation of the point), are a good idea for Wikipedia, but I know you come to your opinion sincerely and I've seen you use longer quotes, to good effect, on other articles. It's unfortunate that we also disagree on the reliability of a particular source, in this same matter. I just want to reiterate that I continue to see you as fair-minded and very skilled. I hope there's room for a rare disagreement without engendering any bad feelings. I make my suggestions in good faith -- and only would put some point forward that I personally think improves an article under Wikipedia policy. I see your other point about weakness in rest of the article, especially given all the great sourcing available, but this article is one of those land mines where people's emotions run very high. I've tried to offer up major rewrites in the past, but the debates have proven to be exhausting and often, ineffective.----BC1278

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Falsifiability as a useful criterion in upholding Wikipedia standards

Hi Spintendo,
I invite you to take a look Wikipedia's Falsifiability article, not because of any problems there, but rather because it may enhance your editing activities elsewhere. On another article's talk page (doesn't matter which, since this is a generic suggestion), someone has identified an instance of an unsourced statement being contradicted by various sources that he has linked to. The purpose of his links is to falsify the hypothesis that the unsourced statement is valid encyclopedic content, so he and you are both singing from the same hymn sheet, i.e. encouraging verifiability. Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted his talk-contribution as a request to incorporate his refutatory links into the article (which you wouldn't want to since they veer too close to original research for anywhere other than a talk page). If you study the Falsifiability article, you will undoubtedly appreciate what the intended message really is. The phenomenon of refutation usually being stronger than confirmation has been written about by quite a few philosophers, so you might also be interested to read, for instance, the Karl Popper article. Wikipedia encourages the use of primary sources on talk pages for refutatory purposes. Happy editing! 88.145.104.248 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate this It's nice to know that there are other editors out there who are familiar with Mr. Popper's epistemology.  Spintendo  17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

COI tags

Hi Spintendo I tagged you in my pages, again, since the COI flags are still there even if the pages were reviewed changed accordingly. I think I followed Wikipedia's rules and if the pages were reviewed than the flag should be removed. Please let me know what else should be done in order to remove these flags. Those entries are important and were written in an honest way. Thank you in advance. Zahira Cohen (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Responded at the talk pages in question  Spintendo  14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for all your hard work making Wikipedia better. It is appreciated! Bnmguy (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Young Blood Transfusion

Hi, In response to your rejection of the edit I made, can I ask you to consider this. The claim in the article is that Dipnarine Maharaj was running the Young Blood Institute trial, which is untrue. (Quote: As of 2018 another organization, the Young Blood Institute, promotes young blood transfusion. Like Ambrosia's, its trial had no control and charged the participants for entry, in this case $285,000 per person.[2] Dipnarine Maharaj was running the trial;) It doesn't say running a trial. Can this be corrected? Also, the reference for The Young Blood Institute and Mark Urdahl is: Please let me know what you think. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you respond to the above please? Thank you --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The source says verbatim "the Florida physician running the trial, Dr. Dipnarine Maharaj". it does not state "running a trial". The language used is sufficient.  Spintendo  10:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Regarding Babu Gogineni Wikipedia Page.

Hi Spintendo,

I have seen your comments on my article edit request. Can I know where and how can I address them for you?

1. Because of the personal connection you have with the subject of the article, your role as an editor and your relationship to him are in conflict. Due to this conflict, you are asked to refrain from making any changes to the main article, both during this edit request process, as well as afterward.

Hi, I am an active member of Babu Gogineni -- Humanists & Rationalists' Arena on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/BabuGogineni/). I personally took up this initiation to update the latest information of Babu Gogineni. There are many events, Initiatives and activities going on under Humanists & Rationalists Group which was founded by Babu Gogineni. So, I took up this responsibility voluntarily.

2. In regards to that relationship with the subject of the article, you need to specify whether you are being paid to make these changes. As long as you are requesting these changes through the edit request process it is fine if you're getting paid. Wikipedia just needs to know if this is the case. No, I am not being paid by Babu Goginei or any of his related personas. This is an initiative volunteered by me to make sure his vision and mission are being carried out to people to create proper awareness in the society.

3. As far as the proposal itself, it does not indicate verbatim which references are to be removed. You have indicated which ones by placing numbers between brackets (e.g., [1],[2] etc.) but these numbers do not link to anything and in this manner is not exactly precise.[a]

Did not get this. Can you be a bit clear, please?

Any section of text which is unreferenced will not be added. Please note that this includes several main paragraphs (by a rough count, six of them). That leaves about 6 1⁄2 paragraphs left which are referenced.

I will try to provide the reference for all the paragraphs.

It would have been helpful if the authors of these references had been added to the citations. I can add them for you, but this will take additional time.

Thank you, For this help.

Many of the citations are repeated when they should be using the duplicate citation template which allows one reference entry to reference several claims at once.

Did not get this. Can you be a bit clear, please?

My guess is many of these refs will need archived versions to guard against WP:LINKROT. '

Did not get this. Can you be a bit clear, please?

Akhramshaik (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 14-DEC-2018

I will add the Connected contributor template to the article's talk page indicating that you are not paid. Thank you for clarifying that for me, it's much appreciated. As far as the other questions I'll try to clarify them below.

When adding a source to the proposed text, make sure to give the reference a name. Then if that source is being used in more than one location in an article, you can use the name for the cite instead of the full citation. citation. The name can then be repeated each time that source is referenced without having to post the entire reference:

<ref name="bio">{{cite journal |last1=Juergens |first1=N. |title=The Biological Underpinnings of Namib Desert Fairy Circles |journal=Science |date=28 March 2013 |volume=339 |issue=6127 |pages=1618–1621 |doi=10.1126/science.1222999}}</ref>

As you can see above, after "ref name" I placed bio. Now each time that reference is used again in the article, all I need to place is the following:

<ref name=bio/>

The entries will then no longer be repeated in the references. Only one entry per source will show, with lowercase letters designating the individual ref tags.

1. ^^[a][b][c]Juergens, N. (28 March 2013). "The Biological Underpinnings of Namib Desert Fairy Circles". Science. 339 (6127): 1618–1621. doi:10.1126/science.1222999.
   
   

The other items I mentioned do not require your intervention, but the references for the portions of the text which dont have them would be much apppreciated. Thank you!  Spintendo  10:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply to for your response

Thanks for your quick response Spintendo. Will surely follow your suggestions. Thank you. Akhramshaik (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo, I could see your approved content was very less compared to what I have submitted for review. You also asked me to submit and open again for the review. Can I know what exactly do I need to do to proceed further to get the appropriate content approved? Akhramshaik (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  19:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Jo Ann Jenkins?

Hi Spintendo,

Could you take a glimpse of my new edit request at Talk:Jo_Ann_Jenkins#First_sentence_-_simple_edit_request?

We talked awhile back about this article, and I made a bundle of edit requests that didn't quite align with Wikipedia's guidelines. I wanted to start fresh by making this much smaller edit request (to just the first sentence of the article) and taking this one step at a time. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Responded at article talk page  Spintendo  19:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you. It makes sense that you dropped the "38 million member" number from the first sentence, as that level of detail is--as you mentioned--germane to the article about AARP, not the biography article about Jo Ann Jenkins. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Keble College, Oxford

Hi, I saw you use a "!--not a mistake--" tag in the above article today. I used the tag myself today, but I was wondering if you could point me to any guidance on its use as I hadn't seen the tag before? Thanks for your help.TSventon (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@TSventon: The use of <!--not a mistake--> is part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style and information on it may be found at WP:INVISIBLE. Regards,  Spintendo  16:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Social Media Addiction COI edits

Dear Spintendo, Thankyou very much for your advice about this. I'm trying to understand the policies and I have a few questions.

John Hopkins University clearly do not endorse the content of the press release, and they specifically disclaim this.

However it is true that they have allowed it to be hosted on their servers, in a most unusual fashion, and I am most surprised by this. I don't know why but I hope it is some kind of implied support of the article.

Is any kind of wording stating this OK? I am reading Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I understand this. I'm just trying to improve the article especially in other languages which I have not been able to do on my own.

Maybe "A press release by a previously unknown startup media organization was hosted on John Hopkins University servers in December 2018, referring to the social media addiction crisis. The press release considered other possible means for further worldwide multidisciplinary collaboration, and promotes a mental health social enterprise aimed to address these issues internationally."

The startup is passing the search tests that Wikipedia recommend. I'm not sure how credible the startup is considered to be. It is literally just me.

Should it have the WP CURRENT tag? Thanks once again for your help. I always are deferring to the senior editors judgment. E.3 (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@E.3: The problem with this information is that it is not hosted on Johns Hopkins servers, while according to you its goal is to promote a mental health social enterprise aimed to address these issues internationally. Per WP:NOBLECAUSE the promotion of this type of enterprise is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Discussing it in the main Social media addiction article runs the risk of making this a WP:COATRACK situation, whereupon discussion of one topic in an article segues to discussion of another topic when WP:NOTABILITY for that other topic has not been established. Regards,  Spintendo  16:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Spintendo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Hello-Mary-H (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello-Mary-H (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Happy Holidays to you too!  Spintendo  01:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing Omitted Content ??

Hello, Can you please tell me on what basis you have removed the mission statement, the academic program details on NGBU University Page ? When they are a major sections of any institution. Please let me know.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.43 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't immediately remember which article this pertains to. Do you have a link to it? Thank you.  Spintendo  12:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Vision 2030

Hi Spintendo, just starting another thread here to keep things clearer hopefully. Regarding summarizing Saudi Vision 2030, I’m hoping to get a discussion going on that as well as that article has some issues. It was recently rated as C-Class, correctly in my view as it’s missing some important information and contains some irrelevant/outdated material. The quality of the copy is not good in places and there are some other problems besides. I understand not everyone welcomes COI editors proposing new drafts, however my posts on the talk page and on WikiProject Saudi Arabia got no response and neither of those pages are active, so I've gone ahead and worked on a userspace draft. I was confident I could make significant improvements while sticking to NPOV, which I believe I’ve managed to do (for example, criticisms of Vision 2030 in reliable sources are actually more multifaceted than the current Critical reactions section suggests – the same section in my draft covers the same concerns plus others which aren’t currently mentioned e.g. Yemen, Qatar, the 2017 recession, capital flight, falling FDI, rule of law). What’s your view on how best to proceed? As the article is only part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, my thinking was to request a significant edit on the talk page, with a link to the draft and a full outline of what I’m proposing and the reasons for it. Let me know what you think when you get a moment, thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It couldn't have been more than 3 days ago where I recommended making the request through one of the article's governing WikiProjects. I'm afraid that amount of time is unreliable in determining whether a certain avenue of discussion has been successful or not. Please consider allowing for the standard wait time of 7 to 14 days before arriving at that conclusion. The wheels of Wikipedia may appear to move slowly at times, but they move nonetheless — and your request in the WikiProjects deserves an adequate amount of time for editors to respond to it. Also, the article is governed by 4 other WikiProjects: WP:COUNTRIES, WP:ARAB, WP:WASIA and WP:VA. I would suggest posting in all of them.  Spintendo  17:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In looking at these projects, your best ones to try will be WP:COUNTRIES and WP:VA. It looks like WP:ARAB and WP:WASIA may be non-active.  Spintendo  17:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I should have clarified - my post on Talk:Saudi Vision 2030 was September 26 and this post at WikiProject Saudi Arabia was October 2. The main Saudi Vision 2030 article could be a whole lot better (currently C-class) so I had a go at a user draft. Tarafa15 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: thanks for your reply at Talk:Saudi Vision 2030. I’m now clearer on what the {{request edit|R}} template means by "substantial addition or re-write" (i.e. not a complete re-write).

I do want to point out however that as I said immediately above, I posted on the only WikiProject for this article (WP:KSA) on October 2 (here), six weeks before this discussion at Saudi Arabia and your recommendations there (and then above). Perhaps you missed the reply above but I think you may have come to the view that I expect a lot very quickly and am choosing not to pursue the avenues you've suggested. Whatever mistake I've made here that's not the case – I had already tried to start a discussion on this article, first on the article talk page (September 26), then on WP:KSA (October 2), and then here.

Regarding WP:FUTURE, I'm a little unclear on that as everything in this draft is verifiable and (I think) notable. The development projects are underway, the capital market reforms have happened, and the social and cultural developments section also covers developments that have already occurred. It's not original research and I've tried to avoid expected future events. Some of the major stated goals are included however, as seems appropriate.

In any case, I certainly don't expect any different to anyone else and I do apologize if I've overstepped and misused this edit request. Tarafa15 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected your talk page for 24 hours. Let me know if you want it unprotected or if the troll comes back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:SpintendoOnWikipedia2.png

The file File:SpintendoOnWikipedia2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: You have my full support in having the file PROD'ed. Thank you for your help with this.  Spintendo  05:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright :-) I was just going through a category of orphaned images and came across this one. Thanks for the message - hope you have a good new year! Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too!  Spintendo  05:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

mention at WP:COIN

this is pretty much in passing, but you are more than welcome to comment there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Art of Living Foundation copyvio situation

• Art of Living Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've pinged you twice now, once on the talk page[2] and once at COIN[3]. I've no idea how common these types of errors are, and would like to make sure they are being addressed. I think your perspective is invaluable in this. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has responded on the article talk page to help. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I now have seen your comments at COI, and your edit summaries in the article. My apologies. Looks like there's been a big misunderstanding. I've been looking for your help in all this, and still am. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Spintendo works hard to revert vandalism! Dealtoy (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Eamonn Wilmott

Thank you for making the edits to Eamonn's page. Could I please request two very small updates. One being the misspelling of Alizeti, the current copy has two ts and if possible capitalising the word chairman. Thank you in advance.

TogetherfortheTote (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  Partly-done

• The spelling of Alizeti was corrected.
• The capitalization of chairman was not done, per MOS:JOBTITLES.

Thank you for letting me know about this. Regards,  Spintendo  01:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

MTM request edit

Hi, just wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain what was wrong with the edits. I feel like it's getting ridiculously redundant at this point so sorry about the repeated requests. Hope it's ok this time, I was told before not to reference the website that's why I only included the link at the end of the requests in case you wanted to make sure that the content is verified. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara94500 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jon Rose, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tonal, Freeform and Derek Bailey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  DAB links repaired    Spintendo  12:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on Friends of the Earth (EWNI)

Saw that you commented on my edit request. Though you reverted it, just wanted to explain the odd referencing. I was trying to use the format suggested in Template:Request edit. It looked a bit mad to me, but I assumed I'd better follow the format. Might be that format only works for single part edit requests though.

Should I instead use standard wikipedia referencing? First time making an edit request and not sure of the best practice. Happy to go and change it Ian Goggin (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll review your request shortly.  Spintendo  18:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Noah K

Hi Spintendo,

Thanks for making edits to the article on Noah K. Always good to improve sourcing. When I have a moment, I can look for the missing authors of the sources you mentioned. I have a couple questions about your other edits. First, each release in the discography that you tagged with "Unreferenced section" is mentioned and sourced in the article so do they need to be cited again? Many discographies I've seen don't repeat citations in the Discography template. But, if you disagree, can you suggest where the citations should go within the template? Second, I'm not sure why you removed the list of Noah K's awards. Can you show me where it's stated on Wikipedia that awards must have a Wikipedia page devoted to them in order to be mentioned in an article as a biographical detail, as you state in your edit notes? From what I understand, that's only the case if the award is being used to establish notability, which in this case its not. The awards you removed are all from highly reputable and notable institutions. These types of awards are standard fare in Wikipedia articles on artists of all sorts. Artaria195 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 31-DEC-2018

@Artaria195: Thank you for your questions. I'll answer them in kind:

1. "First, each release in the discography that you tagged with "Unreferenced section" is mentioned and sourced in the article" Any section which contains claims needs to have sources attached to those claims. The discography section is where these references need to be placed because the discography section makes these claims. If the other sections have sources, then there will be no difficulty in also placing those sources within the discography table in a dedicated column placed on the far right of the table.
2. "Can you show me where it's stated on Wikipedia that awards must have a Wikipedia page devoted to them in order to be mentioned in an article as a biographical detail" Article content must be described with a neutral point of view. This NPOV is achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources. Among the sources given for these awards are the listings of them displayed on a website controlled by the subject (noahkmusic.com) and the subject's music publisher (outthere-music.com). The question then becomes: Is the subject and the subject's publisher reliable sources for themselves? The answer would be no — they would not be a reliable source for information on either (a) the awards they've received, or (b) the importance of those awards. Verification of these two points needs to come from a secondary source, such as the institution who gave out the award, accompanied by another source which testifies to the award being notable. If these cannot be provided then it serves an article better to exclude the material altogether.

Regards,  Spintendo  16:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

@Spintendo: Thanks for the detailed response-- this all makes sense. I will work on just improving the citations and adding them to the discography. Regards, Artaria195 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Artaria195: You're welcome. I've already placed a ref column in the discog table and added the two refs I mentioned above.  Spintendo  17:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks, looks like the rest of the refs in the column have been added too. Additional citations have been added where needed in the article according to your edits. When you have the chance, can you take a look once more and remove the "additional citations needed" template notice? I didn't want to do this without checking with you first. Thanks, Artaria195 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page  Spintendo  02:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I just read through your comments on the article talk page. You mention 13 of the sources originating from Noah K himself, can you specify? If you are referring to interviews published by a third party, according to Wikipedia guidelines, those should count as reliable sources for general and non-controversial information. In terms of the Princeton degree mentioned, what exactly are you looking for here? Would a graduation program satisfy? I imagine that can be found online. And here is a description from Princeton's website of the fellowship mentioned, where it is described as an academic award. By your definition, Guggenheim fellowships etc. would be a form of merit based financial aid since they provide a stipend to live on so I'm not sure what the issue is. Academic honors are routinely mentioned in biographical information, especially in a section on education. Artaria195 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here pg 35 is what I found to confirm the degree. Does this satisfy? Artaria195 (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The commencement program is a good source for the subject's degree. Just to be clear, only interviews with reliable sources count as a reliable source. An interview that is not fact checked by a source with ties to the music industry, such as the subject's label, would not, on its face, count as a reliable source. Almost anything added to the article should be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source – and often by a secondary and independent source, rather than a primary source. Also, as this information has been added by an editor with a COI, all of it should be considered as controversial and therefore open to and deserving of, increased scrutiny. Thank you for your help in finding these additional sources.  Spintendo  17:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Ok, thank you. Can you go ahead and add the commencement source to the article? Thanks, Artaria195 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks for adding that source. Since that's resolved, are there any further sources that need clarification or fixing or can the "additional citations needed" template be removed? EddieHugh, who's a very experienced jazz editor made comments on the quality of each source on the article talk page. He found issue with sources 2, 3, 5, and 6 which have since been resolved. Artaria195 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, when you have a chance, can you take a look at the response on the article talk page and the recent article edits? I believe all sourcing issues have been addressed and resolved. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is an edit request, please use the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  23:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on Philip Morris International page

Hi Spintendo. Thank you for your invariably quick and thorough responses to requests from editors like myself. I added a short question and clarification in response to your review of my edit request at the bottom here. I assumed I should respond there since it is a response to your decision rather than a truly new proposal. If you prefer, I can create a new edit request, but I thought it would be good to check in with you first. Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  16:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to a RFC

Dear Spintendo: I would like to invite you to the page One America News Networks to discuss a problem on my RFC request. I recently posted a coi request to which you replied and suggested to post a RFC request. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards, Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  23:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

AltSchool

A heads up I responded to your reply note at the AltSchool Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  15:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Merlin Network edits

Thanks for replying to my request edit on the Merlin Network talk page. You marked the page as "Implemented requested edits" but the edits haven't been implemented yet. Am I ok to do these myself or should you/another editor who doesn't have a conflict of interest do it? I have also responded to your query about Name PR.

Many thanks and hope you have a good week. Dom Athanassiou (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dom Athanassiou: The template was marked as answered, not as implemented. I was awaiting your answer to my last question before my review could take place.  Spintendo  11:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I must have got it confused as at the bottom of the talk page it was categorised as "Implemented requested edits". Still new to this, thanks for your patience. I'll wait for your review then and let me know if you need more information. Dom Athanassiou (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, just wanted to let you know that I've updated my comment on the Merlin Network talk page. Would be great if you could have a look before the edit request is submitted. Thanks. Dom Athanassiou (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  15:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

JAJ

Greetings, Might you have a moment to peek at this reply on the Jo Ann Jenkins article talk page? Don't mean to be a bother -- if you have other things to focus on I certainly understand. If my reply is confusing or unclear, don't hesitate to let me know! Cheers, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page  Spintendo  21:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Spintendo. I'll work on a very brief draft of the career section of this article now, and will likely ask you to review/critique it in the next week. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Shupe changes

Jamie Shupe has sent identity verification and is going to be in an article in National Review very soon. You can follow on twitter here:

https://twitter.com/madeleinekearns/status/1092095352214294530

Change his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.83.169 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My ability to approve a request is only as good as the references provided with the proposal. The COI editor gave a personal reference as their only source. This may be used only if there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. My doubt was reasonable at the time of their request because (a) they did not mention the other sources you've brought to the table and (b) I had only their word that they were who they said they were. Experience has shown that a 10-hour-old account with only 4 edits ought not warrant another editor's blind trust. I am reviewing the other sources you have suggested (thank you for providing them) and will edit the article momentarily. Regards,  Spintendo  23:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done The requested changes have now been implemented.  Spintendo  01:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

Good morning Spintendo,

Thank you for your review and feedback on my requested edits for my employer's article last month. At your earliest convenience, could you please respond to my revised edit request on our University's talk page? Your feedback is always appreciated. Thanks, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page  Spintendo  20:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you very much for the swift follow up. I've addressed the inactive sources issue mentioned in your feedback - just wondering if I should make a brand new request since it was only a matter of updating hyperlinks. If not, the amended request is available for review at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much. Chantelcartercdu (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chantelcartercdu: I appreciate your updating the LA Times URL's. The next items should also be addressed:

1. Text in certain areas is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. All proposed text needs to be placed in an editor's own words and phrasing, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.
2. Much of the text in the proposal is unreferenced. Areas of text containing claims where ref tags are missing need to be sourced for the claims to be approvable, per WP:INTEGRITY.
3. The lists of degrees, certificates, and the like within the request is not workable. This information ostensibly mirrors that which is located in the University's yearly class catalog provided to students. Listing them here is not the purpose of Wikipedia, per WP:NOTACATALOG.

The request should be reviewable once these three issues are addressed. Thank you!  Spintendo  17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Is there a way to see which text needs additional citations/ref tags? When I open the editor, i don't see any missing ref tags and I've done all I can in researching and including sources. Additionally, I admittedly don't fully understand the note re: close paraphrasing, even after reviewing the policy. Aside from the text that was already included in the existing article (primarily the sections addressing Accreditation and Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital), I wrote the text myself - but I did edit those sections for readability/flow. Will I have to rewrite the already existing sections so the entire article is in my words?

I sincerely appreciate your assistance and feedback throughout this process. This is my first time having to make edits of this scale on Wikipedia, so I apologize if any questions are redundant.

Chantelcartercdu (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page  Spintendo  00:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Good morning, thanks very much for the clarifications. I addressed the missing references you pointed out, please let me know if I will need to create a new brand request given that the original one was denied. I tagged you on the article's talk page after making those edits, but I was unsure if that was the proper protocol so I am responding here as well, just in case. Apologies if the request is redundant or duplicitous, and I truly appreciate the assistance you've provided thus far. All the best, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the word you meant to use here is duplicative, and not duplicitous, which has a completely different meaning altogether. As far as the request, IMO it's always better to open a brand new edit request instead of reopening an older one, which is what you did, and that works just fine. Thanks for your help.  Spintendo  17:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Good afternoon, hoping this note finds you well as we get ready to close the week. Thanks for all of the assistance and feedback you've provided as I work to get my employer's article updated. I have a few questions before I submit my next request:

In your last piece of feedback, you mentioned that nearly 1/3 of sources were University-supplied. Given the subject matter of the article, it's been my experience that a lot of information can be only verified directly from our website (such as the history of programs, schools located on campus, our research enterprise, etc.) - I took guidance from the "Reliable Sources" section of the WP:UNIGUIDE in providing these sources and honestly can't think of anywhere else where I could find that information. My question is, then, is there a general ("ballpark") percentage allowed for University-supplied sources on any given article? Say for instance, less than 25%? Additionally, could you recommend any resources/editors who specialize in academia that could further assist me in getting this article ready for publication? You have been of the utmost assistance in the past month or so, but I really feel like there's something that I'm missing that a more experienced eye can catch (in other words, I'm feeling a little dumb!). Thanks again. Chantelcartercdu (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chantelcartercdu: Thank you for your message. The area of WP:UNIGUIDE most-relevant to our discussion is the following:

Special care is required for citing self-published sources, such as information about a college/university published by the institution itself or written by its paid staff: the cited information must be authentic, not be self serving, and not involve claims about third parties. Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations. Unlike third-party sources, such self-published sources and the claims they are being used to support may be removed without discussion if they are controversial or otherwise lack neutrality. Coverage by mainstream news organizations should always be preferred over press releases by a college or university's news office ... for verifying claims made within an article.

I've highlighted the main takaway from that paragraph above, which is that self-serving information should not be used, and that references from mainstream news organizations should always be preferred. Nevertheless, in instances from the edit request where there are no references provided because the university would be the only reference, I've gone back to reconsider your proposals where the text does not seem to be self serving (such as with "general" type information) and have changed the underlined color of the text where this would be alright to use the University as the source from red to blue. But owing to the highlighted section of UNIGUIDE above, there is a point where information about part of the school being funded and then opening to students goes from being general information to being promotional when that text mentions how said opening is/was/or will be improving the lives of those in the surrounding areas. In those instances the text continues to be underlined in red, and we'll need better sourcing if they are to be included. Other areas of red text which remain red include the listing of individuals names when the important information is the facility itself, i.e., the Cancer Cluster versus the person who runs (or in some cases, ran) the Cluster, because people come and go while facilities remain. Also the paragraphs of text which delve into the minutiae of student activities in programs (such as where their internships are held, etc) remains red. One section which mentioned a program which was active 20 years ago but no longer so and was still phrased as "current" also remains red as well. Please have a look at what has been changed to blue, and when ready to proceed with my implementing it, add a new {{request edit}} template to the article's talk page under a new level 2 heading asking for the changes to be made. The proposed text itself need not be reposted, as the blue underlines will remind me of what is to be added. The requested sections of text are already repeated 3 different times on the talk page in different sections. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request at University of Wisconsin–Green Bay answered?

In this edit you indicated that an edit request for University of Wisconsin–Green Bay‎ was answered. I don't see where anyone answered it. Can you please help me understand this? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: I'd be happy to. Let's start at 13:35 UTC-8, when the COI editor posted the COI edit request which contained 2 clear proposals and one unclear statement. I'll go over each one in kind:

1. Edit request: The COI editor first asked that the student census for 2018 be changed to 8,443. This diff shows that an editor had already added this figure at 09:50 UTC-8.
2. Edit request: The COI editor's second request asked that links be provided to what I believe were satellite campuses; there were four of them. The editor Etzedek24 had already added those shown here at 11:58 UTC-8.
3. Unknown partial statement (deemed unactionable): The COI editor then mentioned "External links" for some unknown reason (e.g., "External links with updated information about UW-Green Bay can be found here"). This 3rd statement could not be definatively labeled as a request per se — as the prior two requests were — because the statement did not include the words add or remove or any other variants of those two words. This raised several questions: Were these External links to be added to the External links section? But if these were External links, why then does the statement say that the external links contained "updated information"? Does this mean that there is updated information at the links which needs to be copied and placed on the Wikipedia page? No one can say for sure. As this third part of the proposal constituted an unactionable request, the questions raised therein were sidestepped.

As the items had already been implemented by another editor just prior to the time the COI editor posted the-then redundant request, I surmised that the COI edit request was completed to an acceptable degree and closed it. I hope that helps make this more clear, but if you have any other questions please do let me know. Regards,  Spintendo  10:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick and very detailed response! ElKevbo (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Question about Vivek Ramaswamy page

Hi Spintendo,

I appreciate all of the assistance that you've offered for Roivant Sciences and Vivek Ramaswamy's pages to date. I understand why your most recent edit to Vivek's page, to remove the long list of companies, was made and it certainly made sense. I wanted to get an understanding from you about how to work on the Vivek page to get the tag removed (contributor to this article has a close connection). I wasn't involved with the company when the tag was put on and I work for them with a clear COI - is there a way to move ahead to get it removed? Thanks for your assistance in the matter, FinalFrontier.003 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy

 – Reply message left on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Diabetes UK article

Hi I have uploaded the new Logo but it may not be appearing correctly in the box — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daibeteswiki (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has fixed this issue, although the article is now under an WP:AFD process. Regards,  Spintendo  22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far

Hi Spintendo,

Thank you for your guidance on the talk:EnPowered page, I'm slowly learning. Please let me know if there are any other how to guides I should look at, some of the coding stuff is new to me  :)

Cheers! JScott-NL (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Navigant Consulting

Hey there, reaching out just in case you haven't seen my reply to you at Talk:Navigant Consulting. If you don't reply, I'll assume you've rejected my revision, so I promise this is the last time I'll bug you about it! Thank you as always for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)