Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 6 May 2018

This is Spintendo's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts User:Spintendo Category:Requested edits WP:WikiProject Fix common mistakes Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_California/San_Francisco Bay Area task force

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

COI-ER •••••••••••••••••• 50
SP-ER ••••••••••••••••••• 93
EP-ER ••••••••••••••••••• 91

Ken Xie

Hi! Checking in if you're interested in continuing our dialogue at Talk:Ken Xie. I've posted a thoroughly updated request and also replied to several of your previous comments. Let me know. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the article with the changes you've suggested. Let me know if I've missed anything.  Spintendo      19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Your further comments would be welcome. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Teradata article

Hi, Spintendo. It's taken me a while, but I have now had a chance to review the cladogram you proposed at Talk:Teradata with people at Teradata who are most knowledgeable with regards to this information, and I've posted a reply to you on the article's talk page. I also asked about adding information about the Teradata Analytics Platform to the "Technology and products" section instead of as a bullet point in the "Company milestones" section. Thanks for taking another look. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That was just one suggestion, but I don't want you to feel like you're stuck with that layout if there is another one that you'd prefer. It would be great to see what your top choices were on this again. Let me know how I can help.  Spintendo      17:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Spintendo. I saw your note on the Teradata talk page, and I've replied to you there. Thanks again for your work on the cladogram. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 00:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I've implemented those changes. Thank you for your help.  Spintendo      07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! I saw your updates to the article. Thanks again for your help. I did have a couple questions, though, which I've posted at Talk:Teradata. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 19:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I posted a 'thank you' message on the article's talk page, but wanted to thank you here as well. You've been a great help! Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Rittal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Miranda and San Fernando

Night of the Proms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blanche

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed  Spintendo      17:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

question about edit from April 11, 2018 for Josh Waitzkin

Hello Spintendo, Thank you for your help as I send numerous edits and learn how to navigate Wiki. My question/confusion....The reference Rocky Citro that I used for my edit was already on Misplaced Pages. I had edited a few words of the sentence the ref was used for. I took out the word "largest" in the original edit as you stated it was promotional so I changed wording for now until I can find a second source that Chessmaster is the "largest" computer chess game. Since I used the same reference that was already on Misplaced Pages, can't it be reused? I am just not understanding why it's no longer acceptable. Thank you so much for your advice/help. Opala22 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim that it is the largest chess program uses a descriptor which would be very difficult for most references to prove. For instance, some of the questions its use would inevitably raise would be largest how? Does this mean it is physically the largest program? Does it refer to its computing power? Or perhaps it refers to the size of its memory - but then would that be its operating memory or its storage memory? None of those answers are given by saying it is the largest. That is what I meant by the word not being initially acceptable for usage. One way to include this word would be to have several prominant references which all made the same claim that it is the largest, then it could be placed into the article.  Spintendo      16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Hey Spintendo, I just wanted to thank you for your patience and your help with my COI edit requests for AIG. I imagine you come under a lot of scrutiny from both sides, so I wanted to let you know that whether you're approving my edits or rejecting them, I appreciate that you're taking the time to review them at all. Going forward, I was curious if it would be better to reach out to you here for minor updates that may have been overlooked, or to edit or create a new edit request for review. For example, I realized that I mistakenly listed the removal of Bernard Connolly twice from the See also section rather than Bernard Connolly and MBIA. Similarly, would it have been best to change the answer parameter to "no" on David Cote request? At the time I wasn't aware that this would be an appropriate measure, but after your advice on AIG I was curious if that's your preferred way to flag you when I respond. I'll defer to your expertise, but I wanted to confirm if the conversation was fully closed at that point after you asked for guidance on my requested edits. Thanks again for all the help.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to change the edit request answer parameter from yes to no, that way it gives other editors a chance to add their input if they'd like to, plus it keeps all the past actions for that particular aspect of a request together in one spot in case other editors want to see how the request has been handled at other times. In this case I'll go ahead and look at that request.  Spintendo      19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the talk page, some of my questions have been answered, but others I would like input on to help me to better understand. So I've pinged other editors who have greater experience with the article to get their feedback, hopefully they will be able to help out on this subject. Regards,  Spintendo      19:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You previously helped me...but your changes were reversed

You were kind enough to help my BIO page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Dana_Ullman However, a long-time antagonist to me and to homeopathy has reverted this information...and other information. He actively works to delete any information that may seem to provide a positive side to homeopathy or to me. This editor chose to say that the link to the article in the famed BERKELEY BARB was not RS...and yet, this same editor has allowed a statement below into my bio for the past SEVERAL years (!) even though it is sourced to a BLOG: "Kimball Atwood coined the "Dull-Man Law" in vein of Godwin's Law to characterize Ullman's persistent, irrational, and self-serving arguments in online discussions defending homeopathy, which states "In any discussion involving science or medicine, being Dana Ullman loses you the argument immediately…and gets you laughed out of the room." It seems that as long as the information is antagonistic to homeopathy or me, it is OK to have it posted and protected. This editor reversed some other material for which the primary players in a research study were referenced as per their direct correspondence. "Just the facts, 'mam." DanaUllman 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that this happened. It was claimed that the source used was an alternative newspaper and that the link was a copyright violation, which is odd considering the newspaper is open access. Alternative sources are used on Misplaced Pages all the time, and the way I used it — as a primary source for the quotation of an interviewed public official only (the district attorney) I felt was an acceptable, non-medical use of the source. But Misplaced Pages is open for anyone to edit — even those who might feel they're on a moral crusade. And although editors like the one you're speaking of who may have strongly negative views of the subject of a biographical article should, in a perfect world, be especially careful to edit those articles neutrally — unfortunately this is not always the case. I'm afraid there is nothing that my involvement would do to change that. There are of course remedies open to you if you feel that the article depicts you in a bad light; you should contact WP:BLPN, as they may be able to help you in this regard.  Spintendo      06:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Before I go to WP:BLPN, does it make sense for you to ask this editor to explain the issues that you raised above...and to compare the RS with a "blog" that this editor left in the article? And if an adequate explanation is not provided, could you do a reversal? It would seem that this editor is not acting in good faith with his explanation to date. DanaUllman 13:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is not much for me to offer that could help. I think the editors at WP:BLPN would be of more assistance, and that is definitely something you should try first. I definitely don't think this is anything a simple talk with the editor involved would solve. I'm sorry that there isn't more I can do. Regards,  Spintendo      19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Confused

You asked for me to provide a reference for the requested change on Dave Snowden, but as far as I can see I provided it along with links to an article which described that field. I'm confused therefore as to what else you need -----Snowded 02:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What is needed is a reference to verify the information which you would like to be added. You suggested checking another Misplaced Pages article in order to get that information. The map in particular which you mentioned, I see the information is linked to the picture, and you mentioned that your name is in the top right quadrant of the picture. But I'm not sure why you couldn't provide those links here. Having editors perform difficult searches for information that you could more easily provide works against garnering assistance for the changes you'd like made. What is needed is for you to provide assistance by supplying outside references that substantiate the information you wish to have added to the article, rather than having others perform the searching for you. There are several names linked through this picture, which is not easy to navigate (there is no "search" button for instance). If you could provide the links which are connected to your name in the picture this process might be less confusing. Regards,   Spintendo      02:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think technically that might be original research, i.e. guessing the sources used by the academic at Kent State to create that chart which is a who's who of complexity science an long accepted on wikipedia. I've otherwise replied on the talk page of the article itself -----Snowded 08:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A question

Hello Spintendo, You have implemented some of my edits for Josh Waitzkin in Early Life section. Thank you. When will I actually see them on his Misplaced Pages bio. Thank you. Opala22 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The edits which I implemented from your request may be found here: 1., 2., 3.. To see these changes, you may need to WP:PURGE the article's cache. Regards,  Spintendo          16:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Jon Rose article

I've completed your suggested changes for the Jon Rose page, Spintendo. Thanks again for your excellent assistance. I've yet to see the page go up online. hollistHollist (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, I'll take a look at it and get back to you. Thanks!   SPINTENDO          00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hollist: I've had a look at the draft - that was a lot of work you did, and it looks great. The only things left that need to be corrected now are the areas of the reference list which are in red font, as these will need to be corrected before being implemented. It appears that these are mostly titles of the references which were used. To get the title, simply visit each website linked to a reference with a red title missing mark and note the title that the article or webpage uses. Then insert that title into the reference under the parameter marked "title=" right after the equal sign. The next step is to address some paraphrasing concerns. All articles need to be written in your own words, and there are a few areas of this draft which are insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. A list of what needs to be fixed may be found here. Not everything on that list will need to be rewritten. Titles of tracks and albums of course cannot be changed, but the software flags it as a copyvio anyways. Just ignore those instances. The areas to be concerned about are the first 4 or 5 paragraphs. When these changes are completed we can begin checking the references and moving portions into the article itself. Regards,   spintendo          03:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk: Alan Sabrosky

Hi! Appended a LONG work-up on my entry as a point of departure, and have just learned that Seraphim System is "wikibonked" (!) I am really amateurish about working with Misplaced Pages, will try and leave a message there, and would appreciate greatly ny assistance at all you could give with bringing Seraphim System into play or anything else. Many thanks, AlanDocbrosk1941 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature has two major issues in it. First, signatures should not contain templates (per WP:SIG#NT); you are using {{resize}}. Second, signatures should be ideally no more than 255 characters (per WP:SIGLENGTH); yours is a whopping 603! The template must be removed, and the length needs to be dropped significantly. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I'll get to work on fixing it.   spintendo          16:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:I have redone my signature. The revised size is now 287 characters. That involved the removal of 316 characters - a 52.4% reduction in overall size. I have also removed the resize template, so that now the signature is substituted only. This, as you know, is allowed as long as the editor monitors the substituted page diligently, which I do. I thank you for bringing this to my attention, and while there is no question these changes needed to be made, I would point out the circumstances in which they occurred, whereby my signature came to your attention through my efforts at offering assistance to a COI editor who knew little about Misplaced Pages. I knew little about the topic of the article they wanted edited, physics, but I did know enough about Misplaced Pages to know exactly where to look for help. That drive to offer assistance to another editor is what brought me to the physics talk page, where I posted and received not just amazingly quick help from the very informed editors there - but also, curiously, a rebuke for my signature transgressions. Just as your reminder was both necessary and justified — so too, was it confirmation, for me, of the age-old axiom which states no good deed goes unpunished. .spintendo⋅⋅) 07:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The League

Hello, a few months ago you were working on The League (app). An anonymous user — perhaps a COI user? — seems to be starting an edit-war, although I created a new section in the talk page and asked him (or her) not to systematically delete a template (User talk:69.143.107.97), assuming his (or her) content is not original research or just fake data. Would you please help us? Thank you Adrin10 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

Greetings. I appreciated your thoughts on the Berkeley Barb, though none of the detractors to my work have replied to your thoughtful comment and research. Sadly, in the meantime, a decision was made to delete my bio at Misplaced Pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Ullman_(2nd_nomination)#Dana_Ullman

Because you are a good neutral 3rd party, are you able to comment on this...or to do anything to resurrect my bio? It is remarkable that Misplaced Pages has chosen to delete the bio of a person who TIME magazine and ABC's 20/20 news program have deemed to be a leading spokesperson for the field of homeopathic medicine. Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals (NOTE: I certainly admit that there are also "negative" trials too...but as in ALL areas of medicine and science, there are studies with positive and negative results. DanaUllman 23:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)