User:Rotideypoc41352/Fulfilled requests/Archives/2014/July

Stanton Foundation

 * Offeror: Stanton By Your Man (talk)
 * Date offered: 13:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Request: Currently, Wikipedia has no article about the Stanton Foundation, the over $200-million offspring of the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund. Please create a suitable "Start" article about the foundation.
 * Reward: $5 for an appropriate 3- to 5-sentence lede, plus $3 per reliably-sourced sentence of follow-up detail regarding this topic, up to $21.
 * Limit on rewards: Multiple recipients are eligible, but maximum payout will be $26. No rewards will be paid if the article is deleted or merged to Frank Stanton (executive) within 30 days of its creation.
 * Expired: July 4, 2014


 * I would move this request to "Expired requests" since it expired yesterday, but it appears that it was fulfilled. I emailed Stanton By Your Man on how he was going to carry out the reward but I did not get a response from him. I'm not sure what to do. GamerPro64  05:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to quickly point out that my e-mail inbox lacks any notification of being contacted by you, GamerPro64; but regardless, I appreciate this reminder that the offer has expired. By my reckoning, User:Eddymason is entitled to $5 for starting an appropriate 3- to 5-sentence lede, plus $9 for three additional reliably-sourced sentences of follow-up detail.  I then calculate that User:The Devil's Advocate is entitled to $12 for adding approximately four additional sentences, although it is a little difficult to determine exactly because of much over-writing of Eddymason's content.  This would sum to $26, which was the maximum payout.  I will also note that User:Geraldshields11 added a heavy dose of incorrect information, attributing the Stanton Foundation (tax EIN number 133598005) to a doppelganger namesake in Jackson, Michigan, which has nothing to do with the Ruth and Frank Stanton body.  If it is not too much trouble, I would ask that this notice (which I've now marked "Expired") stay in place until payments can be authenticated. - Stanton By Your Man (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I actually added more like eight sentences. Six in the activities section and two in the history section.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 15:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is entirely possible. However, with Eddymason accounting first for $14 of the maximum $26, there was only $12 remaining for the additional sentences, anyway.  I understand from my financial assistant that the two beneficiaries from this request have been paid via PayPal, so it can be moved to "Expired".  Also, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, it may be appropriate to point out here that The Devil's Advocate seems to have been in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, which specify:
 * "...with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
 * a statement on your user page,
 * a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
 * a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."
 * Eddymason's edits predated the Wikimedia Foundation's new Terms of Use which focus on paid editing, so that is why I am only mentioning The Devil's Advocate. It seems that a more explicit reminder of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use should be placed on this Reward Board page.  I don't feel like a long-enough contributor in good standing to have the authority to make substantial changes to the preamble on this page. - Stanton By Your Man (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted my edits. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)