Spintendo

Appreciate the review

While I appreciate the review and the effort you put into it, the amount of time it would have taken to rewrite the whole article. It would have been way, way too long. Probably months. And when you said the issues were "insurmountable", I knew the review ended right there. I didn't want to waste any more of your time, as it made me feel so discouraged and want to stop editing. Thank you again for the review. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. Some of my own, in response to yours:

1. "The reviewer for the GA nom has compared the article to Kaczynski, which is at FA level. GA and FA levels are completely different, so it makes no sense why they are comparing these two."
   1. There is a difference between comparing and judging. While I compared the Rodger article to the Unabomber article in my arguments, I stil judged it according to WP:GAC. My reason for making the comparison is that I believe comparisons work well in content discussions. They help to highlight diferences, and they help to challenge assumptions. FA level articles must be doing something right, and should be the ideal that every editor ascribes to. You can't help looking at the Kaczynski article and marvel at how, despite having to meet the more rigorous criterion of "completeness", the overall length of the article was still shorter than the Rodger article. The length of the sections describing Kaczynski's manifesto were shorter than that of the Rodger article. I'm puzzled why you haven't asked yourself why that is.
2. "What a waste of time, honestly. I spent two months reworking everything"
   1. And yet, as Tarnished said, "Looking on the plus side, the article has improved quite a bit " which I take to be a compliment. Any time spent on the general improvement of an article ought not to be seen as a "waste". Besides, I'd bet that the 60 days we spent working on this would still occassionally beat the time spent working on other comparatively-sized GANs. Regards,  Spintendo  04:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Notes

COI Edit Response

Hey Spintendo, I saw that you've responded to some COI edit requests by closing them for inactivity. To me, this doesn't really make much sense; the edit requests were made so that people could respond, and I've never seen anyone else do this. Isn't it usually assumed that if no one says otherwise (and the additions/removals match P&Gs), that it's fine to action a request?

If I were making a COI request, I too would make a request and wait patiently, I wouldn't think to "[make] contact with local editors on those editor's own talk pages, and then [move] those discussions back to this talk page." InfernoHues (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues: I usually only apply that reasoning in instances where at least 3 weeks (22 days) have passed after an initial back and forth between a requesting editor and a reviewing editor which has gone cold. If there are any where that is not the case, please let me know, so I may rectify them. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  10:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

My concern is that this doesn't match the guidance COI editors are given regarding edit requests. I've answered COI requests myself, and the age of the request has never been a factor. Requestors often ask about the wait at the Teahouse or Help Desk and the response is always to just be patient.

Additionally, if as a local editor, someone tried to "make contact" on my talk page, I would just tell them to make an edit request. I don't think this reasoning should be used to decline an edit request. InfernoHues (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, though I'd be interested in whether there's a discussion about the best way to approach it. I actually came here to ask about a specific line in the response, the talk pages of the WikiProjects which govern this article. It gives me pause whenever something suggests that WikiProjects have any sort of authority or additional say over an article, so I wanted to ask about the word "govern" specifically. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues: Whenever there is an extended break in communications between the reviewing editor or the requesting editor—because either one of them have not responded in 3 weeks—that request can be closed as needing more discussion. The older {{Requested edit}} template, when that one was used for COI edit requests 9 years ago before being changed to {{EditCOI}} about 3 years ago, actually had a {{Requested edit|D|D}} answer parameter for responding editors to use when this breakdown in communication occurred. The COI editor is able to respond to this inactivation by placing a newer template in a new request or reopening the older request's template. There is no time limit for them to perform either of those actions, they can do it whenever they want. The first blue link in WP:COIRESPONSE links to Wikipedia:Edit requests where Further information needed describes what I've just said. The goal here is to maintain active communication, and when that breaks down, the request can be inactivated (and conversely reactivated, at will).

".. if as a local editor, someone tried to "make contact" on my talk page, I would just tell them to make an edit request. I don't think this reasoning should be used to decline an edit request. The reply I gave to which you're referring states:

The COI editor is urged to revive stalled communications by making contact with local editors on those editor's own talk pages, and then by moving those discussions back to this talk page.

This advice is to revive stalled communications. In your scenario, you wouldn't have an editor trying to contact you to "revive" something that never existed. Oftentimes there are scenarios where there's not just the reviewing editor, but other editors have chimed in; or where 2 or more editors have replied with advice to the COI editor and yet, it's still not clear who has officially assumed the reviewer role. And when those conversations for whatever reason taper off with {{EditCOI}} still remaining active, something must be done to spur these, now silent parties, to speak up. It's been my experience that you get faster results by turning the template off for a time, than by simply leaving it on and hoping someone (anyone) will respond. So my advice for COI editors in those circumstances is to contact not just the now-absent reviewing editor, but to involve any other local editors who may have chimed in with advice or an observation, but are now, no longer responding.

@Thebiguglyalien: As for WikiProjects, the reason why those are listed at the top of most talk pages is for local editors to network with each other with the goal of improving the article. Reminding a COI editor of that resource which is available to them is a good idea, as it's been my experience that COI editors often overlook their article's WikiProjects as a potential resource for handling their requests. As far as "govern", it is the shared expertise of editors who associate themselves with the projects and their collective wisdom which "governs the articles". Owing to your confusion, perhaps "informs the article" would be a more useful phrase than "governs". Regards,  Spintendo  17:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, do you still use that message if no one has responded to the COI request? InfernoHues (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if no one has responded to the request I wouldn't normally use that response, so if you come across any that have that response, or where the circumstances were that someone had responded but it was for another thread or another unrelated request, please let me know so I can correct them. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  18:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks! InfernoHues (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Follow up on Talk:Zain Verjee CS1 resubmission

Hello Spintendo. Thank you for the detailed feedback on my edit request at Talk:Zain Verjee. I resubmitted on 27 May 2026 with fully formatted CS1 citations as you requested. The new section is titled "Edit request with CS1 citations — COI declared (resubmission per Spintendo, 26 May 2026)". I wanted to flag it to you directly in case it would be helpful. Thank you so much for your time. MediaEditorJNL (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Resubmit acknowledged.   I'm happy to review this in just a moment here. Regards,  Spintendo  02:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Regards,  Spintendo  08:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the Koch snowflake review

Just wanted to say thank you for reviewing and implementing my COI edit request at Talk:Koch snowflake. Appreciated. Piotrma912 (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

MyFitnessPal

You left helpful feedback on my MyFitnessPal requests. I responded with a new request that strips out the problematic sources you identified. If you have a chance to reassess, I'd really appreciate it. You're the only person who has given me advice so far, so thank you again! Rebecca at MyFitnessPal (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.    Spintendo  19:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I responded again on the article talk page with updated page numbers. Rebecca at MyFitnessPal (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

 Requested changes made.  Spintendo  23:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Question about Unite America article

Are you available to reassess the request I posted on the Unite America talk page]? I apologize that my initial request wasn't clear about the objective of the update. I've revised the request to clarify. I'm also happy to suggest more granular updates if that's helpful. KS at Unite America (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.    Spintendo  09:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The Intercept COI edit request

Hi! Thanks for your feedback on my edit request for The Intercept. Just a heads up that I've replied with a clarifying question there. (Another editor also replied.) Would really appreciate your thoughts when you have a moment. Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.    Spintendo  02:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Halara COI edit request

Hello Spintendo, Thank you for your feedback on my edit request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halara. I've submitted a revised request addressing the concerns you raised on June 17. If you have a chance to take another look when convenient, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time. FreshCoffee007 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

 Resubmit acknowledged.   I'll be happy to take another look at this shortly. Regards,  Spintendo  23:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Requested changes partially made.  Spintendo  07:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Kalshi

Hi Spintendo, thanks for your initial review of my requests on Kalshi. I did as you suggested and re-opened the template after answering your questions. Looking forward to your further thoughts. Thanks, EG Kalshi (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

 Resubmit acknowledged.   I'm happy to take another look at this, thank you for the rewrite. Regards,  Spintendo  23:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Requested changes approved with minor adjustments. Regards,  Spintendo  08:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for thinking through the sports percentage question on my recent request. I replied with a clarification and possible solution. Looking forward to your feedback when you are able. EG Kalshi (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.   Spintendo  01:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Article for Editor Review

Spintendo - Thank you for the advice you provided to change my COI Neutralized Draft below for Review to a format that reformulates the edit request so the article clearly aligns each reference with its claim statement. I have now resubmitted the revised article draft per your instructions with ref tags and complete reference list. Note that I developed the revised format in my Sandbox and submitted it for review from there. However, there is a banner that states "This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined." I'm now confused as to the status of my COI Edit Request: Neutralized Draft for Review. When you have a chance, please clarify why that statement is there and if the revised draft that I just submitted is in fact currently awaiting review and will be seen by Editors. Regards Dezignr (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dezignr: The problem with your draft is that, according to you, it's originating from your sandbox: "Note that I developed the revised format in my Sandbox and submitted it for review from there." Sandboxes are pages designed for testing and experimenting with wiki syntax and the VisualEditor. They were created as spaces with fewer rules and policies than other pages on Wikipedia, and as such, they are not actively monitored by the editor community. This makes them unacceptable places to propose articles or make requests for editing assistance. I hope this helps answer your question. Regards,  Spintendo  09:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

David Richards COI Request

Hi Spintendo, thank you for your guidance on citation styles in my edit request for David Richards (motorsport executive). I have added a further comment linking to a suggested rewrite for the article which uses the correct citation style.

Are you content to work using this full rewrite, or would you like us to suggest multiple edits to the same effect? Happy to do whichever is easiest. Lauren.ball.tala (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.   Spintendo  23:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again. Have formatted as suggested. Lauren.ball.tala (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.   Spintendo  00:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Hi Spintendo, in case you didn't see it, I replied to your question on the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Talk page. Happy to continue the conversation there if you're still interested. Danilo Two (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, Thanks again for looking into this. Danilo Two (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.    Spintendo  21:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

COI request on Henley & Partners – a small typo correction

Hi @Spintendo, thanks again for weighing in on my request on Henley & Partners - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henley_%26_Partners#Updating_key_people

There is a small typo error. There is a missing round closing bracket in the infobox ) after Philippe Amarante (Head of Government Advisory

Could you please add the closing bracket, so it reads as Philippe Amarante (Head of Government Advisory)

Thanks in advance!Sarah Nicklin (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

 Requested changes made.   Spintendo  23:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Spintendo, thanks for weighing in on my request.Sarah Nicklin (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Bryan Johnson

Hi @Spintendo:, thanks for reviewing the last couple of edit requests on the Bryan Johnson page so quickly, I was expecting a longer wait.

Based on the feedback of the last two requests, I had a couple of thoughts and was wondering what your view is. First, the current structure in Bryan's career section seems to encourage content forks about businesses he founded, as they are essentially summaries of each business. Do you think some restructuring of the career section might be appropriate to resolve this?

Second, do you think the material from the recent edit requests would have been more likely to gain consensus if it had been proposed for the Kernel page rather than the page about Bryan? ScirioMC (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

You're correct on the logic of entreprenuer articles, where a subject's different endeavors seem to encourage sectioning. The solution is to resist that encouragement by nakedly placing the information without subheadings into the Career section and letting the original purpose of paragraphs do the work that the subsections are now doing.

There are 6 subsections; 3 of these are to the subject's 3 WP:N ventures, which should transition to 3 or more paragraphs. 2 of the 6—Early ventures and Blueprint—ought not to have had subsections to begin with. The 6th subsection about confidentiality agreements is effectively acting as a WP:CSECTION, so the need to remove and re-integrate it as a plain paragraph of the Career section is heightened.

I think Kernel information belongs in the Kernel article. That article is already demure which should act as a benefit to getting additional information placed there. Regards,  Spintendo  01:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Spintendo:, I appreciate the in-depth reply and also for outlining where you think his article could be improved/changed. I have just submitted a different request, but for the one after that I will begin implementing some of your suggestions.ScirioMC (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Locations section for Budget Rent a Car

Hi Spintendo! Would you mind taking another look at this reopened request on the Budget article? I've updated the Locations section you removed previously, and wanted to flag it for review. Best BatBINK (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

 Resubmit acknowledged.   I'll be happy to take a look at this shortly.  Spintendo  02:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

 Requested changes made.  I've re-added the Locations section information. Regards,  Spintendo  03:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look here! BatBINK (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Update bunq request

Hello Spintendo, I appreciate the response you gave me on my request to add an Operations section to the bunq article. I made some revisions to the request [[Talk:Bunq#Reply_15-JUN-2026|here]] based on your feedback, and was wondering if you'd be willing to take another look. Thanks! ~~~~

Bunq V (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

 Resubmit acknowledged.  I'll be happy to take a look at this shortly.  Spintendo  02:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.   Spintendo  04:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Informa

Hi @Spintendo, thank you for reviewing my request. I have carried out the changes you have requested with Dormskirk happy for it to be implemented if you approve.

Would you mind having a look at the request when you have a moment? Thank you! HisNamesJim (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's not known what article you're talking about. Please re-link it here so that I may take a look at it. Thank you!  Spintendo  04:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

No problem Spintendo. This is the link to the talk page discussion and thanks again! HisNamesJim (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Re-opened request on Certinia article

Hey Spintendo! I've re-opened my request on the Certinia article, and made changes based on your feedback. When you get a chance, feel free to take a look. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks in advance for taking a look! Mikeatcertinia (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

 Resubmit acknowledged.  I'll be happy to take a look at this shortly.  Spintendo  02:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.   Spintendo  04:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Mike Sievert and Srini Gopalan edit requests

Hi! I've replied to your feedback on my COI edit requests for Mike Sievert and Srini Gopalan. Would really appreciate your thoughts when you have a moment. Thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

 Responses given at those article's respective talk pages.   Spintendo  01:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

References added to Cover-More page

Hi Spintendo and thanks for reviewing my requested changes on the Cover-More page. I have added the references you requested. I was hoping you could take another look? Thanks, Maureen MJMullins (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.   Spintendo  04:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)