User talk:Tale.Spin

Co-op
Hey Tale.Spin, I'm PresN, and I got matched to be your mentor in the co-op program. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them/help out! You can ask me on my talk page, or here- just put in the message and sign it ( ~ ), and I'll get an alert that you mentioned me. -- Pres N  14:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi PresN, Thank you for contacting me. I do not have specific questions but would like feedback on a "test" article that I'm working. I am expanding an article on Joe Nocera, a New York Times columnist whose work I often read. Specifically, I am adding a section on issues he has commented at depth. The idea is to expand it fully with 3 issues by presenting his take on them.
 * Hi PresN, Thank you for contacting me. I do not have specific questions but would like feedback on a "test" article that I'm working. I am expanding an article on Joe Nocera, a New York Times columnist whose work I often read. Specifically, I am adding a section on issues he has commented at depth. The idea is to expand it fully with 3 issues by presenting his take on them.


 * If you have any general comments on how it conforms to Wikipedia standards, I can incorporate that feedback in future contributions I may make in the future.


 * Thank you.
 * Tale.Spin (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * well, my general take on that is that the three or so issues that you highlight should be, as best as possible, the ones that he spent a noticeably greater time focusing on (though that's difficult to prove). "Joe Nocera's thoughts on stuff" isn't terribly encyclopedic, but "Joe Nocera's thoughts on issues he paid special attention to" is. A man like Nocera likely had opinions on hundreds of issues, so the ones you pick should be the most relevant to Nocera in particular. Assuming that NCAA/player relations are something that he focused on, I think what you've added is a good start. I made an edit pass for style on that section here; in particular note that references are placed after punctuation (with no space before them) and typically at the end of the sentence, rather than in the middle, though a minority of editors like to put them directly after quotes or after a comma in the middle of sentences that use multiple references. Note also the second edit I made: it's generally frowned on to have "surprise links", i.e. links that don't go where you would expect- when I see "United States" linked to something, I would expect it to go to the article about the country (though such a link would be a bit pointless), not to College athletics in the United States. By linking the article from "the role played", the reader instead expects to see an article related to "the role played" by the NCAA in the US, which that article is significantly about.


 * Other than those specifics I think the expansion is solid; I think that for an opinion columnist having a bit about his opinions is completely warranted. -- Pres N  18:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PresN. Thank you for the detailed feedback. It gives me a much better idea on how Wikipedia articles ought to be written. Best, Tale.Spin (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Have fun editing! -- Pres N  21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PresN, I want to seek your guidance about "weasel" words. In the article on Joe Nocera I was working on, I included a subsection on his support for fracking and Keystone XL. I included the following sentences there.


 * Fracking, however, faces widespread scrutiny for its environmental impact. Its critics argue that, by augmenting fossil fuel supply, fracking contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Is the phrase "faces widespread scrutiny" a weasel word because "scrutiny" is a matter of one's perspective on the tone of a debate? I believe most people following this, regardless of personal views, would agree it is heavily contentious.

Then, I start the second sentence off with "Its critics argue..." Do I need to cite who these critics are directly after that sentence? It is implicit in the link to "Hydraulic_fracturing#Public_debate" in the previous sentence.

These questions are probably very minor in scope, but I just want better clarity on them. Thank you.Tale.Spin (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Scrutiny" does add a bit of tone in one direction about the debate, though it's minor; you could change it to "faces widespread debate". It's not technically a "weasel word", as those are vague, unsupported statements like "some people say...", but it is a slight bit of editorializing.
 * Ideally, yes, you'd cite example critics after "its critics argue", or mention examples, but given that this article is about Nocera, not fracking, it's a very minor point that I wouldn't worry about at this stage. I'd say a slightly larger point is that you cut the listed environmental impacts to not include the waste water or earthquakes, but I'll admit I'm not up to date on what the biggest points of contention are. -- Pres N  13:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for the guidance, and I made those adjustments. Tale.Spin (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PresN, I have a question about a Statistics-related article I'm considering adding. It is on Box's M statistic, which was first proposed in 1949 so it is "classic". Is it okay if I include the mathematics for computing Box's M statistic from a existing text, but using a different notation for the article? Of course, I'd cite that text. I do not find it anywhere on Wikipedia. (In fact, since I needed to use it for work, I first looked at Wikipedia but it was not present here.) Thank you. Tale.Spin (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Modifying the notation on a sourced bit of math seems fine; I'm not a mathematics expert but that seems like a reasonable change that wouldn't need an additional/more exact cite. -- Pres N  12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Best, Tale.Spin (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PresN, i have a quick question on film articles. Previously the critic's response section on Sicario_(2015_film) included 2 critic's reviews and has the tag "This section requires expansion." Today I added three more critics' reviews so there are now 5 critic reviews. Is it okay to remove that tag on requiring expansion now? i.e. do 5 reviews constitute an adequate expansion? Thank you. Tale.Spin (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tale.Spin (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Perez Hilton
 * added a link pointing to Musical


 * United States–Cuban Thaw
 * added a link pointing to Roberta Jacobson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Show
Are you named after TaleSpin? It's a great show! Safehaven86 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is named after that show, which was my favorite as a child! Tale.Spin (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice! Happy New Year to you. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Question on including images with copyright releases
, I hope you are doing well. I have sought and received a copyright release for an image I want to include on Wikipedia. The copyright holder e-mailed the copyright release to Wikipedia and they received a response. I am unclear on the instructions linking the copyright release to the image on the particular page. I do not want an image with the copyright release to be unnecessarily deleted. Can you provide guidance? Thank you. Tale.Spin (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The process for getting someone else's image marked as having permission is at ; it sounds like the image has not been uploaded, but the copyright holder already got a response from the OTRS team? In that case I think that the reply email should have had the OTRS ticket number; but it looks like you just upload the file to commons and add the OTRS pending tag, and someone will come by later and link it to the email. -- Pres N  22:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response. The link from commons you provided is very helpful. Tale.Spin (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

123 69.116.47.69 (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Nocera for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Nocera, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Joe Nocera until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)