Open main menu

User talk:  Spintendo 

Organization Wants Edit noticeboardEdit

I proposed this to you in July 2019 at User_talk:Spintendo/Archive_3#Float_idea_-_organization_request_board.

When the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team gets requests from organizations by email to make edits, I am thinking of sending organizations to this board to make their request. Currently that team gets confused about what requests should be private and what should be public. I want to put part of that decision onto the organization and to direct them to make their own request public as the default first option.

Thoughts on the board or process? I am asking you because again, I know that you engage with {{Request edit}} and its surrounding process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 13-OCT-2019Edit

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for your message and for the opportunity to give feedback, it's much appreciated. As I understand it, the current system which has generated the backlog at OTRS[a] operated in the following manner.

An editor with a COI editing need previously had two pathways they could take in requesting an edit:

  1. Use CAT:EDITREQ
  2. Email to OTRS which was handled by the Volunteer Response Team (VRT). The VRT then had 2 choices:
    1. Direct the editor to use CAT:EDITREQ
    2. Handle the request privately

How OWE's noticeboard fits into the newer COI request system (along with the older pathway) is shown with the following flowchart:

NEED
COI editor w/ editing needs
 
CAT:EDITREQOTRS (private)
Volunteer Response Team
WP:OWE

The new process is WP:OWE (shown with a dotted line indicating the new pathway; the connection to the older pathway is shown with a dashed line). Using this new pathway, editors who represent organizations will be able to utilize a new forum for their requests to be answered.[b] This noticeboard offers more accountability than that which is generated via the usual pathway of CAT:EDITREQ (which uses the {{request edit}} template).

The term accountability as it's used here is presumably twofold:[c] First, the edit request review would become more accountable in that a detailed — and more importantly — searchable record would be generated for editors to access. Second, the edit request review would be more accountable by becoming more malleable. The current request pathway offers one reviewer to handle each request, a pathway which is limiting for organizations who might otherwise have their requests declined by the reviewing editor. When that occurs, organizations may feel as if there were no other recourse for them to succeed in implementing their edits. A review noticeboard, such as that at OWE, would by comparison bring more voices to the fold, thus expanding an organization's opportunity to find consenting editors willing to review the organization's edit requests.

This process of becoming more malleable should not be seen as a negative. In the current system, if an editor performing the review makes a mistake, it may go unnoticed by the community for some time. Having access to a larger pool of editors enables mistakes to be caught more promptly, and generally helps to ensure that the request process continues in a fair manner faithful to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The work you've done on OWE appears substantial, and is tremendously appreciated by us all. I look forward to seeing how the new system works, in the hope that this will help to improve OTRS — which is itself, an incredibly valuable process important to the running of Wikipedia. Being able to better handle the requests which OTRS receives is a worthwhile endeavor. I'm here to help in any way, if I can. Warm regards,  Spintendo  22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ The number of edit requests received through CAT:EDITREQ increased substantially in the time period immediately following the clearance of the edit request backlog in December 2017, which likely means that pro rata the same increase in edit requests would also have been felt by those working the volunteer response team at OTRS. Those additional requests would have included an increase in those which did not easily meet the private/public suggestion criteria mentioned by Bluerasberry (e.g., "Currently that team gets confused about what requests should be private and what should be public."). Going forward, it might be worthwhile to note what criteria the team had previously been instructed to use in their approach to deciding between private or public request suggestions — criteria which ultimately proved insufficient in helping the team members to make that distinction. If those criteria are not addressed, the problem may stand a chance of continuing.
  2. ^ The assumption is that the board has been created for use by editors affiliated with larger organizations — owing to the naming of it as an organization wanting edits — with the additional assumption that this board would then be available for use by any individual should they express the need for it.
  3. ^ The reason for accountability being presumably twofold is because there are other systems devisable which deliver searchable records while continuing the one-on-one aspect of the current edit request process. However, those types of systems were ulimately not chosen — which suggests a second reason for the change beyond just record-keeping abilities. While this secondary reason cannot be known with any certainty, the nature and character of input received from editors in the time period immediately preceding the development of OWE — in particular, the input received from editors emailing their edit requests to OTRS — would ostensibly provide greater appreciation for why the noticeboard was chosen over other design considerations.
"Thanks, I posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Organization_Wants_Edit#Spintendo_deconstructs_the_use_case. What you describe above is exactly how I imagined this to work. I want to sit on this feedback maybe until after WikiConference North America 2019 where I would show off the system and your feedback to some others.
"I am considering whether this system should be for organizations specifically, or whether the email queue should refer all sorts of edit requests to this board. The email queue gets many people around the world requesting edits, typically because either they do not know that they can edit or because they are in a state of mind where they will only make a request but not edit themselves. I believe that most invitations for such people to edit instead halt the conversation, and that by sending them to make a request on a board, then at least they might repeat their request there. Posting to talk pages would be best, but my guess is that 80% of the time, users will not try. I think that if there were a dedicated board for requests with some more detailed instructions at the top then more users would post. Once they came to be on wiki, then either the request could be cross-posted, linked, or otherwise make its way to the article talk page, where at least it would be logged in public as a user suggestion.
I have some thoughts about what you said above Spintendo and I will reply soon but for now, this is the additional information that I have from others. I said on that board talk page and I will say here again also - your process, more than any other single intervention, is why I drafted out this experimental board. I am impressed with this process that you have so greatly developed and with the consistently good results you get from users who go through your process. You have a high engagement rate, and within that engagement, a high success rate in terms of getting thoughtful original content submissions and seeming user satisfaction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

15-OCT-2019Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  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 (talkcontribs) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Toreeva:   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 (talkcontribs)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:

I tried again, redirected to other talk page. Toreeva (talkcontribs) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Toreeva: 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)
@Spintendo:, 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)

trivago Wikipedia PageEdit

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)

  Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Clade diagram?Edit

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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: 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 farEdit

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 24Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tina Tchen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time's Up (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

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

    DAB link corrected    Spintendo  09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

COI edits to Mark Lanier profileEdit

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)

@WriteJames: I've read what Smartse 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 {{disputed}} template to the article.[a]
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 {{disputed}} template, this additional information ought to be placed in sufficiently paraphrased format and requested to be placed in the article.[b] Regards,  Spintendo  22:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Their reason for applying the {{COI}} template I believe was to simply underscore why the information is disputed — because a paid editor was adding only "good" details while leaving out the bad — when both items should be included. I don't want to speak for SmartSE, but I believe a good faith search and application of the missing details from these cases might go a long way towards encouraging them to become more disposed to removing both templates — an action which I always leave up to the editor who places them.
  2. ^ Along with any other information, positive or negative — and only as long as that information is referenced by reliable sources.

Greystar Real Estate PartnersEdit

Hi! Left you a reply at Talk:Greystar Real Estate Partners. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Clarified claims implemented   Regards,  Spintendo  03:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there! Reached out here, but FYI, the editor who placed the COI flag on this article appears no longer to be active on Wikipedia. Is there another way I can seek review of that flag? WP:WTRMT states that "Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} ... strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed". That seems to be the case here. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the problematic material which was added at the time the template was placed has since been removed, so I removed the template. Regards,  Spintendo  19:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for edit follow up: Scanlan InternationalEdit

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 {{request edit}} 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 {{request edit}} 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 {{request edit}} template.

Appreciate any insight!

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

@Bold North: 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 {{request edit}} template placed on the article's talk page to request changes to the article.[a] 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)

Notes

  1. ^ There are circumstances where an article which has passed WP:AFC and been created is then placed back into the drafting stage (per WP:DRAFTIFY). In those cases, changes may be directly made to the article by the COI editor, who then resubmits the article to WP:AFC for a second review.
@Spintendo: 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 AwardsEdit

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)

@JamesRbel: 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 discussionEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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)

  Thank you Robert for the notice! Warm regards,  Spintendo  22:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up About Logitech Page RefreshEdit

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)

  Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  05:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven Linne edit requestEdit

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)

@TheWolfius: I have replaced the COI userpage template that you had applied to the article with the {{COI}} 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 {{request edit}} 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)

Gloria CasarezEdit

I see that you worked on the Gloria Casarez article, I have done some work on it, I am still new, would you check it?Toandanel49 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

By and large the article is essentially a copy of the informational page on the subject found online at UPenn's library. Even though there has been minimal attempts at paraphrasing the material, the resemblance between the two remains striking. Whomever wrote the Wikipedia article was definately either (1) the person who wrote the UPenn material; or (2) someone else who simply copied the material. The first is the most likely, as both items were published/created at about the same time period just after the subject's passing in October 2014. The chances that someone else would have stumbled upon the UPenn article so quickly after it was created (mere days apart), who then decided right there to copy the whole page for placement in Wikipedia, is highly unlikely. Only the person who originally wrote the material would be so bold as to copy the entirety of it. So to answer your question about looking at the article, I think that should be directed to a staff member of UPenn's library, since the material found within the Wikipedia article is essentially UPenn's article, just with Wikipedia's name on it. Regards,  Spintendo  10:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Migdia Skarsgård Chinea.Edit

Can you please add info to my page. I added When it rains release date and it looks self serving. Thanks and love. MiG Mig (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Migdiachinea: I have omitted the mentioning of the film, because that film is not yet independently notable in Wikipedia. When it has its own page in Wikipedia, that will be the time to mention it. I've also applied the {{COI}} maintenance template, as you appear to have added much of the content yourself to the article, which is not recommended. More information about conflict-of-interest editing may be found at WP:PANDSCOI. Regards,  Spintendo  03:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Restated request for recourse on Beacon College Wikipedia pageEdit

Hello Spintendo:

I am reposting here this missive from June that received no response. I've been busy on several projects for the college and couldn't return my attention to this matter. That has changed, and I'm back to trying to resolve this matter.


Reposting this reply [looking for response and recourse] Good morning, Spintendo:

Again, I appreciate your gracious response.

You ponder the reason why the Orlando Sentinel would "devote a substantial portion of its reporting to Beacon."

First of all, any major metropolitan newspaper worth its salt boasts a higher education reporter, and sometimes more than one (a large metropolitan area like Boston, with the embarrassment of riches it enjoys in institutions of higher learning might task several reporters to cover the higher education beat).

Consequently, a higher education reporter writes articles about the higher education institutions within the newspaper's geographic coverage area.

In the case of the Orlando Sentinel, these institutions would include Rollins College, the University of Central Florida, Seminole State College, Valencia College, Stetson University, (sometimes Florida A&M and Bethune-Cookman), Lake-Sumter College, and, when warranted, Beacon College.

As such, this charge of "regional bias" doesn't compute. Obviously, a newspaper that covers higher education would cover news of the institutions of higher education in its regional coverage area. That would not be classified as bias. That would be classified as the newspaper doing its job.

Moreover, Beacon College received coverage by the Orlando Sentinel because of the school's novelty — Beacon College is one of only two colleges in the United States dedicated to educating students with learning disabilities, ADHD, and other learning differences. These are students who before 1989 when the school was founded had few options in pursuing postsecondary education.

Novelty is news. Therefore, of course, any newspaper — including The Orlando Sentinel — would cover novel news in its geographic area. That is the function of a standard newspaper operation — not evidence of regional bias.

Moreover, the chart that you included MAKES the argument I advanced.

Your chart rightly shows that the institutions noted have existed far longer than Beacon College. Yet, despite their maturity, their Wikipedia articles still rely on a preponderance of regional news coverage and self-generated sources.

Your argument suggests that given their longer operating lives that these schools should have been able to produce far more "non-regional/independent" and "non-biased" sources than their Wikipedia articles contain.

And yet they don't.

Yet, their articles pass muster.

So, returning to my main point, regarding the "dearth of independent sources," there was no way 30 years ago when the school was founded nor anyway today to compel news outlets outside the region to write articles about a small niche school outside their coverage areas. Nor is there any way Beacon College can jump into Dr. Who's Tardis and return to the past and compel or cajole news outlets, book authors, think tanks and others to pen articles about the Beacon College-related happenings that the Orlando Sentinel rightly chronicled.

The historical coverage of Beacon College to this point is what it is. There are no other sources to be found in the countless databases we search. You can't turn up what doesn't exist.

Given the reliance that many people across the globe now have with using Wikipedia articles as their go-to source for information about a subject, we recognize the importance, value, and desperate need for Beacon College to have a comprehensive — and accurate — Wikipedia article available for individuals researching the college. What currently exists is woefully out-of-date and woefully inadequate.

What recourse does the college have?

Darrylowens312 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Darrylowens312 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions and comments. While I see your point, the issue with the Orlando Sentinel's conflict of interest is not imaginary. You said it yourself — A newspaper that covers higher education would cover news of the institutions of higher education in its regional coverage area. With that, there is a built-in obligation on the part of the newspaper to cover this school — and the school knows that. Over time, this obligation can easily become a two-way street, with the school having an expectation that every story they release, no matter how insignificant, would be reported on by the paper. In this manner, the school exists within the Sentinel's blind spot — in that their role as an objective provider of news can easily come into conflict with their role as the expected reporter of information coming from the school. There's just no denying that.
This doesn't make every story the paper does on the school rejectable, it only means that extra caution needs to be taken when choosing which stories are appropriate to use as references. I would assume that most of the Sentinel's coverage about the school is purely news — this location of the school opened, or that class is now available — that sort of thing. The only problem is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, meaning items covered by a local paper about a local school which is news to the paper and the area's residents is not necessarily the best content for use in Wikipedia.
When you say that the school recognizes the need for comprehensive information to be available for individuals researching the college what you mean is potential students, and the need to promote the college to them. While Wikipedia appreciates the power of its reach, it does not exist for the promotion of the school. You're correct in saying that the school should have a comprehensive article, which I believe is an achievable goal. Also achievable, is an article which is vigorously checked to ensure WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTPROMO.
In practical terms that means that the University may submit items for inclusion using itself as the reference when those items are non-controversial, such as employee numbers, faculty, etc. Items that are presented that call attention to the school's unique characteristics, such as its work with students who learn differently than mainstream students, this would be something that the Sentinel may report on (to a degree). Any items which are of major consequence, such as a claim of efficacy of certain styles of teaching for example, ought to be referenced by multiple, independent, reliable WP:SECONDARY sources (as those claims would naturally receive the most scrutiny). Claims to be accredited with/ certified by/ registered for/ allied with, etc. ought to be referenced by whichever organization is doing the accrediting/certifying/licensing, etc. Those organizations also ought to already be independently notable in Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Regards,  Spintendo  22:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Good morning, Spintendo:
Thanks for your prompt response.
Rather than investing more time in another round of debate (although I will say to one point, it is not only potential enrollees who rely on an accurate comprehensive Wikipedia page about the college, but also researchers, journalists, etc.), I'll pivot to the central theme in my previous communication which was not addressed in your latest response: What recourse do we have? What are the next actionable (and realistic) steps we can take to have the revised Beacon College page pass muster?
Grace to you and peace,
Darryl E. Owens
Darrylowens312 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Good morning! I actually answered that question in the last paragraph of my reply message. In that reply, I specified which types of references would be appropriate for different types of claims. Regards,  Spintendo  19:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice signature!Edit

I was passing through various articles, doing a bit of editing as normal and came across a reply you'd given on a talk page. Just wanted to say how great I thought your signature was! Formulaonewiki 22:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for guidance on COI Request Edit protocolEdit

Appreciate your clear explanations. Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Hi, you have very kindly (and patiently!) been responding to my edit requests on the Selecta article, thank you. I've just seen that you left a note on my page because I forgot to disclose my COI on my last request, and I wanted to apologise / thank you for flagging! I thought it did it automatically now because I had disclosed it on my talk page, but obviously not. Do I need to go back and add it now? Also, my apologies, I'm not sure of the best way to reply, but I hope you see this. Many thanks EmilyRH31 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Although you have disclosed your COI on your talk page and on the article's talk page, it might not be immediately apparant that there is a COI to those editors dropping by the article's talk page specifically for the requested move discussion. That's because the link from the requested move page takes editors to a position on the talk page which is below the COI disclosure of yours which is posted at the top of the talk page. That's why I suggested that the COI be mentioned again in the requested move statement, just to be sure. You may add a single sentence to your statement if you like, re-stating your COI. Regards,  Spintendo  09:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with formatting an edit request correctlyEdit

Hello, I've posted two requests for recommended edits to the Northeastern University Wikipedia page, but you've responded to both that I haven't formatted my requests correctly. I thought I'd done so correctly the second time by adding a line for Citation Style 1 for each recommended edit (where applicable). I'm new to the editing process for Wikipedia, and I'd kindly ask your assistance by explaining what exactly I'm doing wrong. Is part of the issue that I'm providing too much information, including a line "References supporting change" that include bare URLs? I used the format based on a template I found on Wikipedia for requesting edits.

Thanks so much for your help and your patience. Best, G.stmartinNU (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ideally the references should be formatted according to the style already used in the article, which is Citation Style 1 (CS1). An example of how CS1 references are styled is shown below:
CS1
Citation Style 1 markup:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Paramjit|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2019|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=2}}</ref>

Which renders as:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]

References


  1. ^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.
  2. ^ Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
  3. ^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.







Here is a single citation shown as markup on the left and rendering on the right:

Markup Renders as
{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}

Sjöblad, Tristan (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.

When used with ref tags, it places a superscript number within the text. Note the <ref> & </ref> placed at either ends of the citation in the markup:

Markup Renders as
<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}</ref>

[1]

The full citation then displays at the bottom like so:

References

  1. ^ Sjöblad, Tristan (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.
I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. Regards,  Spintendo  22:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback. However, the request already includes Citation Style 1 for every specific edit/change, where applicable. (Some recommended edits simply involve removing copy, thus no need for a citation.) Again, is the issue that the request includes too much explanation, and you'd prefer the request be shortened to simply include only what each change should be using Citation Style 1?
Also, you stated in your Notes section under "a." that the references I provided are to Northeastern's website and because the information already exists on the website it doesn't need to be reproduced on the Wikipedia page. I don't understand the issue here. The purpose of our request is to update information on the Wikipedia page that is out of date or incorrect, and the Wikipedia page currently cites references to Northeastern's website in the sections where we're proposing edits.
Please advise. I appreciate your time and help with this, and I want to make this as straightforward as possible. Best, G.stmartinNU (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ken XieEdit

Hi! I left you a reply at Talk:Ken Xie. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Response given at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  09:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Spintendo".