User talk:Spintendo/Archive/1

User:Spintendo/clock

Nigeria Airways Flight 2120

Hello there, Spintendo, and thank you for your contributions to the article. Please note that I have moved the reference you added out of the lead [1]. There is no need to cite information that is referenced in other parts of the article, per WP:CITELEAD. Cheers.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics medal table

Can you go ahead and initiate discussion on why you think the contested information should not be in the article at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics medal table? I'd rather get you and Max Arosev discussing things there than have to block one or both of you for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to initiate discussion. You can find that discussion here. — Spintendo^Talk 00:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of 2014 Winter Olympics medal winners. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendation. I have begun a discussion on the 2014 Winter Olympics medal table talk page located here. — Spintendo^Talk 00:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nurseline247 AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DarthBotto I will visit the noticeboard and add to the discussion my perspective and interactions with that editor. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. — Spintendo^Talk 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your extraordinary efforts to combat vandalism and exposing this editor for their fraudulent and disruptive purposes, I award you this barnstar that I had not bequeathed upon another in my ten-plus years on Wikipedia prior. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Thank you kindly for this, I'm glad I could help. — Spintendo^Talk 04:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Does this prove that Alitalia flies to Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport in Taipei, Taiwan?

https://www.skyscanner.net/flights-to/tw/airlines-that-fly-to-taiwan.html

https://www.skyscanner.net/flights-to/tpet/airlines-that-fly-to-taipei.html

It is under Qantas for Taiwan, and under United for Taipei. 73.87.74.115 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Alitalia ever flew to Taiwan, before or after its bankruptcy. Bookings apparently are codeshared through China Airlines. — Spintendo^Talk 14:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Should Taiwan be added to Alitalia's destinations? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This editor is not an expert on Alitalia.

—Spintendo^Talk 15:05 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject with/with

Hi Spintendo. I'm just letting you know that I'm reverting this with/with edit. If you read the sentence you'll see (1) that the affected part is "It has been dealt with with firmness", "dealt with" and "with firmness" being two independent elements; and (2) that the affected part is enclosed within quotation marks – in other words, it is a direct quote and cannot be reworded. I'm sure with/with is a worthy project, but you need to be aware of the pitfalls. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Scolaire: Thank you for catching this. I've added the appropriate markup to that page so it won't be flagged by the project again. — Regards, Spintendo^talk 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed 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.

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. GeoJoe1000 Can you explain why you wrote out several articles explaining how you think I'm a liar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prisonermonkeys#Editing_articles)? What was the purpose of that? To piss me off? To make me leave? Why? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Actually, can you have someone delete my account? Thank you. Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit. You have no idea who I am, but you have the audacity to criticize me over incidents five years ago. You're a complete asshole, and I hope you die. Hopefully that's enough of an incentive. I'm not going to deny that I have broken rules on Wikipedia, that I have been an asshole to people here. But does that give you the right to mock me and ridicule me? Again, fuck you. You are a toxic, worthless human being. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you for posting to my talk page. It's nice to see that GeoJoe1000's behaviour has not gone unnoticed by other editors, especially since I have been concerned that he thinks he can talk his way out of trouble. Six weeks ago he was applauded by an admin for taking responsibility for his actions, but just two days ago he was refusing to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong and instead claimed to be the victim of a personal attack. I'm sure the admin who applauded him would have been very disappointed by his change in demeanour. While I gave GeoJoe1000 the benefit of the doubt at the time, his arrogance in refusing to acknowledge his wrongdoing makes me question the sincerity of his apologies. I see from his edit history that I am not the only editor who has come into conflict with him and his aggressive style of editing, and I noticed that for all his demands that other editors work with him (which I suspect amounts to yielding to him without further question), not once has he offered to work with other editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC) @Prisonermonkeys: I'm glad that you were able to find some reassurance from my post. This was my intent. Though the other editor may protest against my assertions, offering up his own view of these events, the encapsulation of your opposition to each other as stark, polar opposites is undeniable. At one pole is yourself, encouraging an open atmosphere of discussion on your talk page while discouraging moves to limit or remove ideas you and others express. At the opposite pole there is the other editor, whose talk page is a quiet place of emptyness, ritualistically cleansed by its editor of ideas, words, and sentiments. Honest attempts at communication are brought there by other editors, who leave their ideas and words to await responses which never come. At the end of the day there is an undeniable sense of foreboding in the actions of editors who reside at the "polar opposite" to openness, operating their world as if open communications are detriments to society. I spoke up because that editor, not satisfied with their two victories in incidences where the community brought them to task, felt the need to further provoke emotion by pointing out your need to "improve". Instead of quietly taking his outcome and riding off into the sunset in silence, he felt required to express joy in labeling you as "the problem now." Even mere considerations of tact would seem to show the irrelevance of a situation whereby a disputatious editor demands others to improve and communicate whilst eschewing those same attributes in them self. The polar opposite editor claimed multiple times that their default mindset was What do I have to do to get myself and other editors to improve our actions causing Wikipedia to grow as an online reference. They lamented others, especially you, for not doing the same. I believe this was a Potemkin mindset because despite this, when confronted with authority in the final example conversation I quoted, their default mindset appears to have been What do I have to do to get this person to leave me alone and let me do whatever I want. The default mindset of most 6-year-old children, this isn't improvement — it's regression. Granted, the final example I provided was 5 years old, and people have been known to change over time in many circumstances. But the first example I provided was merely days old — not years. —SpintendoTalk 05:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC) You should really learn to stop attacking people. I'm still getting there too, but you'd think for how self-righteous you are, you'd act as an example rather than stoop to my level. If you're just going to twist the facts to support your own opinion, then you're acting no better than any child, no better than me. Are you trying to support my actions? Then again, pusillanimously construing concerns of your peers and using them to throw back onto the character of others is what you did from the start. A precursory search of YOUR talk page suggests that you have been just as much of a problem on this site as I have, if not more. Old sins cast long shadows, and it seems you have simply regressed as well. I get how I'm being hypocritical. I should not have attacked you personally. That was a mistake on my part. The fact you attacked me personally is uncalled for. I seriously have no idea when I ever came in contact with you before you swooped in to degrade and insult me. That is bullying, plain and simple. Your bitterness and hate are simply overwhelming. You're right that I too was a bully. But you're still here on the site, so there is no victory. You hurt people and have no remorse. Do you truly believe I am such a terrible human being? Why do you hate someone you know only through a Wikipedia editing history? That is what bothers me. I wish I knew why you were so wrathful. You must be miserable, and I take pity on you. To think you had the time to sift through my edit history for dirt and then spend even more time creating a laundry list of what you consider my failures. It feels like you are very insecure about yourself. You had no reason to contact me, but did so anyway. You had no reason to respond to me further, but you did so in great detail. I mean, is this your entire life right here? Did I harm your entire well-being? If so, then I'm sorry. I don't treat this site as special. It's just a website to me, nothing more. If this site, this community is the only thing that you have going for you, then I can see how I did damage. Again, I'm sorry. 199.111.224.69 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC) For a substantial period of time, your desire was to avoid having important conversations about your edits. Editors attempting to understand your actions held discussions both on your talk page and elsewhere. In your absence, others contributed to the discussion by highlighting past actions. What you sought then was for the community to offer its support to you, to refute information that might have been outdated or no longer applicable. "I know him, and he's not like that" would have helped you out in that regard. One place which is used to build reservoirs of community support is an editor's talk page, a space where people come to learn more about each other's edits and to build friendships. By continually deleting your talk page, you drained this reservoir of any potential for editor support. Perhaps if you had chosen to use your talk page as a vehicle for communications rather than as a place to hide, your experience might have been different. Nothing speaks to this more than the editor you mentioned whom I had a problem with over one article. It was resolved when I communicated with him as an equal on his talk page. What that showed me is that common ground can be found amongst dispute. I urge you to seek this common ground with others. Regards  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC) "Perhaps if you had chosen to use your talk page as a vehicle for communications rather than as a place to hide, your experience might have been different." You have literally hidden damaging things you have done on Wikipedia in the past by deleting portions of your talk page. What's your excuse? What if I told people might keep their talk pages blank is because it looks cleaner? Sure, it's a silly reason, but it's sure not malicious. Who's telling exactly why people are blanking their talk pages? You're getting false info. Also, your first directed action at GeoJoe was to completely tear him apart and portray him as terrible person with only the context you cherry-picked. Perhaps if you hadn't chosen to use talk pages as a place for insults, I wouldn't have felt so hopeless and worthless on this site. Again, I understand I shouldn't have expected any kind of positive response considering my actions, but if you couldn't do better than me, than why are you still on this site? I urge you to seek common ground with others. 223.135.74.102 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Apology I don't believe I ever apologized to you for what I said earlier this fall. I imagine you won't have any problems with identification. I'm sorry for what I said to you. It was out of line. I do not know you, and I have no reason to have so much hate towards you. As you might imagine, I was quite hurt by your comments. I do not remember ever coming in contact with you before, and yet you had already crafted a narrative about me and my actions on this site that was defamatory in many respects. Maybe you too were simply as angry as I was. It seems that I was going after a friend, and that likely clouded your judgment about the situation. In the end, I still had no good reason to come after you. What you have said is simply false, and I should not have taken it so personally. Again, I am sorry. I do not plan on contributing to this site further, as it seems any work that I have done has been worthless anyway. 183.89.144.101 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2017 (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.

November 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(It's nothing to be concerned about.) Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

PS — sorry, accidentally included this in a closed discussion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Familicides

Thanks for the distinction ... the lede of familicide doesn't make it as clear as it should that the term refers only to murders of members of families committed by other members of said families.

I have reverted other such edits that I have made, as well. I have been working on Dardeen family homicides for that case's 30th anniversary at the end of the week, and, noticing the many other articles in the "unsolved mass murders" categories where families constitute all or most of the dead, I had thought of creating a separate "family murders" category, but then the wording of that lede convinced me otherwise. I now see my original intuition was right. Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: You're correct that the familicide article's lead statement was vague in its description of the phenomenon's perpetrators. The article does state "Familicide differs from other forms of mass murder in that the murderer kills family members or loved ones rather than anonymous people." but this statement does not occur until halfway through the article; when it does, it introduces more ambiguity by failing to state the familial connection with certainty (i.e., "the murderer kills family members rather than anonymous people" could be interpreted as meaning that the killer kills people who are themselves related — and thus, not anonymous people to each other — while still being a stranger to those he or she is killing). I've edited the lead in an attempt to remove this ambiguity. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  08:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

Oh wow, I had not noticed that lovely Alien-themed barnstar until I saw that my own user page looked slightly different! It feels wonderful to have my efforts appreciates, as I only wanted to see articles that deserve good treatment to shine in such a way. Recognition really is a great motivator, so you have my most sincere thanks. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit on BarlowGirl (re: "trivial spelling and typographic errors")

Hi. I'm assuming that your comment on WP:MOS and my simple mistake corrections is referring to me? I'm sorry for being unaware of that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. So, when correcting simple spelling/grammar problems, should I simply mark it as minor and leave the comment box blank? Please let me know by sending me a talkback and/or leave a comment on my talk page. Thanks for the heads up. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@LABcrabs: How you decide to proceed is completely up to you, as you are the editor who presumably knows most about the article and what would work best.

The passage in question which brought the Common Mistakes WikiProject to the BarlowGirl page was the following:

"This from from my super wise sister. And what she's saying is real good."

The "Not a mistake" markup was added signifying the use of the double "from from" as something that should remain in order to faithfully represent the quote as it was said. This is, of course, an application of "Thus it is written" better known as sic erat scriptum or sic. I'm assuming that is the case here, although I cant be sure because even though the not a mistake markup was added, there was not a [sic] added as well to the quote. There are cases where an error should be retained. However, there are also times when a typographic error — especially minor ones — can be distracting to readers of an article. In those cases, there is Wikipedia policy for what to do. Under WP:MOS Quotations it states:

"If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template [sic] to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment, unless the slip is textually important."

So two courses of action are open to you. You may either leave the mistake as a faithful representation of what was said, in which case you need only revert my edit and then add the sic markup — or you can correct the error by just leaving one "from" in the quote and by documenting the rationale behind the change, just as I did, in the edit summary. But only correct it if you're sure that the error was not intentional on the part of the original speaker, or as it says in MOS, that it isn't textually important. I assumed by looking at it that it was a minor error, but you may know otherwise. In any case, I hope this explanation helps. Take care  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Spintendo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Hilton Worldwide

Hello, Spintendo. Thanks again for your assistance with this edit request. I did have one question about the last part of the request, if you have a moment. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: Thank you for your question. In regards to Request #4, the information in the Fortune reference originated on GreatPlaceToWork.com. Under their User Guidelines, it states, in part: "You acknowledge that the Site contains the opinions and views of other users for which GPTW is not responsible. You acknowledge further that GPTW is not responsible for the accuracy of any User Content posted on the Site. You understand and agree that you shall evaluate, and bear all risks associated with the use of any User Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such User Content."

While the Fortune piece does state that GPTW collated the data for their survey ("Fortune partner Great Place to Work surveyed employees in offices across the planet.") the information provided by GPTW does not reasonably assure a difference between an authority at GPTW as the single source of the information, or a simple user, as defined in their User Guidelines. Therefore, it cannot be stated with certainty that the information appearing in the Fortune piece is accurate. Needless to say, the most reliable surveys are ones where the methadology used is subject to peer review. Wikipedia strongly suggests using surveys of this kind.

Regards,

 Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

WalkMe page

Hi Spintendo,

Thanks for reading over my requested edit to the WalkMe page. I just went in and added more references to news articles and other website lists to better support the information I included. Could you review and let me know if there are any other changes I should make to ensure my edits are a fit for Wikipedia? Thank you! Sylvia Rosin (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

Based on your feedback, I revised my edits to the WalkMe page (edit from Dec. 12). Could you please review? I would like to replace the existing sections with the new sections in the Talk Page. Thank you very much.

Sylvia Rosin (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Y Responded at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

I just edited my request per your notes. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvia Rosin (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Declined edit

On the talk page for Hepatic Encephalopathy, you declined and posted link for “what Wikipedia is not” The requested edits were to add external links to the page. I don’t believe you actually looked at the links provided. First, they don’t violate anything within that policy (if I’m wrong, please quote the section that applies). Secondly, I’ve seen hundreds of pages with similar such external links. Third, if al links to YouTube were meant to be blocked, the links wouldn’t be allowed by the editing engine. You type in the URL incorrectly and it will reject the edit, but YouTube is not rejected.

Could you please provide a more detailed explanation?

I appreciate your guidance.

The links Tmbirkhead (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, all external links to video sites still must abide by the External Links guidelines. (See § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided.) Those guidelines state that when considering external links, proposed videos such as yours should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis, in order to ensure that the videos hosted on YouTube meet the standards for inclusion. In my opinion, the subject matter surrounding hepatic encephalopathy warrants additional vigilance above and beyond that which would normally be the case, in that many readers of that article who have gone there in search of medical information deserve the utmost care and respect by ensuring they receive the most accurate information possible. While this is not meant to impugn the hard work that you've put into your videos, I'm sure you'll understand that the possibility of yours or anyone else's videos inadvertently providing information that could be misinterpreted by those individuals watching them, causing them harm, is much too great a risk to entertain. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Your help with my COI edit requests have been incredibly helpful, and I appreciate the input / hard work. Even more so since I know you are not getting paid for your time helping me out. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

can you re-review

I added additional ref... also I would like the 501c(3) listed in the infobox like it was I added the ref for it... also, there is a magfest is/not a donut edit war (been going on for sometime)... the line up was copied from one of the sources directly and as not to use primary sources I looked for more than one source. Can I with a COI just add references to the page... as I know the page needs it as it heavily uses the orgs website as a reference? Msg4real (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Msg4real:  Task complete. 501(c)(3) status and current artist lineup for MAGFest 2018 both  Added to the article.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  08:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you being so hostile and unhelpful to new editors ?

Why are you being so hostile, cryptic and unhelpful to new editors who want to improve this article with content from good sources like New York Times, Washington Post and Forbes ?

If there is something wrong, either you can fix it or describe to me exactly what is wrong so I can attempt to fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelpetersen (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of texts added by Israelpetersen to the Michael J. Saylor article

Text added by Israelpetersen	Text as it appears in the Source Material
"In the new allegations the S.E.C. claimed by reporting profits when the company was actually losing money, Saylor committed fraud."	"The S.E.C. contended that Mr. Saylor ... had committed fraud in reporting profits when the company was actually losing money."
"Investors sued PwC and MicroStrategy in 2000 when the software maker's stock sank by 62 percent in one day eroding billions of dollars in shareholder wealth. MicroStrategy's CEO Michael J. Saylor withdrew 2 years of audited financial results and disclosed afterwards that it had been losing money since 1997 ie. [sic] even before its initial public stock offering, contradicting its reported profits."	"Investors sued MicroStrategy and PwC early last year after the software maker retracted two years of audited financial results and its stock price plunged by 62 percent in a single day, wiping out billions of dollars in shareholder wealth. The company, headed by Michael J. Saylor, later disclosed that, contrary to its reported profits, it had been losing money since 1997, even before its initial public stock offering."

1. The text that you most recently submitted is still insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, as shown above.
2. The parts of text you've attempted to rewrite yourself do not meet the standards set by WP:MOS (i.e., "Saylor, once a high-flying tycoon, dropped billions in notional worth.." That type of text is not encyclopedic in tone.
3. A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not adding content to an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Due to these requirements, a person associated with alleged criminal events need not have such events mentioned in the article concerning them, if the event is already mentioned elsewhere. As I understand it, these events are mentioned in the MicroStrategy article.
4. Persistently adding information improperly paraphrased or fashioned in an improper tone may be considered vandalism in WP:BLP articles. Taking the information you wish to add and placing it in the talk page, therefore opening it up to community discussion, revision and consensus, is your best option for including it in the article. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  07:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

References

University of Essex edit

Thanks so much for editing the University profile following my comments in the page's talk section. I'm really grateful. I'm just trying to feel my way towards understanding what content works. i was a little surprised to see the subject of both the Queen's Anniversary Prize and Regius Professor were removed as I would have thought knowing that these awards were, respectively, for social science research and political science would have been helpful to a reader. Other entries mentioning Queen's anniversary prize awards mention the area of expertise e.g. Newcastle University. As mentioned I'm feeling my way and your support would be helpful. Look forward to your feedback.Ben Hall at Essex (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

These have not been removed. I see now what you mean by "subjects of both" (prizes). Both of the texts added to the article now state the following. Under 2000 to present: "On two occassions Essex has been awarded the Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education, in 2009 for its "advancing the legal and broader practice of international human rights," and in 2017 for its "authoritative social and economic research to inform the policies of governments for the improvement of people’s lives." Under Regius professorship it now states "In 2013, Queen Elizabeth II conferred upon the University the Regius Professorship, recognizing "50 years of excellence in research and education in political science at Essex." The first Regius professor was David Sanders of the Government Department, who held the post from 2014–2017. In December 2017 Kristian Skrede Gleditsch was appointed as the second Regius Professor."  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  23:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these edits. It has really made me happy that you responded positively to my comments. Thank you once again.Ben Hall at Essex (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Teradata Requested Edits

Extended content

Hey, thanks for handling the requested edits from Dodds_Writer. As you appear to be far more experienced in the ways of Wikipedia, would you mind checking over the edits that I had previously accepted as part of this request so I can feel more comfortable that I didn't accept any changes I shouldn't have? Thanks! Linearizable (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Is that request the one under the heading of Request to update "Technology and products" shown →here←?  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  00:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC) The first request addition is problematic because the COI editor has not provided you with the page number of the source for this sentnec: "Teradata offers three main solutions to its customers: cloud and hardware based data warehousing, business analytics, and ecosystem architecture consulting." I would have declined it on that aspect. The second request addition states: ""In September 2016, the company launched Teradata Everywhere, which allows users to submit queries against public and private databases. The solution has a code base using massively parallel processing across both its physical data warehouse and cloud storage, including managed environments such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, VMware, and Teradata's Managed Cloud and IntelliFlex." This is problematic because the editor is copying the phrasing used by the sources, only taking care to change the order of the words used while keeping intact the spirit of the original author's phrasing. This is plagairism. Take a look: Comparison of texts Text proposed by Dodds Writer Text as it appears in the Source Material "In September 2016, the company launched Teradata Everywhere, which allows users to submit queries against public and private databases. " "The Teradata Everywhere initiative allows Teradata's MPP analytic database to run on Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure (i.e., public and private databases)." "The solution has a code base using massively parallel processing across both its physical data warehouse and cloud storage, including managed environments such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, VMware, and Teradata's Managed Cloud and IntelliFlex." (2nd source)→ "Now you can exploit the power of massively parallel processing ..." (1st source)→ "...to run on Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, in addition to Teradata IntelliFlex, VMware, and the Teradata Managed Cloud." "Teradata offers customers both hybrid cloud and multi-cloud storage." "Teradata is having hybrid and multi-cloud deployment options." References Notice that in the first example above, all they did was change Amazon and Microsoft to Public and Private databases. Substitute those two things and you essentially have the same sentence. In the second example above, they've taken a new 2nd source ("massively parallel processing..") and blended it with the prior 1st source they used, specifically, the part about Amazon and Microsoft — but this time they leave it as is, blending it on to their newly created sentence combining the two sources. You can tell its a hybridized sentence because it ungrammatical — try reading it aloud a few times — its cadence is very odd sounding, and difficult to even read very quickly. In the third example above, it's the same story — they've copied the exact phrasing used by the source material. In fact, by this point they don't even bother changing the main words around. As you can see, its almost verbatim, though a few of the minor words are changed ("deployment options" vs. "storage" which are practically the same things). In the end, they must feel that because it is a very short sentence, they can get away with doing it. But if they're getting paid to do this, then it should at least be real work that they're doing — rather than copying others' work. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  01:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation

I hear you're clearing the COI edit request backlog. Good for you! EEng 03:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. As of this posting, the COI edit request queue stands at zero — the first time it's reached that number in over five years. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request - Tiko Kerr

Spintendo, thanks very much for the advice. Just new at this, will do my homework and do as suggested. (I'm amazed I got this far)

Rexb9 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll be please to hear that, thanks to Spintendo's efforts, the edit request queue is currently a lot shorter than in was when you made you first request, Rexb9 (single figures rather than triple!). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

COI edit requests

I know I'm jumping around a few different talk pages but I plan on addressing each one over the next few days. Thanks for the patience. JacobMW (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing help

Considering you were the one that responded to my article, I am reaching out for your help. I am trying to create a Wiki page about the company I work for but have been turned around a few times now. When I went to create the article I read that if I had a personal connection to the topic that I should post it in the 'Talk' section and have someone edit it for me. I have done so and now you have responded telling me that this is not accurate. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FisherIDO - for your reference)

Since you seem to be a knowledgeable individual about Wikipedia's inner workings, I am asking your assistance in posting my article in the proper place so that 1. It can be reviewed and edited, and 2. Ultimately be posted.

If you could steer me in the right direction with the proper steps to get this article to the right place I would appreciate it.

FisherIDO (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

NCAA Infractions Discussion - FSU

Thanks for your comments. I responded to them on the talk page if you care to participate. You are welcome to the discussion. Cheers! Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

My COI edit requests

Hope you're having a great holiday season, Spintendo. Thank you again for being so responsive with my edit requests and volunteering your time to implement them. I wanted to ask you: what would be the easiest way to respond back to your changes? From my understanding, some of them were not implemented as they do not follow best practice but I feel some of them could be easily fixed. I also had questions on some of them but would hate to be that much of a nuisance and would rather ask you the best way that I can meet you half way and not be too annoying. Let me know. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Requests belong on the article's talk page. If I'm answering them, it's not a nuisance. Placing the changes underneath the comments works for me. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, just wondering in general. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

On the same topic, any tips for submitting articles through AFC? I intend on submitting future new articles there but just wondering if you have any tips for someone in my position. JacobMW (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

COI Request on Modern Flat Earth Groups

Hey Spinoza, will you take a moment to look at my additional comments concerning the COI request if they haven't been fullfilled? I marked them again as COI Request to edit, and am unsure if this was the proper way to add more information to the request. First off, I am the Secretary of The Flat Earth Society. The main additional point is that our societies name is "The Flat Earth Society" not "Flat Earth Society". The new format clearly shows this. WakingJohn (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit more information I included on the talk page itself:

This format seems to match the previous agreement as well as implements the new changes that are clearly more readable, accurate, and chronological:

• The Flat Earth Society of 2004/2009
• The Flat Earth Society of 2013
• The International Flat Earth Research Society

To recap, it accurately names each organization, instead of the current inaccurate naming of "The Flat Earth Society" as "Flat Earth Society". It also shows them in a more readable format that clearly notes the agreed upon format, lists them chronologically, and increases readability. WakingJohn (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, your proposal sounds great from our end! Just wanted to thank you for taking a second look at it all and for your time on it in general! WakingJohn (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tavares article

Hi, many thanks for your notes on Rodrigo Tavares article:

. I have formatted all citations to comply with the format you recommended. Many thanks for the tips. It looks much better

. I have deleted the content that was not supported by sources. The previous version indicated that he had been nominated StartUp Portugal Ambassador, but I couldnt find online sources (only a social media piece of news) to confirm that statement. I have also replaced the sentence "He started his career by assessing the social, economic and security impacts of regional integration and supranational arrangements" by "His first publications assessed the social, economic and security impacts of regional integration and supranational arrangements" - and added another early publication demonstrating just that.

. I have also took a bit of time to read User:Jytdog/How. Enlightening.

Revised version is in the Talk section - Edited Source (for some reason doesnt show in Read section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgvwiki07 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

fgvwiki07: hi, many thanks for your edits in the Rodrigo Tavares article. I have gone through all your comments and addressed them/replied to them underneath.

Hi, other editors have come in today and made changes that contradict the revisions we were making and some of the ones that you had approved and implemented. Would it be possible for you to take a lead on this? Otherwise we wont reach the end of the article! Also, the editions made today by the editors maintain that Rodrigo Tavares is a diplomat. This is utterly false. I just have the feeling that Im spending an incredible number of hours accounting for every single comment by editors and then the final result is, sadly, far from good, with false information being maintained while relevant information is cut out. Fgvwiki07 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The base article - the one that precisely covers all issues and suggestions from editors - is the one I posted on Talk pages this morning. Could you take a look at it please? Many thanks! Fgvwiki07 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

One final observation: as you can see, after so many contributions from editors, they wrote the sentence "in 2017 he was nominated as Young Global Leader by the Ministry of International Relations of Québec", but this information is false. The Quebec nomination was made in 2011 and the WEF one in 2017. The base article in Talk Pages is much clear (and trustwhorty!) Fgvwiki07 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)