User talk:Spintendo/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Spintendo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Your Assistance Once Again with an Update

COI in 2019

Hooray!

You're back!

COI answer script?

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hi, Why you removed my edits

Cite Unseen update

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.

You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new generally reliable icon (described below).
New categorizations/icons:
- Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
- Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
- Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
- Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as varied reliability. Note that generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
With the addition of the new categorizations, the biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

A barnstar for you!

A barnstar for you too!

Edit Request

Mark Branford help

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

The WikiEagle - January 2022

Hey

Help with COI edits on Fund for the Public Interest page

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Teradata Company Page Update

JB

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Death and state funeral of Leonid Brezhnev‎

China Environmental Policy

Can you tell me more about what happened here, With the copyright warning?

My edits were merging information from another Wiki article (Environmental Governance in China) that should be merged, and has a request for deletion.

So is this warning a mistake, or does that mean it was actually a copyright violation in the Environmental Governance of China article?

What tool checks for potential copyright violations? Unless there’s been a mistake here, someone needs to run it on Environmental Governance in China JArthur1984 (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The information that I redacted was in the Environmental policy in China article, not Environmental governance in China (I'm unaware of any reports from that article of copyrighted material, though it may exist). Information on which text raised the Copypatrol warnings can be found here. According to the iThenticate report, the information came from the following copyrighted source:

Shi, Han; Zhang, Lei (April 2006). "China's Environmental Governance of Rapid Industrialisation". Environmental Politics. 15 (2): 271–292. doi:10.1080/09644010600562567.

You stated that the information you inserted came from another Wikipedia article, which I don't dispute. The moved text set off a Copypatrol warning nonetheless, so it needed to be removed, since it wasn't properly paraphrased. To check if text within a Wikipedia article includes copyrighted/non-paraphrased material, the ToolForge Copyvio detector is a good tool, though it has some limitations. Spintendo 04:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And Right - you checked Environmental Policy, but the reason there was an issue on Environmental Policy was because I had merged the info from Environmental Governance (obviously, not realizing it could be copyright vio).

This means there’s at least one potential copyright issue on Environmental Governance (the one I copied).

Does that make sense? JArthur1984 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That makes absolute sense. The governance article I suspect is rife with copyvios, so hopefully it will be moved towards deletion quickly. I guess it's a good reminder to always check texts before moving to other articles, especially ones that are undergoing deletion proposals. Spintendo 06:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed! Thanks JArthur1984 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Richard Arlook

Unsure how to format a change request

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Change Request - Assistance Requested

Issue One request

Untitled

diff Confused by your edit summary here. I agree there's no evidence of notability for the book to warrant its presence on the dab, that part's fine. But what does WP:PT2 have to do with anything? The primary topic is Pegasus, the mythical animal, which your edit had nothing to do with. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Swpb PT2 states "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." The topic "Pegasus (book)" which was incorrectly placed on the Pegasus DAB page, does not have substantially greater enduring notability than any other book that doubtless may be published in the future on the topic of Pegasus spyware. Assuming that this particular Pegasus book will be the only one in the future that people will be searching for assumes too much, especially considering that particular Pegasus book does not have its own Wikipedia page. The DAB entry was pointing to a stray mention of the book being published placed in the Pegasus spyware article. IMHO, that does not point to "enduring notability" for the topic "Pegasus (book)". (Also, right now, anyone typing "Pegasus book" into the search field will be redirected to the Pegasus spyware article, which I don't believe should be the correct course of action [the same person who created the dab page entry also created the redirect] but that's another discussion altogether.) (Also also, you stated that the primary topic was "Pegasus the mythical animal". That is one topic for the term "Pegasus", but the Pegasus DAB page encompasses the term "Pegasus" itself -- and all of its similarly-named appertinent topics.) Spintendo 06:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was saying, or what a primary topic is. I agree that the book doesn't deserve a dab entry. But the book was never the primary topic (there is only ever one) for "Pegasus" - it was never the target of the bare word Pegasus, and it was never specified as the primary topic at the top of the dab: in both cases, the primary topic is, has always been, and should be, the mythical being. So while your edit was right, your summary made no sense, as the edit didn't have anything to do with the primary topic. (And maybe before you quote someone the guideline they linked you to, pop by their userpage to see if they might already be familiar with the topic ;) ) —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Addendum - your concern about what Pegasus (book) links to is reasonable, given the novel. Maybe that's what you meant by "primary topic" (of "Pegasus (book)")? (Although Pegasus (book) isn't and shouldn't be a dab page, as that would lead to double disambiguation.) Anyway, I re-targeted the redirect to Pegasus (disambiguation). —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Swpb

Thank you Spintendo 22:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Note definition in notelist

Hi! In regards to this edit, your summary indicates there was an efn template error. The template instructions give an example of a "very long footnote" defined in the notelist, as in the previous version of the article which seemed to work. (I tend to prefer having the references/citation templates at the end so that the code for the body is easier to read and copyedit.) Was there a problem that I'm missing? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Reidgreg Thank you for your question. Because the efn contained other uses of the = sign (these are invariably used within named ref notes <ref name=example>, for example) the template's instructions say to use |1= when composing the note ("Note that if the note's content contains an "=" character, a reference error will be displayed; precede the content with |1= [or one of its aliases, |text=, |reference=, or |content=] to fix the error.") This had not been done, and the result was that each reference within that note was being listed as a separate note letter, i.e., there were blank notes lettered b through g when there should only have been one note lettered "a". Adding the |1= solved this error. I placed the note within the article itself. You can move it back to the notelist if you'd like (while keeping the |1= parameter activated). That being said, due to limitations in the MediaWiki software^[a] when using name-defined notes containing multiple name-defined references, I wouldn't suggest placing it there. Regards, Spintendo 23:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Notes

[a]
These limitations are based on quirks in the software that become evident when using certain characters, such as the aforementioned equal sign, as well as quotation marks. Suggestions for avoiding these can be found in the template's documentation page which states, among other suggestions, "Do not enclose ref-name values in quotes". The note in question at the Toronto homicides article has all named references containing quotes.

Feedback and inquiry about contents removed, accolades and notable references

Hi @Spintendo, thank you for all the helpful guidelines I have reviewed your commentary and would briefly like to ask you review the following:

- Awards and Nominations Table

I added these per documentary that received various nominations or awards, as I was inspired by another filmmaker's page Darren Aronofsky where you can see under "Accolades" tables with publication references were assigned to each. These tables appear under each Film section. In the case of Darren's page, these table of awards is under it's own Section.

There was tremendous research and effort that went into contributing this information for the 2 documentaries from this filmmaker and would please ask you reconsider or offer advice on how I may submit this again that would be appropriate for approval. I feel nominations are most worthy of being mentioned too.

- Film Sections Notable Reviews and Content

For each of these films/documentary sections, I understand your comment about the extent to which I contributed in describing the film's contents, and that the Wiki articles for these films that are linked to, provide much context background.

However, this filmmaker's most recent work that had received some noteworthy coverage that explains more detail about the film's contents. Since this film has not been distributed yet, there is some rich insight into the film I've discovered and had added to this film section. As you have edited this down as well, I would like to consider editing this further until the film has it's own article page to link to from the filmmaker.

Any comforting words of advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated thank you for your consideration.

@Jeremycohen333 Jeremycohen333 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jeremycohen333 Thank you for your reply it's much appreciated. I've had a look at the Aronofsky page, which I agree provides a good example for what the Fogel page should ascribe to. As far as a reason for its length and great detail, Aronofsky is a much more accomplished filmmaker with many more films under his belt (not saying he's more accomplished than Bryan Fogel because of any lack of talent, just saying he's been doing his craft for a lot longer.) But even with a larger number of films to explain on the Aronofsky page, you will notice that the films are not listed under their own sections, rather, they are each mentioned in a more linear context discussing all of his films and their importance to his career as a rough chronological narrative.

In this way, the discussion of each film on the Aronofsky page is not just a rote re-explaining of their contents, which is the job each individual film's Wikipedia page does. Including all of that detailed information in Fogel's page about each of his films seems promotional in nature.

A table showing all of Aronofsky"s awards is also shown, the same information that is now included in the Bryan Fogel infobox (which is always better placed in a table). Combining all of those notable awards in one place instead of being listed in separate tables under each film section is a better idea for the Fogel page which I would support.

Information about Fogel's new film can be placed in the article as long as it's referenced by reliable, notable, third-party sources. Any sources originating from the subject, the subject's production companies, or any entities which benefit from the subject material (humanitarian organizations etc,) should be avoided.

I'm not sure if there is a conflict of interest which exists between you and the subject of the article, but if there is, it would be best to propose any changes on the talk page rather than making the changes yourself. Regards, Spintendo 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Thank you so much for your feedback on the contents structure for this page. I will prepare updated formatting for the sections to propose in the talk page. Many thanks again! 75.83.90.233 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

A barnstar for you!

THIGJ

Saks Fifth Ave reminder

Guess who?

Conagra response

Following up on Fabrizio Freda

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

A barnstar for you!

Missing neutrality on Wikipedia Page

August 2023

Edit request question

Death and state funeral of Leonid Brezhnev

Trigo (company) - edit request

Jake Paul vs Askren PPV Buys

Follow up on Union Bancaire Prive edit request

Hi Spintendo, just wanted to give you a heads up that I edited my request based on your feedback on Talk:Union_Bancaire_Privée. Let me know what you think! Accenturesongnordics (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the effort to make these changes, it's much appreciated. However, please note that the changes you made to the article's talk page did not follow the guidelines according to WP:REDACT, which govern how editors are to make changes to previous talk page posts. Please take a moment to acquaint yourself with those practices. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 10:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I will dig into the practices. I see now that large parts of the original page (which I didn't do any changes to) has been removed? Before I requested the edit, the page still had sections on "Asset management", "Alternative investments", "Sales and trading", "Investment philosophy" and "Financials", which all now has been removed? Accenturesongnordics (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You're correct about the deletions. The text that was removed contained promotional content which discussed the bank's investment philosophy, its alternative investments and its new hedge fund platform. The financial section was also removed, as it discussed the bank's "solid financial base and strong balance sheet" which is all phrasing of a promotional nature. This type of information is better published on the bank's own website, for which, a link has been provided at the bottom of the Wikipedia article and in the infobox, for readers to easily access. Regards, Spintendo 12:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation. Is there any way to get these parts of the page back - thinking of a way to make it less promotional, but still being able to address the different services that the bank has to offer. Accenturesongnordics (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Accenturesongnordics Thank you for your question. A good way to get this information back would be if any of these services were discussed by independent, reliable secondary sources. This would not include any information published on websites that cover the financial industry, as that information oftentimes originates from press releases issued by the companies in question. Regards, Spintendo 12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Balyasny Asset Management

Edit request for GoodLeap

bfloat16 response

Thank you!

RE: proposed edit on GunBroker.com page

Thank You!

RE: proposed edit on Noonlight page

LegalShield reply

Returning to Institute for Justice edits

Titmouse Inc. Burbank Location

Talk:Mount Sinai Holy Church of America‎

Talk:Noonlight#Edit_Request_Response

Talk: MeidasTouch Proposed Edits

Hi Spintendo: It appears you may have missed that the additional language you suggested was added to this article. The following line was added along with 4 sources: "It was reported in an FEC filing, and through an editorial note posted on al.com and CBS News, that the organization ceased operations as of July 2023 as the founders turned their focus to the MeidasTouch Network, an independent news and media network." You previously wrote: "In order to place this information in the article, the proposed text needs to be modified by the COI editor to state where this information comes from: "It was reported in an FEC filing, and through an editorial note posted on al.com, that the organization ceased operations as of [enter date here].." or something to that effect" Can you double check the new edit, and help facilitate the correction of the information on this page? The information on the page as-is is currently false and does not reflect reality. Bam21 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bam21 Thank you for your question. Taking a look at the article's revision history, it doesn't look like the text I suggested was placed into the article in the past 24 hours since I made the reply. The text that you placed in the article (which was reverted) did not contain my suggested use of WP:VOICE and also incorporated additional text which I never mentioned in my suggestion. My suggestion stated that you should propose the new text again in a new edit request on the talk page — not that you should implement any changes yourself. The best strategy is always to keep your posts only on the talk page and to let other editors make changes to the main article. Please let me know if you have any more questions about this Regards, Spintendo 21:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yes it was suggested after you made your reply in a separate COI edit request. Here is from the latest request: The group name and slogan come from their mother and father, combining their father's last name, Meiselas, and their mother's maiden name, Golden, while alluding to the mythological Greek king Midas known for his ability to turn everything he touched into gold. It was reported in an FEC filing, and through an editorial note posted on al.com and CBS News, that the organization ceased operations as of July 2023 as the founders turned their focus to the MeidasTouch Network, an independent news and media network. Bam21 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

BeiGene edit requests

Hi! Just a heads up I've replied to your feedback at Talk:Beigene. Please let me know if you'd prefer if I open up a new request in response to your feedback. Thank you much. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaryGaulke I've moved the page to BeiGene per your request, and the other issues I'll address in my reply on the article's talk page. If you could go ahead and check to make sure that any fair use rationales for the logo and any other images used on the page are updated with the new article title, I'd appreciate it. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 04:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Roger that, I've confirmed. Thank you for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Heads up I've replied here. Can open a new request on the item you flagged once these last few bits are resolved – or let me know if you'd prefer I just put everything remaining in a new request now. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again! I'm re-reviewing your recent feedback on my BeiGene requests to inform my future work. I'm hoping you could clarify a bit more about why listing pamiparib as a product (note 8) is WP:COATRACK . That essay states that a coatrack "gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects", and that "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." Given that pamiparib is a BeiGene product, and that the addition was limited to a few sentences, I'm struggling to understand what makes it tangential or misleading about the overall article/subject. In looking through similar articles, I'm noticing comparable product listings (and often product history) in the majority of the ones I sampled: Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, and Takeda Oncology.

I want to ensure I'm posing requests that are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, but I'm having trouble understanding the nuances of why this doesn't fit the bill. Any guidance you can share to help me parse the nuances is helpful. Thank you, sincerely. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Chasing this just once in case you missed it. In a nutshell: hoping for any guidance on when pharma company articles should mention medicines they've developed and when they should not, given the presence of RS coverage. I've looked through WP:MOSMED and other related guidelines/precedents and feel a bit stumped. Thank you for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

MaryGaulke: First let me apologize for trailing off from this conversation. It began 4 months ago, and as time progresses, other conversations begin to crowd out my attention. "A coat-rack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." Given that pamiparib is a BeiGene product, and that the addition was limited to a few sentences, I'm struggling to understand what makes it tangential or misleading about the overall article/subject. The article in question is about BeiGene — not BeiGene's products. By mentioning specific details about its products (beyond any rote information that the company simply produces a product), the article can demonstrate tangentiality. ..And that the addition was limited to a few sentences There is certainly the possibility for a slippery slope when it comes to placing within a company article, information about its product — especially in cases where that product is in development. By definition, the information surrounding products in development is constantly changing and developing. No one — not you nor I — can say with any certainty that "one or two sentences" today won't be 3 paragraphs tomorrow. I'm noticing comparable product listings (and often product history) in the majority of the ones I sampled That's not surprising, given that the resources compelling an article's expansion to areas which I would likely deem "questionable" can be quite significant. It doesn't necessarily make those examples objectively better articles, though. Take care.

Regards, Spintendo 01:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

GRAIL (company) edit requests

G42 request edited again

Please add Charles Ballay to libertarian candidate president 2024

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P40015042/ CB70072 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@CB70072 I'm afraid that individual's name does not appear in the FEC list of official candidates. Regards, Spintendo 21:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That's ok. Thanks for the response. I'll be at some of the debates and conventions soon enough. CB70072 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would've thought registering with the FEC along with creating bank accounts, social media accounts, being vetted by Meta, would be enough to prove I am who I am. Nonetheless, over the next few months I'm sure I'll have articles written, etc. to prove my candidacy is real. CB70072 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/charles-ballay-122541 CB70072 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2024_presidential_candidates CB70072 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that the individual is now listed on FEC's website. However, there are 35 other candidates listed there as well, yet the article's list only contains 6 individuals. A larger listing of them was deleted by User:A._Randomdude0000 just this week. I'm not sure what local editors have decided amongst themselves what the consensus is for who gets on the list, but clearly they would need to be consulted in order to sign off on adding this name to the list. I would suggest contacting the editor who removed the name from the list and ask them to provide a reason. They stated in their edit summary that the list was deleted because the candidates were not from secondary source coverage, but the article itself states that the list is "according to the FEC filings" which clearly it isn't if there's only six people on the list. If you don't get a satisfactory answer from that editor, then we can move ahead, but I would ask them first. Regards, Spintendo 04:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very very much CB70072 (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@CB70072 I would hasten to add that the local editors of that page have every right to limit the number of candidates to a reasonable number of the most well-known candidates (per WP:NOTEVERYTHING), but if they do so, then they should make more of an effort to describe to readers that this is only a small portion of the candidates, such as relabeling the list as Selected candidates. Otherwise, it gives the erroneous impression that those are the only candidates declared with the FEC (even though it states in the text that there are 35 candidates, readers may not see that, since the list is so much more impactful on the page than mere text). Regards, Spintendo 15:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me to this discussion, Spintendo. I have addressed this issue here. You are absolutely right that we have failed to make clear to the readers - and potential listees like Dr. Ballay - what the inclusion standards for the main candidate listing are, thus leading to confusion. I am grateful that you pointed out this oversight, which I intend to correct it ASAP. Regards. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:William Spetz

hi there, thanks so much for your feedback on the edit request for William Spetz. The reason we have asked for 'comedian' to be replaced is that William has never been a comedian, so this was never correct. He has had comedic roles in some of his films and television projects, but he has never worked as a comedian. This can be fact checked on his Imdb profile also, which is of course third-party checked and approved: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5286019/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_0_nm_8_q_william%2520spetz You can see has has 12 roles in tv shows (Valfeber, Hoppas farfar dör, Solsidan, Art & Bob, Lingonligan, Quicksand, Andra åket, Filip och Mona, Trex, Mäklarna, Alla Vi Karlssons, and TORE) 2 short films (THE WASTING BATTLE and LEA & SKOGSPIRATERNA) and 4 feature films (MINI ZLATAN AND UNCLE DARLING, which was BFI London Film Festival selection - reference HERE; DAY BY DAY, reference HERE; SUNE VS SUNE, reference HERE, I LOVE YOU, reference HERE) All of these list William as a credited actor (some feature him in the poster). This should warrant his change of role to actor. Please could you assist? thanks so much again MP1210 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these links. From your listing of them, I can see that the subject has had roles in 4 feature films versus 12 roles on TV. I think that would mean the term "television personality" should remain. As far as comedian, the term usually refers to someone who performs stand up comedy (IMO) so I think it would be acceptable to remove "comedian" from the article. Regards, Spintendo 21:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Are we able to also add 'actor' alongside television personality, please? All the roles he has had in feature films and tv have been acting roles. Describing him as television personality only is not accurate. Other similar subjects on Wikipedia, for example Rege-Jean Page, are defined as 'actor' on Wikipedia - but Rege-Jean's acting roles have been mostly on television, similarly to William (further reference on this HERE) I would also like to add the above mentioned roles to William's Filmography, which currently only lists 2 credits. Happy to provide any further links if needed for this. Please could you advise? Your help is really appreciated, @Spintendo, thank you. MP1210 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, in my mind, television personality strikes me as more of a host (like Ryan Seacrest) rather than as an actor with scripted roles. If this subject's content leans more towards scripted roles (rather than those he's scripted for himself) then I would agree that actor would be the better term. As far as listing the subject's content, I would only be inclined to add that which was independently notable in Wikipedia (meaning the show has its own Wikipedia page). Wikipedia is not meant to act as a mirror for IMDb, so a comprehensive listing of the subject's roles (as is done on IMDb) would not be possible here. Using that website as a reference is also problematic (see WP:CITEIMDB and WP:IMDB). Regards, Spintendo 23:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

okay, thanks so much. Would you be able to go ahead and amend William's role to actor, based on your feedback above? Again, your help is super appreciated. I have a few more notes if that's okay: I'm not sure that this sentence in his bio makes a lot of sense grammatically? "he then got to do the two comedic kids shows Williams lista and Scener ur ett tonårsliv which was aired on SVT Play." Shouldn't it be reworded? The bio also doesn't mention 2 more factual recent elements. Would we be able to add the below? In 2019, Spetz starred as Samir Said in the Swedish Netflix original series Quicksand and in 2022, Netflix announced TORE, a 6-episode original dramedy series which Spetz created, wrote and stars in. Thank you SO much again for your guidance. MP1210 (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I have access to colleagues who speak German and Dutch, I'm not familiar with Swedish, so I can't comment on whether that sentence is grammatical, although the phrase "which was aired" is not grammatical. The Wikilinks (if there are any from that sentence, such as SVT Play, or the mentioned shows) have not been provided here, so without them, that's not a sentence I would be inclined to include. The information about TORE cannot be added, because you've included an external link, as opposed to a Wikilink, which are not allowed within the body of articles. You had stated earlier that you were not opposed to keeping television personality, so you would need to indicate whether it should be replaced or augmented with the term actor. That request ought to be made officially on the talk page of the article in question, rather than here. Regards, Spintendo 17:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks. Apologies, can I clarify - the page I am referring to with regards to the sentence is not in Swedish, it's in English. Hence why I am mentioning it's not really correct grammatically. How can we have this amended? thank you! MP1210 (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

the sentence is not in Swedish, it's in English. That's not entirely correct. The sentence that you're referring to is a mixture of English and Swedish — both languages appear within. Even though the Swedish part apparently is referring only to the title of a television show, I can't be certain that it's entirely correct as far as how the show is titled by its producer's/creators, which would impact on how the title exists in relation to the English phrasing which is placed all around it. My opinion is that the best editor to look at this sentence would be one who speaks both English and Swedish. Regards, Spintendo 00:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you - might you be able to help with the change in title to actor, which we have made on the subject's page? thanks so much! MP1210 (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:MP1210 I made a clean up of the grammar on this page as best I could. As far as changing the term to actor, I think that considering his work in social media, it might be prudent to title this as television actor and social media personality. Regards, Spintendo 21:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

hi, thanks so much for helping with the grammar. As for his title, if we need to include social media personality (which he no longer is, as he no longer posts on social media as his main work) could we change it to 'actor and former social media personality'? It would be really appreciated if he could be described as 'actor' rather than 'television actor', like for example Rege-Jean Page is described as 'actor' only on his Wiki page - and not television actor - even though he has mostly had TV roles just like William. (Ruby Stokes is a similar example; as is Maitreyi Ramakrishnan thank you so much for your assistance. MP1210 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@MP1210 Owing to the subject's appearances mostly on television (that would include Netflix) in roles which, up to this point, have not been predominantly in scripted dramas, I believe the label should be television personality/actor. Please keep in mind that this label might stay in the article for many years, or perhaps only for one day — for such is the nature of collaborative projects, where any editor is entitled to edit an article. If that happens, just understand that this is a normal process, and your best recourse would be to again go to the talk page and discuss the changes there. Regards, Spintendo 06:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for amending his title. Given that he is no longer working in TV as a television personality, can the label be changed to 'actor and former television personality'? MP1210 (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would consider Netflix to be "television" since it's often viewed in domestic settings. Regards, Spintendo 04:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

But in his Netflix shows he acts/works as an actor, not as a presenter/host as a Television personality would. Again other subjects who appear in Netflix scripted shows are labelled as actors, not Television personalities. I think 'former television personality' would be more accurate if you want to keep the television personality label. Could you amend? MP1210 (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

other subjects who appear in Netflix scripted shows are labelled as actors I see your point but unfortunately, any differences in those articles are nevertheless meaningless for solving issues with the Spetz article. (See WP:OTHER.) Regards, Spintendo 20:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

okay, so with regards to this article - in response to my 'can the label be changed to actor and former television personality' you said ' I would consider Netflix to be television' - and I mentioned that in his Netflix shows he works as an actor/acts, he doesn't present or host as a TV personality would. Former television personality is accurate as to the current status of subject since he no longer hosts/presents or appears on Television as self. Can you help please? MP1210 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@MP1210 The problem with that though is we can't say for certain what may happen in the future. To place the label of "former" in there is to say with certainty that the subject would never work in television as a personality again, which none of us can say with absolute certainty. That would require us to monitor the article and if the subject ever appeared on television again as a personality, the article would then need to be changed again, which seems like an unnecessary level of monitoring. I think to say "former" we would need some kind of secondary source where the subject announced that they are formally retiring from that area of entertainment, which I've seen happen before in other articles. Regards, Spintendo 23:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Adam Neumann

Balyasny Asset Management

Question about Wikilinking companies

Hello fellow COI backlog clearer! I noticed in your response Talk:Antin Infrastructure Partners#Reply 20-OCT-2023, you mentioned that there were several companies that are not Wiki-linked. At first I thought you were saying that they needed to be linked, but it appears you are saying they should not be included if they do not have their own articles, regardless of sourcing. I was unaware that it was a requirement to only add info that has its own article, using the addition of CEOs that don't have articles as another example. I thought that adding redlinks was encouraged, to spur future article creation. Could you clarify? STEMinfo (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

And I just went to the next request and saw Talk:G42 (company)#Edit request 27-OCT-2023, about the same issue related to adding names of companies that are not on Wikipedia, regardless of sourcing. STEMinfo (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I'm glad you asked it. When I ask that certain things in edit requests have Wikilinks attached to them — let's say for example, when a COI editor wishes to add information about a company's purchase of another company to the article — what I'm asking for there is not due to WP:N (which is not a content requirement). In those instances the request for notability is to ensure a neutral point of view. The purchase of one company by another company represents a point of view, in that it effectively ascribes to a purchased company the relative value and importance of its purchase according to the purchaser's point of view (i.e., "Because we thought this company was important enough to purchase, that alone makes it important enough to mention in our article"). If the purchased companies were independently notable, that would add weight to the purchasing company's view that their purchase was important enough to be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, adding to an article several points of view on the purchase of non-notable companies may upset an article's balancing aspects.^[1] Thus, my own practice as a reviewer is to limit the listing of acquisitions, awards, or partnerships to those which are independently notable in Wikipedia.

Regards, Spintendo 00:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you about not letting the company rep decide what's notable, but that's not what's happening here. Since we require sources for any acquisitions, the news organizations are doing the notability vetting for us. Not every acquisition makes it into the news. If there was a request and it was based on a company press release, that's what you're talking about. That's an easy decline. If there's no independent coverage, the info shouldn't be added. I know it can be a bit more time consuming, but I'd also recommend doing a quick WP:BEFORE, and if enough material turns up, consider WP:REDing the acquired company's name, in the spirit of expanding the encyclopedia. But I wouldn't outright decline requests to add info about significant company events covered in the media by reliable sources. STEMinfo (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

the news organizations are doing the notability vetting for us. As I said, my asking that the companies be notable is not due to WP:N — rather, it's to ensure WP:NPOV, which is a content consideration. Likewise, WP:BEFORE pertains to WP:AFD discussions, not to edit requests, which deal strictly with content. Regards, Spintendo 02:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I thought about this for a couple of days, and this is the rare time that I disagree with your reasoning. Just because an acquired company doesn't have an article doesn't mean that we're injecting bias by adding news of the acquisition. If someone without a COI added a properly sourced acquisition, it probably wouldn't be reverted. If our informal policy is to reject a COI request about an acquisition solely on the basis that the person has a COI (that's how I'm interpreting your reasoning - apologies if I'm getting it wrong), aren't we discouraging them from using this disclosure process in the future? I'm inclined to approve a request for the additional of properly sourced acquisition info as long as it's not promotional, and if I have time, I can look up the acquired company to see if it should have its own article. If so, I'd then redlink the name. On a related note, it seems odd that there are so many editors who do administrative tasks, like preventing bias and rooting out paid editors, yet you are the only person I see regularly helping to clear the COI backlog. If the process was easier and more editors were willing to help, there would be fewer paid editors or COI editors to stop. Happy Thanksgiving Week! STEMinfo (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to approve a request for the additional of properly sourced acquisition info as long as it's not promotional But you see, that's the rub here. At what point is a properly sourced claim still promotional? You mentioned these companies don't need to be notable and can be referenced by any press release as long as that press release is issued by the company to a website which would meet our consensus as being properly sourced, who then reports on it. Following that logic, you appear not to place any ultimate number on the resulting laundry list of acquisitions that could theoretically be added under that rubric to a Wikipedia page. Is there a final number where you would cease adding them? If the listing of 5 acquisitions appears non-promotional, what about 10? or 20, or 30? According to you, there would be no end to that list, as long as your rubric of identifying a source was applied. And it doesn't stop there. How about awards? A listing of 35 awards no established Wikipedia page has ever heard of, yet are attributable to "sources" — can these be added, or would your sense of "promotional-editing" finally activate to reign in such nonsense? That sense of determining when a page becomes promotional exists in each of us (some of it more pronounced than in others, due to experience) while also existing through WP:NPOV, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:BALASP, and most importantly, WP:NOTDIRECTORY which states the following under No.6:

Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.

That section goes on to state what to do when an attempt is made to include that information in the article, and while this particular wording speaks to pricing, I think it applies well to everything listed in that section:

An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.

The mentioning of various business alliances or acquisitions is effectively listing them in the article, which I believe is what is happening in these instances. I believe it's done in order to promote the company and its acquisitions. If the companies are notable, then it's perfect for a list, because that's what lists are for. Beyond that, there are no other hard and fast rules here, if you're looking for them. If the process was easier and more editors were willing to help, there would be fewer paid editors or COI editors to stop. I believe what you mean here is there would be less undeclared COI editing, and in that, I would agree with you. The data I've collected on COI edit requests made by editors since that request process was instituted in 2012 shows that when legitimate declared COI edit requests are handled quickly (which leaves a smaller unanswered edit request queue) those requests actually increase. When requests are left to linger and the unanswered queue increases, legitimate requests decrease (and I would assume, undeclared COI editing increases, although I have no way of tracking that aspect of it). Anyways, my best to you and happy holidays as well. Regards, Spintendo 00:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

References

[1]
"WP:BALASP". Wikipedia. 16 July 2023. An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. A description of isolated events or news reports related to a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Paid editing to follow on Philadelphia Cream Cheese

In the Philadelphia cream cheese article, it says that it's owned by Kraft Heinz. That's not quite correct: they own the brand in the US, and Mondelez owns the brand in the rest of the world. Because I work for Mondelez, I mentioned this to a colleague who took it up with an internal communication team, who says that they will work with an "agency partner" to correct it. When I said that I hope that they follow the paid editing guidelines, I got the response "Yes, they have done this in the past and are aware of the process.". I'll be watching the page to see what happens, but I thought you might also be interested. --Slashme (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I remember something similar happening with the National Onion Association. It ended in tears. E Eng 15:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As a fan of both onions and cream cheese (but not at the same time, unless it's on a bagel) perhaps I may have to recuse myself from any such request.

But in all seriousness this is easily remedied, as Mondelez International is in fact, the same thing as Kraft Foods Inc.. I've added the Mondelez Wikilink to the lead to differentiate it from Kraft Foods Group, whose association with the Philadelphia brand is only within the USA. If anyone at Mondelez has additional proposed text that will help differentiate the product in the article, and explain the ownership bifurcation, that would be great to see it proposed on the talk page. My thanks to Slashme for the heads up on this, and to EEng for always putting a smile on my face. Regards, Spintendo 02:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Mondelez International is not the same thing as Kraft Foods Inc. Shortly after I joined Cadbury, it Cadbury was bought by Kraft Foods Inc. The new conglomerate was renamed "Mondelēz International"; Kraft Foods Inc. ceased to exist; and Kraft Foods was spun off in North America. So now they are two completely separate companies. Kraft Foods then merged with Heinz to become Kraft Heinz. In Canada and USA, the Philadelphia brand is owned by Kraft Heinz, and in the rest of the world, by Mondelez. This is similar to the situation where the Cadbury brand is not owned by Mondelez in the USA, because Cadbury sold the rights to the brand in the USA to Hershey. --Slashme (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

it was bought by Kraft Foods Inc Exactly what I said. Although the two company names did not technically exist at the same time, they share a common lineage. Just as a 30 yr-old adult cannot be divorced from the 10 yo child they once were, Mondelez is metaphysically the same as its organizational forebear, Kraft Foods Inc. Regards, Spintendo 04:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In case physics content comes up again

World Scout Education Congress

Dear @Spintendo,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently made some edits to World Scout Education Congress, which were subsequently removed. I understand that the reason for this was due to the content appearing to be copied from the original website.

I want to assure you that my intention was to enhance the article with accurate and relevant information, and I apologize if it seemed otherwise. I understand the importance of original content on Wikipedia and respect its guidelines on plagiarism.

I would appreciate it if you could provide some guidance on how I could improve my contributions to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am more than willing to revise the content to ensure it is in line with Wikipedia's policies and does not infringe on any copyrights.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback and the opportunity to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.

Best regards,

דור פוזנר (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

דור פוזנר Thank you for your response, it's much appreciated! In answer to your question, here are some guidelines that I think work best in order to use someone else's information while providing the correct attribution.

You can copy a limited amount of text from sources, but when you do, you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you can also put all the information in your own words and structure, taking care to place those words in proper paraphrase. This proper paraphrasing is needed because following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so close-paraphrasing is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. After you have crafted a properly paraphrased section of text using your own words, you are still asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.

By following those two guidelines you should be able to steer clear of any future issues with copied text. We appreciate and look forward to your future contributions here. If you have any additional questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask! Regards, Spintendo 04:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on it. דור פוזנר (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk: Joe Kiani Consensus Discussion

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Joe Kiani#Consensus discussion to decide to remove the Controversies and Investigation section

Hi @Spintendo

I hope you're well. I wanted to circle back here to chat with you about my consensus posting on Joe Kiani's Talk page. I followed your recommendation to post on the WikiProject Biography page and have not received any responses. I fear that my post has gotten buried on that page. Are there any suggestions you have whether it be other WikiProject pages, or something different I can try to gain some traction on this discussion?

I appreciate all of your help thus far!

Masimo58 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that there has been no movement on this issue. If there is no consensus to remove the information, then the section remains until one is achieved. I believe the fact that there is only one primary source and no reliable secondary sources makes this section problematic (WP:BLPPRIMARY). Perhaps if that avenue had been mentioned in the talk page request for consensus, rather than a focus on WP:NPOV and crystal ball, there might have been additional editor involvement (the section asking editors to place their comments in pro/against columns is also not the right touch^[a]). As far as NPOV is concerned, the primary source being used here (a government source) seems biased (as it depends greatly on who is running that part of the govt). However, the article is no stranger to questionable sourcing (Inside Philanthropy, Orange County Business Journal, masimo.com, Patient Safety Movement, etc.) as well as its own use of govt sourcing (Kiani's Senate testimony and HHS documents) highlighting the subject's laurels, enough that it appears to balance the controversy section (WP:BALASP). The request for consensus should stay open though, to allow for editors to comment if they wish.

Notes

[a]
Discussions regarding consensus should be allowed to grow naturally as any other discussion on the talk page does. Those discussion aren't really about placing editors into "oppose" or "support", at least at the outset.

Regards, Spintendo 03:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Dahua Technology

Edward Jones Edit Request (In Progress)

BeiGene

Hello, could you tell us why you deleted content of vishuddhananda Paramhamsa?

GAN

Teleperformance

GANReviewTool

Note about Thoma Bravo

Barnstar for COI edit request work

Darius Jones bio

question re: Greystar Real Estate Partners

Relevant discussion User talk:Spintendo § Question about Wikilinking companies

Hi! Re: your feedback at Talk:Greystar Real Estate Partners – Is the idea that if those business units don't have their own articles, information about them isn't notable enough to be in the company article? Wouldn't best practice be to build up information in the main Greystar article (as RS coverage deems it notable) and then WP:SPLIT if it becomes unwieldy? I haven't been able to find more specific guidance on this, so any insight you're up to share would be really appreciated, and I'll take it into account in my future work. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@MaryGaulke: Thank you for your question, I think it's a very important one. My viewpoints on including the mentioning of notable companies in articles are best explained in this talk page post where I describe the varying pages of Wikipedia guidance which have shaped my philosophy on this topic over the years. Please feel free to have a look there. For the sake of WP:TLDR, the jist of it would be WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states the following under No. #6:

Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.

The mentioning of various related companies in a subject company's Wikipedia article is, in essence, to list them in that article. I believe that would make WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply. There is also WP:NOTNEWS, which states the following under No. #2:

Ensure that Wikipedia articles do not become merely reporters of news. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (in an article).

Because Wikipedia "considers the enduring notability of persons and events", I believe that asking for the notability of companies mentioned in a subject company's Wikipedia article is an incredibly important step in determining whether or not that information is included in the article. If you have any additional questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask me here in this thread. Thank you! Regards, Spintendo 23:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Belated thank you! This was really helpful. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Updates to Adah Almutairi

Best selling artist

Hello Spintendo Happy new year You answered not done in the “ Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023” at “Talk: List of best-seling music artists” about Lady Gaga figures You cited “please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made”. I can’t continue the talk there. The source is indeed the White Hourse, onde Gaga is co-chair of the Arts commite. There are some considerations the editors need to make: - 170 million records sold represent Lady Gaga's so-called pure sales. - First, because this goes against the claimed sales before streaming became standard in the music industry. In January 2016, Billboard reported that Gaga had already sold 27 million albums and 146 million singles, therefore 173 million records. Source: https://www.billboard.com/pro/lady-gaga-signs-caa/ Note that Billboard explicitly uses the term “sold” not “equivalent sales” or otherwise and that this information is 7 years old. According to the article's definitions: “Gold/Platinum certifications issued after 2016, especially on singles, are in some cases more than 50% streaming generated”. Well, we're using an earlier period. - Second, because Lady Gaga's own team has already revealed the numbers of copies generated by streamings: 275 million in song consumption as stated in the author information section in the book “Channel Kindness: Stories of Kindness and Community” released by her in 2020 (numbers of this year). Source: https://www.amazon.com/Channel-Kindness-Stories-Community/dp/1250245583 - Third, because in a press release released last year for the Chromatica Ball Tour in London, it updated the numbers in 2022: 393 million in song consumption. Source: https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/2022/march/lady-gaga-announces-two-concert-dates-at-tottenham-hotspur-stadium/ - Fourth: Lady Gaga would have more than 75% of sales with certifications. - Fifth : in fact Lady Gaga's claimed sales are even greater than 170 million, so this number is reasonable. - Last: Other musicians figures are updated almost monthly, but no update was made for Gaga in years. Is there any explanation for this? By the way, her own Wiki page cites 170 Million Records Matheushpdutra (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this information. It looks as if the information on the page that you had flagged as needing to be changed was, according to you, not correct in some manner. Just to confirm, is this because the data was not being reported according to how the revised (since 2016) figures were being tabulated by Billboard? Please advise. Regards, Spintendo 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The current source for Lady Gaga sales claimes are from February 2014 (almost 10 years ago). For some reason, everytime I request an edit, it’s not approved. The 170 million mark is supported by Billboard and comes from a period before streams take over control. However, at this point, not even with the sources I bring, editors are not willing to update. So, if I may, I ask you to update her sales to 170 million, using the White House page as reference, it’s the most recent (from her nomination to Arts comitee) and are the source from her own Wikipedia page, which is also protected from editors. Matheushpdutra (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for your reply. The source that you'd like to use, I believe you called it the "white house" source, is that an official source for these types of figures? I would think that any figures we post on the page ought to originate from an authority which is regularly depended upon to release such figures, That would ensure that any changes we make are lasting. Thank you for your help. Regards, Spintendo 09:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if we understand that White House - a.k.a. from the US government - is not an official source for it (by the way, I think that and government source should be consider a official source), the numbers (170 millions) is almost the same as the ones cited by Billboard (173 millions). To me, that’s the point. There’s multiple sources to use for 170 million records. Her actual source is from a not so well now aussie newspaper. Matheushpdutra (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Date of Birth update

YouGov article

Replied to: Additional revised content proposed for "Icarus" on Bryan Fogel page

Hi Spintendo,

Reaching out here to let you know I've provided a reply with suggested revisions per your comments that were submitted on Aug 19th. I'd very much appreciate your review to help to finalize these revisions and close out the Topic for "Icarus" here. Please scroll to bottom for the latest proposal. Thank you again in advance for your time in reviewing, hoping I've re-written the content to receive your approval for live edits per your helpful suggestions. Jeremycohen333 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Responded on article's talk page. Spintendo 21:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you good sir! I’ve added a Reply at the bottom of the Topic section underneath your most recent reply. Please do let me know if these revisions addressed your commentary and recommendations. Many thanks! Jeremycohen333 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, letting you know I’ve replied to your request and have reviewed and approve your summation of the proposed changes analysis of Fogel in relation to the topic of this documentary and would like to proceed in that next step for another editor to review and offer feedback. Much appreciated when you get the opportunity to post. Jeremycohen333 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo,

As mentioned in the prior reply above, I’ve confirmed on Bryan Fogel’s Talk page regarding your recommendation for another editor to review our current discussion for the proposed changes found here. Talk:Bryan Fogel#c-Jeremycohen333-20231129181000-Spintendo-20231106230900

Please do let me know if we can proceed as you suggested, as you were to prepare on the talk page the proper steps to submit.

It appears you’ve been quite busy and I’ve been standing by for some time now.

If you can advise on alternative steps I can take personally to get this proposal in front of another editor to review that would be helpful I’d like to finalize this section please and thank you in advance for your reply. Best, Jeremycohen333 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Jeremycohen333 I just saw this message now, sorry for the delay. I'll head over to that page so we can continue the discussion there. Regards, Spintendo 00:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, Happy New Year! Letting you know I added minimal feedback, just a few notes on your revisions summary on Dec-27 here. Thank you. Jeremycohen333 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, just following up on this topic and getting that additional editor on board to help finalize proposed changes. Thanks! Jeremycohen333 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Reply 18-Jan-2024

Hey Spintendo, I've posted a follow up under the Talk page topic for "Icarus" here: Talk:Bryan Fogel#c-Jeremycohen333-20240118214600-Jeremycohen333-20231227064300 so you will be able to see my response to the proposal for the 3rd party editor to review. Many thanks in advance when you have some time to review and to help facilitate the editor's review, and I'll help finalize immediately to help close out this edit request. Thank you so much! Jeremycohen333 (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I’m reviewing my proposed revisions to the content for the 3rd party editor. Perhaps I can supply you with the actual content in the preferred order of appearance with the references so it’s clear as to the changes from Fogel’s current article under “Icarus”, therefore you would be more streamlined to be submitted for their assessment of proposed changes? LMK thank you. Jeremycohen333 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Geotab

Rosemarie Scolaro Moser

BPP University

Lubos Pastor Edit Request

Quarter Pounder: Reply to my edit request

COI assistance

Interview request

Follow up on proposed edits to Bryan Fogel “Icarus”

Amendment to Quarter Pounder Page

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Quarter Pounder#Amendment to Quarter Pounder Page

Hi, I believe you had trouble accessing the URL I had provided on 9 November in my edit request so I replied to you on the page on 30 November with a new URL and I wondered if you have had chance to review it yet please?

I would be grateful if you can delete: "Quarter Pounder" is a trademark in the United States, but restaurants in other countries have been able to use similar names for their own products, such as the British Wimpy chain's "Quarterpounder."

This is factually incorrect as no other restaurants have been permitted to use Quarter Pounder; any use by British Wimpy is unauthorised. Further, Quarter Pounder is not just registered in the US, it's very widely registered, in 61 countries, so the statement "Quarter Pounder" is a trademark in the United States" is misleading to readers as they may think it is only a US mark.

Many thanks IntangibleAssetEnthusiast (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@IntangibleAssetEnthusiast Thank you IntangibleAssetEnthusiast for contacting me about this, it's much appreciated. If you could tell me again which article this is regarding, I would be happy to take a look at it. Regards, Spintendo 20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Responded on article's talk page. Spintendo 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the amendment I requested to the Quarter Pounder page, I looked into the old NZ trade mark you sent me the link for on 27 Dec and replied to you on 12 January.

I wondered if you have had chance to consider my reply?

Thanks so much IntangibleAssetEnthusiast (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, please can you reply to my message of 12 January on the Quarter Pounder page? Really keen to resolve this issue but having trouble getting hold of you. many thanks IntangibleAssetEnthusiast (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Spintendo I haven't heard back from you since 12 January. Please can you review my response on the Quarter Pounder talk page and revert? Thanks so much IntangibleAssetEnthusiast (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Spintendo - please can you reply to my message of 12 January on the Quarter Pounder talk page? Many thanks IntangibleAssetEnthusiast (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	The main problem we're currently experiencing is the lack of Spintendo. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for the little edits man. you still alive? Infinitepeace (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Dear Spintendo, Thank you so much with all your brilliant advice, editing and help with Mark Reed (sculptor) article. Your knowledge and impartial advice is hugely appreciated. Many thanks again, Hannah Hannahlucy100 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You are a one person-machine with edit requests. It is a thankless task, and not an easy one. Your reviews are always high-quality, despite the insane number you get through in a given period of time. Thank you! House Blaster^talk 22:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Noticed your spectacular job on the volume and quality of COI edit requests! WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	This very belated barnstar is awarded for a combination of patience in dealing with tendentious behavior by entitled paid editor and others in working the edit-request queue, and for the marvelous turn of phrase hermeneutically identical and semiotically indistinguishable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Notes

Reply 18-Jan-2024

Request for Response on Proposed Changes 30-MAR-2024

09-APRIL-2024 - Following Up on Proposed Changes

Related Articles