Replied to: Additional revised content proposed for "Icarus" on Bryan Fogel page[edit]
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)Reply[reply]
Responded on article's talk page.Spintendo 21:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Hi Spintendo, I added a translation for you on the Teleperformance Talk page. Do you have a minute to take a look? Thanks for your help. ~~~~ ANishina (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responded on article's talk page.Spintendo 23:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Spintendo, I've modified the requested update to include a wikilink. I look forward to your thoughts, ANishina (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responded on article's talk page.Spintendo 18:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Spintendo. Can you take a look at the recent deletion of two sentences that you added to Adam Neumann following an edit request? You can check the diff here. I would really appreciate it if you could reinstate this information. Thanks, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Carlos and thank you for the message, although I must admit I'm a bit puzzled. It sounds as if you're asking for me to revert an edit made by Drmies. For me to do that, I'm afraid I would require a good reason (a very substantial good reason). Drmies has been a familiar editor to me for many years. For such is the strength of my faith in their edits, that I find it hard to believe a good enough level of reasoning could ever be provided to overturn one of them. Please feel free to elaborate here if you wish, but I would suggest contacting them directly on their talk page to see if they could expound on their reasons for that information being removed, which I'm sure they would be happy to provide. The original source which was used for that claim, which was CNN if I remember correctly, was good enough to use at the time I thought, although Drmies may know better, I can't say for sure. Best to ask them in order to know for certain. Let me know if I can offer any other help with this matter. Regards, Spintendo 11:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Spintendo. Of course, you are correct and I should have approached Drmies before coming to you. I have taken your advice and I am now in a discussion with Drmies on Talk:Adam_Neumann#Reply_5-JUL-2023, and have pinged you as well in case you would like to join in to the conversation. I hope this hasn't been a bother for you. I do appreciate how much work you do for Wikipedia. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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.
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
References
^"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.
@Dorset Wilts I would be happy to take a look at this. I've also reactivated your original edit request template to let other editors take a look at this, in case I don't get to it first. Thanks for your help. Regards, Spintendo 17:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@XOR'easter This looks like an excellent resource, definitely bookmarking this. Thank you again for all your input and assistance! Regards, Spintendo 05:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
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)Reply[reply]
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?
Consensus flowchart 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
^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.
Hi @Spintendo - sorry to bug you here, but I wanted to see if you'd be willing to finish reviewing the partly done edit request posted to Edward Jones Investments' Talk page on November 2nd? I appreciate the edits you've made thus far and was just hoping to bring that to a close. Thank you! Jon Gray (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responded on article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo 00:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Responded on article's talk page.Spintendo 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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?
Hello, could you tell us why you deleted content of vishuddhananda Paramhamsa?[edit]
Hello Sir, Vishuddhananda Paramhamsa is a great personality who influenced many people and did a great service to humanity. It's disheartening to see his content deleted from wikipedia. Please explain why you did this? Thanks, Lavanya Lavanyaarcot (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text was removed because the entirety of it was copy-pasted from shivayoga.net. You can only copy a small amount of that source's text, and 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. Aside from limited quotation, any information that you get from sources like these needs to be put in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here. Even when 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. (SeeWP:NFCCEG for more info about these requirements.) Regards, Spintendo 09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Sir, Vishuddhananda Paramhamsa, a remarkable figure who significantly impacted numerous individuals and contributed greatly to humanity, has had his content removed from Wikipedia. Could you please clarify the reason behind this decision? Scsamanta (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Spintendo, I left a few questions for you on the Adah Almutairi talk page. Please review when you get a chance. Thank you. Coquelicots0 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responded on article's talk page.Spintendo 16:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! @Spintendo I made updates on the article's talk page. Coquelicots0 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responded on article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo 16:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, my bad, I thought I was waiting on you. I don't see that every bullet point has a response to it, there are many left unresolved — each one should have done or not done attached to it, that way I can go back and easily check to see what's been addressed. Spintendo 15:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! I just got a question about an edit request at Talk:Thoma Bravo, in which an editor never received a response to a question they asked. I am assuming you just missed the ping; would you be able to take a look at this comment? Best, HouseBlastertalk 22:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly will, and thank you for notifying me about their message — it's greatly appreciated! Regards, Spintendo 22:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, I responded again at the Thoma Bravo talk page. JBarTB (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
Belated thank you! This was really helpful. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey there. I saw an error in my error log. Looks like it was an http error, which means there was some kind of Internet problem during using the tool. If you were to reinstall it and try again on your next GA, it would probably work. Just wanted to let you know. Happy holidays :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Thank you for reaching out about this, it's unfortunate the script ran into difficulty. If there's one thing I love, it's technological shortcuts — so I was looking forward to trying your script. But no worries, I ended up closing the GA the old fashioned way, so we'll just have to try and give it a shot next time, hopefully it'll be smooth sailing. Thanks again! Spintendo 15:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Spintendo – happy new year!
Reaching out here to let you know that I’ve provided a reply to your comments regarding my suggested edits on the YouGov page – Talk:YouGov
I’ve removed all of the sources you preferred I avoid using and hopefully we’re closer to making progress.
Thank you for your time in reviewing and do let me know of any further feedback.
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Hi, I hope I’m not bothering you. I just wanted to make sure I didn’t do something to cause the bio update to be blocked? I revised a few minor things in my edit request (for example, the album title is fLuXkit, not FLuXkit) and I hope those last minute edits didn’t raise a red flag or something. Thanks again ITperson1 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be possible for you to let me know why progress was halted on being able to update the page we were working on? I unsure how to proceed. Thank you. ITperson1 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Responded on article's talk page. Regards, Spintendo 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone has gone in and questioned my date of birth and age (for some reason). I was born June 12, 1980 (a fact which had been on my page for years). I'm just wondering what I need to do to verify that and update it.
Responded on article's talk page. Spintendo 21:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Responded on article's talk page. Spintendo 01:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
Relevant discussion at
Article in question: Vishuddhananda Paramahansa
Relevant discussion User_talk:Spintendo § Question_about_Wikilinking_companies
