User talk:Spintendo

Re: AACSB’s 3-May-2019 edit request

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

Two examples could be:

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

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

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

84.246.29.14 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Fannychka

  Wrong venue  

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

Changed citations to Citation Style 1 for Tegile Systems updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Wiki page Richard Lathe

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

That was done. Please advise

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

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  19:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidance requested

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

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

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  15:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

clarification

I don't want to give the impression I am following you around. I am following around one particular paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: No worries here Regards,  Spintendo  18:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

seeking clarification

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

@Timothy Ferdinand: Thank you for your questions. I'll answer them in the order you asked them.

1. The benefit to you in using the edit request system is that it is in accordance with the generally established, community-approved way of COI editors making changes to an article. However, the edits that are made through edit requests are not "locked in" because anyone is open to edit, for that is the nature of Wikipedia. Those edits which follow approved suggestive guidelines for how to make edit requests are seen by the community as having more merit in the long run, but they have no superior status over any other edits which are made (and which follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines). For example, the edits made by the other editor to the article that you mentioned will likely be seen as having less merit, and might be reverted (more on that below).
2. Anyone can edit an article, as there is no prohibition on editing for those with a COI. The only requirement is that all edits to Wikipedia must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is a policy which states that editors who use a username that implies they are affiliated with a company cannot make edits to articles. This means that the edits you referred to in your post by the editor WeAreNoble run the risk of being reverted and that user runs the risk of being blocked because their username implies that they are a part of the company. So in this case, relying on their edits may not work out in the end, demonstrating that your best chance for having the changes you want made in the long run still rests with having a neutral third party (be it myself, or any other editor who is not affiliated with Noble Group) make the edits for you by using the edit request system.

I would like to add that my ability to implement well written and well formatted edits is only as good as the completeness of the edit requests which I receive. If there are issues with the wording or the formatting, then those issues can cause delays in getting the edits made, if they are made at all. But working together to solve the issues is easily done, and I'm more than happy to work with you on the issues which your request presents. Regards,  Spintendo  04:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

/* Some proposed changes */ Follow-up on Beacon College proposed edits

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

Thank you for your feedback.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  05:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Did I ever thank you for the amount of time you're spending on answering edit requests, detailledly, clearing a backlog that few other editors would be able to keep empty? I am amazed by your work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

requested edit for Victor Vescovo has been updated

Hello Spintendo, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victor_Vescovo updated request from your feedback with a different citation with the dive date for confirmation. Thank you, it is "Deepest Ever Submarine Dive Made by Five Deeps Expedition". The Maritime Executive. 2019-05-14. Retrieved 3 June 2019.--177.67.80.61 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

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

Wyss Foundation

Hello. Earlier last month, I noticed you removed an entire section about the Wyss Campaign for Nature from the Wyss Foundation article. I asked for clarification at Talk:Wyss Foundation, but haven’t received any feedback yet. I understand a standalone subsection may not necessary, but since the campaign is ongoing and has received plenty of coverage, I’m wondering if mention of the Wyss Campaign for Nature should be added back in a reduced or present-tense form. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Response given on the article's talk page.  Spintendo  08:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on your feedback, and given the amount of coverage received, I've proposed adding back a short mention of the campaign on the article's talk page. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

/* Some proposed changes */ Follow-up on Beacon College proposed edits

Good morning, Spintendo:

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

Again, I appreciate your gracious response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet they don't.

Yet, their articles pass muster.

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

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

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

What recourse does Beacon College have in this matter?

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

Need some help responding to your question

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

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

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

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your work with COI editors. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Valeree submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

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

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

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)