This is an archive of past discussions with User:Spintendo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
When the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team gets requests from organizations by email to make edits, I am thinking of sending organizations to this board to make their request. Currently that team gets confused about what requests should be private and what should be public. I want to put part of that decision onto the organization and to direct them to make their own request public as the default first option.
@Bluerasberry: Thank you for your message and for the opportunity to give feedback, it's much appreciated. As I understand it, the current system which has generated the backlog at OTRS[a] operated in the following manner.
An editor with a COI editing need previously had two pathways they could take in requesting an edit:
The new process is WP:OWE (shown with a dotted line indicating the new pathway; the connection to the older pathway is shown with a dashed line). Using this new pathway, editors who represent organizations will be able to utilize a new forum for their requests to be answered.[b] This noticeboard offers more accountability than that which is generated via the usual pathway of CAT:EDITREQ (which uses the {{request edit}} template).
The term accountability as it's used here is presumably twofold:[c] First, the edit request review would become more accountable in that a detailed — and more importantly — searchable record would be generated for editors to access. Second, the edit request review would be more accountable by becoming more malleable. The current request pathway offers one reviewer to handle each request, a pathway which is limiting for organizations who might otherwise have their requests declined by the reviewing editor. When that occurs, organizations may feel as if there were no other recourse for them to succeed in implementing their edits. A review noticeboard, such as that at OWE, would by comparison bring more voices to the fold, thus expanding an organization's opportunity to find consenting editors willing to review the organization's edit requests.
This process of becoming more malleable should not be seen as a negative. In the current system, if an editor performing the review makes a mistake, it may go unnoticed by the community for some time. Having access to a larger pool of editors enables mistakes to be caught more promptly, and generally helps to ensure that the request process continues in a fair manner faithful to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
The work you've done on OWE appears substantial, and is tremendously appreciated by us all. I look forward to seeing how the new system works, in the hope that this will help to improve OTRS — which is itself, an incredibly valuable process important to the running of Wikipedia. Being able to better handle the requests which OTRS receives is a worthwhile endeavor. I'm here to help in any way, if I can. Warm regards, Spintendo22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Notes
^The number of edit requests received through CAT:EDITREQ increased substantially in the time period immediately following the clearance of the edit request backlog in December 2017, which likely means that pro rata the same increase in edit requests would also have been felt by those working the volunteer response team at OTRS. Those additional requests would have included an increase in those which did not easily meet the private/public suggestion criteria mentioned by Bluerasberry (e.g., "Currently that team gets confused about what requests should be private and what should be public."). Going forward, it might be worthwhile to note what criteria the team had previously been instructed to use in their approach to deciding between private or public request suggestions — criteria which ultimately proved insufficient in helping the team members to make that distinction. If those criteria are not addressed, the problem may stand a chance of continuing.
^The assumption is that the board has been created for use by editors affiliated with larger organizations — owing to the naming of it as an organization wanting edits — with the additional assumption that this board would then be available for use by any individual should they express the need for it.
^The reason for accountability being presumably twofold is because there are other systems devisable which deliver searchable records while continuing the one-on-one aspect of the current edit request process. However, those types of systems were ulimately not chosen — which suggests a second reason for the change beyond just record-keeping abilities. While this secondary reason cannot be known with any certainty, the nature and character of input received from editors in the time period immediately preceding the development of OWE — in particular, the input received from editors emailing their edit requests to OTRS — would ostensibly provide greater appreciation for why the noticeboard was chosen over other design considerations.
"Thanks, I posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Organization_Wants_Edit#Spintendo_deconstructs_the_use_case. What you describe above is exactly how I imagined this to work. I want to sit on this feedback maybe until after WikiConference North America 2019 where I would show off the system and your feedback to some others.
"I am considering whether this system should be for organizations specifically, or whether the email queue should refer all sorts of edit requests to this board. The email queue gets many people around the world requesting edits, typically because either they do not know that they can edit or because they are in a state of mind where they will only make a request but not edit themselves. I believe that most invitations for such people to edit instead halt the conversation, and that by sending them to make a request on a board, then at least they might repeat their request there. Posting to talk pages would be best, but my guess is that 80% of the time, users will not try. I think that if there were a dedicated board for requests with some more detailed instructions at the top then more users would post. Once they came to be on wiki, then either the request could be cross-posted, linked, or otherwise make its way to the article talk page, where at least it would be logged in public as a user suggestion.
I have some thoughts about what you said above Spintendo and I will reply soon but for now, this is the additional information that I have from others. I said on that board talk page and I will say here again also - your process, more than any other single intervention, is why I drafted out this experimental board. I am impressed with this process that you have so greatly developed and with the consistently good results you get from users who go through your process. You have a high engagement rate, and within that engagement, a high success rate in terms of getting thoughtful original content submissions and seeming user satisfaction. Blue Rasberry (talk)21:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Gloria Casarez
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
By and large the article is essentially a copy of the informational page on the subject found online at UPenn's library. Even though there has been minimal attempts at paraphrasing the material, the resemblance between the two remains striking. Whomever wrote the Wikipedia article was definately either (1) the person who wrote the UPenn material; or (2) someone else who simply copied the material. The first is the most likely, as both items were published/created at about the same time period just after the subject's passing in October 2014. The chances that someone else would have stumbled upon the UPenn article so quickly after it was created (mere days apart), who then decided right there to copy the whole page for placement in Wikipedia, is highly unlikely. Only the person who originally wrote the material would be so bold as to copy the entirety of it. So to answer your question about looking at the article, I think that should be directed to a staff member of UPenn's library, since the material found within the Wikipedia article is essentially UPenn's article, just with Wikipedia's name on it. Regards, Spintendo10:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Migdia Skarsgård Chinea.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please add info to my page. I added When it rains release date and it looks self serving. Thanks and love. MiG Mig (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Migdiachinea: I have omitted the mentioning of the film, because that film is not yet independently notable in Wikipedia. When it has its own page in Wikipedia, that will be the time to mention it. I've also applied the {{COI}} maintenance template, as you appear to have added much of the content yourself to the article, which is not recommended. More information about conflict-of-interest editing may be found at WP:PANDSCOI. Regards, Spintendo03:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Nice signature!
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was passing through various articles, doing a bit of editing as normal and came across a reply you'd given on a talk page. Just wanted to say how great I thought your signature was! Formulaonewiki22:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Restated request for recourse on Beacon College Wikipedia page
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Spintendo:
I am reposting here this missive from June that received no response. I've been busy on several projects for the college and couldn't return my attention to this matter. That has changed, and I'm back to trying to resolve this matter.
Reposting this reply [looking for response and recourse]
Good morning, Spintendo:
Again, I appreciate your gracious response.
You ponder the reason why the Orlando Sentinel would "devote a substantial portion of its reporting to Beacon."
First of all, any major metropolitan newspaper worth its salt boasts a higher education reporter, and sometimes more than one (a large metropolitan area like Boston, with the embarrassment of riches it enjoys in institutions of higher learning might task several reporters to cover the higher education beat).
Consequently, a higher education reporter writes articles about the higher education institutions within the newspaper's geographic coverage area.
In the case of the Orlando Sentinel, these institutions would include Rollins College, the University of Central Florida, Seminole State College, Valencia College, Stetson University, (sometimes Florida A&M and Bethune-Cookman), Lake-Sumter College, and, when warranted, Beacon College.
As such, this charge of "regional bias" doesn't compute. Obviously, a newspaper that covers higher education would cover news of the institutions of higher education in its regional coverage area. That would not be classified as bias. That would be classified as the newspaper doing its job.
Moreover, Beacon College received coverage by the Orlando Sentinel because of the school's novelty — Beacon College is one of only two colleges in the United States dedicated to educating students with learning disabilities, ADHD, and other learning differences. These are students who before 1989 when the school was founded had few options in pursuing postsecondary education.
Novelty is news. Therefore, of course, any newspaper — including The Orlando Sentinel — would cover novel news in its geographic area. That is the function of a standard newspaper operation — not evidence of regional bias.
Moreover, the chart that you included MAKES the argument I advanced.
Your chart rightly shows that the institutions noted have existed far longer than Beacon College. Yet, despite their maturity, their Wikipedia articles still rely on a preponderance of regional news coverage and self-generated sources.
Your argument suggests that given their longer operating lives that these schools should have been able to produce far more "non-regional/independent" and "non-biased" sources than their Wikipedia articles contain.
And yet they don't.
Yet, their articles pass muster.
So, returning to my main point, regarding the "dearth of independent sources," there was no way 30 years ago when the school was founded nor anyway today to compel news outlets outside the region to write articles about a small niche school outside their coverage areas. Nor is there any way Beacon College can jump into Dr. Who's Tardis and return to the past and compel or cajole news outlets, book authors, think tanks and others to pen articles about the Beacon College-related happenings that the Orlando Sentinel rightly chronicled.
The historical coverage of Beacon College to this point is what it is. There are no other sources to be found in the countless databases we search. You can't turn up what doesn't exist.
Given the reliance that many people across the globe now have with using Wikipedia articles as their go-to source for information about a subject, we recognize the importance, value, and desperate need for Beacon College to have a comprehensive — and accurate — Wikipedia article available for individuals researching the college. What currently exists is woefully out-of-date and woefully inadequate.
Thank you for your questions and comments. While I see your point, the issue with the Orlando Sentinel's conflict of interest is not imaginary. You said it yourself — A newspaper that covers higher education would cover news of the institutions of higher education in its regional coverage area. With that, there is a built-in obligation on the part of the newspaper to cover this school — and the school knows that. Over time, this obligation can easily become a two-way street, with the school having an expectation that every story they release, no matter how insignificant, would be reported on by the paper. In this manner, the school exists within the Sentinel's blind spot — in that their role as an objective provider of news can easily come into conflict with their role as the expected reporter of information coming from the school. There's just no denying that.
This doesn't make every story the paper does on the school rejectable, it only means that extra caution needs to be taken when choosing which stories are appropriate to use as references. I would assume that most of the Sentinel's coverage about the school is purely news — this location of the school opened, or that class is now available — that sort of thing. The only problem is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, meaning items covered by a local paper about a local school which is news to the paper and the area's residents is not necessarily the best content for use in Wikipedia.
When you say that the school recognizes the need for comprehensive information to be available for individuals researching the college what you mean is potential students, and the need to promote the college to them. While Wikipedia appreciates the power of its reach, it does not exist for the promotion of the school. You're correct in saying that the school should have a comprehensive article, which I believe is an achievable goal. Also achievable, is an article which is vigorously checked to ensure WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTPROMO.
In practical terms that means that the University may submit items for inclusion using itself as the reference when those items are non-controversial, such as employee numbers, faculty, etc. Items that are presented that call attention to the school's unique characteristics, such as its work with students who learn differently than mainstream students, this would be something that the Sentinel may report on (to a degree). Any items which are of major consequence, such as a claim of efficacy of certain styles of teaching for example, ought to be referenced by multiple, independent, reliable WP:SECONDARY sources (as those claims would naturally receive the most scrutiny). Claims to be accredited with/ certified by/ registered for/ allied with, etc. ought to be referenced by whichever organization is doing the accrediting/certifying/licensing, etc. Those organizations also ought to already be independently notable in Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Regards, Spintendo22:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Good morning, Spintendo:
Thanks for your prompt response.
Rather than investing more time in another round of debate (although I will say to one point, it is not only potential enrollees who rely on an accurate comprehensive Wikipedia page about the college, but also researchers, journalists, etc.), I'll pivot to the central theme in my previous communication which was not addressed in your latest response: What recourse do we have? What are the next actionable (and realistic) steps we can take to have the revised Beacon College page pass muster?
Good morning! I actually answered that question in the last paragraph of my reply message. In that reply, I specified which types of references would be appropriate for different types of claims. Regards, Spintendo19:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for guidance on COI Request Edit protocol
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you have very kindly (and patiently!) been responding to my edit requests on the Selecta article, thank you. I've just seen that you left a note on my page because I forgot to disclose my COI on my last request, and I wanted to apologise / thank you for flagging! I thought it did it automatically now because I had disclosed it on my talk page, but obviously not. Do I need to go back and add it now? Also, my apologies, I'm not sure of the best way to reply, but I hope you see this. Many thanks EmilyRH31 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Although you have disclosed your COI on your talk page and on the article's talk page, it might not be immediately apparant that there is a COI to those editors dropping by the article's talk page specifically for the requested move discussion. That's because the link from the requested move page takes editors to a position on the talk page which is below the COI disclosure of yours which is posted at the top of the talk page. That's why I suggested that the COI be mentioned again in the requested move statement, just to be sure. You may add a single sentence to your statement if you like, re-stating your COI. Regards, Spintendo09:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Hi there! Reached out here, but FYI, the editor who placed the COI flag on this article appears no longer to be active on Wikipedia. Is there another way I can seek review of that flag? WP:WTRMT states that "Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} ... strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed". That seems to be the case here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the problematic material which was added at the time the template was placed has since been removed, so I removed the template. Regards, Spintendo19:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page will be a prominent link on the website. It would be very helpful to have to the "This article has multiple issues." history removed. How can that be accomplished? Thanks.
Randy000 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Randy000
@Randy000: Thank you for your question. Each maintenance template contains directions for which actions are needed to be taken in order for the template to be removed. I suggest following the directions posted for each template in order to place the article in a state where they may be removed. If you have a conflict of interest with regards to editing that page, it is suggested that you leave requests for changes on the article's talk page rather than making any changes yourself. Regards, Spintendo22:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Why were all of my edits reversed?
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
Last week I spent a significant amount of time updating the wiki page for Brentwood College School. I uploaded their most current logo, added information about their new athletic building, and took away incorrect information about an athlete who should not be on the list of Olympians. Plus I added recent photos. Is there a reason all of this work was reversed? I am relatively new to editing and was proud of the work, and quite disappointed when it was all undone.
Is there a reason, or something I should have done differently?
@YYJYYJ: As part of my work with CopyPatrol, we received this notice that insufficiently paraphrased text had been added to the Brentwood article. That text was reverted along with additional text which contained unreferenced material (including material referenced only by the college itself), trivia, and claims which appeared to mimic information found in a college course catalog (such as detailed listings of classes offered). These were all omitted and/or limited per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, WP:NPOV, WP:HTRIV, WP:NOTACATALOG, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Regards, Spintendo15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Boundless Immigration public charge update
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I noticed your recommendation to add context to the public charge rule while updating the Boundless Immigration article. Was checking in to see if this satisfies what you're looking for. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canonicale (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Canonicale:"Was checking in to see if this satisfies what you're looking for." I'm not sure what is meant by the use of the word this in that sentence, so I'm unable to answer your question. Please provide either a WP:DIFF or an enhanced clarification to help me better understand what it is that you're looking for. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo22:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I now see which article and what changes you are referring to. I'm assuming that by "my recommendation to add context to the public charge rule" you're referring to my suggestion that you go ahead and make any changes to the draft yourself. That would be correct then — making changes to the article as you did while in draft mode was perfectly fine. Unfortunately your changes did not result in the article being approved, but as it is in the draft stage, it can be continually worked on. Just be sure to work along with any other editors who may also be trying to improve the page. Discussing changes with other editors on the talk page is always encouraged. Regards, Spintendo22:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Reverting edits on a draft article
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Spintendo—thank you again for your help with Draft:Boundless Immigration. I have a couple of new questions where I'd be grateful for your advice:
1) A very new editor with no user description page, Canonicale, made a series of edits to the article last week that, in my view, failed to improve it. Is it okay for me to revert those edits?
2) It appears this editor, Canonicale, resubmitted the article for approval—very prematurely, as far as I understand this process. As a result, another veteran editor, DGG, declined the article, citing "written like an ad" and insufficient sources for notability. What does this do to the draft process?
3) When I am ready to resubmit the article, should I take the new draft through the AFC process rather than leaving it where it currently is?
@Messier6: Thank you for your questions. I'll answer them in order:
It is ok for you to revert their changes (by "OK" I mean that is something you are allowed to do while the article is in the drafting stage). That being said, it would not be recommended as the first step in dealing with edits that are not working for the article. The first step should be to approach the other editor either on their talk page or the draft's talk page and discuss what may be wrong with the edits they implemented, with a goal of getting them to agree with how you see it — or at least re-appraising your view of their changes. A pragmatic approach to editing is always recommended as the best way to go.
The second answer depends on how many "declines" the draft has received. A first "decline" from WP:AFC merely prevents the page from attaining 'article' status by keeping the draft in its current stage. It does not delete the draft, nor does it close off any additional edits made with the intention of improving the draft. You and any other editors may continue to add and remove information from the draft as you and other editors see fit. A second decline will eventually move the draft closer and closer to being deleted, so the number of declines should be kept to 1 or 2 at most; 3 would be the draft's death knell and should be avoided.[a]
By "new draft" I'm assuming you mean a revised version of the 'declined' draft, rather than an entirely different draft under a different name with similar information. I mention this because you had stated that there was another editor complicating things with their edits — and starting anew with a different draft that you began yourself under a different title would be one way to sideline them from editing the draft. But if you mean to stick with the current draft, then it's not a question of should you take the draft to AFC — rather, you must take the draft to AFC. That is the only pathway for it to becoming an article.
^It is important to keep in mind that the number of times a draft is proposed through AFC must be kept to a minimum. The editors who work at AFC — with good reason — view their time as valuable, and any draft which is continually proposed to AFC showing no considered effort to improve it runs the risk of becoming WP:SALTED — which is to say that the draft would not be able to be edited by anyone and would be prevented from ever being proposed at AFC again.
Requested edits to National Cancer Institute page
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for the instructions you left on my Talk page regarding my suggested edits for the National Cancer Institute page. I am trying to learn the ways of Wikipedia and value any guidance offered.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Spintendo
Wikipedia turned to prof. YIftacel that this page has changed and his name been removed or changed location with other scholars. I am Irit, prof. Yiftachel assistant and he asked me to edit this page to the correct one that he made.
I am new at this and do not understand exactly where did I go wrong, since my correction has been deleted. it was hard for me to edit, do to knowledge in coding for reference and catch, since I do not have the knowledge.
can I send you the correction and you will update the page? or can you help me understand how to do it the right way, so it won't be deleted by you.
@Orenirit: Thank you for your question. Changes to an article should be submitted on the article's talk page, using the verbatim text that you wish to include, for a neutral editor to review and implement if acceptable. When doing so, please make sure to use the {{request edit}} template and to sign all posts you leave using four tildes (⇧ Shift+~ x4). A sample edit request for how this should be done is shown below:
Sample edit request
1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."
2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."
3. Using as the reference:
Paramjit Harinath (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
--Ben at GFG (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Hi @Spintendo - I responded to your feedback (very helpful, thank you) and provided some new suggested edits to the Sanjeev Gupta bio on the talk page. I'd be grateful if you are able to take a look. Thanks :) --Ben at GFG (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben at GFG (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo and thanks again for your time on Masrour Barzani. It's minor but I noticed there's a comma missing between "Kurdistan Region" and "since June 2019" in the first sentence, which means the end of it could be read as the KRG having been the official ruling body of the region since June 2019. Do you mind fixing that? Thanks. Halgurd1 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@SStankevich: Logos may be uploaded using one of two available licenses: fair use or public domain. Fair use logos are those that are under copyright and which are distinctly made over the threshold of creativity. These need to be uploaded to Wikipedia under a {{non-free media}} fair use license, done so in a small enough size to justify minimal use. Public domain logos are those that may still fall under a trademark but whose design lies just under the threshold for creativity, such as those which involve merely letters and shapes. Those logos need to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under public domain {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} licenses. The logo that you have uploaded consists of merely letters and shapes, and would presumably fall in the public domain, which means the logo should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons — but you've uploaded it to Wikipedia, where those types of files should not be added. What should be done is for you to upload the logo using the Commons Upload Wizard along with the appropriate license and then return to the article's talk page with the uploaded file's name and propose adding the file using the {{request edit}} template. Regards, Spintendo17:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Computer Tycoon - List of Business Management Games
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo,
Thanks for your help on the list of all business management games, I really appreciate it. Wikipedia editing is still an interesting and challenging task for me - so thanks for your patience.
I've added additional reasons as requested (why the game should be on the list). I feel like we have not resolved the situation, because the main reasons of GermanJoe are COI and notability, while notability is not a requirement and the game was not even added to the list by me in the first place. That's why I tried to use external help.
As far as I understood your first reaction was that there is no reason to not include the game. But after GermanJoe coming up with COI and notability - we are back to the starting point. After checking GermanJoe's profile I've also discovered traces of similar issues, where actually he was accused by COI by removing specific contents (reasoning with COI), while not touching others. And I start to wonder why only Computer Tycoon bothers him on the list being am Early Access game and not having notability.
I understand that I have COI being the developer of the game, that's why I requested an edit - but I think hiding a business game from a list with an intention to index all business games is not really an act to keep Wikipedia PR safe, especially when there is no opinion involved on the given list (it just and index) - and is not helping to grow Wikipedia either.
@Progorion: Thank you for your question. GermanJoe's concern seems to be that the game has not been released. The list contains only games which have already been released. Those games either were, or are, currently available at one time or another to the public (such as in the past). Neither of those situations apply to the game at hand. As Wikipedia generally does not include WP:FUTURE claims in articles, applying the information now would seem premature. I'm sure it could be added at a later date once the game is released and available to the public. Regards, Spintendo15:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer! You may misunderstand him then because as I've mentioned in my reply on the talk page, several other games are also under "early access" on the list. Also "early access" games are available to the public. The game at hand has around 17.000 owners on Steam alone and can be bought and played on around 10 platforms. Early Access is a program on Steam which enables developers to release their games with the intention of involving the community to shape the game. Including early access games is a practice on this list since the term exists, and the majority of indie titles (which are actually the majority of all the games in the genre) were early access releases (and shown) on the list. --Progorion (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The article is a list of simulator games that are available to the public without qualifications.[a] The requirement that users who wish to play the game must be a part of the early access program is a qualification. You stated that there are other games on the list which are not available without qualification. Those should ideally be only games which are independently notable within Wikipedia.[b] Regards, Spintendo18:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Notes
^If the list were meant to feature pre-release games, the article's title would reflect that distinction. Conversely, if the article were meant to feature both released and pre-release games, the title would reflect that as well.
^"Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."
Thank you very much for your reply and patience again!
I think I may misunderstand here something. Could you help me to understand why is Early Access a qualification, please?
- People who would like to play the game are not required to "be a part of the early access program". Early Access is more of like a status of the game, a sidenote - so that people who see it will understand that the game is likely to be developed further - but it is not guaranteed, so by buying it, they are paying for it as it is right now. The Early Access status is not recognized everywhere as a status where the game(s) is(are) released, an example for that is Microsoft's Windows 10/xBox Store. But even on Steam, you don't have to "join a program of Early Access" or even check a checkbox to be able to buy and play Early Access Games. But to buy and play a game on Steam every game must be in a "released" state. So Early Access games are "released games", they are not "pre-release" games. Early Access games are only accepted by Steam (and by other stores where early access is not even a thing) if the game has a fully game cycle, is running reliably and offers the core experience of the game already. Technical alphas or demo projects etc. are not accepted. When an Early Access game is not fulfilling its roadmap, so if the developers abandon the project, the game leaves its Early Access status/tag anyways.
- If still ideally only non-Early Access game's should be listed, then most of the games on that list should have been not listed in the first place because most of them were not notable according to Wikipedia's description of the notability of videogames. The majority of these business simulation games are made by independent developers and are released into Early Access for more than a decade now. Why is only Computer Tycoon removed and not the others? People are repeatedly re-adding the game to the list anyways and to me, it doesn't seem to be practical that way. With my edit request, I wanted to stop this pointless cycle - especially because of my community is also frustrated about that. If you tell me to just let it go, I definitely will, because to be honest, it doesn't make much difference personally to me - but I hoped for a solution as a regular Wikipedia reader.
Example of games which are or were Early Access titles on when they were released and were added to the list nonetheless:
Not knowing all the details of the game here, all I can say is that the company-assigned designation of Early access is all that is needed for the program to be considered as pre-released. That label is all that is needed for a qualification to exist — it's what holds it apart from other programs and is not malleable. These labels follow the rules of logic. For example, if my friend Tristan calls me on the phone, I can label that phone call as coming from Tristan, or I can label the call as not coming from Tristan — but I cannot label it as both.[a] Much is the same for the game: Either the program has the designation of early access or it doesn't have the designation of early access; it cannot be both. Placing the game on the list should come about as the result of naturally being available to everyone, irrespective of considerations for early access to certain members of the public who pay for it. Regards, Spintendo15:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Notes
^This rule of logic is known as modus ponens, which is expressed as: | R⊃~Q | Q ▻| ~R Which is to say: If it is a released program, then there are no qualifications. It is not the case that there are no qualifications, thus it is not a released program.
Help with declined edit request
Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spindendo,
I'd like to ask your help please with the wikipedia process for requesting reconsideration of a declined edit request.
On the Quicksort page you declined my edit request with the following reasons: request edit|D|Per WP:SPS, WP:NOR. I don't believe either of these is applicable.
For the SPS concern, I am the author of the article, not the publisher. The articles are reviewed by ACM referees, DDJ editors, or university professors, as the case may be, and then published by those respective institutions. See the 'publisher' tag on the citations to note that they are not me, my blog, nor any other unreviewed sources. The types of publications cited are listed as reliable sources.
For the NOR concern, original research is not being introduced by the edit request. So-called original research refers "to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". The edit request cites research that is published elsewhere, as reliable sources and not SPS.
How should I provide this feedback on the Quicksort talk page and request reconsideration and removal of the '|D|Per WP:SPS, WP:NOR' from my edit request based on the information above?
@JohnBoyerPhd: Thank you for your questions, I'll answer them in order:
As far as the WP:SPS concerns, two of the four submitted references were from conferences and symposiums, which means that those were not traditionally published.[a] The remaining two references were published by (a) the University of Southern Mississippi and (b) the Dr. Dobb's Journal. The University of Southern Mississippi is not, itself, a peer-reviewed journal.[b] Likewise, Dr Dobbs — when it was actively published — was a magazine, and not a peer-reviewed journal.
You stated that The edit request cites research that is published elsewhere, as reliable sources and not SPS. This ostensibly means that the sources you've submitted were those used in the commission of the articles that you did initially submit as references. And yet, those sources were not submitted to buttress the four sources that you did submit as references. Thus, those four sources appear as the only ones being submitted for the request, for surely WP:V[c] is not meant to include all unknown sources that the submitted sources may have used but that were not included with the request. Regards, Spintendo16:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Notes
^Articles written during conferences and symposia are published as peer-reviewed papers all the time. The difference is that those articles are submitted for peer-review after those meetings, and are then published in established, reliable, peer reviewed journals. There is no indication that the peer review process took place with these two publications. If that is the case, kindly supply the {{DOI}} numbers that accompany them.
^"Peer-review" as it is known may have indeed occured at this University — but that review would have been done "in-house" so to speak — and not open to peer review from outside of the University.
^WP:V states that all material in Wikipedia mainspace must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
I'd like to ask that we engage in the Wikipedia negotiation process on this decision. The first part of the compromise I'd like to make is to eliminate the History section content because the style of the section forces me to mention my name in the text and so eliminating that content removes the major source of COI. It also removes the burden of having to provide the earliest references to linked list quicksort, which eliminates references about which you expressed greater concern. Finally, I believe removing the history content also removes any concern of undue emphasis, since the remainder of the content is a few sentences in the Variants section that comprise neutral factual content about the existence and performance of quicksort variants.
I'd like for us to separately negotiate the two parts, linked list quicksort and partially declarative quicksort.
The ask that I have of you is if you could please review the standards of reliable sources and reconsider your classifications. I don't believe it is supported by Wikipedia that all references must come from peer reviewed journals. The Wikipedia literature banning self-published sources refers to blogs, social media and the like, as well as predatory journals and the vanity press where authors pay to have their works "published." Neither Dr. Dobb's Journal nor the ACM Document Engineering conference fall into these categories.
Dr. Dobb's was a respected computer industry journal that paid its authors (not the other way around) and whose editors carefully selected and reviewed materials before publication as they were responsible to over 150,000 paying subscribers. The endorsement of the editor of Algorithm Alley appears at the beginning of the cited article.
As for ACM Document Engineering, it has a good rank among computer science conferences, and its proceedings are indexed by DBLP and ResearchGate. Although other symposia may not referee their conference papers, good computer science conferences including ACM DocEng do referee their papers before acceptance, and authors revise their papers to address the points in the referees' reports. By following the DOI in the reference, 10.1145/3342558.3345397, one arrives at the ACM digital library page that does show that the paper was refereed and the conference acceptance rate -- and hence 1 - rejection rate (on the publication tab).
These are the reasons that the two sources are reliable for the purposes of supporting the revised proposed Wikipedia content below.
Linked List Quicksort
The Quicksort is typically taught using a bidirectional partition method appropriate for in-place exchange of array elements[1]. In this variant, the partitioning method is performed by a unidirectional iteration of each partition in which nodes with a lesser key than the pivot node's key are unlinked from their current list location and then inserted into the sublist before the pivot node[2]. This variant enabled empirical commparison of linked list Quicksort with linked list merge sort, which performed faster due to optimal halving of partitions[2]. The merge sort is well-suited to linked lists[3].
NOTE: This reference already appears in the article, except the year of volume 3 third edition is 1998 (only volume 1 third edition has a 1997 copyright): Donald KnuthThe Art of Computer Programming, Volume 3: Sorting and Searching, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1998. ISBN0-201-89685-0. Pages 113–122 of section 5.2.2: Sorting by Exchanging. [1]
Robert SedgewickAlgorithms in C++, Part 3: Sorting, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1998. ISBN0-201-35088-2. Page 366 of Section 8.7: Linked-List Implementations of Mergesort. [3]
Partially Declarative Quicksort
In this variant, the partitioning method implicitly performs a unidirection iteration of each partition by using declarative expressions to select the set of elements having a key less than the key of the pivot element. The declarative expressions appear within a constant number of multi-paradigm programming language commands that remove the set of lesser keyed elements from the partition and then insert the set into a location that is logically before the pivot element's location[4].
^ abThis reference already appears in the article, except the year of volume 3 third edition is 1998 (only volume 1 third edition has a 1997 copyright): Donald KnuthThe Art of Computer Programming, Volume 3: Sorting and Searching, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1998. ISBN0-201-89685-0. Pages 113–122 of section 5.2.2: Sorting by Exchanging.
^ abRobert SedgewickAlgorithms in C++, Part 3: Sorting, Third Edition. Addison-Wesley, 1998. ISBN0-201-35088-2. Page 366 of Section 8.7: Linked-List Implementations of Mergesort.
In the two years I've been reviewing edit requests, I can tell you that it isn't often when an author of information pushes for themselves to be the ones to source that information when it is added to an article. Those requests have rarely occurred, and when they do, they are usually unsupported by other scientists making those same claims. So you can understand why I would be hesitant about adding these claims referenced by your own work. If the claim statements made in your proposed text are verified by others, then those other sources besides yourself should also be used to confirm these statements. If there are no other sources, then this work falls under the rubric of original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Surely you can see by this requirement, that it is ultimately in your best interest to provide other sources beyond yourself for confirmation, because any reviewing editor will certainly require that other scientists reaching the same conclusions be provided in order to stave off an accusation of WP:NOR. Specifically, please show where the following claims are confirmed in publications other than your own:
Bidirectional partitioning enables empirical comparison of linked list Quicksort with linked list merge sort, performing faster due to optimal halving of partitions.
Partially declarative quicksort implicitly performs a unidirection iteration of each partition by using declarative expressions to select the set of elements having a key less than the key of the pivot element.
The declarative expressions appear within a constant number of multi-paradigm programming language commands that remove the set of lesser keyed elements from the partition and then insert the set into a location that is logically before the pivot element's location.[a]
^The Boyer source titled On the Expressive Power of Declarative Constructs in Interactive Document Scripts suggests that the variant described therein is based on original research: This paper presents a novel approach for a generalized comparison by transforming the problem into comparing executed code size of a benchmark imperative algorithm with a partially declarative variant of the same algorithm.
I do appreciate your efforts to ensure that content is added based on reliable sources, but I am concerned that you are adding a more restrictive policy to the stated Wikipedia process rules, resulting in rejection of content that it is in fact permissible to add. You have repeatedly cited the policy of no original research, so I'll start there. I agree with that policy, which states that content must not be added if "no published, reliable sources exist". The language does not support the addition of other than your own. This is also why it is not a violation of the WP:NOR policy to cite articles that do present original research, when published by reliable sources external to Wikipedia.
To answer your three specific questions: The first point, if amended from bidirectional to unidirectional, is supported by the DDJ article and the latter two points are supported by the DocEng paper. These are both published by reliable sources, not me, and are not subject to a rule of other than your own by expressed Wikipedia rules for published, reliable sources. Quite the contrary, the language of edit rules for potential COI here make it clear that a self-citation can in fact be added by the author if it is relevant, not excessive, not a self pub, doesn't place undue emphasis, and preferably doesn't add multiple self citations without adding any other references. Each of the two revised requests adds less than 100 words to a 5000+ word article in the Variants subsection at the bottom of the article and using only one self-citation per request. So, the content is relevant, not excessive, doesn't place undue emphasis, no multiple self-citations per variant, and citations from reliable sources (evidenced previously).
Lastly, I'd like to mention that I didn't make the edit request due to any doubt about the veracity of the proposed content. I mention this because the language rules for potential COI here states "You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." Accordingly, an author will be identified as the contributor of self-citing content if they add it themselves, but they may do so without even making an edit request if it conforms to the specifications in that paragraph, which my content does. It is recommended that an author could submit an edit request when in doubt. However, the language does not forbid submission of an edit request even when not in doubt.
Hence, the addition of the revised content is supported by multiple language items in the Wikipedia process documents, which is why I have asked for your reconsideration of the edit request.
Policy states that articles may make analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims only if those claims have been referenced by a secondary or tertiary source. According to you in your paper's abstract, you offer an original approach for a generalized comparison (e.g., "This paper presents a novel approach for a generalized comparison by transforming the problem into comparing executed code size of a benchmark imperative algorithm with a partially declarative variant of the same algorithm.") This would make it a primary source for describing the comparisons in this manner. Thus, additional secondary or tertiary sources are needed to avoid the novel interpretations made by your paper in its role as a primary source. But you've also stated here that your paper is a secondary source. So the question then becomes, which is your paper — is it the primary source delivering a novel approach to quicksort, or is a secondary source offering up analysis offered by itself as the primary source? If it is the former, then it requires secondary sources. It cannot be the latter — for while it can be secondary for the claims it makes which have already been made by others — in the areas where it describes its novel approach to quicksort comparisons it cannot be both a primary and secondary source. Regards, Spintendo07:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The word 'articles' in 'Policy states that articles...' is a reference to what Wikipedia articles can and cannot do. It is not a restriction on what the papers that Wikipedia articles cite can and cannot do. In Wikipedia articles, 'primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia'. Although I didn't ever say the DocEng paper was primary or secondary, I agree it would be classified as a primary source. In point of fact, Wikipedia articles must be able to cite primary sources because because one cannot get a peer-reviewed scientific paper published unless it does present some novel analysis, synthesis or evaluation. And, in point of fact, numerous primary sources are cited already in the very Quicksort article that we are discussing, including the CACM article that originally presents Hoare's quicksort, Sedgewick's dissertation, other CACM articles, a Journal of Algorithms paper, etc.
As I said, Wikipedia articles may make analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims only if those claims have been referenced by a secondary or tertiary source. Certain claims in your proposal are referenced only by a paper that you wrote. Your explanation is that this paper is a "straightforward descriptive statement of facts" — but in the same breath, you've also painted it as containing novel information because it "has to for it to be published" (one cannot get a peer-reviewed scientific paper published unless it does present some novel analysis, synthesis or evaluation) It would seem then, that your paper has the ability to become many things to many different people. Unfortunately here, it needs to pick a side — and the one you've ultimately chosen (I agree it would be classified as a primary source) means you need to provide secondary sources. Regards, Spintendo06:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Spintendo:, The key point that I'm highlighting is that Wikipedia article and the paper it cites are two different pieces of content. The Wikipedia article content I proposed does not make analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claims. I did not explain that the paper made "straightforward descriptive statements of facts". Rather, I explain that the Wikipedia article content I proposed makes "straightforward descriptive statements of facts" that are extracted from the reliably published paper. The point of the policy is to ensure that Wikipedia article content does not itself jump to any important original conclusions that do not appear in the primary source but instead support those conclusions with other secondary and tertiary sources. Please can you reconsider based on this important distinction about Wikipedia content versus externally sourced content? Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@JohnBoyerPhd: If the claims you are making are nothing more than a straightforward assertion of facts, then you should have no problem finding other sources to use to back up those claims. Which means that in every sentence where your paper titled On the Expressive Power of Declarative Constructs is used as a reference, there should be two superscript numbers within brackets at the end of it — one linked to your paper and a second one linked to another source which confirms the exact same claim. Regards, Spintendo17:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Spintendo:, I'd appreciate if you would interpret my comments only after restore deleted words that are crucial to understanding my meaning and connection to Wikipedia policy. The quoted Wikipedia policy that supports the addition of this content refers to performing straightforward assertion of facts extracted from a primary source. It's also clear from the definition of primary source that it is providing some point of originality that has not appeared before. Again, no peer-reviewed scientific paper can be published without it, and therefore it is not necessarily possible to implement the additional requirement you are personally adding of citing other sources. It is also clear from Wikipedia content itself that your requirement is yours and not a requirement of Wikipedia. A sentence can be supported by a primary source and no other, including in the very Quicksort page we are discussing, in which very many facts are each supported by a single primary source only. I ask that you remove this requirement as it is not supported by Wikipedia policy nor content, and let us please have a consideration of my content proposals based solely on Wikipedia policy. I ask that you remove your rejection and allow me to post my revised versions because I have answered all of your fairly raised concerns that are based on Wikipedia polices, and I have done so with links to and direct quotes of the applicable policies. Finally, I would like to return to my early assertion that I have made two requests that you joined together. Have you decided to accept the first of the two revised texts (on Linked List Quicksort) that is not based on the DocEng source on which the last couple of posts have focused? Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
It's also clear from the definition of primary source that it is providing some point of originality that has not appeared before. Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not report original research performed in a field, but waits for a secondary source to report it and then reports what the secondary source reports. That is not because Wikipedia objects to the field having original research. It's to make sure that Wikipedia reports what people familiar with that field consider as having been reasonably enough established by the original research. The secondary source serves as an intermediate filter.[1] Up till now it would have been helpful if you could have provided that filter by describing some of the secondary sources which verify the claims made in your paper — claims which are considered to be primary source claims — because ultimately my ability to implement your desired changes is only as good as your ability to provide those requested sources. After asking several times, you haven't responded with any — thus my review was given no alternative. As our discussion here reaches its constructive terminus, please feel free going forward to make use of the other resolution strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. If you have any questions about which ones to use, please don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Spintendo11:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Spintendo:, Thank you for offering to advise me on content dispute resolution processes. To engage in a process like seeking a third opinion, it appears to be necessary to update the declined request appearing on the Quicksort talk page based on elements of the discussion appearing here. I think the following are the next steps:
I would like to revise the text I proposed in the request based on a compromise on my part that I proposed during this thread. Does revising the request seem reasonable to you?
In declining my request, you conflated my two requests. I'd like to remove the content and reference of my second request from the edit request so that we can focus on an outcome for the (revised) first edit request. This has the advantage of removing the 'DocEng' primary source about which we seem to have reached a stalemate ("constructive terminus").
What would the next step of handling that revised edit request be? Would I add text below your decision asking you to review your decision based on the revised text? That appears to be the next step because we seemed at least to resolve that the DDJ source for the first request content was reliably published non-SPS, so if the revised content is still not acceptable, I believe you'd want a third reviewer to receive your rationale for rejecting the revised text, not the original text. On the other hand, the focus on and revisions to the first request may make them acceptable to you, which would obviate need of a third opinion process.
Thank you for all of the work you have done discussing this issue thoroughly with me, and I look forward to your responses to the above steps for moving forward. JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Annotation of the edit request The issues that I see going forward are shown in the image to the right. Those are the following:
The request contains text where it is not known what is to be done with it. The text is not marked as either needing to be placed in the article or needing to be removed from the article. What is to be done with this text is currently unknown.
Several ref notes have been placed in the request, but not within either (a) the requested text to be added; or (b) any requested text to be removed. That leaves the ref notes unaccounted for.
Secondary sources have not been provided. (Our discussion only ever covered this third point.)
Since I am the only other editor who has responded to the request at this point, the third person dispute resolution suggestion (WP:DRN) may be used. I will keep a lookout for the notice. Regards, Spintendo09:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Spintendo:, Thanks for the graphic. It clarified that we weren't talking about the revised proposed text I gave at the top of this thread as part of the compromise/negotiation process, so I put a better version of that revised text into the edit request on the quicksort page. It eliminates most of the stuff in the red boxes, so please review it along with the response summarizing how I believe it is supported by the various Wikipedia policies we have discussed in this thread. Please change the edit request status according to your judgments of the revised content and my rationale. If it is still a point of contention, then at least we will have a concise and up-to-date version of the contention, but if it is favorable, then we could obviously proceed from there based on clear due diligence having been performed here. Thank you, JohnBoyerPhd (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Help with formatting an edit request correctly
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I've posted two requests for recommended edits to the Northeastern University Wikipedia page, but you've responded to both that I haven't formatted my requests correctly. I thought I'd done so correctly the second time by adding a line for Citation Style 1 for each recommended edit (where applicable). I'm new to the editing process for Wikipedia, and I'd kindly ask your assistance by explaining what exactly I'm doing wrong. Is part of the issue that I'm providing too much information, including a line "References supporting change" that include bare URLs? I used the format based on a template I found on Wikipedia for requesting edits.
Ideally the references should be formatted according to the style already used in the article, which is Citation Style 1 (CS1). An example of how CS1 references are styled is shown below:
CS1
Citation Style 1 markup:
The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Paramjit|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2019|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=2}}</ref>
Which renders as:
The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]
References
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.
^ Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.
Here is a single citation shown as markup on the left and rendering on the right:
Thank you so much for your feedback. However, the request already includes Citation Style 1 for every specific edit/change, where applicable. (Some recommended edits simply involve removing copy, thus no need for a citation.) Again, is the issue that the request includes too much explanation, and you'd prefer the request be shortened to simply include only what each change should be using Citation Style 1?
Also, you stated in your Notes section under "a." that the references I provided are to Northeastern's website and because the information already exists on the website it doesn't need to be reproduced on the Wikipedia page. I don't understand the issue here. The purpose of our request is to update information on the Wikipedia page that is out of date or incorrect, and the Wikipedia page currently cites references to Northeastern's website in the sections where we're proposing edits.
@G.stmartinNU: Thank you for your questions, I'll answer them in order.
Although Wikipedia's main article text appears to be separate from the references section — which appears at the bottom of an article — in actuality the citation formatting is inextricably linked with the text that is seen in an article's main page. These two elements cannot be separated, inasmuch that any request to move text from one location in an article to another location within the article will still require that any references pertinent to that portion of the text being moved be moved alongside it. Thus, your request to re-position text from the article must also be placed with the references which accompany it.
It is up to an individual editor to decide what amount of self-referenced information an organization's Wikipedia page may reproduce. Some editors are quite accommodating for this, while others are less so. If this information already exists in the article once my review is requested, my procedure is to ignore information which has already been implemented in favor of reviewing only that which is being added, deleted, or modified in some way.
The information that you've requested to be updated is not information that I would have initially placed into the article to begin with. Thus, any request to modify that information is not one that I would accept making on behalf of a COI editor. That information — as far as my review would be concerned — is left in limbo so to speak, since moving it or updating it myself, in effect, is to place my stamp of approval on it when in fact I believed it should not have been included in the article because it already exists elsewhere on the organization's own website.
In situations like this, it's best to leave the information alone. The reason behind that is that information in Wikipedia never really goes "out of date". A claim regarding the construction of a lecture hall in 2016 would not become "invalid" simply because the construction of that lecture hall ended in 2018. The claim is still factually correct because a lecture hall was indeed built around the specified time.
The only information which should be updated is information which is clearly no longer the case — such as a claim that a university's current enrollment is 15,000 students when the enrollment is actually 12,000 — and even then, the issue is not with the invalid state of the information itself, but rather, with the clear mistake made by the original adding editor who labeled the enrollment as "currently", a practice which is actually discouraged by the editing guideline MOS:RELTIME. I hope this helps to answer your question. Warm regards, Spintendo15:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your feedback and attention to my inquiry. You said that I've requested updates to information that you would not have put into the article in the first place. However, one item we're requesting to update is the informational data box at the top of the page, which appears standard for all higher ed institutions' Wikipedia pages. The request also includes references to the university's Athletics conferences and the cities where the university has campuses/locations, which is information that appears on other universities' Wikipedia sites. We've also requested certain information be removed entirely. Can you please specify which information that we are requesting be updated that you don't think should be in the article in the first place? Also, if there are policies you're following that you can point me to, please do, so that I may learn more about the editing procedures. Thank you again, and I appreciate your feedback. Best, G.stmartinNU (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Here are a few examples:
Verbatim examples from the last submitted edit request
The request as submitted
Issue
"Information to be updated: Change the approximate numbers of undergraduate students to “18,000 full-time undergraduate students” and graduate students to “9,000 full-time graduate students” in the sixth sentence of the first paragraph."
This request does not give the full sentence of the text to be changed (aka, the "old" text) as well as the full sentence of the replacement text (aka, the "new" text). The directions are to give the verbatim text of the sentence to be changed (not a sentence fragment) and the verbatim text of the sentence to replace it. The words verbatim sentence mean "in exactly the same words as were used in the sentence originally."
"Change the fourth sentence to the following: The university now has locations in Boston; Charlotte, North Carolina; London; San Jose, California; San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; and Toronto and Vancouver, Canada."
This text does not contain ref tags. Although text is displayed later on with ref tags, that text is given the following direction Recommended changes in Citation Style 1 format: which actually reads as if the changes are to be made to the CS1 format (e.g., "Recommended changes in CS1 format" as opposed to "Recommended changes as seen in CS1 format" — note the change of meaning between the two.). Please also note that the first direction stated "change the fourth sentence to the following" — the next immediately following sentence is the one that does not contain the ref tags. The COI edit request apparently first describes the new text to be added, then gives the reasons, and then gives another description of the text to be added. What I would suggest here is having an economy of verbatim descriptions of text to be added, in that two examples of the new verbatim text is one more than needed to accomplish the request (i.e., there should only be the old and the new — while the submitted request confusingly leaves out the old and gives two versions of the new.)
"Information to be removed: the entire fifth sentence, which reads: Northeastern recently purchased the New College of the Humanities in London and plans to open an additional campus in Vancouver, Canada."
"Explanation of issue: Now that the Northeastern’s London and Vancouver campuses would be mentioned in the fourth sentence, based on previously recommended edits, having this separate sentence mentioning these two locations would be repetitive."
Where that fourth sentence is cannot be known with this part of the request, because it hasn't been included along with the text which supposedly was/will be replaced by it.
"Information to be removed: remove this entire section"
Which entire section this is, is unknown — because that section has not been included with the request.
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo, I responded to your questions on Dariush Mozaffarian's talk page, but maybe I didn't use the proper formatting because I haven't received a response from you, so I thought I would try here. Below are the 3 comments you left for me, along with my indented responses to your comments:
Neither of the references provided speak of the 400 scientific publications. If the claim is 400 publications, then please list them here — preferably along with their DOI's.
We can mention his projects if they are independently notable in Wikipedia (which means they have their own articles on Wikipedia). If this is the case here, please provide the Wikilinks for these articles.
The mentioning of the White House conference contains a large amount of information talking about the conference in depth, when the Wikipedia article is about Mr. Mozaffarian. A brief mention should be made, along with a description of the subject's involvement (were they a speaker, presenter, etc.). I think since Tufts was intimately involved in this conference, a source which is not from them would be preferred. The White House itself, for example, would work as a reference — or even better — one from the Washington Post, which surely covered the event. Regards, Spintendo 23:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
For the more than 400 scientific publications, can you reference the following site that states this https://nutrition.tufts.edu/profile/faculty/dariush-mozaffarian? For the TMAO and FORCE projects, can we use citations with the citation having the weblink/url? For TMAO, the url is http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-HL135920-01A1 and for FORCE, the url is https://nutrition.tufts.edu/research/projects-initiatives/force-fatty-acids-and-outcomes-research-consortium. With the WH Conference, the problem with using another source is that it took place in two different cities, on different dates (beginning and end of Oct). These were two separate events, and the website that I provided https://sites.tufts.edu/foodnutritionandhealth2019/ I think is the only source that references both events. I did a quick search, and the other sources talk about one or the other, but not both the Boston and the D.C. events. Dr. Mozaffarian was a speaker at both the Boston and the D.C. events. Should I say that he was a speaker at both events and that 2019 marked the 50th Anniversary of the 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. To honor this anniversary, the Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy at Tufts University and the Nutrition Department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health co-hosted anniversary events in Boston and in Washington DC. The events looked back at the progress made, and also charted a plan for the future? Oszabo01 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oszabo01 (talk • contribs)
In answer to your questions:
We need the individual publications.
We need the Wikilinks.
If there are not any independent, reliable sources speaking about these events, then perhaps the events themselves may be omitted.
The problem with having all of these claims referenced by Tufts is that, as the subject's employer, they are not impartial in their reporting. Realistically, the subject's article needs to be more than a collection of what the subject's employer has to say about their employee, per WP:NPOV. Regards, Spintendo02:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the White House source for the D.C. event is perfectly fine. If you can supply that on the talk page, the claim regarding that event may be added to the article. Regards, Spintendo09:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spintendo, I provided the information you asked for, but you deleted all of it. Will you make the changes to Dariush Mozaffarian's page? Oszabo01 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)\
You added to my talk page nearly 120,000 bytes of information which was clearly having to do with an edit request. That type of material always belongs on the talk page of the article in question along with the {{request edit}} template. Those 400 references may be kept on the talk page under the {{cot}} template as evidence of a claim in the article of the subject having published 400 papers, but they won't be placed in the article itself because Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY of published journal articles.[a] Regards, Spintendo17:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Notes
^One of the secondary functions of an article's talk page is to act as a repository of information that might normally be in the article if not for some extenuating circumstance (such as a really long list, or information not yet verified).
NACHA
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Spintendo: I created this page—Draft:Boundless Immigration—and have been working on it for a while now. As I believe I mentioned earlier, I am one of the company founders, so I have declared a COI from the start. On December 1st, an unknown editor (Canonicale) came in and made some changes that I don’t think were helpful, and also resubmitted the article, which I was not ready to do yet. This resulted in its third decline. While I'm prepared to continue to work on the draft and resubmit (per your advice) via AFC, I hope I can get your further advice on notability. According to my reading of the guidelines, Boundless has significant coverage in multiple published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the company. Can you help me understand in what way it doesn’t meet the notability criteria, in your view? This would be tremendously helpful! Messier6 (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the sources that the draft has in it now, none of those meet the definition of WP:SIGCOV, which is when 65%-100% of an article (a newspaper article for example — not the Wikipedia article itself) is devoted to a certain subject. What needs to be found are articles in newspapers where the written text speaks about Boundless for at least 65% of the article. You've said that Boundless has this coverage but that the editor Canonicale submitted the draft in an unprepared state — which I take to mean, submitted it without the WP:ORGCRITE-mandated sources. So the solution then is to resubmit with those sources, if you have them. Regards, Spintendo17:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. Let me also clarify that when I say newspapers, I don't mean just traditional print newspapers — what I mean are any reliable sources however they are published — be it online from a source's website, or in more traditional print formats. Newspaper/online sources such as The New York Times are the best sources because the journalistic entities behind them are generally more reliable than other sources. Regards, Spintendo16:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Follow up
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in 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.
Hi, happy new year! I would like to let you know that the error on estimate is much more serious. They have done a blunder.
Happy New Year to you, too, and thank you for your comment. With regards to the possible error in calculation of the population of Jat people living in that particular area, I would respectfully suggest that you contact the Hindustan Times in order for them to investigate their assertions and issue any retractions, if necessary, for the claims made in their publication. Once those errors are brought to light, the figures attributed to them may then be corrected here in the Wikipedia article. As Wikipedia editors, our ability to effect a correction of these errors in a foreign newspaper is limited from here. Since the Hindustan Times reported on this data, they are in the best position to investigate its collection and issue any retractions, if necessary. Warm regards, Spintendo08:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I am making a suggestion that the work of an anthropologist should be put in the demographics section on that page. That man is a professional expert in the field. The difference in both calculations is massive, and the work of an academician should be valued over the news reporter or at least should be considered at par with that. If you would not like to remove the reference of that article, is it unfair to ask you to mention what Sunil K. Khanna concluded? We have WP: BALANCE. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
In order to achieve balance you must provide secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, i.e., a source which compares the two and then describes why the figures don't match. That would involve providing the URL for the secondary sources or a {{DOI}} for the tertiary sources. If the anthropologist has released their findings, please provide the {{DOI}} for their report as well. Regards, Spintendo11:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Khanna (at the time of writing the book: associate professor of anthropology at the Oregon State University, Ph.D. in physical anthropology from University of Delhi, and Ph.D. in cultural anthropology from Syracuse University) on page 18 in his book Fetal/Fatal Knowledge: New Reproductive Technologies and Family-Building Strategies in India (CSCSI), wrote-
According to recent population estimates, the total population of Jats in South Asia is roughly 30 million. This population projection is based on information collected during the 1931 census which was the last to report caste affiliation. At that time, an estimated 8 million Jats lived mostly in India and Pakistan.
Thanks for answering. In 1931, a census (having caste affiliation) was done. The resulting conclusion was that total number of Jats were approximately 8 million in 1931. This academician has also cited that in his book, and based on his professional assessment (he has also written about other things regarding these people in his book), he concluded that their population should be around 30 million (in 2009). The news reporter says 82.5 million in 2012. This is a serious disagreement. Can there be a better moment to use WP:BALACE? Khanna's reliability as a source does not fall below the news reporter, specially on such a topic where Khanna holds experience and expertise. His assessment would have been done more professionally than the news reporter. I think that the news reporter's assessment should be removed and Khanna's should be put on the page, but if an experienced person on how this encyclopedia works may or may not agree to that, at least, Khanna's work deserve to find a place when there is such a massive disagreement over the numbers. Please put his assessment on the page. 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Should Khanna's assessment not be mentioned simply because it deserves to be mentioned as he has experience and expertise in his field? This is his area of work. He could not know lesser than the news reporter! 178.176.217.24 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
Updated my request for Honeywell
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo,
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I have taken the appropriate steps to fix the request on my sandbox's talk page. Can you take a look here before I add this back to the Honeywell talk page in-case it needs an edit. Also, can you let me know if it looks ready to add back to the article? Thanks! --Chefmikesf (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Chefmikesf: In answer to your question, I don't think you should post the edit request as it is formatted now in the sandbox. The request is very long and confusing, as each item to be changed is not easily ascertained. The main issue when posting a lot of information is that the information needs to be easily scanned by the reviewer. That means using certain techniques to make certain parts of the request stand out in the reader's eye line. See this post for an example of how I make edit requests myself. Notice in that request how I give all four needed elements — the old text, the new text, the location of the text and the references (which in that case, was the text). All of the items should be easy to spot, and a clear demarcation should be set between each successive item. Notice how much clearer one set of numbering is from another set:
Difficult and ideal numbering
Difficult numbering:
1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2007.
5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
6. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
7. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
8. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2008.
9. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
10. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
11. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
12. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2011.
Ideal numbering:
Request A. 1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. 2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. 3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. 4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2007.
Request B. 1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. 2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. 3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. 4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2008.
Request C. 1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. 2. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. 3. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. 4. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, 2011.
In the example above, notice how much easier it is to find the correction with the reference dated 2008 in the ideal numbering section, as opposed to how difficult it is to find the reference dated 2008 in the difficult numbering section. Also notice how difficult it is to figure out which text the 2008 reference is supposed to change. In the ideal section, it's obvious which text is impacted by the 2008 reference, because it's grouped together. In the difficult section, who knows if the text to be changed is below the 2008 reference or above it. I'm not saying you need to go to these extremes to demarcate the text, but when you are posting as much information to be changed as you are, it is helpful to be as distinct as possible. If you have any questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Spintendo13:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spintendo, Thanks for the input. I reformatted the edit requests and will integrate the feedback into my future requests. To your first point, I added Location: to each of the subsections so the reviewer can quickly determine what to update. Next, I changed the font of the requests and reasons to stand out from the "current" or "proposed" content. When appropriate, I made the specifics for the request bold as well. All the references are included in the Reference TalkBox. There may be some duplicates with the old text, new text format. What are your thoughts on the updates? Here is the format I used:
I see three problems with the styling you've used. (a) The space placed before request and reason only displays the text from that line as a different font in certain browsers. The space bar is not actually a very useful tool in formatting requests. (b) The word location has been placed above the number which presumably contains the information, separating the location from the text to be changed. That may not be problematic with number #1, but by placing the location before the number, by the time you get to #2, the location for number 2 will be connected with the text from number #1. (c) You've mentioned duplicate entries, which never make for easily readable requests. Regards, Spintendo02:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
(a) You have a good point, the format change may not show up on other browsers. I thought this was OK because it is one of the features/options for formatting in the toolbar bar in the Wiki editor. So there is no confusion, I changed the request and reason line like so: Request and Reason:
(b)I reduced the location to only the main subsections from the content outline. Each new location starts a new set of descending numbers
(c)I initially added the duplicated content so the editor can see the broader concept. I removed this if it makes the reviewers job more difficult.
Above, I addressed how I updated the edit request in my sandbox. I am following back to confirm I have brought this edit request within the protocols to post back to the Honeywell talk page. Can you confirm your thoughts on the edits? Best---Chefmikesf (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Please provide the link to whichever page you're referring to — or if posting your request on the article's talk page, be sure to use the {{request edit}} template. Regards, Spintendo08:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
TCL
Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments2 people in 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.
Hi Spintendo,
Many thanks for your comment on the TCL Electronics Talk page. I have made the edit request per your guidelines and would be grateful if you can have a look and see if they look alright. Thanks and have a great day. --BCHK c (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Spintendo, I have made some comments and would be grateful if you can spare some time reviewing that. Thanks! --BCHK c (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have reviewed your comments. As for the shares of the company, unfortunately I'm not able to review 6 pages of documents discussing in legal language who owns what. However, the citation template does contain a |quote= parameter which allows you to insert the text from the source which verifies the statements you wish to add. I would venture this to be a more efficient way of demonstrating that a source verifies a particular claim. With regards to the outdated company name, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name in articles; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (WP:COMMONNAME) as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, as such names will usually best fit an article's five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering those criteria directly. Regards, Spintendo13:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Spintendo, I am afraid this is not the case regarding the outdated company name matter. Those Chinese names in the page are no longer in use to refer TCL Electronics nowadays, perhaps you may want to check with any native editor to vertify this? As for the English company name displayed on top of the infobox, there seems to be a different treatment comparing to Samsung/LG Electronics where both their company names are displayed in full. Any idea on why the TCL's page should look differently? Also, the current displayed address in Hong Kong is not updated and so does the information regarding parent. What additional info is needed to justify the changes? For the share distribution, since we merely suggested to amend the figures of the respective shareholders in that infobox to reflect the current ownership, can you advise where should such citation be placed? Would that be the footer where I cited the source of this claim? --BCHK c (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Spintendo:. This is much appreciated. For (b), as there's no dedicated source that explains the share distribution of other shareholders, would that be fine if i just include TCL's figures in this case? Would also be great to hear back your feedback on the address and parent part. Thanks! --BCHK c (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything regarding the External links section in the request. As far as the ownership percentage, I covered that above, where I stated that the percentage of ownership requires a reference, while the reference you provided was 6 pages in length and the citation template did not make use of the |quote= parameter in order that the information could be found easily within the document. Regards, Spintendo10:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I've updated the |parent= and headquarter parameters. The HQ I placed as just cities or the island/ islands (Cayman and Hong Kong). The parent parameter guidance says nothing about including percentages, which are only used by the |owner= parameter. Since TCL is a subsidiary of a company which is, itself, a subsidiary, the owner parameter is not used ("If the company is majority-owned by a single entity and as such is a subsidiary or division, omit the owner field and use the parent field instead. Do not use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent."). Regards, Spintendo13:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Partially implemented Future edit requests do not require notice here on my talk page. Please use {{request edit}} for all requests left on the article's talk page. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo08:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Spintendo:, Thanks for your attention on the TCL Electronics page. Can you please suggest on how to amend the second point, in order to pass the guideline? As I can see quite a few companies including LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics also mentioned similar information, including their size of global businesses and global market share. --BCHK c (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Spintendo:, Thanks for your attention on the TCL Electronics page. Changes were made according to your suggestions and guidelines, please check and help to update our page accordingly. Thanks!. --BCHK c (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I just saw you pinged me asking for input here and while I'm greatly honored to be taken into account, I'm also very curious why my name came up as having a say on this. Cheers! --uKER (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the edit history and randomly picked an editor's name that came up a lot. I was hoping you'd be more familiar with the page and could offer input on whether the requested item should be included. Regards, Spintendo08:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Dariush Mozaffarian's Page
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo, I addressed your comments/questions on Dariush Mozaffarian's talk page on December 30th, but I have not received a response from you. Could you please respond? Oszabo01 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit requests for the Mozaffarian article need to use the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page. All of the current edit requests on that page have been responded to, and anything which appeared to be missing was mentioned as needing to be supplied. Sorry for the delay, but if you have missing information for an older request, it's best to place it as a new edit request in order for it to be handled expeditiously. Regards, Spintendo16:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Sainthood
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I think you are a patient saint for answering all those edit request so calmly over on Talk:Kent Tate. I saw the talk about older accounts with the same interest. Since you know the article better than I do, would you say this would article would benefit from an SPI? There seem to be a lot of largely SPA accounts, Kent Tate included, interested in this. I feel like some machinations are occurring off-wiki in the production and/or deletion of the article. I am wondering if you have the same sense. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: It wasn't my impression that there was socking going on with this article, but as JBW said, the COI editor has been trying to get a different article approved — getting through the back door what won't fit through the front — but I don't know which accounts were doing this. I suppose it's in an artist's nature to be creative in general, so perhaps the AFD is just another way of creating the article that they want. If anything, I hope it at least clarifies what the article really needs. Warm regards, Spintendo01:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Chase Coleman III
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in 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.
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.
Suggested Battletoads editors
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It appears that the next step is for me to discuss this with some of the significant editors for the article. At this stage, however, I don’t enough about Wikipedia to figure out who they are. If you don’t mind, when you get a few spare moments could you please point me to 2 or 3 of them? BTW, I managed to find a review of the book, as well as a wiki entry. Thanks again for your help. GameMaven (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@GameMaven: Thank you for your question. A good way to gauge an article's user activity is to take a look at the edit history. That shows the editors for a page as well as what type of edits the editors have performed. Another way to seek out assistance would be to post requests for feedback at the talk pages of the WikiProjects which govern the article. Those projects are listed at the top of an article's talk page in the header boxes. Regards, Spintendo21:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Follow-up on changes to Julie Brill's page
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
I asked Bri like you told me to about the flags and he is OK if an univolved editor remove the flags. [1] Would you please help me with this edit? Thanks for everything. Kriptocurrency (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Spintendo, I asked about Fortune (magazine) at the reliable sources noticeboard and two experienced editor have agreed on the reliability of the Fortune article. Here is the link (Fortune discussion). Also, I've left a comment on Talk:HYPR Corp with some references that aren't included in the article but could help proving notability, maybe we could add them later. Could you check on these please? Thanks. Kriptocurrency (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the checklist with two of the suggested references. I hope it helps, although it might be better to ask an editor who is more experienced in notability requirements — as my experience is in COI edit requests, which involve only content requirements. Let me know if either of those two sources need to be added to the article, and where they should be placed. Thnks! Regards, Spintendo10:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello thanks for your answer, you suggested that I ask an experienced editor about it but I dont know how would take the time to discuss... Anyways, I have to say that I don't agree with you on DarkReading and Fortune articles not being secondary sources. An interview can be considered a primary source, WP:SECONDARY states that a secondary source is one that gives information about a primary source and in these cases the author aren't doing the interview but giving their opinion on something Avetisov said. I don't see clearly why these sources don't qualify. I am sorry to bother you so much, I just want to understand reasons. Thanks again. Kriptocurrency (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources are materials directly related to a topic by time or participation, and that includes interviews which provide firsthand accounts about a person, event, or a company. In these instances, Avetisov is the one explaining the items being discussed, and the information that is placed in the Wikipedia article is information that comes directly from Avetisov. If Fortune had conducted its own research along with the interview, and claims from that research were placed in the Wikipedia article, then the source would be considered secondary. Regards, Spintendo03:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Spintendo:, Thanks for everything, the article was cleaned up by user, he is totally unrelated to Hyper Corp. Could you remove the Undisclosed payment maintenance tag? most of the article is made by unrelated users and we are always following Wikipedia guidelines. Kriptocurrency (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Was it really necessary to delete all of that info? I get cleaning up to be less story-like but feel you deleted some notable info. 99.203.11.33 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I stand by my edits. Much of the information was company minutiae which has no place in the article. "The Upton Machine Company, now a division of Nineteen Hundred Co. doubled their output in 1929.... The concern now caterd to some 4000 dealers throughout the nation." The company doubled its output after it had been combined with another company? This is hardly groundbreaking. Readers are also uninterested in Upton's company's concerns in 1929. This is filler. Spintendo01:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Changes to entry for Neal Ashkanasy
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Spintendo
Can you please make the following chapgers to my entry?
1. Please replace my photo with File:Neal Ashkanasy taken 22 MAR 2019.jpg.
2. Please remove the "No source cited" tag for "Early Life and Education". The source for this information is Who's Who in Australia (https://connectweb.com.au/search.aspx?f=1&q=ashkanasy&t=1&c=austrailia&pub=all#results). Let me know if you need anything further re. this. (It's not accessible in the public domain, but I can send you a copy of my entry from the 2017 edition if you would like.)
Wrong venue Please make your request on the talk page of the article where you're requesting the changes be made. That page may be found in the search bar by placing Talk: in front of the page's name. Also, please be sure to place the {{request edit}} template at the top of your request, just after the new section header. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo20:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Mike Sievert
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Edit request implemented More information on what was implemented may be found at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo02:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: Canada's National Ballet School requested edits
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! Thank you for your attention to my proposed edits on the Canada's National Ballet School page. Your suggestions were helpful. I replied to your review with a correction of a paragraph for which I had inadvertently bundled the sources at the end instead of disbursing them appropriately. Hopefully this is more in line with Wikipedia's integrity policy, but please let me know if I can do anything further to get it where it needs to be.
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo. I saw you closed the request edit I made for the Randy Olson page with the suggestion that I talk to the editor who added the advertising tag to see their reasoning for placing it there. Ronz, the editor I was working with on the request edit, actually was the one who added the advertising tag.
I’ve tried multiple times, both with request edits on the Randy Olson talk page, and on Ronz’s own talk page, to question them as to what material needs to be removed or changed to remove the tag. After removing all primary sources and anything that sounds too much like advertising, I’m not sure what else to do and Ronz has stopped answering my direct question about what else needs to be removed. You can see in the latest request edit that I asked Ronz several times what to remove and they never answered.
In an earlier request edit, Ronz did say “I don't think the tag should be removed without careful, independent review.” I’m not sure how to go about getting that kind of independent review.
Could you please advise as to what I should do if the person who placed the advertising tag on the Randy Olson page to no longer responds to questions about what needs to be changed and recommends I get an independent review?
The claim that his research on "the dispersal of larvae of marine organisms on coral reefs has been described as "some of the best work in that field" uses four references (one of which is broken) where there is no inline attribution to whom has said this about Olson's work.
The fact that the lead section takes an inordinate amount of space describing his films, especially as "involving humor". Whatever tactics his films use in order to sell the subject's message is immaterial, and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section.
Thank you! This is just the kind of feedback I needed! I'll work on making the changes and submit a new request edit. Mattmdavid (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Mattmdavid
Reply 31-JAN-2020
@Mattmdavid: Thank you for your question. As a rule, I always try to leave it to the assigning editor whether or not maintenance templates should be removed. Routine COI edit requests ask for non-controversial changes to be made to an article, such as a sentence being removed, added, etc. The removal of a maintenance template, on the contrary, is controversial because it involves an editor's point of view on the article's state of being. Edit requests involving controversial proposals such as the one proposed here are not recommended for use with the {{request edit}} template.[1] You've asked what to do when an editor abrogates their authority to participate in the discussion, instead asking that others intervene. In that response, Ronz did not indicate how they currently view the page.
That is unfortunate, because their opinion is very important here — it was that opinion which brought us to the question we are dealing with now. For them to sidestep involvement is a shame — but completely understandable in the Wikipedia volunteer-based environment where there is competition for an editor's attention and time. It's very likely that Ronz, who I know to be a diligent and conscientious editor, simply is too busy in other areas and can't give the assistance they would like to have given.
That being said, their initial concern which prompted the template should not be ignored because they cannot participate. They've stated that they'd like another editor to review it. My suggestion would be for you to take the article to one of the Wikiprojects which governs it, and ask through the project's talkpage if there are editors willing to look over the article and see if they can't determine if the issues that Ronz saw have been fixed.[a] Regards, Spintendo10:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I simply don't have the time to look into this now or any time soon. My recollection is that the article is too dependent on promotional sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
References
^"Template:Request edit instructions". Wikipedia. 15 December 2019. Instructions for Reviewers: Do not insert controversial requests without clear consensus. When these are requested, ask the submitter to discuss the edits instead with regular contributors on the article's talk page. You can decline the request using {{request edit|D|D}}.
Notes
^My guess is that Ronz either (a) doesn't believe the issues have been fixed, or (b) they have an expectation that if they were to begin looking at the article, the issues would quickly be seen as not having been fixed. Otherwise they would have just removed the template themselves — any time management issues notwithstanding.
Reply 10-FEB-2020
@Spintendo: Thanks for the suggestion of going to one of the Wikiprojects - I never would have thought of it! I'll try approaching Science and academia and see if they can assist me. Mattmdavid (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Mattmdavid
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo, thank you for the update. I wonder if there is some sort of tech glitch on the Jennie-O page. I took care to request an edit, called Request edit February 17 #2, but it's not there. I am not sure what happened with the previous posts that were inadvertently removed. It definitely wasn't intentional. Thank you for your help and hard work, as always. Regards, Hello-Mary-H (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your reply regarding requested edits on the GM Defense Wikipedia page. We intend to follow your recommendation, but wanted to seek clarity on a couple of things: 1) Is your direction to establish consensus a suggestion that we open a Request for Comments regarding having references in lead section or is there another process we should follow? 2) If an RFC, should the RFC be solely about references in the lead section or our other proposed changes for the page as well? Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your question. Your request seeks to create an allowance for not following MOS:CITELEAD. It is not my intention to begin an RfC such as that, because I am not the one who wants the changes to be made. That is for you to decide. My only function is to act as a reviewer of the edit requests I am faced with, a function where the mandate to make changes like this one is clear — only through consensus can they be implemented.[1] You are free to begin the discussion on the talk page with involved local editors or to seek consensus by posting at the talk pages of one of the WikiProjects which govern the article (listed at the top of the article's talk page). Neither of those strategies require the {{request edit}} template, so please feel free to begin either of them without using it. Future specific requests that don't require consensus to be achieved can continue using the template as often as necessary. I hope this answers your question, and thanks for your help! Regards, Spintendo08:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
References
^"Template:Request edit instructions". Wikipedia. 15 December 2019. Instructions for Reviewers: Do not insert major re-writes or controversial requests without clear consensus. When these are requested, ask the submitter to discuss the edits instead with regular contributors on the article's talk page. You can use {{request edit|D|D}}.
hi
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo,
Thank you very much for your continued patience with my edit requests. I highly appreciate it. For future reference and so that I do not bother you or others with suggestions that do not fulfill the criteria. When it comes to the history section of a company article: What has to be fulfilled for an event/company milestone to be worthy to mention in the section? I would like to make sure to guide my clients correctly and advise them on what could possibly be added/changed and what not. Thanks and best, Conandcon (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Conandcon: Thank you for your question. Generally speaking, when an event has received coverage in reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources it's a good idea to have the event mentioned in Wikipedia. Events which are covered only by the organization itself, or in publications which are nominally independent from the organization (such as in trade or industry publications closely related to the industry or trade that the organization does business in) are generally not appropriate for inclusion in articles, because those sources may be biased towards the organization. In certain circumstances an event may have been covered by a reliable, independent, secondary source but would still be inappropriate because that source obtained their information from a press release issued by the organization. It really comes down to looking at the information itself to determine where the information originated from. To help ensure WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, the further away from the organization, the better, because information originating from the organization tends to be biased. The organization is better as a source for non-controversial information such as number of employees, location of headquarters, name of products and dates of distribution, etc. Bottom line is, information which originates purely from reliable, independent, secondary sources without connection to press releases is the best type of information to add to articles. I hope this answers your question. Warm regards, Spintendo18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Spintendo: Thank you for your thorough answer. As I am usually consulting German companies, would it be suitable to use reliable, independent German newspaper articles? Due to the news value proximity (or familiarity), what is very interesting for German press and the general public might not be of such a value for an international audience. Until now, I always prefered English sources (e.g. trade press) over German tier-1 media for independent users to easier check the content. What do you think? Best, Conandcon (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course German language sources are appropriate to use, preferably if those sources also subscribe to being of a reliable, independent, secondary nature. I'm looking to see if there is an equivalent page to our WP:RSPS that you can use to gauge the suitability of German language sources, I'll have to get back to you on that. Regards, Spintendo13:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Conandcon: In getting back to you, another editor recommended de:Wikipedia:Belege/Fließband, located at the German version of Wikipedia, which is an equivalent to our WP:RSN through which you can search for discussions on which German language sources have been mentioned as either being successful or not for use there (as a rough comparison), although the editor I asked stated that it was their experience that the German Wikipedia is less strict when it comes to their sources than we are with ours. I hope this helps a bit. Regards, Spintendo18:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Spintendo: Thank you very much for looking into this. I always seek to only suggest the most reliable sources. Having said that I prefer tier-1 media outlets over trade media - as for the possible bias you mentioned above. I haven't always followed this here in the English Wikipedia because some events might have been covered widely in Germany but internationally only in trade press. I therefore thought it would be easiest for reviewers if I suggest an English-language (trade media) source. However, maybe in the future I could suggest a reliable, independent German source with a respective translation for the part in question. Thanks again for your support, which I value highly! All the best, Conandcon (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think suggesting German language tier-1 media outlets is a perfect idea — that country has a wide range of fine resources which are perfect to use as references here on Wikipedia. Although Google translator does have some deficiencies, I've found it to be acceptable for performing a check of foreign language sources that are submitted, so there shouldn't be too many problems there. Thank you again for your help! Warm regards, Spintendo19:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Bat en lang article under heading "Mating"
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I have no idea what Wikipedia would do without your reviews of proposed edits. We have many who notice conflicts of interest and who lead affiliated editors to the talk page of affected articles, but we have few – and seemingly none as active as you – who actually deal with the resulting work of reviewing edit requests. Thank you! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your recognition, it's much appreciated. It's true, COI reviewing is a task that many editors understandably eschew, but there are many other editors who do invest time reviewing other COI-related matters — into helping at COIN and reviewing new COI editor-created articles at AfC — who provide enormous help to which I very thankful for. Warm regards, Spintendo10:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ref tags
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo,
Thank you for your message re David Heymann page and for the instructions on how to do the references. Unfortunately it's not enough information for me. I am struggling with finding how to do the reference tags, or even what those are. Do you mean the superscript numbers at the end of a phrase?. I clicked on "Cite your sources" at the bottom of the window, but I am not sure if that is how to do it. Please could you walk me through this?
I tried to paste the requested edits together with superscript numbers in the text and the corresponding references, but no references appeared. This is really driving me mad.
I don't know whether to highlight the reference at the bottom and then click cite your sources, or click that when the cursor is next to the insertion point in the text. Both seem to just put a ref ref thing in the flow of the text. Maybe I am supposed to just put them in the flow of the text using the cite your sources and you sort it out into a normal looking reference?
Please help.
thanks
EMMALROSS (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@EMMALROSS: Thank you for your question. When in the editing page, place the cursor exactly where you want the reference to appear. At the top of editing box where the text goes, there is a selection that says Cite. Click that, and a drop down box labled Templates should appear. Click on Templates and choose Cite web or if its a book you may choose Cite book. A new window will appear with blank fields to fill in. If you have a URL, place that in the URL field and then click on the magnifying glass icon. The system should populate a few of the fields for you. Others you may have to fill out yourself, such as the publication date or the author's name. Click on Preview to make sure it looks alright and then Insert to place the reference in the text. I hope this helps, if you have any more questions I'm always here. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo10:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Spintendo: thanks.
Didn't know how to reply on the article talk page where you left me a message re David Heymann article, so hopefully this gets to you this way.
Regarding your request for clarification on "participating" "led" and "leading" with how and in what way: I wasn't sure whether you were asking me to propose tweaked text or to answer you directly, so am first answering you directly.
1. "participating": Smallpox - As a medical epidemiologist in the WHO Smallpox Eradication Programme in India (1974-1976).
Polio: early – as Chief of the Epidemiology Service at the Organisation pour la Coordination de la Lutte contre les Endemies
en Afrique Centrale (OCEAC), Cameroon (1977 – 1980). AND
Polio: later - as Representative of the WHO Director-General for Polio Eradication (2003-2007)
2. "Leading": He led the SARS response as Executive Director of the WHO Communicable Diseases Cluster (July 1998-July 2003).
that was his job at the time. Regarding "in what way" he led on this, he coordinated the international response, as that's WHO's role and the remit of the exec director of the communicable diseases cluster.
3. "Has Led" several WHO advisory committees: Led=chaired. See refs 11, 12 and 13, which document his chairmanship of those.
Hopefully that clarifies enough.
I was advised to request only small chunks at a time, so I didn't include some of this stuff because a lot of it is already in the existing article - although I appreciate if this requested edit is examined in isolation of what's in the article already, it may be unclear. But please let me know if this is enough clarity for the editors or whether I am supposed to suggest different wording that adds the clarity, eg. changing "led" in point 3 to "chaired", etc.
Thank you for your clarifications. Unfortunately, because you haven't Wikilinked the organizations involved, I cannot access those organization's Wikipedia pages to verify that those positions operate in the manner in which you've described them. Also, when you say "see refs 11, 12 and 13" I'm not sure which ref tags you are referring to. If you could clarify those items at the article's talk page that would be helpful. Also, be sure to assign the {{request edit}} template to advise others that you are ready for the review to continue. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo22:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
This was the last changes made by the sockfarm Special:Diff/921855630, the changes were reverted to a version before sockfarm by SamHolt6 here Special:Diff/922429293, after that a couple editors made changes regarding the wording of the article.
About the sources, there are a lot of articles that mention the 360 platform but I cannot find one that focuses solely on the platform. Maybe these help. [1][2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaSwiss (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the diffs. In looking at them, it looks as if SamHolt6 re-applied advert and UPE templates after they and DGG reverted the changes made by the sockfarm. In that case, SamHolt6's input should be sought as to why they did this, including their thoughts on whether or not the templates should remain. Regards, Spintendo00:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The {{refimprove}} template was placed by a bot in 2014. In seeing if it's still relevant today, one would look to see if the ref tags that are placed are done so appropriately. In looking at the article I see that it does not follow WP:INTEGRITY very well, as it bundles references in the lead section (ref tags 3, 4 and 5); it leaves other claims unreferenced in the History section and the infobox (the key people and financial parameters); while bundling references again in the History section (ref tags 6 and 7). I would argue that owing to this, the refimprove template is still warranted. Regards, Spintendo18:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Spintendo: Which claim in the history section is unsourced? I changed the JOC article for a book written in 2002 to properly source the dedicated services claims. The key people and financial parameters on the infobox are sourced in the footnotes by the SEC form 10-k, reuters and fortune company profiles, I would argue that bundling two sources doesnt mean the article needs additional citations for verification but the contrary, is the article is overly sourced then?. SamanthaSwiss (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@SamanthaSwiss: If you take a look at WP:INTEGRITY, you'd see that it's clear how references are to be applied. The example below shows how bundling references is an incorrect way to source information:
Source bundling
Bundled sourcing
The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[1][2][3]
References
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2020, p. 1.
^ Harinath, Prisha. (2020). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2020, p. 2.
In the example above there are three references provided for the stated claims. But because these three sources' ref tags are bundled at the end of the passage, the reader has no clear idea of what reference applies to which statement. It also gives the appearance that the first two claims, about the Sun and the Moon's diameters, are unreferenced. This is the same problem that your article has. The links between material and their source references must be clearly made, as shown in the next example below:
Un-bundled sourcing
The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]
References
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2020, p. 1.
^ Harinath, Prisha. (2020). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2020, p. 2.
In the example above the links between the provided references and their claim statements are perfectly clear. The first two references said nothing about the Sun's temperature, so they simply didn't belong being placed after that claim was made. Placed at the end of the passage, they gave the erroneous impression that they had something to say about the temperature of the Sun when they actually didn't. That is not how the article's sourcing should be done. They should be displayed just how they are in the "un-bundled" second example above.
The bundling of sources means that the article's sourcing is not entirely completed in a way that demonstrates how each claim is referenced, and thus needs to be improved. You are correct that if in the case that all three of my example sources had something to say about all three claims, then using all three would be WP:TOOMANYREFS, which is also a call for improving the article's referencing. Regards, Spintendo18:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your example and observations sir! Rereading everything I rearranged the references to source the article properly (by my criteria). Any thoughts on the current citation? Would you also say that the article is sourced correctly now? or do you think that other sources are needed? SamanthaSwiss (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. If you have a new/revised edit request to propose, please be sure to do so on the article's talk page, making sure you activate the {{request edit}} template at the top of your request to announce the review. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Avantika Vandanapu Suggested edits declined
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
You seemed to have declined the two edit requests claiming IMDB is not a reliable source. Did you really care to read the entire edit request? I clearly gave the reference of trade publications in both cases. You can also google to see how many news articles turn up with her name as part of the cast. If nothing I gave a reference works, why don't you watch an episode and check it for yourself. I honestly don't know what else you need to verify the claims. Can you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamacr (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your question. Since you mentioned IMDb in your request, stating that reviewers should consult it in reference to the changes you were requesting, that is the reason why I mentioned Wikipedia's requirements surrounding the use of that database as a reference. The other sources you provided with the request were not to reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources. These need to be provided for content claims to be accepted into the article. Regards, Spintendo19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to reply to the previous comment you made about the news articles not being good primary sources. So I would like to find out what are the appropriate primary sources? For example, Avantika's Diary of A Future President claim - there are a tons of news articles, IMDB claim, Wikipedia claim - heck, her name is on the end credits. If none of them are worthy of proving the claim, care to explain what IS an appropriate source? I am at the end of my wits here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamacr (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your follow-up question. In this case, the best reference to verify that the individual works and performs on a specific program would be a reference from the company that produces the program. As they are the employer, they are the final word on whether the individual works for them. Any webpage that is located at their (the production company's) website which mentions the individual and the program the individual works on would suffice as a source. Regards, Spintendo21:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Going by your words - you can't find a single reference to any work anyone has done for Disney. Go search for Disney's TV show cast on anyone's name. There are NO pages on Disney website with all the cast members mentioned. At some point, you guys have to accept the news articles or spend the time to watch the show to authenticate a claim. If you check even Robert Downey Jr's Wiki page, you can't find a single reference on Marvel's website confirming he played Ironman but we are not going to dispute that, are we? I think you need to use some common sense for authenticating the veracity of the claims. I have given two web pages when there are hundreds of such sites showing she worked on those series. I still don't understand how else I can prove these claims. DISNEY DOES NOT PUT THEIR CAST MEMBERS NAMES ON THEIR SHOWS ON THEIR WEB SITE. I hope you get it. It is one thing to be an editor to make sure Wikipedia has authentic content. It is a whole another thing to go on a power trip demanding impossible verifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamacr (talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
You've stated that there are hundreds of sites confirming this association. Unfortunately, the two out of these hundreds that you chose to submit with your request were to a blog and IMDb. My ability to approve a claim is only as good as the sources I am provided with. If you have additional ones to propose, please feel free to do so. On a side note, you've stated that this individual was to be in a guest role on the series. That type of association is rarely placed in an article on the show itself, except in perhaps a table of the episodes where the guest role was performed. That being said, as a last resort you may cite the episode in question where the individual appeared on using the {{cite av media}} template. The important parameter to use in that citation would be the |time= parameter, where you would place the time index of when the individual in question's name appeared in the program's credits or, alternately, the time index of when their first on-screen appearance occurs in the program itself. Regards, Spintendo23:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo,
There have been some updates to the page. However, I wasn't sure if you would be able to possibly update or let me know how to update the to-do list of sources. A few edits mean the percentages are different, etc. Please advise and best regards, Hello-Mary-H (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Spintendo,
I thought the "history and operations" section of the Archive of Our Own article would be fitting for information on its accessibility (more specifically, in China in this case). The info is neutral and doesn't violate the guidelines, as far as I'm concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.74.197 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion, but you would need the consensus of local editors before it could be added to the article. You are free to seek that consensus if you like on the talk page. This should be sought before making the edit request to change an article. Once that consensus is achieved, you can then resubmit the edit request. Regards, Spintendo21:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, I don't edit on wikipedia often and thus do not know how to get consensus from editors. The info I requested was later added by other editors, but someone deleted it again for having "unconfirmed information that pertains to slander of a public figure". The word "likely" was used in the older version and proper source was provided, I don't think it's sensible for that editor to remove that info. How am I supposed to help in this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.74.197 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo, I would like to know if I can remove the warnings on the Arturo Carsetti page, I made the required changes, but I don't know if they are sufficient. Unfortunately I don't know the English language (Google translator helps me) so I can't understand the very long help page indicated in the banner. I have been very active only on itWiki for 8 years and I have not had similar experiences, please help me and report any further actions that I could do. Thank you.--Manuelarosi (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Manuelarosi: Thank you for your question. As I stated in my post on the talk page, the article has the following issues:
COI - the subject of the article asked another editor (Manuelarosi) to insert text from them (the subject of the article) into the article. The nature of this relationship between Manuelarosi and the subject of the article is unknown, but apparently the inserting editor (Manuelarosi) had placed information from the subject without checking its veracity (or its copyright status). This suggests the adding of information without gauging its appropriateness for English Wikipedia's content requirements WP:NPOV and WP:NOT (see #4 below).
Refimprove - there are several sections of text which are unreferenced.
Inappropriate person - the article uses "we" in several instances.
Unbalanced - the article drifts off topic to state many of the subject's views in a large portion of the article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTASOAPBOX.
Each of these items would need to be corrected before the templates could be removed.
Hi Spintendo, I think I made all the required changes, can you check please? Thanks so much. I hope all is well now. Good day.--Manuelarosi (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Please note that when it comes to maintenance templates, the Italian Wikipedia may have requirements which differ from the ones generally applied in the English Wikipedia. The templates which are currently placed there seem appropriate, in that the article contains (a) many claims which reflect the subject's own personal views and thus continues to be unbalanced, it (b) contains content which may have been placed by an editor who is connected to the subject, and that it (c) needs additional references — preferably ones from reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources. Regards, Spintendo19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Ross Tucker Wiki Request Edit 5/20/19
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I posted another request to update the Ross Tucker page as per Mr. Tucker.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello Spintendo.
Thank you for everything you do for COI edit request. So you know how for protected edit request, you can subst: like {{subst:ESp|d}} to get Done, {{subst:ESp|pd}} to get Partly done:, {{subst:ESp|n}} to get Not done:.
Well I've noticed that you have replied to COI edit request with responses similar to the one above with ones like this: Unable to implement
So what is this? Your own custom made template? Where can I get these for free? They seem pretty cool.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Spintendo,
You've rejected one of my request edits for Michael Pillsbury article. Since then, I have submitted a new edit request based on your guidelines. Could you please help to review it and let me know what else is required to make the amends.
Thank you in advance!
Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen1955 (talk • contribs) 19:59, April 20, 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again. I know we've discussed COI edits to the [Lanier] page in the past. Rather than edit any of the existing content, do you have any advice on the steps required to remove the two banners at the top of the page? I want to make sure all Wikipedia best practices are adhered to. Thanks for your help. WriteJames (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless I am the one who added the templates, the question of their being applicable should be posed to whomever placed them. Since they placed the templates, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused their placement(s) have been corrected. Regards, Spintendo18:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you in this difficult time ...
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi User:Spintendo, I think I created a bit of confusion with my COI edit request on the Public Interest Research Group page. You requested revisions to my request of March 5, and I obsessively made them in the original Simple COI template. I then posted the revised request as a new Simple COI request. I believe I addressed your concerns. Sorry for the confusion. Would you mind reviewing it once again? And please, if you are busy with COVID related work, this is a nonessential edit (important to the client of course, but they also understand what the priorities are these days). I just wanted to make sure you saw the revised request. Thanks for all your hard work on behalf of Wikipedia. DanDavidCook (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo. Thank you accepting the edit on Nagarro. While the content remains the same, we wanted to exclude the term "companies and ISVs" as it doesn't accurately represent our target group. Therefore, the request was to rephrase the text to: "Nagarro is a global software development and technology consulting company with offices in 21 countries and employs over 6000 workers worldwide. Nagarro is known for agile engineering. Part of the German technology group Allgeier SE (FWB: AEIN), Nagarro's largest development center is in Gurgaon, India. Other major development centers include Timisoara, Romania; Vienna, Austria; Munich, Germany; Dubai, UAE; Jaipur, India; Valletta, Malta." While this version doesn't change the context, it also addresses our concern.
Buzztrack (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarifications. To have these concerns taken care of expeditiously, kindly ensure that you use the {{Request edit}} template on the company's talk page. Regards, Spintendo18:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcome Back
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there:
I just wanted to say it is good to see you back. You are such a Wikipedia presence, and with all that is going on right now a long absence is noticed and concerning. I hope you are healthy and well.
LeepKendall (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
First Command COI Edits
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Spintendo,
Thank you for all of your assistance with the COI edits to the First Command article in the past couple of months. I've reviewed your feedback on my latest edit request and have a few questions I'm hoping you can answer that will guide my next steps. It looks to me like there have are several edits you've approved that have not been pulled through to the article (in the business model, leadership team, First Command Financial Behaviors Index sections). Is there an additional step I need to take to get those changes to display on the article?
Your feedback on the awards section (now removed) was that the awards listed were not "independently notable in Wikipedia," which, as I understand it, is defined by the presence of standalone articles in Wikipedia for each award. Among the awards removed from First Command's article were Best Companies to Work for in Texas, Military Friendly, Military Times "Best for Vets." Below, I've included a sampling of articles elsewhere on Wikipedia where these same awards are listed:
If the threshold for inclusion of awards such as these is the existence of Wikipedia articles for the awards, how is it determined when an award is notable enough to warrant its own article? With multiple references to the awards from a variety of independent sources, it seems as though the awards in question could/should meet that standard. Additionally, other companies in the financial services sector, such as Edward Jones Investments, include mention of awards that are not linked to standalone Wikipedia articles. Your guidance on this is appreciated. I'm just trying to understand the standard used to judge whether awards are fair game for inclusion.
Your feedback on the exclusion of First Command's financial relief package for military families during the 2018-2019 government shutdown cited NOBLECAUSE. This was the text in question:
"First Command responded to the 2018-2019 government shutdown with an $11 million financial relief package for military families, government employees and others who were experiencing financial stress related to the shutdown. The program included the offer of $6.1 million in interest-free direct deposit payroll advances to more than 2,500 federal employees and Coast Guard members. In January 2019, First Command announced that it was partnering with Coast Guard Mutual Assistance to offer interest-free loans to Coast Guard members and their families facing financial challenges due to the government shutdown that started in December 2018. First Command extended a $5 million unsecured, interest-free line of credit to Coast Guard Mutual Assistance for the purpose of making interest-free loans to Coast Guardsmen who were negatively affected by the shutdown. These outreach efforts were recognized with a national award from LIMRA, a not-for-profit association serving the financial services industry."
While I understand the reasoning behind NOBLECAUSE, I would argue that this paragraph documents an item of historical significance, as evidenced by the extensive media coverage of First Command (and other companies) providing relief to members of the military in the absence of a fully functioning U.S. government. The presence of content on Wikipedia about the shutdown itself seems to me to further that assertion. That being the case, would including the paragraph above, or a version of it, be appropriate as a new sub-section within the "History" section of the article?
If so, what is the best way to approach this? Should I make an additional edit request on the talk page of the First Command article?
Thank you for your question. By their very nature, awards are subjective, in that they represent a very specific point of view: that of the individual or organization which determines who wins the award and why. To counter this, a good practice is to limit the listing of awards to only those which are independently notable in Wikipedia. Thus, to include a list of awards here, I always request that the awards be independently notable in Wikipedia in order to be shown in the article. When I say notability, what I am asking for here is not due to WP:N (which is not a content requirement). The request for notability in this case is to ensure WP:NPOV, as the adding of several points of view to an article in the form of an awards section may skew the article's balance. With regards to your second question, your point about "the extensive media coverage of First Command (and other companies) providing relief to members of the military in the absence of a fully functioning U.S. government" is not understood. You've said that the absence of a "fully functioning US govt" is what makes this notable, although I'm not sure what you mean. Regards, Spintendo18:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position on notability. I'd like to get a third opinion on this topic, as it seems fairly subjective and the awards in question have been listed in articles about other companies without compromising balance. With regard to the second question about the historical significance of First Command's relief programs for military families during the 2018-2019 federal government shutdown, I am not suggesting that "the absence of a fully functioning US govt" is what makes this notable, but rather the extensive media coverage of the response to a notable event by First Command and other companies makes it an item of historical significance in First Command's history (and ostensibly in the history of other companies mentioned in the media coverage). It is for this reason that I believe it belongs in the article. If you disagree, I'd also like to get a third opinion on this topic. DP292 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors - after reviewing everything in question, this is my opinion. As far as the awards, based on the evidence provided and numerous other discussions being had across WP, I recommend that they be added as they are in other articles and I have seen some very odd awards I’ve never heard of on pages. So on that piece, I’m in agreement with @DP292:. Now, as far as the other dispute, I am in agreement with @Spintendo:. We as editors have had the discussion since the COVID—19 outbreak and while it is great that anyone is donating basically anything from water to food to beds to money to help everyone out, it is undue weight on the article and will leave the balance unchecked as it would with any article. I hope I have helped you both here and if you have any questions please ping me on this page and not my talk page so we can keep the discussion in one place.GalendaliaCVU Member \ Chat Me Up11:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Galendalia: thank you for providing a third opinion. It is much appreciated. @Spintendo: based on the third opinion, are you open to adding the awards?
@Tsmith47: It would help me if you could rewrite your edit request over on the talk page of the article all at once. So, everything you want to add, with all the sources, and where you want it. That way I can separate it from your discussion with Spintendo, who seems to be on a WP:WikiBreak, and do my own review. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
O.K. I'll do that and will re-submit it as a brand new item for consideration on the talk page. Thank you.Tsmith47 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Tresorit Logo 2018v2.png
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Tresorit Logo 2018v2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kroll Bond Rating Agency, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. BrynnAthena (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Victor Vescovo
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Spintendo,
I see that there are cautions and caveats to the Victor Vescovo article apparently initiated by you. I would like to help satisfy your concerns, as I believe that his recent history in the Challenger Deep is an important event in history. My book, "Deepest Pioneer", the history of the Bathyscaph Trieste will be distributed later this year by the US Naval Institute Press, and its concluding chapter compares the early technology of the Trieste when it made its dive to the bottom of the world's oceans in 1960, to the technological revolution displayed by Vescovo's tour-de-force at the Challenger Deep in 2019.
Many state that the Earth's final frontier is in the polar regions, and they may very well be right -- but if so, then the deep oceans are not a frontier, but rather mankind's first glimpse of an alien world. Vescovo's aggressive employment of revolutionary deep ocean technology is demonstrating that this alien world can now be entered safely at modest cost.
I'm sure that Lindbergh and Earhart were originally called self-promoters and adventurers, but their history-making flights demonstrated to the general population that manned-flight had come of age and would soon be entering the common weal. They are both now cultural icons and rightfully warrant long encyclopedic biographic articles. Vescovo is another of that ilk, at least in my opinion.
Recently, the Guinness Book of Records recognized him as holding the record for deepest manned dive -[1] This should be compared to Lindbergh's non-stop flight across the Atlantic; and Earhart's first women to fly non-stop to Europe as a demonstration of maturing technology.
Using his new technology, Vescovo (in 2020) returned to the Challenger Deep and escorted the first woman -- Astronaut Kathryn Sullivan -- to the bottom of the world's oceans. This and other dives may look like promotion, but they serve to educate a public to a new capability. A new capability with consequences just as unforeseeable as Lindbergh's first long distance flight.
Under my nom-de-wiki "Gwyncann" you can find some of my work recording all of the research vessels that have investigated the Challenger Deep. I'm not a very experienced participant in the Wikipedia project, but I would like to ensure that the historical importance of the recent radical improvement in deep sea technology is recognized and documented on Wikipedia -- including a proper biography of its most visible proponent today -- Victor Vescovo.
Can you educate me and guide me in the proper tone of academic disinterest for the Vescovo article? What, specifically, are the elements that need to be addressed in the present write-up?
When I contacted Wiki editor Samholt6 with the same question, he replied:
Reply to|Gwyncann}} hello, and thanks for reaching out with this concern. As far as the Victor Vescovo article is concerned, my edit history there is very brief - I visited the article in September of 2019 in the wake of a WP:COIN investigation and tagged it for containing undisclosed paid editing, but later was successfully engaged by User:Vlvescovo (the discussion can be read here), and convinced to remove my tag. I have not edited the article since then, and the tag currently on the article was added in this edit this June. The article in question remains on my watchlist, but for now I have other topics I would like to focus on and as such will likely not be playing an active role in this process.
As far as advice I can give you, I recommend you start a talk page discussion on why you feel the tag should be removed. As for any changes to the text of the article, you can be WP:BOLD add any content you feel should be included (keeping in mind WP:COI, which discourages but does not disallow editors with a conflict of interest from editing relevant topics) keeping WP:BRD in mind. Alternately, you can use Wikipedia's edit request feature to discuss potential changes on the article talk page. Wishing the best, as you clearly have an interest in improving Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I am prepared to start a talk page as Sam suggests, but thought you might have some thoughts on what specifically needs to be addressed to remove the existing caveat.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You should ask the good people of Wikipedia who tried and failed to work constructively with this editor if they know what a bully sounds like. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to describe the pervasive coldness and contempt of character that arises from repeated attempts at communication with an individual who, against all decorum, ignores and invalidates their co-editors with stony silence. I'm sure they would leap at being able to describe the sound of an editor who quietly and without explanation scatters bizarre and unhelpful edits across the Wikipedia landscape, for reasons which seem like only purposeful distraction.
It would be important to hear them describe the anxiety and the anger that comes from seeing their hard work and time invested in articles on Wikipedia defaced by another editor for reasons which go unexplained. Actions from an editor who, when confronted with their peers concerns, artfully deflects them off of himself. An editor who then seizes those same concerns and complaints of his peergroup — not to address or validate them — but rather, to pusillanimously construe them into accusations which he could then use to throw back onto the character of others. Make no mistake, these were bullying behaviors meant to invalidate the integrity of the editors he came into conflict with. That editor's actions made a mockery of the content and conventions of the entire Wikipedian-editorial process itself. That this community rose up and fought back against a bully should rightfully be seen as a singular victory in the long-standing war of reasoned colloquy over disputatious and rancorous abuse. Spintendo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.83.105 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Spintendo,
I stopped by here for a completely different reason, but if I'm reading this correctly that's all irrelevant now. Could you let us know if you really signed this message, or is somebody impersonating you? It's been 3 months since you edited. Are you retired or considering retiring now? Any info would be helpful. Smallbones(smalltalk)03:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Response given at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo 09:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC).svg){kind=small}
Clarified claims implemented Regards, Spintendo 03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Punctuation added Spintendo 13:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. Spintendo 21:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Wrong venue Please make your request on the talk page of the article where you're requesting the changes be made. That page may be found in the search bar by placing 
Thank you Warm regards, Spintendo 21:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Done, 
Partly done:, 
Not done:.
Unable to implement
So what is this? Your own custom made template? Where can I get these for free? They seem pretty cool.
Resolved 
Declined for removing verified content. {{replyto}} Can I Log In
Response to third opinion request:
