User talk:Spintendo/Archive 3

What exactly does a COI editor have to disclose?
I'm curious about the user Saad Ahmed2983 who has disclosed paid editing related to One America News Network. The payment is from "Unlinked Corp" but I can't find any info on this company. I'm curious whether this editor was tasked specifically to alter the Wikipedia page of One America News Network by this company. I'm also curious what the relationship between "Unlinked Corp" and One America News Network is. Are PAID COI accounts not required to divulge such information? This is an extremely rare instance where I've encountered a PAID COI, so I'm curious how this works. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In my experience the only requirement for disclosure has been for COI editors to disclose who is paying them, and that they use the client parameter in conjunction with the employer parameter in the template to distinguish whom the ultimate target of the paid editing is versus where their paycheck is coming from, which I've always taken to be as the general goal of WP:DCOI. There is no requirement that they prove who is paying them (such as via a pay stub for example). With respect to verification of a claimed entity existing when it appears that the entity may not exist (such as in your search for "Unlinked Corp") that's not too unusual of a situation. I would expect that there are more than a few freelance agencies who offer paid Wikipedia editing who may not show up in cursory searches for them due to their new-ness or size of agency. I hope this better explains things. Regards,   Spintendo   11:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Madrona Venture Group edit request
Hello! Thank you for all your help on the Madrona Venture Group edit request, I put responses on the talk page, is that the best place to add clarifications to questions you brought up? Or should I do another request for edit? Thank you again! Erikashaffer (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If you've clarified something that was brought up in an edit request review, it's best to clarify it on the article's talk page just under the post where the review was initially made. In order to be sure that I and other editors see it, be sure to add a template to the top of your new (or reply) post.
 * Regards,  Spintendo   10:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Private business school : misleading content / advertising / abusive pages
Hello As you will read on [my user page], I want to help clean up wikipedia that is being abused by private school - fake accreditations, fake ratings, abusive promotion, etc... I see you are active and would value your inputs support etc.. Will tag you in the pages, for now : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GBSB_Global_Business_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EU_Business_School#misleading_content_/_advertising_>>_updates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Council_for_Business_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EAE_Business_School Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstuBcn (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. In terms of editing in the areas you've suggested, the only advice I can offer would be the following:
 * While you are free to edit Wikipedia as you see fit, that editing should only be done as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they've been laid out
 * It may not be a good idea to only edit Wikipedia in order to make a point, as you've stated on your user page: "Police wikipedia for private business schools putting MONEY before interests of their students". There are already many other editors experienced in the matters of which you speak ("policing private business schools"). Before jumping in yourself, I would suggest maybe observing some of their work in order to get a better idea of how this type of editing takes place.
 * In the end, there is a whole universe of different editing needs here to be taken care of, from Common mistakes for the newbie editor to new article patrol and articles for deletion for the more experienced editor. It would be a shame if you were to limit yourself only to one sort of task when there are many others that could be taken up. Whatever area you choose to edit in, be sure to work with the consensus of other local editors whom you will come across. Their participation is important, and you will help to foster a healthy editing environment when you include others input into your own editing decisions. I wish you success! If you have any questions along the way, I'm always here to help. Regards,  Spintendo   20:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * : Many thanks for such an extensive answer. I get your points. WP policy is well noted, and I did read with interest the conflict of interest noticeboard. I am looking forward to seeing experienced editors deal with the promotion aspects I layed out, especially seeing [Singapore Management University COI] case which is very interesting in terms of promotion. I will go over my latest changes to make sure they are pondered. regards. EstuBcn (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

creation of company page under disclosed COI
Hello I am a paid editor and have disclosed my COI on my talk page. I recently submitted draft:goldgenie which was deleted under G11 criteria by user:K.e.coffman as they deemed it to be an advertisement. I want to recreate the page but would like to know what to avoid when writing company pages. As far as I am aware the company meets the guideline on notability and does have sufficient secondary sources and even a tertiary source courtesy of the British government. I think wires may have been crossed because back in 2011 the company did upload a page without declaring COI, something which my client regrets. My client has expressed a commitment to abide by the rules of this platform and does not want to violate any native advertising laws. If I recreate the draft would you be willing to check it to make sure the draft is suitable for inclusion? Many thanks Turtle neck ninja (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not knowing the specifics of the case, I would have to rely on the advice of, who is a very highly qualified editor. If you have questions about why the draft was deleted I would suggest contacting them for more information. Regards, Spintendo  17:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Pace U.
Hi,

Left a note on the Pace University Talk page, but thought I'd let you know that I asked them to make fixing the citations a priority and they said they'd assign someone to it very soon. I have already volunteered a lot of hours for them (aside from getting paid for part of the work, as disclosed) and will volunteer more to make sure they do a good job. And they disclose COI even for citations. Tracking down new citations for dead URLs, or finding the same page at a new URL, is something someone who knows Pace University very well is going to be able to do much more quickly than me. And they can use a little training on creating correct citation formats in case they ever propose a COI edit in the future. I was discussing this with Pace when the other editors came in and made their comments and edits. This article could become GA with enough work, but it's not something I have time for right now. Thanks for your review. BC1278 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
 * I went ahead and converted the article's remainder of stray references (about 10 or so) over to WP:CS1. There was one reference I wasn't able to transfer over, a document with a URL that indicated it would have only been accessible to users of Pace's shibboleth. Because I am not one of those users, I was unable to view the document in order to find any identifying information (such as a DOI, etc.) In lieu of placing the reference for that item I went ahead and inserted a citation needed template. So anything you or other COI editors for that article in the future would like to add, you can go ahead and place the citations as CS1 in your edit requests and you'll be good to go. Thanks for your help.  Spintendo  22:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Much appreciated!  Spintendo  14:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request at Novartis
Hello Spintendo

Thank you for your feedback on the Novartis edit. Could you kindly confirm the only information I should disclose on my talk page is the the |employer= parameter in the connected contributor template?

After the disclosure, should I respond directly to your comment on the article talk page?

Rusoke365 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. If you are being paid to request edits on behalf of a corporation or other such entity, please use the ' template and be sure to fill out the U1-client and U1-employer parameters of the template accordingly. Place the template below the talk page header material (just below where it says  ). Once this is done, you may reactivate the ' template by switching the answer parameter to read from yes to no.  Spintendo   10:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Spintendo. Thank you for your advice and clear guidance. I have added the template to the Novartis talk page and also reactivated the request by setting the ans=no parameter. Thank you again for your feedback and I will be happy to amend the request if anything does not fit Wikipedia standards. Rusoke365 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo   21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Thank you for the pointer about the citation style. I have re-written the request with Citation Style 1 and resubmitted the edit request. Rusoke365 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello I have updated the article based on the feedback from the preliminary review of Novartis. Would it be possible to review it? Thank you for your feedback, I realize it is just one of very many you review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusoke365 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Review completed at the article's talk page. Spintendo  23:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Geisinger Health System edit request
Hi Spintendo,

Thank you for your feedback and guidance on the Geisinger Health System edit request. I have followed your suggestions and updated the talk page with the updated request. Many thanksMlsobieski (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Review completed at the article's talk page; all approved changes implemented. Spintendo  21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Proteus 706
Thanknyou. I thought j wa correct anyway Emojibop613 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The BEA found a myriad of factors which caused this crash, including
 * the Proteus pilots deviation from their route;
 * the Aeronautical Information Service and their vague policy regarding transponder use while operating under visual flight rules, which at that time could have been interpreted as optional
 * and the use of two different controllers for aircraft in the same area.
 * These factors really needed to happen all at the same time, otherwise the accident might not have occurred. Regards, Spintendo  12:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

General question
Hi Spintendo, When requesting multiple edits to a page, is it preferred to request edits in smaller chunks or to request multiple edits within the page's sections? THank you for any guidance.Mlsobieski (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * There are no overall guidelines which answer that question, and each reviewer may have their own preferences. Longer edit requests seem not to be as popular with many reviewers as are shorter ones. As for myself, I don't have any preferences for one over another — either size is fine with me. Some articles require longer edit requests — especially in cases where the changing of elements in one section, say the infobox, require that elements in another section, like the lead, be changed simultaneously (because of a shared reference used in both locations, for example).


 * I would suppose that the most well-written articles require longer edit requests, because the information in them may be more densely packed, with phrasing that flows from one section to another. Like the menu of a 5-course meal, if one dish is changed or put out of sequence, all the surrounding dishes might be disrupted. If text in one section no longer meshes with a following or preceding section, the article may suffer. Really large edit requests are rare, but they do occur. I would suggest making your request as small or as large as you like, depending on your comfort level and the article's needs.
 * Regards Spintendo  20:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of the most recent edit request at Geisinger Health System, I noticed that I neglected to leave individual reasons why the items requested were either approved or declined. (I usually do provide these reasons, but in this instance they were overlooked.) Those reasons have now been added to my reply on the talk page. I apologize for any confusion which may have resulted from these reasons being omitted. Regards, Spintendo  20:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting tag removal
Hi Spintendo,

This is regarding the page of Girish Jhunjhnuwala. I sincerely request you to please remove the tag - ''This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (March 2019)'' - as I have provided additional citations for verification. Citations such as Entrepreneur, Forbes, The Standard are significantly detailed stories about him. Looking forward to a positive response. Thank you.--At My Unicorn Party (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reference for the claim that the office complex in Hong Kong's Central business district was developed into the first Ovolo serviced apartment. There is a reference preceding this claim, but it is unknown if that source verifies the claim which follows it. There is also the need for a reference for the claim of the subject's degree. Regards, Spintendo  18:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination
Spintendo, Good luck on your nomination! Best, hollistHollist (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Herman Melville assessment
Thanks for your edit of the GAN for Herman Melville last week. The reviewing editor seems to be on Wikibreak for several weeks now and I am wondering if you might be able to kick-start the assessment to start to move the review forward. CodexJustin (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a very preliminary glance at the article, there are a few pre-review improvements which haven't taken place yet. Those would include:
 * Several sources which list large gapped page ranges (i.e., 412-478, etc.) when what is needed are precise pages or page ranges where the information would be found. For a reference which is sourcing only a single sentence, a page range of over 20 pages is not likely. Examples : Ref tags #121, 123, 124, 131, 169, 175, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195.
 * Some references give no page numbers at all where there would expect to be one. Examples : Ref tags #180, 181, 182, 187, 198, 199, 203.
 * Other references are given neither URL nor ISBN parameters. These sources should at least be given the OCLC parameter. Examples : Ref tags #76, 128, 142, 190, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 205. Regards, Spintendo  16:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking those up. The previous editor from 4-5 year ago apparently did not know how to annotate 'facing pages' properly which I took care of by keeping the primary page and indicating optional follow-up reading. The ISBNs and ASINs I have also filled in where available, the last cite you gave me was actually to a BBC web article which I checked for still being linked and active. Your notes here are really useful and possibly you might consider moving the GAN assessment further forward since the reviewing editor appears to be on extended Wikibreak. Your comments have been worthwhile to improvements in the article. Let me know if this might be possible for you. CodexJustin (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding to clarification request on Pacific Equity Partners page
Hi Spintendo, thanks for your comments. I have sought to respond to each of your points: 1. The request does not state what it is about the information that is incorrect. Response: The information is incorrect because it describes these select few investments as “notable”. These are not the most notable by size or by value and is therefore not an accurate representation of notable investments by Pacific Equity Partners. Notable seems subjective anyway. The information is also out of date, in that recent activities have not been included. By deleting the paragraph and adding the names of all investments we felt that created a more complete picture. However, given the advice from VQuark that said we shouldn't have an extensive list, we think it would be better to not have any individual investments listed and to keep it brief and factual. We propose removing the current information under “investments” and replacing it with these two sentences only: PEP has made more than 30 operating company investments as well as 100 bolt-on acquisitions since its founding more than 20 years ago. Mendoza, Carmela. "Australian mid-market private equity thriving", [Private Equity International], 24 July 2018. The firm has raised more than AUD 8 billion across five funds in that time and is the largest PE firm in Australia with deal flow nearly double that of the next largest firm since at least 2014. Mendoza, Carmela. "Australian mid-market private equity thriving", [Private Equity International], 24 July 2018.

2.Request does not state what it is about these investment funds which requires their being listed in the article. Response: Please see previous response. We would suggest not having the full list at all given recent advice. 3. Citation Response: Apologies, will try to be more mindful. Thanks for pointing this out. StaceyCretella (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These new sentences are much more inline with a summary, which is a move in the right direction. But I'm afraid that terms such as 100 bolt-on acquisitions and deal flow are part of a nomenclature which is not easily accessible to most readers. The terms used in articles need to be understandable by a wide margin of the readership, and those not fluent in the language of business may find these sentences incomprehensible. Spintendo  14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It's much appreciated! Spintendo  15:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability of organizational awards
Hi. You removed some citations to awards given out by notable organizations in the Mark W. Moffett article, and said "Awards which were not independently notable were omitted. An award is independently notable if it has its own Wikipedia page."; I see nothing in WP:N that suggests that an award by a notable organization has to have its own independent WP article in order for the award to be mentioned in an article. The Explorers Club and the Association of American Publishers are good examples of very notable organizations, so a reference to an award given by such an organization seems perfectly within the boundaries of notability, when a link to both the organization itself and a properly-sourced cite for the award itself have both been provided. I would like to restore these citations without having to ask for arbitration; there are ample parallel examples that can be found on other biographical web pages of academics, which have not been so restrictively-edited. See for example the article for another living entomologist, Michael S. Engel, which references several awards without citations (also lacking notability by your criterion): "In Spring 2014 he was awarded the Scholarly Achievement Award of the University of Kansas for his contributions to the evolutionary and developmental origins of insect flight; and in 2015 the International Cooperation Award from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In 2017, Engel was elected as a Fellow of the Entomological Society of America and received the society's Thomas Say Award." There are three awards listed in this one sentence, all of which have no "independent notability", but are still included in the article. I also see clear evidence that Dr. Engel is the primary editor of his own WP article, via an IP account (129.237.92.226), and has not been prevented from doing so. The point is that the criterion you state is arbitrarily enforced; if you intend to apply such a stringent standard, then this criterion should be applied to every article in WP equally. Dyanega (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is not really the issue here. Information should not be included in the article solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Consensus is that awards listed which are not independently notable themselves have a wide discretion on whether they should be included or not. Without this safeguard on what types of awards are included, who is to say that anyone couldn't give themselves an award, talk about that award in a biographical write-up submitted by them to National Geographic, and then claim that reference from National Geographic as justification for having the claim of that award listed in their article. In the case of the Moffett article, there is a requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, and it cannot be stated that the listing of various awards won by the subject along with the various media appearances by the subject along with little else about the subject does not constitute self promotion. Spintendo  21:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a link to any RfC or other discussions where this "consensus" has been established, otherwise I have no evidence that there are any other editors who agree with such a narrow interpretation. Receiving an award from the Association of American Publishers is not equivalent to someone who "gives themselves an award". These are not awards fabricated for the purpose of self-promotion, they are legitimate awards from notable organizations. You'll note that I did not restore the link to the award from the "Roy Chapman Andrews Society", which is NOT a notable organization. I would hope that we could agree that awards from notable organizations are fair game for inclusion, though you seem to be claiming that because the link was originally included by the subject of the article, it can never be included because it is self-promotion (and not NPOV), and I don't agree with that; awards from notable organizations can certainly be included without violating NPOV guidelines. If your claim is that there is not enough text in the article explaining who this scientist is, and what makes him notable OTHER than his awards and media appearances, I agree that the lede is very skimpy and could be edited to reflect more of his career; the link you deleted to Google Scholar shows that he is fairly prolific and has published a variety of works other than popular science books, and perhaps this could be used to provide more information - or are there prohibitions on using Google Scholar as a source of information? Dyanega (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NACADEMICS states that once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. Many of the awards cited by the subject were informed by a biographical worksheet drawn up by the subject himself and submitted to the various publications for posting on their websites. As this information ultimately comes from the subject, without any other external verification, these awards would be considered controversial, meaning the sources provided with them would not be widely accepted as reliable sourcing. Spintendo  02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just now returning to this. The details and cites you removed with your edits were not controversial (there is no one disputing any of them), and several of them were independent 3rd-party sources. You allow for, in an earlier comment, the use of "wide discretion", and I'm going to act accordingly with wide discretion. Care will be taken not to allow this article to become a tool for self-promotion, but the point remains that this individual is notable, with numerous accomplishments, and the article will be maintained in a manner similar to those of parallel articles of similar academic BLPs (I examined nearly 20 of them to establish a baseline idea of editing and sourcing), which routinely incorporate information that ultimately can be traced to the subject of the article. I also looked carefully at WP:CONTROVERSY, just in case it might pertain, and saw no red flags raised, and also note this comment there: When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced in the article; indeed, it would be prohibitive to force editors to provide a reliable source for every claim. However, a verifiable source does have to exist in the world, even if not cited in the article. Something as simple as a claim that person X has an affiliation with institution Y seems perfectly reasonable in this regard; if institution Y does not bother to list their affiliates online, that does not mean the fact cannot be easily confirmed through other means, nor should an editor be prohibited from asserting an affiliation until and unless institution Y provides a new webpage for the purpose of verification; that's an unreasonable expectation. Dyanega (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're trying to say, that certain associations should be allowed, and on that point we agree. My concern with this article arose from what I was seeing: an esteemed scientist's article being micromanaged by editor(s) adding information which was — and I think you'd agree — unique for its appearance on the Wikipedia page of a man of science. Studies and investigations on the nature of biodiversity in the tropics — now that is something I would expect to see plenty of edits on. How many times the subject appeared on Conan O'Brien or the Today show — not so much. I've seen many scientist articles padded with content covering the minutiae of every appearance in any forum. This article appeared to be going that route. Unfortunately, much of the important and worthwhile information you've relayed to me through this thread has sidestepped a very real risk that the article is currently facing. The evidence for this risk is clear: conflict of interest editing measurably degrades an article's content over time. The Moffett article has a long history of single purpose accounts making edits to the article which are of dubious value. As long as that continues, with COI editors believing in the infallability of their own contributions and refusing to voluntarily abide by the suggestions for COI editing, this article will continue to be at risk of sliding into mediocrity. Spintendo  00:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I was not looking back at the edit history very much, and I do see your point. It was not so much the content itself (in many cases), but the "promotional" tone; I think it's possible to strike a balance so long as there's a watchful eye. That being said, not very many academics do get to appear on TV more than once, nor have popular books published, or exhibitions of their photos, so it's a longer (and less purely academic) list of notable points than is typical. This is especially true compared to other entomologists, which is why I looked primarily at other notable entomologists' articles for comparison. Bringing this article more into line with those should not be difficult. Dyanega (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Daily Kos page
Hello Spintendo, I made the changes you asked for to my edit request. Please let me know if it works now. Thanks!

Meow panda (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've removed the bracketed numbers which were placed in the article without links. Unfortunately, that problem is only one side of the coin. The other side is that the claim statements which contained those bracketed numbers still require references. Those references should be placed at the exact spot in the text where the claim statement referenced by the source resides — in other words — the exact locations which the bracketed numbers previously occupied. Regards, Spintendo  23:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your feedback. I made those changes as you specified, please review and let me know. Meow panda (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the changes, it's much appreciated. I will review the request shortly. Regards, Spintendo  05:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I made the final edit of disclosure, let me know if this looks okay. Thank you! Meow panda (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Reply left at the talk page in question. Spintendo  20:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Fixed -- please let me know if this works. Thank you. Meow panda (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help with the revisions. There is just one that I believe you did not include: the correction to the status of Big Tent Democrat/Armando, per my notes in the talk page on Daily Kos. Please review and let me know if you need any further information. Meow panda (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is because the proposal states "Same section also has outdated (or incomplete) info on Armando, not mentioning the fact he returned for the second time in 2011 and has remained an active member of the site since: "For two months, Armando would resurface periodically, and all of his comments were accompanied by a signature line stating that he would be returning to blogging in December 2006. Armando did indeed resurface, albeit under a user ID, "Big Tent Democrat," in September 2006. Armando "Big Tent Democrat" then left the Daily Kos site again in March 2007, citing "differences with the Management." The proposal does not include the form that this correction should take — namely, it does not suggest how this correction should be worded in the form of "Change x to y using z" — which gives the solution to the problem of missing information by suggesting verbatim how that information should be worded in the text. The proposal states informally that Armando "returned and remains active" but does not suggest how that return should be reflected in the prose. It only provides the x component — the verbatim text that should be changed — but still requires the y component — the verbatim text that should be inserted. Additionally, the most recent proposal does not provide the z component, a reference for the date of this return. The reference which was provided is to a listing of their posts, but does not immediately identify the date of the first return post, which is the main thrust of the claim, that "he returned for the second time in 2011". That source expects the reader to search through eight years of posts in order to verify that a return was made in 2011, when a more direct approach to referencing is to be preferred. A solution would be to omit the date of 2011 and state that this contributor currently makes additions to Daily Kos or otherwise specify a source which states the dates of work succinctly. Regards, Spintendo  22:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've finally located the reference for the subject's publishing history at Daily Kos. Owing to that source, I've changed the date of their return to February 2011. Needless to say, that is the reference I should have been provided with when the request was first made. Let me know if anything else remains to be done in that article, preferably on the Daily Kos talk page along with an active  template. Regards, Spintendo  02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Review of Proposed Changes
Hi Spintendo,

I was wondering if you could offer any feedback on the many proposed changes I have made on the talk page for Bob McDonald (businessman) that are pending. Thank you. Tsmith47 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Review completed at the article's talk page. Spintendo  14:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and examples of the citation format. It is much appreciated.Tsmith47 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Spintendo, I made edits yesterday to your recent review of Bob McDonald (businessman) the controversies content. For some reason, the submission I made seems to be missing or was reverted.  Do you need me to re-submit it as a new section in order to be reviewed?  Thank you.Tsmith47 (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are changes to be made to an older edit request, it's best to make a newer one instead of altering the older request. The general rule for talk pages is that you may re-edit your own posts as long as no one else has posted after you. Once that happens, nothing should be changed in an older post unless you use strikeout font for items that are to be ignored and underlined font for anything added. Your last edit to that page before the revert removed large portions of an older request. My response to that request included points I made regarding the text of your proposal. By removing this text, my posts would no longer make sense to an editor who comes along reading the exchanges and who may be trying to get a sense of the discussion. Their idea of what was being discussed will be at a disadvantage because of that missing text. For example, lets say editor A and editor B are having a discussion on a talk page. Editor A tells editor B that they had a great time taking editor B's mother out the night before on a romantic date. Editor B reads this, and knowing that their mother is married, gets upset at editor A and starts accusing them of being a liar. Editor A then goes back and alters their original post to say that they took their own mother out to dinner for mothers day. Anyone coming along afterwards who reads this discussion will wonder why Editor B is yelling at editor A and calling them a liar for treating their own mother to dinner. That fictional example illustrates why the refactoring of ones talk page comments after another editor has posted a reply is generally not looked upon as Ok to do, except of course on your own talk page, where editors have more leeway on what they can edit on their own pages. Regards, Spintendo  13:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about Southwestern Advantage awards
Hello, thank you for your guidance, I will present my case on the coi notice board. I wanted to ask what can I do if the awards cannot be wikilnked? is it necessary for an award to be wikilinked in order to be accepted? It does has independent sources. Kind Regards, Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends on the nature of the award. Awards that are WikiLinked are the easiest to mention, because they have a built-in notability that makes their being mentioned in an article uncontroversial. If the award is not Wikilinked but the organization that gives the award is notable (and is known for giving out awards, as opposed to a company that award-giving is not their primary purpose), then that is the second most easist to add, and so on and so forth all the way down the line. Likewise, the referencing for each type of award is easist at the top, and gets more stringent and restrictive the lower down the line the award goes. For example, an Academy Award need only be referenced by any publication, because it is very notable. "Time Person of the Year" may be referenced just by Time. The "Seiversville Schoolteacher of the Year" award will need to be referenced not only by the school, but also a reputable news publication outside of Seiversville. In other words, the less notable an award is, the more references and substantiation that the award needs to prove itself as noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Awards that are not entirely notable and only have the giving organization as a reference (or a publication closely aligned with the industry in which the award is given used as a reference) will be controverisial and thus less-likely to be added. Regards, Spintendo  04:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Max Price
I'm sorry that my post did something odd to your page! Hope this one does no harm.

Thank you for the feedback. I am new at editing biographies in Wikipedia. I would like guidance on how to do so. I am not sure how one avoids some inevitable overlap between a biographical article and a published CV, but I do understand the need to paraphrase substantially and add to something if there already exists a coherent article in the public domain. I will work on rewriting it.

I would like to suggest that you comment on a few paragraphs at a time to say whether these meet the criteria, rather than my doing a full edit of the whole draft and then finding it has not met the paraphrasing criteria.

I have placed two paragraphs on the article’s Talk Page (article = Max Price). These, I believe, add appropriate information to the original stub and mostly add information that was not in the articles you referenced as being too similar to the earlier draft. Look forward to feedback. Also feedback on whether I should submit a few paragraphs at a time, or the whole article reworked.

If the 2 paragraphs are OK, will you add them to the article?

CritthinkCT (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  00:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Max Price
Thanks Spintendo for your detailed reading and very helpful feedback. CritthinkCT (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My Edit Request denial at British Virgin Islands
Hello Spintendo!

I mean no disrespect, but i am a little confused by the synthesizing information statement. When you read the official press release from the government of the British Virgin Islands, the very first paragraph states:

Additionally, the combination of my sources do not take different pieces of information (A + B) to form a new conclusion (C). In this case, by reading those three sources, and now, the ever growing news sources, my collaboration of sources merely mirror each other from both party ends. Do you still consider this synthesizing, and if so, what more official documentation would be needed beyond a press release from the Premier of the British Virgin Islands and their government webpage?

V/R BobTheFirewall (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. Your claim is that as of three days ago, BVI became the first country to adopt cryptocurrency as an alternate currency. Nowhere in the references you've provided does it state this. In the United States, cryptocurrencies are available to use as "alternative digital currency payment methods" in many enterprises. The US government has sanctioned this, but no one would suggest that something like Litecoin is an alternate currency to use in the US in place of the dollar. That would be the case in the BVI as well. If I were at the end of my vacation on Tortola, and decided to check out of my hotel and pay the bill, I would not be able to pay for it using Bitcoin. If I wanted to take a taxi to the airport, I would not be able to pay for it using Etherium. Upon arriving at the airport, if I were to purchase airfare to come home, I would not be able to pay for it using XRP. And yet, if these are all viable "alternate currencies" as of last Thursday — as it states in the proposed claim — then I should have been able to pay for all of them using the cryptocurrency wallet in my phone. The fact that I would not be able to means the claim as presented has been synthesized. Regards, Spintendo  11:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
For your support pointing me to the talk page of the article rather than my own page.

Regards,

Arlan Lesterhuis (Lesterhuisa) Lesterhuisa (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Fog Robotics COI Edit Request
Thank your prompt response for acceptance. But a citation numbered 1 is removed from mainspace. Can you please add the reference as this page leads readers to know more about the fog robotics project information?Krish1804 (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and placed the reference using, as this appeared to be the best overall reference for these claims, and placed the ref tag according to the guidelines at WP:INTEGRITY. As the article uses two different citation styles, I've also placed a Citation style maintenance template to alert local editors of the need for a consensus to be achieved on using one style instead of two (one or the other, it doesn't matter which). Regards, Spintendo  07:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. But a citation related to the Fog Robotics project title(research section) is missing. For example, all projects of the research section are cited to their sources. So, I feel that readers can get the latest information by visiting the source. I would like to inform that the source is a website of mine but it is linking directly to the current work of Fog Robotics project, invited talks, latest publications along with other information. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Regards Krish1804 (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that a ref tag note — similar to the one placed at the end of this wordundefined is missing from a section heading in the article. Only it's not missing — I placed it in the main body of the text because ref tags are not meant to be placed in section headings, per WP:CITEFOOT ("Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings") and MOS:HEAD ("Section headings should not contain citations or footnotes"). Additionally, the use of  in place of the standard headings is incorrect, per guidance from the template's documentation: "This template should not be used within section headings." Regards, Spintendo  06:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know about this rule and thank you very much for the information and correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish1804 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic
Hi, Spintendo! I clarified a couple points in my Mayo Clinic request if you are still able to review. Thanks! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  20:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Orbiting Carbon Observatory
Thanks for helping me get my requested edit sorted out. I'm an engineer who does a fair bit of testing and root cause analysis, so I am naturally attracted to reading about engineering failures. I just happened to wander into a COI situation in this case. It almost didn't sink in that this now involves my employer after Orbital was purchased. Psu256 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Spintendo, You have been fair and very supportive in helping me out on Girish Jhunjhnuwala's page. I would be looking forward to your guidance in the future. I would appreciate if you suggest me a project to join and help Wikipedia. Thank you so much!

At My Unicorn Party (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC) 

Clarification required before submitting request
Hello, hoping this message finds you well. Other pressing obligations at work have pulled me away from this assignment for about a month, but I'd like to get my employer's Wikipedia page finally squared away. I am reviewing all of our correspondence prior to submitting another edit request for review, and wanted to seek clarity regarding the feedback that you left in my thread on your talk page versus my employer's. Please see below for reference.

Your talk page feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spintendo&oldid=885569716#Edit_Request
 * "Please have a look at what has been changed to blue, and when ready to proceed with my implementing it, add a new request edit template to the article's talk page under a new level 2 heading asking for the changes to be made. The proposed text itself need not be reposted, as the blue underlines will remind me of what is to be added. The requested sections of text are already repeated 3 different times on the talk page in different sections."

CDU's talk page feedback:
 * "Also, the passages that are in blue cannot be inserted into the text as is. Their initial proposal was instituted on the idea that the surrounding text would be implemented along with it. As this is not to be the case, there is no direction for where these passages are to be placed. A newer request needs to be offered explaining where these sections of approvable text are to be inserted."

Could you please clarify the latter piece of feedback? I don't understand what you mean by not detailing where the passages are to be placed, as I thought that I was identifying which blocks of text are to be updated with each request that I've submitted. Additionally, I was under the impression that the blue underlined text was only called out due to citation concerns, which have since been addressed with your suggestions. Thanks very much for your insight, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My directions were that the individual elements of the text do not need to be changed because the individual phrases themselves are fine. But because the surrounding statements were not approved, what needs to be changed is where they are placed in the text. For example, consider the following passage:"At 9:30 AM, Stephanie woke up and got in the shower. While in the shower she noticed that she was almost out of hair conditioner. 'I'll stop off on the way home' she thought. When she got to the meeting at her advertising agency, she noticed that the hair care products manufacturer, who happened to be an important client of her company, had brought samples to the meeting, where it was discussed how the marketing for the products would proceed, and which elements of that marketing the manufacturer wished to keep, including which elements were to be dropped. The samples had been left at the agency office with a note saying they were gifts for Stephanie and her employees. A few were left after the employees had taken their share. 'I wont have to stop by the store' Stephanie thought."As we can see above, the underlined blue elements were approved. They and their individual element-ness need not be changed or reposted. However, the fact that the surrounding text was not approved, means that the way those sentences are presented needs to be altered, not the individual claims contained in the approved statements. Just presenting the statements as is would not make much sense, as we can see below:"At 9:30 AM, Stephanie woke up and got in the shower. 'I'll stop off on the way home' she thought. An important client of her company had brought samples. It was discussed how the marketing for the products would proceed. A few were left after the employees had taken their share."As we can now see above, placing the approved elements all together does not make much sense narratively speaking. Whats needs to occur is that the approved elements need to be crafted into a new narrative which preserves the individual elements themselves but which makes the narrative easier to follow. Thus:"While in the shower, Stephanie had thought she needed to stop and purchase conditioner on her way home. But because the products manufactured by her client were brought and discussed at their marketing meeting, Stephanie's own supply could be replenished after her employees accepted their share."The statements have been altered ever so slightly so that Stephanie's narrative is now easier to follow. That is what needs to be done with the underlined blue elements in your request, and that is what was meant with my directions. As I said, the individual claim statements which were underlined in blue do not need to be reposted as a request. They need only your acknowledgement as the building blocks for a new narrative which needs to be crafted by you. Regards, Spintendo  06:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your swift response. a few more questions before I proceed:


 * -If I were to develop a new narrative, wouldn't that warrant a new edit request? Or, am I expected to continue editing the "Unreferenced Sections" section?


 * -Further, am I to understand that anything not underlined in blue is considered to be unapproved/un-reviewable text? I ask this because there is also red underlined text throughout that section that was initially called out because my claims were considered not to be properly referenced. Based on the adjustments I made back in March, is this still the case? If not, could you please remove those markings so I can have a more accurate understanding of what needs to be updated?


 * With all of this in mind, if possible, I would indeed like to submit a new edit request, because the color coding within the aforementioned section is now confusing me. There have been a lot of instructions/suggestions issued throughout this process, and I just want to make sure I am doing things in the correct order. Thanks very much, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are forward looking, meaning once a request is made and reviewed, any changes to that request ought to be submitted anew. That you've placed references into an older request doesn't affect that older request, because the review given is based on the request as it was submitted at that time. If past talk page posts are changed, they need to be done so according to the guidelines under WP:REDACTED. Changes made to past discussions without using redacted text indicating what is new and what is old are not as easy to follow along with, and can be borderline deceptive in nature. Long story short, any changes made should be submitted under a new edit request placed under a new level 2 heading at the bottom of the talk page. That way, any other editors following along can see the discussion, and the changes wrought from that discussion, as it progresses. Regards, Spintendo  20:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Specific Individuals. General Comments on Linkages in Wikipedia
Spintendo,

Following your guidance several suggested changes were lodged on the Wiki website that addresses Prof. Lathe.

None of the suggested edits have been acted upon.

A central point, might we request your consideration of the following, that applies to multiple pages: Advisory comments: 'relies too much on references to primary sources' and 'This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it', raise an issue that is shared across Wiki pages.

A Wiki page may state 'the discovery of X' (citing [1]), or it may state 'Bloggs discovered X'.

Of the two formats, the former format is almost always used. This disallows cross-referencing to the Wiki page of Bloggs. By contrast, the latter format is rarely used.

The solution of course is to cross-reference citations to pages.

Best

Also. It is stated 'This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it'. That is not correct. Biochemistsco (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to address your concerns about a certain article when that article's full name is not mentioned. If you could give me the full name I could take a look at it. Please advise. Thanks! Spintendo  20:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've located the article you were talking about. The suggestions you have offered appear to be clarifications of Lathe's research, and do not appear to be suggestions on how to improve the article's deficiencies, including the lack of sources, an unclear citation style, and a lack of links to and from the article. Please note that when offering links as references, the links should be accompanied by fully formed sentences that may be reviewed for placement into the article. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and there is not one person who comes along and rewrites your suggestions so that they can be placed into the article. That effort needs to be expended by you. Kindly rewrite the information you've offered on the talk page so that the material may be reviewed and placed into the article as is. As far as fixing the article's orphan status, I'm afraid I cannot comment on your suggestions, as they do not make much sense. A way of fixing this would be to mention either the school where Lathe was educated or perhaps the location of his current employment and have those places WikiLinked. Regards, Spintendo  02:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

7-MAY-2019
I would like my work back i wasnt finished and i will be citing it and putting it in my own words — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbizzy2313 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for your message. As I mentioned on your talk page, you are free to continue editing the article as you see fit, just be sure that the edits are placed in your own words and phrasing. That way the software which monitors for copyright violations won't be triggered. The text that you've added is here, although I'm not sure how long the text may be accessible, as diffs containing copyright information are usually blanked after a period of time. Any text you may want to pull from the diff you should do so ASAP (just be sure not to re-add it without properly paraphrasing it). Also, please be sure to sign all your talk page posts using four tildes . Thank you! Spintendo  23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited so many things and put it in my own words but all the stuff was still deleted. I can't keep starting from scratch... Like besides the cited stuff it is in my own words. All the health issues were labeled and i wrote this in myself... I dont understand, im not starting over again, i cited all the things that werent in my own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbizzy2313 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that this happened to you again, but it's important that copyrighted information not be added to Wikipedia articles. I would suggest reaching out to either your instructor or your campus ambassador for more information on how to proceed. Regards, Spintendo  01:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Axel A. Weber
Hi Spintendo, Thank you a lot for your prompt response to my edit suggestion and the explanation of how the photo content should be uploaded to Wikipedia/media. I'm a new contributor and that's an important learning for me. I have uploaded a new picture but I'm waiting to finalize the Wikimedia OTRS process to be in line with all the community rules.

WROanna1862 (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: AACSB’s 3-May-2019 edit request
Hi Spintendo, Thank you very much for taking a look at our edit request so quickly (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business), and for providing a very useful chart on how to include ref tags. We would be happy to edit accordingly and send back to you, but before doing so wanted to confirm Wikipedia preferences. If you look at our original request, source #21 was the first tag that was used twice, with the second time not hyperlinked to its external source. Then, in later sections, there were some additional tags (e.g. #s 9, 10, etc.) that we utilized as supplemental sourcing more than once. We did not hyperlink a second (or third) inclusion of a reference source that was utilized multiple times because the resource had already been included in the Reference section. We thought that Wikipedia would not want a reference list that included a supporting source more than one time.

Two examples could be:

--- #21. This citation was intended to serve as a primary source tag at the beginning of the fourth sentence in they “Types of AACSB Section”, that reads “…Supplemental accounting accreditation…”, then a second supporting reference for the “...six accreditation standards specific to accounting...” statement later in that sentence in addition to #22. Should we include the CPA Journal article twice in the references, (formally as #21 and #22) and update all the numbers accordingly from this point forward?

---#9. This citation was utilized as a reference tag the third sentence in the main “Intro paragraph” for the part of the sentence that reads “…that connects students, educators, and businesses..”. The reference also served as supporting material for the “History” section, second paragraph where it reads “…AACSB has expanded to more than 100 countries…”. Should we include the London Stock Exchange Group article twice in the reference section (make it formally #9 and #29)

Apologies in advance, we could not figure out how to code a simple hyperlink for the second (or third) listing of a previously tagged citation, without adding it to the resource list. If you know of an easy way to do so (hyperlink an already resource listed item), it’d be a simple fix! Thanks so much in advance for your guidance.

84.246.29.14 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Fannychka Wrong venue
 * Please make your clarifications known on the talk page of the article where you're requesting the changes be made. Regards, Spintendo  17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidance requested
Hello Spintendo, you added a comment on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Software_development_effort_estimation page and I can't see what is wrong with the proposed change, could you kindly explain. Thank you.

Colinrhammond (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  15:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki page Richard Lathe
Thanks Spintendo Please be sure to make your edit request on the talk page of the article where you're requesting changes be made. Regards,

That was done. Please advise

Because the page concerns myself, I can only suggest possible updates. I tried to delete the page, that was rebutted; might I then enlist your help to make it accurate? Biochemistsco (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  19:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Changed citations to Citation Style 1 for Tegile Systems updates
Thank you @Spintendo for your consideration of my proposed changes to the Tegile Systems article. Per your instruction, I have updated the sources to Citation Style 1 using the template. I hope you will now be able to assist me with these changes. Thanks again.

1. In the Lead, REPLACE "Tegile Systems is a manufacturer of flash storage arrays based in Newark, California." WITH "Tegile Systems is a brand of Western Digital that manufactures flash storage arrays." Western Digital acquired Tegile Systems in 2017. Tegile is now a brand of Western Digital.

2. DELETE "based in Newark, California" because the Western Digital headquarters is in San Jose, California, not Newark.

3. In the Sidebar (Box) REPLACE "Type: Private" WITH "Type: Brand of Western Digital"

4. In the Sidebar (Box) REPLACE "Headquarters: Newark, California" WITH "Headquarters: San Jose, California"

5. In the Sidebar (Box) REPLACE "Key People" WITH "Founders" to accurately reflect that these individuals were Tegile founders, not Western Digital founders. AnneElizH (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  08:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

clarification
I don't want to give the impression I am following you around. I am following around one particular paid editor.  DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries here Regards,  Spintendo  18:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

seeking clarification
Hi Spintendo You have been helping me in relation to the Noble Group article, for which many thanks. I would like to try to understand something. I am trying to be a good citizen and putting up my edit request on the talk page, following the wikipedia rules to the best of my ability. But whilst I have been going back and forth with you, it seems that others have been amending the article (often with no references and incorrect information) and removing sections or rewriting them (for example they have removed the reference to Goldilocks which I was seeking to amend - so now I no longer need to make that change). Could you explain two things: (1) what is the benefit to me in following the process I am following - will my edits be "locked" in some way once you approve them or will others simply be able to rewrite or delete anything we agree? (2) can anyone simply edit an article without going through the "request edit" system and the talk page? If so why, should anyone bother with that process? I am not being rude or angry, just trying to understand. Any explanation would be greatly appreciated. Timothy Ferdinand (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your questions. I'll answer them in the order you asked them.
 * The benefit to you in using the edit request system is that it is in accordance with the generally established, community-approved way of COI editors making changes to an article. However, the edits that are made through edit requests are not "locked in" because anyone is open to edit, for that is the nature of Wikipedia. Those edits which follow approved suggestive guidelines for how to make edit requests are seen by the community as having more merit in the long run, but they have no superior status over any other edits which are made (and which follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines). For example, the edits made by the other editor to the article that you mentioned will likely be seen as having less merit, and might be reverted (more on that below).
 * Anyone can edit an article, as there is no prohibition on editing for those with a COI. The only requirement is that all edits to Wikipedia must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is a policy which states that editors who use a username that implies they are affiliated with a company cannot make edits to articles. This means that the edits you referred to in your post by the editor WeAreNoble run the risk of being reverted and that user runs the risk of being blocked because their username implies that they are a part of the company. So in this case, relying on their edits may not work out in the end, demonstrating that your best chance for having the changes you want made in the long run still rests with having a neutral third party (be it myself, or any other editor who is not affiliated with Noble Group) make the edits for you by using the edit request system.
 * I would like to add that my ability to implement well written and well formatted edits is only as good as the completeness of the edit requests which I receive. If there are issues with the wording or the formatting, then those issues can cause delays in getting the edits made, if they are made at all. But working together to solve the issues is easily done, and I'm more than happy to work with you on the issues which your request presents. Regards, Spintendo  04:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Fully understood, many thanks, I'll stick with the task and hopefully we can get there. Timothy Ferdinand (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

/* Some proposed changes */ Follow-up on Beacon College proposed edits
Spintendo: I left this response on the Beacon College talk page, but since I had not seen a response I wasn't sure I followed the procedure correctly, hence this direct follow-up.

Thank you for your feedback.

Unfortunately, your proposed remedy places an unachievable burden on Beacon College.

Beacon College is a tiny niche school founded 30 years ago by a group of parents for students with learning disabilities. Situated in a small city in Lake County, and with fewer than 200 students just a mere six years ago, the school, by and large, has not been on the radar of the breed of non-parochial publications that would lack the “homer” bias that you imply the sources cited in this edit request would have.

Thus, the suggested sources you provided to search through for Beacon College content is largely moot. We searched those databases and found less than a handful of articles that we could swap with the Orlando Sentinel articles [they would simply repeat the same factual data that we footnoted with the Orlando Sentinel articles]. But we are certainly happy to do this. Still, without the articles in The Orlando Sentinel, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning newspaper that until recently positioned itself among its competition as a Southeastern regional newspaper based in Orlando, the history of the college will be mostly bones without flesh.

The fact of the matter is few national publications/outlets have covered the history and important events of Beacon College in the granular fashion required to provide the robust chronicling that this Wikipedia article entry edit request does.

The articles written by outfits outside our geographical orbit that were not cited in this edit speak generally and in a macro fashion about the college's concept and mission if that.

The only coverage that a small, niche college like Beacon naturally would expect came courtesy of the local community newspaper (The Daily Commercial) and the regional metropolitan daily, the twice-Pulitzer-Prize-winning, The Orlando Sentinel (for the record, Beacon College is more than an hour away from the Orlando Sentinel office, and thus, in the strictest sense, doesn’t seem to qualify as its "neighborhood school").

Moreover, as you know, journalists are not at our beck and call (no matter how often we may reach out). Therefore, it is only reasonable that most of the granular history and facts — particularly the mundane bits — would find a home not in an outside editorial outlets but rather the college's own publications and website.

Indeed, that is the case with another college who operates in the LD space, Curry College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry_College), whose Wikipedia page posts a relatively long article with five footnotes (three of which are sourced from the school's website). Likewise, Elon University's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_University) posting contains 44 footnotes, most of which are Elon-sourced. And there there's Rollins College (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollins_College), another Orlando-area school, whose Wikipedia page stands sans editor's notes, yet features in the lion's share of its 104 footnotes Orlando-based or Rollins-college-generated sources (i.e. The Orlando Sentinel, The Sandspur [Rollins College student newspaper], the Rollins' website, The Winter Park Chronicles (Rollins College is based in Winter Park), Rollins Magazine, local TV and radio outlets, etc.). We're can't understand what appears to be defacto inconsistency.

Certainly, we understand and honor the need for protocols and have labored to satisfy yours (including beefing up secondary sources and disclosing my conflict of interest, etc.). And certainly, our intent is not to instigate a virtual screaming match.

Nevertheless, your panacea for Beacon College is all but a Sisyphean task — one that we're undertaking because not only have our stakeholders suggested it was time, but because we are cognizant that increasingly everyone (from students to lending organizations) turn first to Wikipedia for a quick read on colleges.

We realize that placement in Wikipedia is a privilege not a right. However, it seems rather an unnecessarily exclusionary practice for an information portal meant to democratize and broadcast information to compel an organization to produce as alternative substantiation sources that simply don’t exist — especially when unadulterated facts reported under journalistic ethics already has been presented in this edit request.

We look to a second look and reconsideration of this matter.

Darrylowens312 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Darrylowens312 (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given on the article's talk page. Spintendo  05:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Spintendo, I was unaware of the errors you pointed out and will now address them in the draft. Thank you for your politeness too.MrMistral (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * for the recognition, it's much appreciated. Warm regards, Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

requested edit for Victor Vescovo has been updated
Hello Spintendo, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victor_Vescovo updated request from your feedback with a different citation with the dive date for confirmation. Thank you, it is --177.67.80.61 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

/* Some proposed changes */ Follow-up on Beacon College proposed edits
Good morning, Spintendo:

As before, this message previously appears on the Beacon College talk page.

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.

What recourse does Beacon College have in this matter?

Darrylowens312 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Wyss Foundation
Hello. Earlier last month, I noticed you removed an entire section about the Wyss Campaign for Nature from the Wyss Foundation article. I asked for clarification at Talk:Wyss Foundation, but haven’t received any feedback yet. I understand a standalone subsection may not necessary, but since the campaign is ongoing and has received plenty of coverage, I’m wondering if mention of the Wyss Campaign for Nature should be added back in a reduced or present-tense form. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given on the article's talk page. Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Based on your feedback, and given the amount of coverage received, I've proposed adding back a short mention of the campaign on the article's talk page. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Need some help responding to your question
Greetings Spintendo. I tried to respond to your last question on Talk:Kai Staats but for some reason my response doesn't show up on that page. It's there in the edit history but doesn't show on the page unless I'm logged in. I checked all the shortcodes and cannot figure out what I'm doing wrong. You've been kind enough to provide a lot of help on this article already, but this has me stumped. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.

EDIT: I can see my last edit now that you've responded (thanks) but I'm still curious why I couldn't see it (unless logged in) earlier. Any ideas?

Astro3.142 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Valereee submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Spintendo to be Editor of the Week for tireless work with COI editors making edit requests. Almost by definition these are not edits or articles Spintendo is interested in, and yet his contributions history has many instances of responses to this kind of help request. This kind of work is often tedious, as many COI editors aren't experienced enough to follow the instructions that make the work easier for the responding editor. This is in general pretty thankless work -- the COI editors in question are often not happy with the outcome, and many other editors are actively hostile to COI editors so don't appreciate the time and effort. But this is important work and helps protect those articles from being affected by the COI, and I appreciate all the instances I've seen Spintendo respond politely and with laudable patience to these requests, both on the article talk pages and on Spintendo's own talk page.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   12:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dhivya Suryadevara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dhivya_Suryadevara check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dhivya_Suryadevara?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Question re feedback on Bloomin Brands Talk page
Thanks for your feedback on my latest edit request. Citations 1, 4 and 6 in the current article can be removed as text was updated and cited using other works in my edit request. Is this all that is needed to bring this to resolution and have edits approved? Thank you. AmyPGPR (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to Proteus Airlines Flight 706
I am bewildered by your justification for totally reverting my edit being that I "removed sourced information". I did nothing of the sort. It appears that that you have only skimmed the edit record and have missed that fact that I combined two paragraphs (one of which was only one sentence long), in order to unify the point about the Cessna's transponder not being turned on. I would appreciate it if you would check what I actually did and then undo your reversion.

Tullyvallin (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Tullyvallin

Halsey Minor
Hi there. As you have previouly commented I want to bring this section to your attention so you can comment if you desire, thanks Talk:Halsey_Minor - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response made on the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  20:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed Citations for Ansell Proposed Changes to citation style 1
Thank you for considering my proposed edits on Talk:Ansell. I apologize for the incorrect citation style I initially used. I edited my initial request to reflect citation style 1 and published the changes. Will editors now be able to view my proposed changes again? Or will it still say unable to review due to the citations, even though I have changed them?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.247.195 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

144.121.247.195 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes: Please place edit requests on the talk pages where changes are requested to be made.
I cannot do that owing to COI. You can see that is what I am responding to and have nowhere else to put that. You have the free time, could you please put that on the talk page for Danielle Cadena Deulen? Thank you. --MinimumMax (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "have nowhere else to put that." Actually there is, Talk:Danielle Cadena Deulen has been provided as the perfect location for requests to be made. Regards, Spintendo  17:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @Spintendo That worked. Thank you! --MinimumMax (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Spintendo 17:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Halsey Minor
HI there, many thanks for your review. If there is anything you could help to address your concerns that would be appreciated. I see you are a good article contributor and many thanks for your contributions. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dave Butler
A heads up I tagged you in a note at Talk:Dave_Butler_(basketball,_born_1964/1965). NinaSpezz (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  23:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Brahma_Kumaris -Restore_blanked_sections_and_logo
Hi there. I have redrafted the deleted sections and found a new reference for them. I would also appreciate if you could explain why the deleted logo can't be restored at this present time and how to resolve that.

Relevant talk page : Talk:Brahma_Kumaris

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not remove any logos from that article, so I can't explain why they cannot be restored. Your request did not include a filename to be added to the article, so that is the reason why no logo was added in my edit request review. Regards, Spintendo  17:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP editor had removed the logo. It seems that the logo PNG was Brahma Kumaris international logo.png as a non-free media file about a month ago making the edit request for the logo redundant.
 * Are the other two new edit proposals on the article talk page OK?
 * Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  20:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

please check my revisions of katherine hoover
Hello Spintendo, while i am defined as having a COI, I have added references, hopefully corrected errors and chronologically sorted her selected works all with a neutral pov. inactivity on the talk page is the only reason for my actions. It is important that my edits follow acceptable protocol. thank you, Mkoronowski (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Omniscriptum Talk page
Dear Spintendo,

I am sorry to bother you. Could you please help once you have time. I was wondering about suggested correction on Omniscriptum page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniScriptum, there is one sentence I was wondering about, could it be possible to take it out? Could you please assist?

Kind regards, VarisGrin (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  07:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris
Please respond on Talk:Brahma_Kumaris Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover Citations
Thank you for the guidance. Why are citations from WorldCat prefered over Katherine's publisher? Also, it is a guess, bit likely that WorldCats 147 citations includes 3 categories: 1)compositions, 2)recordings of her performances and 3)others performing her music. In terms of formality, how should the tables be divided? How should the tables be sorted? Much gratitude, Martin, Mkoronowski (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply
Information released by the publisher is included in WorldCat's database, which contains all the cumulative publisher information in a standardized form using ' and ' as the main indentifiers. With regards to how the table should be formatted, there are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate compositions in a discography. Of course, there are several ways it can be done. In all cases, please keep the following hints in mind:
 * Sort the compositions, e.g. ascending by date (since a discography is in some sense a chronology),
 * If you use tables, use wikicode, to make the list easier to maintain.

A simple way to list compositions could be:
 * 1) First composition (year of release)
 * 2) Second composition (year of release)

Note that composition titles should be in italics and each composition should be given a reference using the WorldCat permalink (which will provide the ' and ' identifiers.

One way of using a table could be: Regards, Spintendo  17:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 759 Appendix B
So the link to appendix B actually just leads to another copy of the NTSB report, which could be redundant. We can just use the original copy and use the rp template. We already know the pages containing the flight crew information: 78 to 79. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whichever way you think is best is fine with me. Regards, Spintendo  18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

TASIS The American School in England
Dear Spintendo,

We have submitted the information to update the page as you advised. Please, let us know if you need anything else. We just want Wikipedia to show accurate and up-to-date information. We have no interest in promoting the school via Wikipedia but it is important that our prospective parents have a true picture of our current status.

Thanks, Angel Lozano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malozanog (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  18:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

COI Re: Proud Boys Talk Page
Why did you write in the talk reply that I have a Conflict of Interest? I have no affiliation with them what so ever, I was just looking them up and noticed how inaccurate the Wikipedia page is about their political stance. There is a lot of unusual behavior going on lately in regards to pages relating to any controversial political figures and organizations on Wikipedia, it seems to be a back and forth of whoever gets there first from either side of the political spectrum is selectively editing pages and blocking any edits that go against their own personal political beliefs. I see that the article is locked to a certain extent, which is good, but when I add a comment to the talk page regarding a poorly cited characterization I am assumed to have a conflict of interest? On what basis? If Wikipedia becomes politicized what will be left? Is nothing sacred anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohunglow (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The template that you activated on the talk page was the conflict of interest ' template. Editors who have a conflict of interest use that specific template to make suggestions to articles. I assumed that because you chose this template, it meant that you had a conflict of interest. I apologize for the misunderstanding. For future reference, the template to use for making edit requests to that particular article if you don't have a conflict of interest would be the ' template. I've just now placed your request with the correct template and removed my reply message to the incorrect template. Regards, Spintendo  14:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Omniscriptum Talk page
Dear Spintendo, thank you for your reply in regard of possible edits Omniscriptum page could have. I have made a suggestion on Omniscriptum Talk page, thus I was wondering could you please take a look on it once you have time? VarisGrin (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Advice requested
Hi Spintendo You implemented an edit request I made a couple of months ago – thank you. On a page for which I've declared COI. I have since made further edit requests but have not heard any feedback. I wonder what I can do to have further requests implemented.

Thanks very much.

JT at JMLtd (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. To ensure editor feedback in edit requests, please doublecheck that the  template has been placed within the text of your request on the talk page of the article in question. Regards, Spintendo  07:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Article talk page
Hi Spintendo,

Would really appreciate it if we could progress these proposed edits Talk:Brahma_Kumaris.

If there is a problem please let me know

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  13:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I have made an attempt to address the remaining concerns at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris.
 * Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Responded again.
 * BTW, do you want me to post on your talk page or do you already have the article Talk page on your watchlist?
 * Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not watchlisted for this article, so notifying me here is fine. Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK will do. I just responded to the "University" question. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just done a search for UN verification. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Request implemented Spintendo  03:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for doing this. Apologies that it took me some time to understand exactly what was required but in the end we got there and I learned something! Appreciate your patience and understanding during the process. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Float idea - organization request board
Hello, thanks for addressing the COI queue. I hope that you find this process flow satisfying.

I volunteer at WP:OTRS where by email several hundred people write in requesting COI edits. OTRS is stable in some ways and changing policy in other ways. Different people address these requests in different ways, and I think that this space may be open for policy proposal and suggesting best practices.

I know that you respond to Request edit and the workflow around that. While this has worked for you, I think you would understand if I said this is a non-standard wiki workflow. I know it is based off Help me and follows that precedent. Personally, I view noticeboards to be more traditional and accessible for being a single place where anyone can see a rolling list of issues and responses.

I am writing to float a potential workflow to you and ask you what you think. Here is the process -


 * 1) COI editor wants to do something
 * 2) for all requests, direct them to first post on the talk page of the article which they want to edit
 * 3) now they must request review
 * 4) currently, the next step is that they post Request edit
 * 5) proposal for change - instead they post to a noticeboard, maybe "request edit for organization"
 * 6) people from that noticeboard respond to the edit
 * 7) noticeboard is a permanent public searchable archive of all requests through this queue
 * 8) mark outcome, resolved, etc
 * 9) archive in the manner of a noticeboard

What do you think? Does any part of this strike you as problematic or unorthodox? Thanks.

I really would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. The "everyone else" requested edits could be a positive space that many regular wiki people would like, I think.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. As I understand it, you're framing the issue as the difference between a single person answering edit requests in the de-centralized style of versus the more centralized style of noticeboards. But before I comment on that, I wanted to understand more your assertion that you would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. I'm not sure that I understand what those differences are, or what a COI organization is. I'm guessing that a COI individual is anyone with a COI, although I'm not sure how that is different from everyone else. If you could define those terms better it would be most helpful. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am proposing two layers of complication. I might be mistaken that this would be useful.
 * One layer is just applying the noticeboard model to this recurring issue.
 * The other layer is not just applying one noticeboard, but several. Now that I think about this, maybe this would not be a good way to start. It would be better to have one board then split it if it is overwhelmed.
 * A "COI organization" is an entity with paid people trying to make the edits. A "COI individual" is a person who wants edits about themselves. To me, the big difference between these is with individuals a wiki discussion will include some familiar elements of routine person to person human interaction. With organizations the conversation is business to business, so typical wiki customs like peer to peer favors go to robots which cannot really appreciate them or socialize. Another big difference with administration is that we have a greater need for data management around corporate requests because those get much more traffic (probably 1000x on average) and there is greater public demand to scrutinize entities of broad public interest.
 * I think I want to revise my proposal - while I think that that multiple boards could be useful, maybe it would be simpler to start with one board.
 * If there were one board and we directed all COI requests to get logged there, could you see a net benefit in that? Any major drawbacks? Is this a reasonable thing to do? If it is reasonable, why has this not happened before?
 * You do not need to answer all this, but I would like your overall impression. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, it's much appreciated. Use of a noticeboard raises some practical questions as I see it. It's my understanding that a noticeboard already exists for making edit requests. Although it's probably true that the current noticeboard doesn't really function in that manner, it still holds the potential for doing so — based on the response given by the  template (which urges the requestor to "escalate" their request to the noticeboard) as well as advice at the noticeboard itself which suggests that This page is not for ... material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument... (which implies that contentious material may be brought to it). So my first question would ask how this new noticeboard and the current noticeboard would work, together or separately?


 * Another question would be the role of consensus in this new noticeboard. Would consensus be required only for larger requests? If smaller requests need only the participation of one reviewer, and if that one reviewer handles the shorter request and the COI editor comes to find that they don't appreciate the outcome, does the COI editor need only ask for more editors to weigh in, in an attempt at a different outcome? When that happens, what is to be done with the initial decision made? Is it held in abeyance until everyone is satisfied? Those are some of the questions which come to mind, and I look forward to your reply. Regards, Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the continued discussion.
 * My motivation for proposing the board is to promote cataloging and discovery in a new place but to leave the community discussion process the same. I prefer to direct everyone to discuss on the talk page of the article which is the target of the request. The role of consensus in the new board is that posting to the board would constitute sufficient notice of making a request with a COI.
 * I am not imagining overlap with WP:COIN, because that is a noticeboard for flagging and escalating problems. It is not a board for logging edit requests. I see continued value in COIN, because there is a community there who responds to problems, whereas at a request board most posts will not be problems.
 * Some benefits that I want from a new board are the following:
 * A central board where we can direct all COI editors to post their edit requests (we would require two posts from them - one on talk page, and one on this board only to bring attention to the talk page). Currently there are many workflows. One that I really want to end is requests by WP:OTRS, and to instead direct the many emails going there to on-wiki posting.
 * A central board would make requests discoverable to more editors who would address requests. Responding to posts on boards is an intuitive workflow in wiki; the current template request process has to be learned or taught
 * having the board log requests would establish a searchable index of edit requests, which does not otherwise exist with our technology
 * The board would divest some labor burden from the wiki community to COI editors. COI editors would learn that when they want attention, they have to make a request on a talk page, and they have to flag the board. When they go to the board they can see posts from their own kind and gain some insight into their place in the broader system.
 * Thanks for your feedback to this point. I see you as an authority in this space for the number of requests you have managed so speak up if I have an error or gap in my thinking.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Theatre for Young People, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alastair Duncan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Australian_Theatre_for_Young_People check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Australian_Theatre_for_Young_People?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo 08:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

In search of CoI advice
Hi, I'd like to ask for your advice as you are an experienced Wikipedia editor and often deal with Conflict of Interests issues. After a recent change of Axel A. Weber's photo I received feedback from German-language editor that I could have changed it on my own (which I didn't consider fine in the context of CoI).

Is it ok for me to implement some minor factual changes on my own? I feel that this could save the time of other Wikipedia editors but I don't want to cross the line. Could you please share your opinion on this?

[Another example of a seemingly minor edit is a change of Sergio Ermotti's role at the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce (from Chairman and President to Board Member only) which I'm about to propose.]

Best, WROanna1862 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 24-JUL-2019
Thank you for your question. If I read it correctly there are two parts to your question: 1. Is it OKAY for a COI editor to change the photograph of the subject of an article for which that editor has a conflict of interest?

2. Are there other instances where it's OKAY for a COI editor to make changes on their own to articles where they have a conflict of interest? My answer to your first question is YES, I would agree with the German language editor here. A photograph of a person is a visual representation of that individual, and unless the person pictured in the photograph is obviously shot with different angles, expressions, etc, there is virtually no way that a visual representation can be affected by a conflict of interest. Quite simply put, a photograph of actress Halle Barry smiling while looking into a camera would be indistinguishable from any other photograph of Halle Barry smiling while looking into a camera. Thus if the COI editor wanted to change between two photographs, this would not really need the assistance of a neutral third party editor to make the change.

My answer to your second question is also YES, there are indeed edits which the community finds acceptable for a COI editor to make themselves. Those are known as uncontroversial edits and they are listed under WP:COIU. It's important to note that the edit would only be uncontroversial if you are correcting already established information. For example, in the case of the member of the Swiss Chamber of Commerce who is no longer chairman and president, that would be an uncontroversial edit if the article already states that the person is chairman and president and they are no longer in these positions. However, if the article does not already state that they are chairman and president, and you would like to add that they were formerly chairman and president, that edit should be proposed as an edit request — because in that instance you would be adding information to the article. Uncontroversial usually means correcting something that's already in the article. Make sure that your edit summary notes WP:COIU along with your description of the change made as being an uncontroversial edit (i.e., "The subject is no longer chairman and president, per NYTimes source. Reference added and title changed to read "Former chairman and president (20122019)" as an uncontroversial edit, per WP:COIU") would be an excellent edit summary in that circumstance. Regards, Spintendo  14:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-JUL-2019
Thank you a lot for the comprehensive explanation. I'll proceed as advised.

Best reagrds, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Art Peck (birth date/age)
Hi there - thanks for providing feedback on the proposed update to Art Peck's page. I'm hoping you can provide a little guidance here: if there are no online publications that list his actual birth date/age, what's the recommended approach for updating this information?

Benzeeful (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  00:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this further! Appreciate your help.

Benzeeful (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I added references for the National Constitution Center
I added references to the edits i had previously suggested on the National Constitution Center wiki page.Housefinch1787 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  20:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help editing the Upfront Ventures page! I believe I will not have to request any more edits for this page now. Spncrinc (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Mariana Atencio request
I went ahead and inserted the changes where they should appear if approved. Thanks Rominotmichelle (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please remember that requests are supposed to be placed on the article's talk page and not the article itself. Every main page of Wikipedia has its own talk page. Think of it as the back side to a regular piece of paper. On the front of that paper would be the main article. The other side of the paper would be the talk page. It's on the talk page that editors are able to post messages to each other when discussing anything having to do with the main article. All requests to add content should be placed on the talk page. Regards, Spintendo  06:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies for all the back and forth. I think I was able to make it correctly on the talk page. Thank you for your patience. Rominotmichelle (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Request partially approved. Specific details are available at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  01:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

On the Rahul M Jindal page.. Note
Hi Spintendo. When I edited the talk page today I chenged the answer from yes to no as you mentioned, but it said T|D there prior I think. Not sure I did that right, and my apologies if it screwed something up. Also, if you need me to make any changes I'll be watching the talk page. Thank you for all your help, I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuuzi (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your helpful guidance in improving our page revision requests on the Hillrom talk page. It's much appreciated. I have revised the requested inclusions. Have a great evening.

Jack at Hillrom (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Please note that any new edit requests at the Hill-Rom talk page ought to be placed at the bottom of the page under a new level 2 heading. Spintendo  01:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks again for your help, Spintendo. Jack at Hillrom (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your revisions are great. Much appreciated, Spintendo. Jack at Hillrom (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

corrections in Omniscriptum Wikipedia page
Dear Spintendo,

thank you for all the advices and implemented corrections. Could you please, once you have time, take a look on the following request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniScriptum

I wanted to know would it be possible to re-add a list of imprints that belongs to Omniscriptum publishing house. I made a request some days ago, but maybe my request is missing additional details. In any case I will be glad to hear from you.

Kind regards, Varis
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance (COI)
Hi, there is a pending COI request at Hack Forums talk page. I would very much appreciate if you could review it and come to a conclusion on what is to be done. Also, I created the Hack Forums page, can I review COI requests as well? I don't know this because it is literally the first time I have to deal with something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalerionV (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Just because you created the page doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest. The now banned editor has stated at COIN that Recently the creator of the page was banned from my site for violating policies then threatened to alter the Wikipedia page unless unbanned and then went ahead with his threats by doing so. I believe you when you say that they are wrong and that they are mistaking you for someone else. While you have no conflict of interest here, sometimes local editors can be "too close" to an article. It's my feeling that sometimes it may be best to leave the request to someone who has never edited the page before. But that is purely up to you. That being said, since you are a frequent local editor who knows the page well, your input on those requests would be very much valued by whomever handled the request. Regards, Spintendo  20:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. This is exactly why I needed your assistance on the matter. Thank you so much for your fast response. AvalerionV 21:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roundup ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Scotts_Miracle-Gro_Company check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Scotts_Miracle-Gro_Company?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo 07:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Maskless lithography edits
Hello, Spintendo. Thanks for your time reviewing my edits, and for your patient clarifications of the declined request. Since I'm still a novice here, I am not sure what is the right way to proceed. I would like to address the point you made and add more substantial quotes, since I do think it will improve the article somewhat. Shall I add another edit request to the article talk page or create a new section with a new version of quote text? Best regards, Quantum quirrell (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In placing quoted material, care must be taken that the text which is inserted into the parameter is formatted correctly. Journal articles often use formatting which is based on a printed typeset. As such, when cutting and pasting text from a journal article into another medium — say Wikipedia — this formatted text will be shown as skewed in the end result, so that a sentence which originally stated "The sand termite Psammotermes allocerus generates local ecosystems, so-called fairy circles, through removal of short-lived vegetation that appears after rain, leaving circular barren patches" will instead appear like this:"The sand termite Psammotermes allocerusgenerates local   ecosystems, so-called fairycircles, through  removalofshort-lived  vegetation thatappears afterrain,   leaving circularbarren patches."As you can see from the pasted text above, the formatting originally made for printed text means some of the words above when cut from the journal are pushed together when pasted into Wikipedia, so that two words appear as one. In one of your quoted articles this has occurred. Thus, care must be taken to fix the spacing of the text.


 * With regards to the main claim of your request, the statement is that Due to a wider range of tip-sample interaction forces and yet the quoted text in none of the sources indicates that scanning probe lithography used for nanopatterning is due to a "wider range", which itself is vague about what a wider range indicates — wider than what? If these techniques are all being currently used, then this wider range cannot be described as wider than what is currently being used. These two points, the formatting of the quotes and the meaning of "wider range", I believe both need to be clarified. Regards, Spintendo  18:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your approval of the revised edits of the Intertextuality page. I will also do my best to work within the guidelines you offered, and will get back to you with any COI issues. In the meantime I will try mostly to focus on topics where COIO will not come into play. The Handbook I mentioned is one of only a small number of reference compendia in the field (and not textbooks), but I will try as much as possible to rely on the couple edited by others. Methodical 19:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbazerman (talk • contribs)

Suggested Addition for Robert A. McDonald
Hi Spintendo, Last month you suggested the following could be added to the article for Robert A. McDonald on the talk page:"'In 2014 McDonald led a community-based task force to help the city of Cincinnati renovate its Museum Center. As a result of this work, the Hamilton County Commissioners added a tax levy known as Issue 8 to the ballot in the fall of 2014 which passed, adding an additional sales tax to assist in paying for the renovations.'" I am in agreement with you but am uncertain if you can approve the above content to be published live on the article from your comment, or, if you require me to create a new section with the above content so it can be approved. Please let me know if you require me to do the above and I'll be happy to proceed. Thank you.Tsmith47 (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Claim implemented. Regards, Spintendo  19:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding this.Tsmith47 (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

COI edit request to Bloomin' Brands page
Regarding your feedback on my COI edit requests to the Bloomin' Brands page, I posted in June that I made your recommended changes to the edit request. Does that mean you are able to implement these edits to the page? Or is there something further I need to do? Thank you for your help. AmyPGPR (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  20:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Change X to Y
Where is that template? I need to edit it slightly. Thx. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The response I left on Environmental Working Group is not a template, its my own. I've found it useful when formatting in a request is off. But if it needs to be fixed let me know and I'd be happy to fix it.


 * Thank you for handling that request. I saw it was a non-starter, but wanted the COI editor to get the formatting of their request right. Some say the important thing in a review is to just "cut to the chase" (which is what you did). But I think formatting and content go hand in hand, and that getting them to respect the way claims are formatted in articles (using WP:INTEGRITY, etc.) just might help them to also respect other requirements like SYNTH. I could be wrong, but I guess that's another discussion (any feedback you may have on this, and the issue above would be greatly appreciated). Thank you for your help. Warm regards, Spintendo  13:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple fix: it's Kelvin, not degrees Kelvin :-) It's interesting that at last we have an open admission of being paid to try to whitewash the ERG article after years of drive-by SPAs. Your approach was perfectly Wikipedia. I am an evil bastard. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's OK, you're our evil bastard and we love you for it! Thanks again.  Spintendo  14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oath Keepers
Long ago (well, December anyhow) you requested Mr. Kurt Werner, a member of Oath Keepers, propose changes to make the article non-biased. I have since gone in and proposed those changes and made those edits, only to have them instantly reverted. I was told to take it up on the talk page and build consensus. I've attempted to discuss it with others on there, and they continually vandalize the request and mark it as closed (Deacon Vorbis).

Long story short: 1) I made very simple suggestions for changes, and supported them with clear reasoning 2) In response, others have demanded that I prove a negative, which is impossible 3) I've attempted to discuss this with them on the topic, and they loop back to #2 above

There's more on the talk page about it, I'm trying to get it resovled, but I literally feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. I just want the article to stop being so blatantly biased (I've given an example at the bottom of that section) Barwick (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what article this is in reference to, if you could provide the link here that would be helpful. Thanks! Spintendo  13:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry I fail at Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the talk page. Let me first apologize for the feelings of frustration you've had over this process. It can seem daunting, but there are additional steps available to you to try and solve the issue. Those steps are listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. I usually limit my own review of COI edit requests to those which are generally non-controversial in nature, so I'm afraid I won't be able to offer any assistance here. But it looks as if your dispute might benefit from having additional editor input, which you should be able to obtain by following the strategies listed at that link. Regards, Spintendo  07:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, will do Barwick (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI If you're still able to do anything, created a dispute resolution to try to resolve this. I thought you could help since you were originally the one who asked us to provide {rough quote here} "What would you like to see changed?  Please state the detailed changes".  Resolution board is here: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Barwick (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

COI edit request 22-AUG-2019
Hi Davodd, there was recently a COI edit request involving ANGI Homeservices Inc., a page which you had edited. The COI editor has asked that the name of the company be changed back to the original name. I was hoping you'd be able to weigh in on that discussion. Any help you can offer would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time! Regards, Spintendo  21:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ANGI Homeservices Inc. and Angie's List are now two separate articles. Moving this to your talk page. Davodd (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help! Warm regards, Spintendo  06:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

COI Question Please
Can you please check the 'talk' page for Victor Vescovo. Just trying to get some guidance, sir. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlvescovo (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  04:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Updated Page
Hey there! Thank you for answering my question on editing with a COI. I added extra information, but wasn't sure how to have it reviewed again. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction? For reference, the page was Comparison of instant messaging clients Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Client4 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Still waiting to get local editor feedback on this. Regards, Spintendo  03:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! Client4 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

COI feedback clarification
Thank you for reviewing my latest request for a change in the article about SC Johnson. I am writing for additional clarification on your feedback as I continue to rework my requested edit. I hope it is ok to post the question here. I wasn't certain how to ask without opening a new COI request.

In your feedback you wrote that I should not characterize the plaintiff’s inability to provide a sworn affidavit as a “failure to refute the expert witness affidavit”. Can you give me more detail as to where you feel I am doing this so I might try to rephrase? Are you referring to sentence 4 of the edit? (shown below)"Preclusion was deemed an appropriate ruling because the case was already under appeal in Wisconsin’s Court of Appeals, the plaintiff did not present any additional evidence, witnesses or affidavits, and both sides were treated equally with the expectation that they produce evidence to sufficiently argue their position."Thanks again for your help. Wax86 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The judge made a point of stating that the plaintiff failed to follow procedure. Because those procedures were not followed, a fulsome review of the allegations could not take place. The proposed language in the edit request however strongly implies that a resolution of the fraud took place, when the only resolution which actually occured involved court case procedure in handling the fraud allegations. Regards, Spintendo  11:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2019
You seem to be enjoying yourself on-wiki. I am not sure if you want to make the jump to in-person engagement but if you did then I think you would fit in nicely.

I am writing to invite you to WikiConference North America in Boston in November. It seems from your user page that you live in the United States.
 * https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2019/Main_Page

I cannot say that a submission you post or a travel sponsorship request that you made would definitely be accepted, but the theme this year is "reliability" and you seem more active than anyone else on the subject of institutional encroachment of Wikipedia. I am not aware of anyone else who plans to speak on this, and I am not aware of anyone who has comparable experience to what you do. If you do make a submission then ping me and I would endorse it.

Thanks for what you do on wiki.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Gary P. Naftalis
A heads up I've responded to your reply on the Gary P. Naftalis Talk Page. NinaSpezz (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Claim revised. Regards,  Spintendo  16:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice
Hey. I don't mean to be a pain, but would you be able to review the edit request on this talk page? It's been 10 days and no editors seem to have considered fulfilling it. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * MoA-Facebook.svg Already done. The request was reviewed by me on Thursday, August 29. Regards, Spintendo  00:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a new request following the points you made in the reply you've cited and it hasn't been reviewed for over 10 days. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The review I made on August 29 still applies to the newer request. Even though that request "follows the points I made", it follows them in date only — being posted one day afterwards — and does not incorporate them. Regards, Spintendo  21:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. I made the newer request with verbatim text and accompanying references as per your points. I don't think I have to copy the code of my entire draft to illustrate the proposed changes word for word when I (and other editors) haven't had to do so in previous requests. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 02:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The instances in your request where you refer to information which is located elsewhere — namely "in the draft" — there are 12 examples of this, where all the information needed to process the request is not located on one page. Spintendo  03:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really frustrating that you've decided to be so anal with detail when it comes to this particular request, when you've previously implemented changes on previous ones with much less detail like this one. I don't see why I should have to rewrite the entire article in the talk page when I couldn't have been more clear with the proposed changes, where they should be made and why they should be made. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 11:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a new request on the talk page with all the proposed content present "located on one page" as you've asked. If somehow that request still isn't sufficient, then I don't know what else I'll have to say or do for you or anyone else to finally implement the changes. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 01:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The new request is still awaiting a response. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 16:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to keep nagging you, but I would appreciate a response at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice. No other editors besides Willbb234 seem to be interested at the moment and the request has remained unimplemented for over 2 weeks. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 17:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Young Presidents' Organization // Request for infobox
Hello, Splintendo.

I hope all is well. I wanted to check in to see if you had any suggestions on the most appropriate way to go about adding an infobox to the Young Presidents' Organization page. It seems like it's a relevant addition to the page and I'd love to help in any way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YPO Clay (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Infobox implemented. I've added the infobox, but please note that the article suffers from a lack of sources for claims made while it uses outdated broken links for others. In my opinion, since you are the COI editor for this article your priority should be to find sources for the information displayed there. The adding of an infobox is merely window dressing which does nothing to improve the article's standing with references. To help with this, I've placed some search suggestions at the top of the article's talk page. Simply click on the search engine's name that you want to use and your browser will effect a search of YPO-related results in a new window. If anything is found that can be used, please be sure to suggest it on the article's talk page. Thank you for your help with this. Regards,  Spintendo  21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks very much for the suggestions. I will make those a priority and get to them ASAP. YPO Clay (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Abcam page edits
Hello! I resubmitted the amends to the Abcam wiki page. Did my best to follow your advice. Hope they are to your liking! - Much obliged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickfromabcam (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

COI responses
I must say, I have always admired how you chose to work in an area that is a source of conflict (no pun intended) on Wikipedia and always persevere with a cool head. It is a thankless job but, unfortunately, one that needs to get done.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it really helps! Chaud321 (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * both, I'm glad I'm able to help. And thanks to both of you for the work that you do, It's very much appreciated. Warm regards, Spintendo  03:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Julie Brill photo approval
Hi there, just letting you know the approval for use of the photo was officially received from OSTR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julie_Brill#Reply_13-SEP-2019 Please take a look when you have the chance. Thanks! --TechSeaSpokes2004 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Image added. Regards, Spintendo  01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Max Lu page
Hi -- just wanted to see if you had anything further for me on this. I haven't had replies to my latest edit on the Talk page for Max Lu's profile and am hoping to resolve it all. Thanks. Portmeirion18 (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any currently pending requests on that talk page. If this is in regards to an older request which wasn't addressed, please submit the un-addressed proposal as a new edit request using the template placed under a new level 2 heading at the bottom of the talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  04:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Congressman Dan Lipinski page
Hi, have you looked at the latest round of edits to Congressman Dan Lipinski's page? Timestamped (Lipinskistaffer12 (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC))

I believe I followed all your instructions for proper citation. Thank you for your attention to this.

Lipinskistaffer12 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

JWB settings page showing up in CS1 error categories
User:Spintendo/JWB-settings.js is showing up in two CS1 error categories. I think it would help to add a colon at the beginning of each of the Category links, like this:. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up, I appreciate it. Regards,  Spintendo  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Corrected citations on Dona Bertarelli's page
Thank you very much for your guidance on the citation style, I have amended in my reply on Dona Bertarelli's Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dona_Bertarelli and would like to see how this could be reviewed again? Any feedback you have for me as to whether I've been neutral enough would also be great, as I have stated, I have a conflict of interest because I work for Mrs Bertarelli. Thank you so much again! MiaNorcaro (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  15:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request edit
Dear Spintendo

First, I would like to thank you for all your help, and to apologize for taking so much of your time. I was new to this and it took me a while to "nail" down the formatting of the edits (hence the large number of them). Also, I was not aware of how Wikipedia works, and I was under the impression that the subject of an article can edit what is written about him/her. I understand your position that this can be problematic, but I did not think that I was bragging about myself. I just wanted to correct some inaccuracies and to balance the references to my work. My last edit is free of errors and I did try to answer your questions. I don't want to waste anymore of your time, but I would appreciate it if you advise me how to proceed.

Sincerely,

Anastasios Tsonis aatsonis@uwm.edu

Aatsonis (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no need to apologize, I understand that you were just trying to improve the article to the best of your ability, and there is no fault in that. Wikipedia can be daunting for newcomers, so I understand, too, the rough patches that are encountered. Unfortunately however, I'm unable to offer additional help reviewing this request. As a suggestion I would recommend contacting — they are already eminently familiar with the subject matter and should therefore be able to provide you with quality, in-depth assistance. Warm regards,  Spintendo  15:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

In search of CoI advice
Hi Spintendo, as you might recall I'm an editor with CoI for UBS-related pages. I'm looking for advice on how to approach a slightly controversial edit of Paul Donovan article.

I noticed that recently someone edited the article adding a statement <"Chinese pig" comment is racial and offensive"> without supplying any source for it. I don't want to get into any conflict but at the same time I feel that this is a subjective sentence that shouldn't be stated in its current form, if at all, on Wikipedia.

Can you advice on whether or not I can propose an edit on it? If yes – should I provide any back-up article or just note that it's not objective?

Regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * MoA-Facebook.svg Claim reverted to status quo ante. I've changed the claim back to the way it was. If this same type of edit happens again, go ahead and make the request on the talk page with the reasoning that subsequent editors have added information which was WP:POV-based and not grammatic — which is what happened in this case. Regards, Spintendo  12:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Spintendo, thank you a lot for your help. I will note it for future reference. Regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City
Hi! Had a few clarifying questions regarding your response to my COI edit request on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. Please take a look if you get a chance. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  03:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Checking back in on COI edit for Bloomin Brands page
Just checking back in to see about the COI edit request for Bloomin Brands. Thank you. 50.240.49.9 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  04:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As I work on addressing your comments, how does this work once all the edits are approved? Do you or someone else physically make the changes to the page? Thanks again. AmyPGPR (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's usually the case that whomever reviews the request goes ahead and implements the changes. Also, a reminder: be sure to activate the template on the talk page along with your request when you're ready to proceed. Regards,  Spintendo  03:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bob Adams (electrical engineer)
Hi! FYI, left you a reply over at Talk:Bob Adams (electrical engineer). Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Spintendo  01:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Honeywell Finances Section
Thanks for updating the Honeywell financial data in the infobox.

I'm confused about your removal of the Finances section. I don't agree with you removing the whole section. The encyclopedic statements are sourced prose. How about reinstating the statements?

"For the fiscal year 2017, Honeywell reported earnings of US$1.933 billion, with an annual revenue of US$40.534 billion, an increase of 3.1% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $131 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$108.1 billion in October 2018."

Second, The historical financial data is helpful and informative. When a  reader is coming to Wikipedia, they are looking for historical information. The chart and source gives the reader both the data and the data source. It's not a list or catalogue. Each item gives context to the others - telling a story. When you have a quick moment, how about putting the chart back in?Chefmikesf (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Financial information added I've added a link to the Honeywell financials in the External links section. Since the information was collated by MicroTrends and is displayed on their website, there's no need to reproduce it in full here in the article. The EL section is the appropriate place for information which has already been compiled by others. The statement you mentioned has been re-placed along with its original reftagged source under the 2002-present section. Regards, Spintendo  09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Spintendo, these are good suggestions.
 * If you have a minute, can you update this with the current data?


 * For the fiscal year 2018, Honeywell reported net income of 6.765 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.802 billion, an increase of 3.13% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $169 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$120.26 billion in September 2019.


 * Best, Chefmikesf (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you could point me to the location on the MicroTrends site where that information for Sept 2019 is I'd be happy to update the Honeywell article with it. Please advise. Regards, Spintendo  20:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the references requested. thanks Chefmikesf (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Antu application-exit.svgNot done The requested prose makes the claim Honeywell reported earnings of 6.765 billion but that figure does not appear in the cited source, nor does the term "reported earnings". Instead, the source uses the terms 'revenue' or 'annual revenue' when describing the subject company financials. If the subject company's Wikipedia article is to use a source's figures, then that article ought to employ an economy of terms by using the same nomenclature already used by the source in their description of the figures. Regards,  Spintendo  22:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I see your point about "Honeywell reported earnings of 6.765 billion". Based on the 10K, this should work. "Honeywell reported net income of 6.765 billion"Chefmikesf (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Spintendo, Initially, I keep the phrase "reported earnings" in the sentence because it was in the article. I agree to use the correct terminology from the reference. Can you take a look at the updated version of my request?

For the fiscal year 2018, Honeywell reported net income of US$6.765 billion, with an annual revenue of US$41.802 billion, an increase of 3.13% over the previous fiscal cycle. Honeywell's shares traded at over $169 per share, and its market capitalization was valued at over US$120.26 billion in September 2019. -Chefmikesf (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

University of Law needs eyes
Could you keep an eye on this article. An IP (79.66.223.58) has been repeatedly adding promotional material to the lead and making other inappropriate changes. Examples I've reverted/removed,. I don't think it's a COI case. They seem to be doing this with multiple UK 2nd-tier universities, e.g.. Best Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my watchlist. Regards, Spintendo  17:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The IP is very persistent. Perhaps he'll get the hint if more than one person reverts his edits. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That same IP has added a crest to the article again. There's a hidden message in the markup stating that the crest shouldn't be used, but I wasn't sure who left that message, and thus didn't revert it. What was the consensus on using the crest, is that something that shouldn't be there? Please advise, thanks! Warm regards, Spintendo  15:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the crest has been there for quite a while, even before my involvement with the article. I think the IP just moved it from the left side to the right side of the section. Per the hidden message meaning: it can to go in the history section (where it is now) but not in the infobox, as that crest has been deprecated by the university as a symbol. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Requests you accepted at List of serial killers by number of victims
Hey, I just want to let you know I undid the edit requests you approved on the page becuase the sourcrs the IP gave in the edit requests did not even exist. The source http://www.thegaurdian.com/uk/2000/feb/01/shipman.health went to http://ww1.thegaurdian.com/?sub1=c03bcd98-ec2a-11e9-9677-709dbfedd9af  which says the domain is for sale. and the source  http://www.thegaurdian.com/world/1999/Jan/08/ goes to http://btpnative.com which (according to my schools CISCO Umbrella blocks) is an Online Trading site. Please be more careful in the future.  LakesideMiners My Talk Page 13:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The correct URL is https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/20/chinese-quack-doctor-patients-jail-hu-wanlin . I understood that the URLs that the requesting editor had provided were incorrect, which is why I didn't place them in the article. Since the serial killer article is a stand-alone list, as long as the information from that list is sourced where it appears, references are not necessary per WP:LISTVERIFY. Spintendo  23:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh my god. I’m sorry. Thanks for pointing that out.  LakesideMiners My Talk Page 13:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ken Xie
Hi! Heads up, I left you a response with clarification at Talk:Ken Xie. Thank you as always! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  00:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Clade diagram?
In this edit to Perficient, you changed the "Key acquisitions" section from a standard WikiTable to a clade diagram (and a broken one at that). I don't believe this helped in the understanding of the material; I have reverted back to the table format. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the purpose of the Key acquisitions section was to show relationships that the company held, I thought that the cladogram worked well. But as you know the article better than I do, I'll leave it to you to choose which works best. Regards, Spintendo  17:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far
Hi Spintendo,

Just want to say thank you for your work on the edit requests I've made recently. Sorry for being a slow learner at times. I appreciate your patience.

John at SKDKDigital (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tina Tchen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time's Up ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tina_Tchen check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tina_Tchen?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

trivago Wikipedia Page
Hi Spintendo,

Hope you're well. You may recall reviewing some requested edits to the trivago Wikipedia page early in September. You were really helpful in pointing me to the information needed to make an accurate edit request in regards to the source citation. I shared another edit on September 27 which I think should work, but wanted to make sure that it was correct and accurate. If you have a chance, could you take a look?

Appreciate your help, --Agrund2 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

15-OCT-2019
Hello, I left my comments on Natalia Toreeva page. Hope you will find time to read it. Thanks!Toreeva 21:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Would you check my comments again, if you have time. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo  19:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Would you check my response again. Can you fix if for sure it can be corrected? Thanks, Toreeva 19:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Spintendo again. I try to resend you my message that I left reply on my talk page. Also, if you see that it is unsigned, meaning that signature tool does not work, since I signed using 4 ~ or using signed and save. Or may be my talk page redirected, or ... Fix it if you can... Thanks, Toreeva 14:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Toreeva 14:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried again, redirected to other talk page.
 * Toreeva (talk • contribs)Toreeva 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Toreeva 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Spintendo again. I will do my signature by doing 4 ~ as I did before. Please back to the article and my comments to your input. Thanks, Toreeva 22:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Spintendo, I left my comments on my Talk page. Hope you will find time to continue helping in the article. Thanks, Toreeva 01:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment you left a few days ago looks like it appended the links perfectly, but since then you've reverted back to using the old manner, which does not append any links. My suggestion would be that you return to whichever way you used when you left this comment: There is also the WP:HELPDESK if you need assistance in getting your signature to display properly. Regards,  Spintendo  21:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Spintendo, I did not revert any text. You can check the history, and any question you asked. And I don't want to ask for any help with the signature. It is minor problem. It looks you lost interest with any help with the article. So, I appreciate for any help you did. Thank you, Toreeva 22:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toreeva (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say you reverted text, I said you reverted back to a different way of leaving your signature. The fact that your sig is still missing links to your talk or user page is not a minor problem. My suggestion that you receive help in fixing the issue should not be taken lightly. I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting on my talk page until the problem with your signature has been corrected. Regards, Spintendo  18:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I sent request to Help Desk regarding Display of my signature. Thank you, Toreeva 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Spintendo, Looks the Signature problem is fixed, so if you have time and willingness to help, please back to help with the article editing. Thanks, Toreeva (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

COI edits to Mark Lanier profile
Spintendo-- Thank you again for your recent help editing Mark Lanier’s Wikipedia profile. I know that can be time-consuming so I really do appreciate it. I’m writing in reference to the edits made on 10/24 by Smartse. In addition to editing the body of Lanier’s page, he also placed two banners at the top, one of which references COI editing. In my original call for help, I was upfront about the fact that Lanier was a client of mine and that I wanted substantive edits to his page reviewed by an experienced editor, who could then make the final decision as to whether they should be made. My question is, based on the feedback left by Smartse on Lanier’s talk page, was there something I did wrong? As originally stated, I’d like to edit the page in a way that’s transparent and follows Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. Any further help you could provide in doing that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot. WriteJames (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read what has wrote on the Lanier talk page and I agree with their application of those templates. What SmartSE's check of available sources turned up was that the handling of two of Lanier's cases — the talc case and the DePuy case — showed that not all of the information concerning those cases was being presented in Lanier's article. None of the edits which you've requested incorporate these other sources which discuss the outcomes of those cases — which while not suprising — does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. That ostensibly would be the reason why SmartSE applied the  template to the article.
 * Your question asked what you did wrong here. My answer would be that you didn't undertake a search of all available sources in order to present a more WP:BALANCED article. That you didn't do this as I said earlier, is understandable, in that you are not paid to uncover unflattering information about your employer — which is why these edits are placed under a review system in the first place. My thanks goes out to SmartSE for their investigative tendencies in this case — that was clearly something that I missed. In order to remove the template, this additional information ought to be placed in sufficiently paraphrased format and requested to be placed in the article. Regards,  Spintendo  22:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit follow up: Scanlan International
Hi Spintendo,

Following up on your previous note about which request for edit template to use when creating a new page with a COI! You mentioned the template should only be used for articles which are already established (which makes sense to me) and indicated I should follow the WP:AFC 's directions on how to submit a request/create the page. I went ahead and followed all that - the only part that's confusing is the edit request page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests ) the WP:AFC links you to says to use the template, as does the simple conflict of interest edit request ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request ) page.

Don't mean to be dense! Just wondering if there's something super obvious I'm missing here? Main problem is I can't find the correct template to route the edit request to that's not the template.

Appreciate any insight!

Bold North (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)BoldNorth


 * Thank you for your question. WP:AFC is for use by COI editors when the article is in the drafting stage. The reviewing editors there decide whether an article meets the notability requirements needed to create an article. Once those requirements are met and the article is created, a COI editor would then use the template placed on the article's talk page to request changes to the article. A reviewing editor then grants or declines those requests based on Wikipedia's content requirements, which are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. It goes without saying that an article which has been newly created ought not to have too many requests to add or delete information in the time period shortly after being created, as those changes would ostensibly have been covered by the WP:AFC process. Regards,  Spintendo  21:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Got it, I think I understand! I've submitted it for review so editors can decide whether it meets notability requires before I use that request edit template. Thanks so much for the help and patience!

Vintage Film Awards
Hi Spintendo,

I was so sad to see your denial of my edit request for Vintage Film Awards (VFA). I'm not sure what to do next, and I hope you can advise me.

This is a personal project of mine, into which I've poured countless hours (and more money than I care to count). The emails, texts, photos and personal letters I've received from the winners have kept me going, despite a total lack of sponsorship. I believe it's a great project that gives overdue recognition to films that have stood the test of time, be they library staples like "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" or foreign indies like "Jeanne Dielemann." I can't change that Wikipedia is the top hit on Google for VFA, which is quite a bummer when winners google it and they are not there. It's kinda killing the project, and it is the reason I've delayed the 4th ceremony.

After the 3rd ceremony, I did indeed hire someone to update the Wikipedia page. There were so many freelancers offering the service on Upwork; I didn't know this was a violation of Wikipedia policy. As one who also creates crossword puzzles, I'm a major Wikipedia user and a decent Wikipedia donor - but I'd never really delved into anything beyond the Article pages before this experience.

Regarding your comment that references should be from reliable secondary sources "which are not connected to the awards presenter," please note that I am in no way affiliated with Brussels Express, which has covered the awards for the past few years. Nor am I paying the Brussels Press Club to host the awards - they volunteered their space to me after the first year because they like the project.

Regarding your point that awards articles shouldn't list the winners but address the purpose/impact of the awards on society: I agree. And it's fair to say that this is already covered in the article (albeit not with the best of sources - these might be better: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/why-clueless-oscar-panel-got-it-wrong-over-alicia-1.56854, https://www.rtbf.be/culture/cinema/detail_jeanne-dieleman-de-chantal-akerman-selectionne-pour-les-vintage-film-awards?id=9241079). As for the Oscars, the purpose of the VFA is unlikely to change year-to-year. (A separate article on the 3rd VFA ceremony might mention that we gave special recognition to Sidney Poitier, who starred in three of the nominated films from 1967.)

I've just looked at the articles for some other awards, for example those from the San Sebastian festival and the Oscars. Would you think it better that there is one "generic" page about VFA, and then separate pages listing the winners from each year? If so, I am happy to propose those edits and page creations.

Thank you, as we say at VFA, for your (re)consideration.

JamesRbel (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. I apologize for the decline, but I'm afraid that the content you wished to add to the article was predominantly of a list nature — the listing of winners and nominees. This is not permitted by one of Wikipedia's content requirements, which states that articles should not contain merely lists of information without any context. The idea of creating a central page from which list articles may be generated is a good one — one that is followed by articles such as the Academy Awards — but please note that list articles themselves have notability requirements and that notability is not inherited. This means that any information found in those list articles must demonstrate its own notability by having significant coverage in multiple established, independent sources. Regards, Spintendo  22:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert for the notice! Warm regards, Spintendo  22:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up About Logitech Page Refresh
Hello Spintendo!

Thank you so much for your helpful comments on how my suggested edits for the Logitech should be formatted. I've gone through and put my suggested edits in the format that you recommended and would love if you would be able to review them when you have a moment.

Best,

Ciara

CiaraAislingLoughnane (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Preregistered small color (vector).svg Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  05:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven Linne edit request
Hello,

I am the subject of the article Steven Linne and I want someone to second check the article for bias so the self declaration of bias can be removed.

--TheWolfius (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the COI userpage template that you had applied to the article with the template that would normally be used in instances where an editor may be related to the subject of the article, which is the relationship that you are claiming. Please note that individuals with a COI are strongly advised not to directly edit articles themselves, but to use the  template — and to use it before changes are made to the article, rather than after — as was done in your case. Regards,  Spintendo  03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)