User talk:Smartse/archive 20

Editor review

Stumbled upon something [1] that I thought you might have a keen eye for. This user looks like they may have a conflict of interest. Maybe not, but they do seem to be single purpose and most of their changes appear promotional in nature. I've passively followed happenings for a while and recalled that you had an eye for such. I could be totally wrong, in which case I will apologize to all parties. But just want to make sure nothing fishy is going on here. PassinDough (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Follow up

Hello, I'm sure you are following my talk page, but since a whole weekend has gone by since your message I wanted to make sure my response would not be lost among too many notifications. Have a nice day, Pplc (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey Smartse! I would like to mention the pages I edit are in no way connected to the user Hamine or provide any conflict of interest. I will do my best to illuminate this more thoroughly in the future. Thank you for your contribution and I hope we can work together soon on some more health related entries!BlakeRM (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

COI edit request

I recently posted a COI edit request on the GigSky wiki page. Here is the request: The GigSky Wiki page has two flags and I do not know how to get them removed. If I attempt to make any edits it will be a conflict of interest. I am concerned the flags create a negative impact for the company and would be grateful if a wiki editor can assist in fixing the issues pointed out by the flags. Thanks in advance for your help. Someone replied with the following - Any attempt to have these maintenance tags removed would best be met with Smartse's approval first. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Can you help? Thanks. Boomer1x (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:GigSky. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Mila Jam

Hi SmartSE. Hope all is well. I am new to Wikipedia but trying to figure out why Mila Jam's page was proposed for deletion. With dozens of reputable sources, I am trying to find a reason why but cannot in the Wikipedia rules. Please let me know if there is more information that I could provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolarsson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nicolarsson. The problem is that although there are many links, my check of them did not find any that provided "substantial independent coverage" of her. This is probably the best there is but it is just a brief mention in Billboard. The other references are mainly in publications that I would not consider reliable. It is slightly better now that it has been revealed she has another persona and the deletion discussion may decide to keep the article. Time will tell. SmartSE (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the response. While I do understand your point, I think that PAPERMAG, digital journal and Huffington Post are quite reputable. Is there somewhere I could read about the rules for articles qualifying as reliable, etc. for my future knowledge :) It also seems to make sense that her new combined wiki would stand seeing as the previous 'Britney Houston' page did. Thanks for your time! best

Amphibia

I've just been looking at your user page, and I was interested to notice the mention of NEWT. That was so long ago that it's quite amazing to suddenly be reminded of it. I was not a participant, but I was one of its "victims", in the sense of being one of the people who unwittingly edited a new article after it was created. I actually think that NEWT was a useful learning exercise for me, because although I was not criticised by anyone for what I did, it prompted me to think about what I had done, and I was not happy with what I did. I made a couple of trivial improvements to the article, but with a bit of effort I could have done much more, and improved it substantially. That encouraged me to think carefully about how I handled other new articles which had faults. You say on your user page that NEWT "seemed a good idea at the time", and I thought so too. In fact I was astonished at how much offence various people took. Oh well, as I said, it was a long time ago. Both you and I were at a fairly early stage in our Wikipedia careers, and I daresay both of us would have dealt with the matter very differently if it had come up now instead of back then. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

WizG

Hello SmartSE, I edited the tone of the article and added more reference sources and citations as requested to indicate WP:NMUSIC is met for the article WizG. Would you review for feedback? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Music (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DJ Music No amount of editing can make a subject notable. It's clear that they have not yet received coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Coverage in 4 print/electronic magazines and blogs... how many do they need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Music (talk • contribs) 23:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Music-allnew.com is a blog so not a reliable source. https://hbtmag.com/ is slightly better but it is of dubious reliability. So there's one poor source which discusses them. SmartSE (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We may agree that EDM.com is a reliable source ...combined with the external link presence on 9 music platforms, it may hold notoreity and credibility. Would you recommend leaving only the strongest references and removing the blog citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Music (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that is a single short paragraph about them - not the substantial coverage in multiple sources that we require. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Quiness

Dear Smartse, How are you? I say your prod tag on the Quiness article. I think going to remove that prod message. I don't think there is that much wrong with the articles, and those three articles provide a fair amount of coverage of quantum communication, of which there is a dearth of articles on that subject on Wikipedia. It is state of the art, and it is good to know we can address the need to provide those sort of articles, an the lead up to their development. We don't have a quantum communications articles, which is unfortunate, but these small articles can be used a stop gap. Re: the Quiness article, there seems to be only two references which are dodgy and need removed. It is mostly ok, but I will do a copyedit on it. scope_creep (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Good thanks. ^ Busy! Feel free to dispute it, but I see absolutely nothing there which indicates that it meets GNG. There are thousands of research programs conducted but which sources demonstrate this one was especially important? If there is good content that belongs elsewhere, then maybe we should userfy it, but having looked over all the other edits, this just seems like a part of a campaign to puff up Altman's achievements. I've just spot checked some of the sources in Quiness#Historical_firsts and none of them mention Quiness so how are we to know they had anything to do with it? That's why I mentioned OR in the PROD message because when articles are written by people so closely connected, they tend to add material which is unverifiable. Happy to discuss this further and get more inpit at AFD, but to me this is so clear cut, PROD didn't seem controversial. SmartSE (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well that worries me, that it is so clear cut, and indeed the OR aspect. Which is obviously good thing. I will have another look at it, at the weekend. It is very hard to quantify how notable these research projects are, it can only known in hindsight, which is unfortunate for the average reader seeking info. I'll see what my non tired brain says about it. What about the other couple of research numbers, I guess they are destined for the prod. scope_creep (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thank you for the changes made to my edits for the Joe Blackman page. I’m reasonably new, and sometimes (as I am sure you know) the technical side of editing can be slightly difficult to get to grips with! I appreciate the assistance. Best wishes Sazp1985 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed a reversion of one of the changes on the Joe Blackman page. One comment was the award was not notable, that particular award is a particularly high profile, business award. Is the main issue with this inclusion the lack of citing evidence showing the prestige of the award? I found some articles in the Telegraph and Sunday times which may be better sources if I changed this and added this in? What do you think. Thanks so much for your help! Sazp1985 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Sazp1985 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of IHRO Wiki Article

Hi Smartse,

Please let me know why you are nominating International Human Rights Organization page for deletion.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshivendu (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please reverse your decision to delete

I believe you were mistaken in making the decision to delete Ankur Jain under the G4 category. I find it hard to believe that you found the page I created as sufficiently identical to the previously deleted page. Please take another look at this decision.ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ankur Jain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankur Jain. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Telegram

Hello, Smartse. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alechkoist.
Message added 13:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- TNT^❤ 13:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Deep Eddy Vodka

You mentioned checkusers were looking at possible socking in that AfD. Did anything come of it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:Nope unfortunately not. I've asked the closing admin how they weighted those !votes though as well: User_talk:J04n#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deep_Eddy_Vodka. It probably needs to go to DRV. SmartSE (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi there. I got your notification on me being listed in the conflict of interest because of some of my recent edits. If its okay with you I would like to put my own defence on the matter.

I started editing on the Deep eddy vodka article when i came across it months ago. I myself am a Texan whose been editing alot of articles about Texas and other culture West of the Mississipi. Youcan see it in my edits on numerous articles like gunfighter, Johnson County War, the good, the bad and the ugly, Alan Wake, American frontier, jonah hex, cowboys etc. On the other article though, it was my first time making an page about an app (there is a first time for everything, and Wikipedia has never prohibited a certain user from making an article from a category he/she has never done before). You can see that in my own history. I can assure you that I have not made any similar articles before, and Im not planning on making more afterwards if it gets me in this list. Godzilladude123 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Godzilladude123: Thanks for your note. As I said, I was unsure either way, which is why I would like more editors to take a look. We should be discussing this at the conflict of interest noticeboard though rather than here. Can you (or I) copy your comment above to the relevant section? SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Rubin

Your suggestion honoured.--Taribuk (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Ryan Craig page

Good morning! I noticed that you edited the page on education writer Ryan Craig due to its "promotional" nature. Are there ways in which the page could be edited to remove some of the more problematic language?

Thanks very much! Benwatsky (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Benwatsky: Could you please answer the question I have just posted on your talk page first? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@SmartSE: Thanks for the prompt response. In response to your question, Ryan Craig is a paid client of my firm. The only edits that the firm has made to the page are on the title, and I appreciate your noting of the COI policy (which I have updated on my user page). Otherwise, our only engagement has been monitoring the page for any changes, hence my note to you. Please let me know if there's any further clarity I can provide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwatsky (talk • contribs)

@Benwatsky: Sorry about the delay in responding and thank you for disclosing your relationship. Can you explain about Tnjones522 who appeared out of nowhere and wrote the article on Ryan Craig? Did you commission someone else to write it for you? In answer to your initial question, while the article could be trimmed down to remove promotional material, the more important issue is that Ryan Craig does not appear to be notable and no amount of editing can change that. SmartSE (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Fusionex International

Hi Smartse, I just wanted to follow up on the deletion of the page - Fusionex International - I'd like to republish this page fundamentally rewritten as suggested in Wiki's guidelines G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Can you see any reason why I should not attempt to republish this, assuming it no longer contravenes Wiki's NOTFORPROMOTION guidelines?

Thank you. Mrfunbus (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Funbus: Hi. Thanks for asking. Unfortunately the answer is no. Although it was deleted as it was hopelessly promotional, the company is also far from meeting our notability requirements for companies and so we should not have an article about it regardless of how it is written. You can recreate it if you wish, but it would likely be deleted again via a deletion discussion. SmartSE (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Fluor

Hi SmartSE. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look at this request to trim a couple unsourced sentences. CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

AFD

I was wondering if you had an opinion about whether the page List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip should exist.

I would like to nominate it, but I'm not really sure if COIs are allowed to do so. CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd need to look into it and would like to know from Guy Macon as well, but you're asking for an article about your client to be deleted? That is refreshingly different! SmartSE (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I've probably deleted a good half-dozen pages with a COI, but it's certainly dwarfed in comparison to the ~100 inquiries per year I get about creating new articles. I also pinged you over at Talk:Adreno#Draft, which is somewhat related. We had discussed the possibility of deleting/merging this page back in 2014. You asked for a prose-style summary of the sources, which I whipped up really quick, then sat on for 4 years. CorporateM (Talk) 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

SmartSE, sorry for the delay in responding. I kept looking at this on my to-do list and didn't have an answer.

I personally see no problem with COI editors nominating articles for deletion, especially someone like CorporateM, who has shown himself to be trustworthy. Alas, there are some here who oppose any activity by anyone with a COI, and if they notice the AfD they will likely go apeshit. I would be glad to do my usual song and dance where CorporateM writes something up in userspace, I look it over and (after possibly asking for changes) and determine that it is something that I want to post under my name (and defend it if needed). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: In that approach, I might suggest you blockquote me in the AfD nom, since the AfD nom is a personal message from the user, unlike article-content that has no dedicated authorship. Below is my comment supporting the AfD of the List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip page.

According to WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not: . . . Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of . . . products and services . . . Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose." The very sourced prose summary of Snapdragon WP:NOT calls for is located at Snapdragon. It seems superfluous to have two dedicated pages about a product brand - one that is an indiscriminate product list (this page) and another that is a prose-style summary (the Snapdragon page)).

CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for letting this one fall through the cracks for a while.

OK, we have two places where this is covered:

• Qualcomm Snapdragon#Description and current models

• List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip

So, final check before I post an AfD; does List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip really fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY? I am on the fence. SmartSE, what do you think? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I am not an expert when it comes to AfD, but I think the article passes to be an "encyclopaedic article". Policy-wise speaking, "it is not simple listing without context information". The listed items in the article have contextual information. Also, almost every section has a brief/rudimentary information about the listed items, like from "Snapdragon Wear 1100, 1200 and 2100" sub-sub-section: "The Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 2100 processor is designed for smartwatches. It is available in both connected (4G/LTE and 3G) and tethered (Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) versions. The LG Watch Style uses this processor." Further, everything is properly sourced. The article has 322 "defined sources", a lot of these sources have been used multiple times. But, Qualcomm.com has been used a lot; which is "primary source" here. Also some sources are the specification details of the product on manufacturer's website like this one; I am not sure if this should be considered as primary, or reliable; as the device manufacturer obviously want to promote their products. But again, these are only technical details, and not reviews. Regarding the multiple dedicated pages, we have these in many different fields ranging from discography/filmography to the field of electronics again like list of BlackBerry products, Nokia products, and so on. Comparatively, this list looks "dry" in front of mobiles/filmography, but another guideline states obscurity, and notability are different things. I think this can be applied here. But these are just my opinions :) —usernamekiran(talk) 23:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@CorporateM, Guy Macon, and Smartse: This conversation reminded me, I would appreciate your opinions/suggestions on this essay a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on a notability guideline due to my conflict of interest. Also, I have little experience on electronics pages to warrant any special insight. I was wondering however if you have an opinion on the Adreno page, which is also predominantly made up of specifications and tables. Over a month ago I suggested here that it should be merged, or at least written in prose. CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

TeleTrade story

Hi. I've edited TeleTrade Group page. Please check. What appeared at first like DDOS attack was in fact a warning from the Central Bank for providing Forex brokerage services by a foreign entity not having Russian license. I hope the wording is correct and conveys that. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Auction links?

Hi. Doing the regular categories maintenance work I found this article Sassan Behnam-Bakhtiar. Wanted to do some cleanup, but I am not sure about the auctions link. Do they qualify as independent third-party sources? In my view, they are not. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: You are correct in that they are not independent - they are selling the work. They could be reliable for some information, but are of no use for demonstrating notability. As you hopefully saw, I made some tweaks to what you added to the teletrade article. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: Ok, I will remove them. yes, I've seen them and even made some tweaks to your tweaks :) --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on

Telegram (messaging service). I'm also having a discussion with myself on the talk page there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I am watching, but will try and stay out of the content debate now that you two are talking, other than saying that the current wording hardly makes sense. If you two can't come to an agreement then I might opine some more. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't make sense because it is describing a non-sensical situation. The facts are that

A. They describe themselves as "operating as a nonprofit" or similar

B. They are not a nonprofit organization.

C. They have raised $1.4 billion in a private placement securities offering and plan to offer the largest ICO ever.

I'll just quote the Washington Post [2] (2015)

"... while Telegram is typically described as a highly principled, Berlin-based nonprofit, that hasn’t always been the case: Up until about a year ago, Telegram was an opaque web of for-profit shell companies — mired in conflict and managed, in large part, from the United States."

and

"For starters, Durov and other Telegram employees had repeatedly claimed their app was nonprofit, which wasn’t technically true. (“The Telegram team declared numerous times in its FAQs and public statements that Telegram was a non-profit,” Durov wrote to Neff in an email made public in court documents. “… The for-profit entity that we currently have, especially a U.S.-based one, raises questions among our audience.”)" Also see the copied e-mail that follows that quote in the article.

So the situation doesn't make sense, and the only thing that happens is that I get reverted. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Shaddycrook

Hello Smartse, I just left COI notice on Shaddycrook t/p as per this, this and this. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sander van der Linden

I think you over-included in the list you put on COIN. Sciencemajor1 and 131.111.5.152 don't appear to have any connection to Van der Linden. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: 131.111 is University of Cambridge IP range. See the crossover with Maasuni here. According to Linden's biography, he worked under Anthony Leiserowitz at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication which Sciencemajor1 made most of their edits to, then there's this crossover with Maasuni, and the similarity of username to the other accounts. I guess I should have made that clearer! SmartSE (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Doctors9Club

Shouldn't User:Doctors9Club be blocked as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rungofed? You blocked the other two named socks and I've just had a G5 declined as the user wasn't blocked, despite it being a very obvious duck and previous recreations from the same group. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jcc: Yes you're right. I'll block and G5. SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

More socks for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabriela Costa

I noticed User:Disarjun blocked as DUCK of User:Dhratik, and now I notice [3] and [4] so User:SuhasJotwani may be duck of the former? --Muhandes (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your comment on Johnny A Pineyro

Hi,

I noticed you flagged me as a potential "sockpuppet" under the Gabriel Costa investigation. I have no personal interest in keeping the Johnny A Pineyro page so I'm happy to withdraw my vote anyway (if that makes any difference).

I'm certain CU would come back negative since I'm in no way connected to the other users in this investigation. I've been fairly active trying to edit several pages and wanted to point out that this flag/suspicion is purely speculative and offending to be honest. If I need to make edits in any other manner then let me know. Globe2trotter (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Globe2trotter (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that it's almost impossible for me to believe you are a new user. The Pineyro article was 100% certainly made for pay and the subject is not notable, so your appearance at the AFD is therefore suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make the Johnny Pineyro article. I contribute to many AFDs. I haven't found my 'niche' or focus area on Wikipedia so commenting on articles for deletion is something I have done more than 10 times. If Johnny Pineyro is not notable, his page should be deleted (if you as an admin feel so) but I am free to express my opinion just like I do on other pages. I'm not against learning from experienced editors or admins. One of the pages I attempted was rightly deleted which is fine because I am learning. However, this allegation is based on conjecture which I respectfully disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globe2trotter (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of DAV Foundation

Keep - isn't news in Forbes, Techbullion and Blockchain News newsworthy? All these come up within first two pages of search. Not sure how anyone can miss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Marini (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Connor Marini: Hi. In short no. forbes/sites are not under editorial control of Forbes and are not considered reliable. Techbullion "offers digital marketing services for Financial Technology companies" so is also not reliable. The Blockchain news source is obviously copied from a press release as well. SmartSE (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep - I agree about the legitimacy of the Techbullion articles. I added a new citation from an article in Vice about DAV Foundation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzzrByte (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Connor Marini and ZzzrByte: You need to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DAV foundation not here. SmartSE (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Paid COI editor background

A lot of paid COI spammers now seem to be using the ruse of "I'm in high school"/"just graduated high school"/"still 17 years old, no one is paying me" kind of crappy excuses, there might actually be a genuine 17 year old somewhere in their midst, but there's too much of this crap now. Just alerting you as I've had to block a few of these spamscamsters. —SpacemanSpiff 14:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Confliction of Interest Wikipedia Page

HI, you delated page what i create, you should create the page instead of me. "Virtualex Consulting" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavicsuma (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Smartse, Thank you for your message. Regarding the deletion of the page I created and the COI, I want to tell you that I did not get any compensation from the firm I created the page about. At the moment I'm studying mechanical engingeering at the Technical University of Munich. In a lexture I visit with a fellow student we're learning about MBD and CAE software, for example Recurdyn developed by Functionbay. I also wrote a thesis using the software. So we thought it would be nice if there is a wikipedia page about the software and also the company, because during our research we found that there are many wikipedia pages about different MBD and CAE software programms (i.e. ANSYS, MSC ADAMS,...), but not about this software. So we thought why not create an article, so that on the one side there is more information for the students learning about it in the next term's lecture and also so that there is a wikipedia page on a topic I wrote a thesis about. So if anyone wants to know what it is and what I wrote about, he just can look it up on wikipedia! Best Regards, Kevin Kevinoliver1992 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.227.183 (talk)

Hiya Smartse, thanks for flagging a potential conflict of interest on an edited page. My disclosure is on my user page, but please shout if that is wrong. Pudsk (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Smartse. Thank you for your contributions to the Wikipedia community. I see that you have removed a great deal of information from the Café Britt page. This company is one of the most important coffee companies in Costa Rica. Every item that you removed was backed by references, many from established, independent news organizations from Costa Rica such as La Nación (San José). I see no reason why such an established company and facts from independent organizations should have been erased. Prior to adding information such as products, locations, and CSR, Wikipedia pages such as Cadbury and Godiva Chocolatier were reviewed. Cadbury, for example, has a list of all products, and yet you chose to remove an informational list of products from the Cafe Britt page. Godiva has a locations section, and yet you removed the locations from the Café Britt page. Furthermore, your changes did not account for a numbered reference, leaving the page with an error with had to be corrected. Can you please explain? Thank you. 11 November 2018 (I don't know how to add a timestamp)

Notability tag

Hey there, I saw you tagged the newest version of the Revelator Coffee article. COI, fair enough (although I tried to omit as much COI material as possible); but what makes you say that the topic is not notable? It has received in-depth coverage from multiple indpendent outlets, including features, so it should pass WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Would you mind explaining your concern? Lordtobi (✉) 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: The primary reason for the tag is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revelator Coffee closed as soft delete only 6 weeks ago, so two other editors deemed it non-notable then. All of the coverage in the article is in specialist coffee publications or local news which are generally not deemed suitable for demonstrating notability of businesses. This is admittedly a grey area however. Can you link to the three best sources you think provide the most solid coverage about the company and that aren't just routine coverage about them opening a new branch etc.? SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the reply! I was aware of the AfD, though it seemed to me that the only reason the article was removed was on grounds of being promotional, not unnotable. This is why I attempted to write the article lesser promotional, more notable. Obviously, this is on a local level only, the company has never left the U.S. and I have, honestly, never even heard of it before doing the gig (since I live on another continent). Regarding in-depth coverage, these are a few: [5][6][7]. Eater is States-wide publication from Vox Media, a reliable publisher. Woven, I'm not 100% sure if they are the best fit but the site has been running for some years now and I couldn't find major downpoints on it. Lordtobi (✉) 20:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Hmm fair enough. I'd say it's still barely notable, but it does seem to just cross the line. A load of the content is completely run of the mill though and should be removed. e.g. "In December 2014, Meredith Singer became the company's director of marketing." "1,877 square feet of space" etc. - so what? The paragraph beginning "The usual equipment lineup of Revelator" could be summarised as "it is a coffee shop" not every detail in sources should be included in articles, especially when you have a COI. SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably true that not every detail is overly important, which is why I did not include every address of every shop, for example. But some key elements like executive hires should be included; after all, we are still including the names in the infobox. That's also how I usually write non-COI company articles. It'd be great if we could sort out major COI issues together, as am I new to that scene. Interimly, should we remove the Notability banner? Lordtobi (✉) 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, I was expecting some kind of commumication regarding the aformentioned possible changes, though it has stood still on your side for sole time (see my most recent question from 14+ days ago). Because of this, I had the feeling that the issue had been abandoned [read: resolved] due on my previous reasoning. If this was the case, I don't see the issue in removing the banned whomever the removal is perofmred by; if this was not the case, however, I was hoping that you and I could work towards fixing the article. The present state of limbo is unpreferable for either side, COI'd or not. Lordtobi (✉) 14:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Sorry for not getting back to you yet. I haven't forgotten and will respond fully when I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, any update? Lordtobi (✉) 20:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Sorry - hardly around at the moment. I've made an edit to bring it in the right direction. The issue isn't that it is not neutral, but that there was an excess of trivial information. It's a small chain of coffee shops - we don't need to know the name of every person working there or that they serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. I think more should be removed and I am also still doubtful whether WP:NCORP is met - in case you aren't aware, the requirements have been strengthened recently - Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-04-26/Opinion. @Nick Moyes: as they nommed it for deletion before. SmartSE (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jumping into this discussion having found the page through WP:NPP. Lordtobi I assume nothing but good faith from you in this process. However, given that you created this article with the COI and didn't go through WP:AfC as WP:COI says, I would suggest you heeds its strong recommendation to not edit directly and instead use {{request edit}} going forward. I agree with Smartse that the page is overly detailed (and have tagged it as such). I would suggest at this point you take a step back and let other editors work on the article. Again I'm assuming that your intentions here are nothing but to make this a better encyclopedia but think that WP:COI has wise guidance to help us avoid blindspots caused by those COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm glad the article is taking some direction now. While obviously it hurts seeing large portions of intricately researched details cut, I feel like multiple eyes can tell better what is necessary and what is not. I fixed some typographic errors, that you might have overseen, via AWB and also added an uncategorized tag (apparently I forgot to put any?). It'd be great to see the article streamlined with other, similar topics and properly categorized. Also, would it be possible to re-use the cut references for whatever details you might feel should be covered? Lordtobi (✉) 08:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

about File:Ray Dalio.jpg

Hallo Smartse. I received the Wiki mail from you. But I don't understand the mechanism of Wiki mail, I am sorry, I write it here. the flickr link is https://www.flickr.com/photos/15237218@N00/12084252406 and upload date was 16 April 2018. Please check on that. --Y.haruo (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Y.haruo: Thanks for the details. I did receive your original email though and replied to it but maybe it got caught in a spam filter. Sorry for not replying earlier (and also rollbacking your post last week) but I've been away from my desk. SmartSE (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

About Speedy Delition of Contentstack

Hi, I was wondering about the speedy deletion of Contentstack. You mentioned that there's unambiguous promotion and everything, but I do folloqwed the lead other similar products and services laid down for me. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsalinasgardon (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mh17 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mh17. Since you had some involvement with the Mh17 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:PJMT12

FYI: I had the account CUed, it turned out to be unrelated. MER-C 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Bit of an odd one given their editing history. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Ferris for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Ferris is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Ferris until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim Spohrer wrote: I improved the quality of the article - added more references, publications, and noted that Find Sources news - 3 of 10 news items were about Chris Ferris and HyperLedger, as well as Find Sources: WP Reference, all top items refer to Chris Ferris and HyperLedger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spohrer (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Christopher Ferris is an important and famous member of this category Open source advocates. Spohrer (talk) 2:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the Bitcoin article

I looks to me that @Ladislav Mecir: has done a 2RR there, but I'm puzzled what he is doing or why. The 2 edits I made yesterday that he reverted are the mildest edits I've made in years.

My edit 1, his revert

My edit 2, his revert 2.

I've got no idea what he is doing or why. If I understand the restrictions correctly, I'm supposed to take this to ANI or 3RR, which I don't think I'd do in this case. Still, I don't want to see the old editing games start up there again. Any advice would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I've had a look but I'd not really classify those as reverts. The first changed what was originally "criminal activity", and you termed "Other alleged criminal activity" to "Alleged criminal activity". The second one was definitely the right edit to make as the source does indeed say that bitcoin has those qualities, not that it needs them. Unless I'm missing something, is there any reason that they are doing anything other than just normal editing? (I'm not too familiar with DS in general... I try to stay away!) SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it's just copyediting (at least those edits) that's going on here. Still, since the "Other alleged criminal activity" subsection follows subsections on "Price manipulation" and "Ponzi schemes" it seems like he is saying that those aren't "alleged criminal activities." The edit I made about "needs these qualities" I think better represents the article as a whole - which makes clear that the qualities are necessary but not sufficient. But the way it was originally (and was reverted back to) actually looks like a copyvio or plagiarism to me.

Note the Economist wrote (bolding added)

bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency: they are hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify.

Our article had (and has)

Bitcoins have three qualities useful in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify"

Note that the 1st 8 words should either be quoted or paraphrased. I paraphrased. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Patrick James McGinnis

Hey Smartse. I'm interesting in recreating the Patrick James McGinnis article which you deleted as it was created by a user in violation of a ban. I wanted to find out if there were any other issues you had with the article before I submit a new draft for it at AfC. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: Sorry about the delay. I wouldn't have a problem if you had written the article yourself, but that draft was clearly a very slight adaptation of the version I deleted. As such, you were proxying for a blocked user, and I have consequently deleted it. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: Since it appears that my drafts will continue to be deleted despite having cleaned up the refs and changed some of the wording, kindly advise what I'm supposed to do next to get the draft a fair review. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 07:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem page by possible minor

I'm not sure what to do with this but looking at recent page creations, I spotted User:Tannertcp/sandbox. It appears it could be be a minor attempting to write about their nn family. The username matches one of the children listed. Is is U5 eligible? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: I'd say just keep an eye on it. It's definitely not U5 eligible and it's not like the subject is completely non-notable, and nor do I see anything particularly problematic in terms of the content added. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Boost

Please do not delete that article. There are hardly any articles regarding shoe materials on Wikipedia at all. When it's left as a redirect to the Adidas page, readers are left with no info about the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bn.andrsn (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Institute for Molecular Bioscience page and subsequent redirect to UQ main page

Curious as to why the Institute for Molecular Bioscience page was deemed not notable and deleted, when it was the first of the major University research institutes, and more recent ones have their pages intact (e.g Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, Queensland Brain Institute, Translational Research Institute). The "undisclosed paid editor" is concerning, but on notability grounds it should be reinstated. Vcpmartin (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Vcpmartin (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcpmartin (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vcpmartin: Hi. Technically speaking, it is not deleted - anyone can click here and undo the change I made. If it was undone though, I'd probably nominate it for deletion via a week long community discussion as I do not think it is notable. The reason I decided to redirect it though was because I searched for source and I didn't consider it to meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. That guideline basically says that to be included here, a subject needs to have attracted substantial, independent coverage in multiple (3+) reliable sources. I haven't been able to look at the other specific articles you mention, but pointing out that other articles exist that probably shouldn't, is not a reason to undelete one. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

User:Mredidiongekong

If I knew when the SPI investigation was ongoing, I would have participated. I added Edidiong talkpage to my watchlist, since I began monitoring his edits, but unfortunately there was no notification there regarding the case. I am 99% sure this is not his first account and I have on-wiki behavioral evidence of the possible sockmaster, I just didn't want to be the one to light the flame at that time. I tried to make him give a disclosure on his talkpage, but he just ignored me and blanked the page. I believe if he was truly a new editor, he would have appealed his block long ago. I also think this is a cartel of COI/PAID editors who have both Nigerian and non-Nigerian representatives, so it will be difficult to narrow it down to a single user or location. This is definitely not the end of this case! HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Smartse, I was wrong the initial time. Mahveotm (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Uniesse deletion

Hello Smartse, I wanted to know why was the Uniesse Wiki page deleted so that when we create a new one we don't make the same mistake. Please let me know at your soonest convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl ahlers (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Karl ahlers: Hi. The article was deleted because the user who created it was already banned from editing due to numerous violations of Wikipedia's editing policies and Terms of Use - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone/Archive. You are welcome to create your own article, but given that you appear to work for the company, you must abide by WP:PAID and WP:COI. In addition, the company may well not meet our notability requirements for companies and if not will be deleted regardless of who writes it. Happy to answer any further questions. SmartSE (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Knowledge Academy

Hi, I recently received a message after editing The Knowledge Academy's Wikipedia page asking me to disclose my affiliations. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was indeed asked by my employer to edit our page and bring it up to date. Now that I have disclosed, is it alright if I continue to edit the page? I am happy to suggest further revisions in the talk page if you would prefer. Thanks for your time! Samuel Cribb (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Samuel Cribb: I can't reply in full right now, but please stop editing the article. If this is you, that is not ok. SmartSE (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Samuel Cribb: Thank you for disclosing that you are an employee. Now that I have disclosed, is it alright if I continue to edit the page? The short answer is that it is best not to. As a new editor and as an employee of the company, it is nigh on impossible for you to navigate our policies and produce content that is good for readers. Disclosure is the first step, but is not a carte blanche to do what you like. I'd strongly advise that you begin by making small suggestions on the talk page in the form of "change x to y" or "add x here" supported by references to reliable sources. The references I listed here would be a good place to start as there is probably more information in them that could be added to the article. Do not cite the company website, do not mention awards the company has won, do not cite press releases and most certainly do not remove well-sourced criticism of the company. It is absolutely critical that you realise that we do not aim for articles to be "up to date" and that the company has no say on what is included in the article. Given the edit warring today (I can't tell if that was you or not) the article has been protected so that only registered and semi-experienced (10 edits & registered for 4 days) can edit it. You are still welcome to suggest changes on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Roth Capital

Thanks for reviewing the Roth Capital page and helping improve it. The changes you made were some that I was considering, so your edits affirmed the improvements. Cypresscross (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

about Steven Gundry

Just curious. I saw an explanation as "cherry picking" to provide content for this stub. And that there was no references. I am not so sure that this is true. The changes were factual and objective. You could cut them down, but to roll them back and add more subjective slander..???? I challenge you to make this a little bit more neutral. Adding a quote from a chef and just adding ecommerce page listings is not making the article stronger. I also believe that info about him as opposed if somebody disagrees with his book at the top of the stub makes a lot more sense. Maybe having a sub-heading section below the intro that highlights counterarguments makes more sense. But I am only suggesting this to make it look less like a biased tabloid article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.75.122.42 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Cherry picking was referring to how you added "It is true that lectins can be toxic — purified lectins may cause problems." while omitting "However, we have also evolved to eat foods that contain lectins. Lectins in modest concentrations in otherwise-healthy people may have advantages in reducing too-rapid nutrient absorption." As demonstrated by the sources I have added to the article, Gundry's theory is a pseudoscientific fringe theory and we are doing a disservice to our readers if we do not make this clear. On Wikipedia, neutrality means reflecting what reliable sources have written about a subject, this does not mean that your own, unsourced counterarguments (e.g. "Hence, Gundry's theories could cause concern for Campbell's followers who were basing their learnings from his certification") can be added to the article. What do you mean by "just adding ecommerce page listings"? And it's not just "a chef" but a writer for the highly reliable New Scientist. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

For starters, I have pointed out in many of the comments that the whole "disputed by other scientists" in the intro is not relevant to the stub. The guy has a career that spans beyond what a few biased people think of him. When I say think, I mean really just have a biased perception of Gundry. I guess you could say the exact same things about Nash Game Theory, that some intellectuals disagreed with him. You could say that some scientists disagreed with Stephen Hawking as well, but why would anybody put that in the opening summary of an article about their life? Makes zero sense, and looks biased from the outset. It is obvious that the only reason this stub was changed from a near naked stub about a writer of books to a biased attempt to discredit an author of a top selling author. I don't see anything else in the stub. No attempt at a balanced view or any ounce of respect for the individual. There is no connection between any quotes used and anything beyond biased viewpoints. You started off by cherry picking all completely negative views of a book in an attempt to discredit Gundry. Yet, there is plenty of actual scientific evidence out there to prove that plants carry defense mechanisms, many which can be classified as toxins when consumed by humans. You are in a straight attempt to portray this "pseudoscientific" theory, which could also be discredited in its own right, because it lacks the inverse arguments besides thoughts when compared to these quoted scientists, who have their own views on diet set in stone. Why would they agree with somebody else's views on diet? You cast your goal clearly here, and I think that you need to re-examine the point of this stub, the difference from the original version up just until you assume the subject was gaining popularity. When in actuality, he has 3 books over 10 years. You cannot just make a person's whole career into a speculative warning because people are interested in learning about the scale of plant defense mechanisms? T. Colin Campbell has an audience that believes his views, does that mean that because he doesn't believe lectins matter, that people who disagree with him should cast him as "pseudoscience"? A recent documentary "What the Health?" depicts the clearly misguided dietary guidance by the american heart association, so should we add to the summary intro for your additional expert that association makes him "pseudoscience" since recipes listed on the AHA site are clearly against the findings and suggestions of heart health professionals? If you don't allow a single change and you just add what looks like quotes as opposed to findings, these discussions will never end. There are too many scientists, as well as people who just like to research and have differing scientific viewpoints to narrow them all down to one. And to take quotes by people who have not read the book and likely just scan the web to analyze a diet lifestyle is a bit of a streamlined method to generating false positives in your case. T. Colin Campbell doesn't want society to think that all lectins are equal or dangerous because he teaches that all vegetables available for the case made in the China Diet (book) are healthier than what we eat in the US. Gundry mostly agrees, but has a differing viewpoint when it comes to beans and especially soybeans. So you have significant conflicting viewpoints, and Campbell can't go back in time and change the available vegetables in previously living societies in books already published and his elearning courses already taught to so many people.... Neither is Campbell pseudoscience, but if Wikipedia is being used to purely discredit somebody's reputation based on the view of lectins, this stub could easily be changed to gundry's theories on lectins as a title. Otherwise, you really need to include more balanced viewpoints of his whole life. Not an article that has a celebrity in the title, a pop science chef, and a guy who loves all vegetables and is on a tirade going after Gundry for views that threaten his own theories. My point about the ecommerce page, is that it does not make a clear case about anything. Cause does not equal effect, and Wikipedia generally has commercialism spelled out all over most of the top listings on the site, yet I look at the Facebook page and see a much more balanced, objective view, even with the mention of the privacy issues. The Youtube page doesn't say "scientists dispute the percentage of video views that are not bot driven" with quotes from a developer who off the cuff says "I think that Youtube traffic is mostly from Russian bots" according to an article in Computer Science Magazine....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d480:60f0:4db:268e:c8ef:c798 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2018‎ (UTC)

See WP:LEAD - what you call the introduction should in fact be summarising the rest of the article, hence why it sums up what others have said about his theories. You could say anything about someone else's theories but it's not important - as I've already said, we summarise what reliable sources have said about something. If you can find reliable sources that say that Gundry's theories aren't pseudoscientific then please add them to the article. It's the same reason why the article is mostly discussing his theories - per WP:WEIGHT we give space in the article to topics in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable sources. Gundry is only notable for his lectin theory, so it is only natural that an article about him will mainly be about his theories. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Amadi Peter

You presented a reason for deleting a contribution that does not align with the policy on Wikipedia you referred me to. The understandable rule applied to self published media, and not self authored articles published in a verifiable reputable journal which must have undergone rigorous peer review prior to publication. An article I authored does not necessarily mean it is self published. A clear difference exists between an author and a publisher. All mentions in that link was on self-published sources and not self authored articles which are clearly different in meaning, because I was left wondering the rationale in barring self-authored articles when these research articles are about the only sources of providing advancements in the existing information in those areas. I believe a reasonable preoccupation about these contributions especially those ones that improve the contents of the topics where they appear, should pertain to how verifiable the information are, and perhaps if further integrity assessments are necessary, the status of the editorial board of the publishers.Amadi Peter (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amadi Peter: WP:SELFCITE states "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies". Your addition added a piece of primary research to the biofuel article. WP:SCIRS details how scientific content should be sourced on Wikipedia. In general, secondary sources (i.e. reviews) should be used wherever possible, so regardless of who added the reference, the paper is not a great source to use. In this case though, all of your edits so far have added references to your own publications, which gives the appearance (whether correct or not) that your primary reason to edit here is to add these references, rather than to improve our content in general. If that is the case, you are not here to contribute productively and it is considered a form of spam. If that's not the case, then I hope you will listen to my advice. There have been > 1500 papers with biofuel in the title published since 2017 - what makes you think that yours is sufficiently important to be referenced in the article? The other relevant part of SELFCITE is "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." If I, as an independent reviewer think that there is a problem with your edits then you should stop and ask for guidance. I will be reverting your edit to biofuel and also to cellulase. If you are truly interested in improving Wikipedia, you will cite other people's work. This is a much better reference to use in the cellulase article and you (or your co-author) must know about it already because you have plagiarised content from it in your article. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@SmartSE: Thank you for providing detailed clarifications of your views. I am in no way contending for my edits to be restored, as honestly, whether added or not, I am yet to see any particular benefit. I cant find any reason to begin to add all my articles here, which quite honestly I cannot as that would be extremely laborious and in some cases contribute nothing not already here. I was obviously only uncomfortable with you rebuking contributions from self-authored articles as that was the only reason you provided earlier. Your point about relevance of contribution seems more reasonable than your earlier reason of not having users cite self authored works. Again, the link explaining "selfciting" was very clear, and provided understandable reasons for such position. I only felt the information I earlier provided, improved the contents and not necessarily because I wished to cite my articles of which I see no particular benefits in doing so. I also see your claims of a plagiarised content in our article as largely unsubstantiated and perhaps derogatory, because all statement of facts in the article cited other relevant articles accordingly. I wonder if you couldn't have clearly made your points without having to falsely condemn an article and by implication, the reviewers who accepted other cited articles. I hope you understand that I am gradually getting acquainted with the numerous rules here, as a new user. I do hope you understand that.Amadi Peter (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amadi Peter: Apologies for not making it clear the first time round. We have many conventions and it is difficult to explain succinctly why edits are problematic. The potential benefit to you is that by adding your work as references in Wikipedia, readers may find them and cite them, thus increasing your citation count. Regarding the plagiarism, it's a little off topic to discuss here which is why I didn't provide evidence before but since you asked:

Amadi et al. (2016):

In addition, both cellulase and chitinase activities in the digestive juices (luminal fluid of the gut) increased in proportion to body weight and the total protein content of the hepatopancreas, but not in relation to increases in digestive juice bacterial counts when, for example, the snails emerge from hibernation and start eating.

Watanabe & Tokuda (2001):

In addition, both cellulase and chitinase activity in the digestive juices (luminal fluid of the gut) increased in proportion to body weight and the total protein content of the hepatopancreas, but not in relation to increases in digestive juice bacterial counts when, for example, the snails emerge from hibernation and start eating.

The sentence beginning carbohydrase is usually specific with reference to both the linkage and to the monosaccharide constituents of the polymer it splits is also copied from this 2013 book.

I was a bit terse with you before because as a biologist myself, this is not what I want to find in the literature. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@SmartSE: Thanks for offering more explanations. I am getting more abreast with the basic rules here. Now, you could find my recent contributions in line with your policies. I think I find this environment a bit more appealing.

I acknowledge as scientists we take plagiarism seriously, and I feel those particularly matching words were purely oversight and not intended. We rather worked with, and acknowledged Strasdine and Whitaker who the original knowledge came from and was cited by Watanabe & Tokuda (2001). I'd say your remarks are well noted, and necessary steps will be taken soon about those.Amadi Peter (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nir Eyal unprotection request

There is a Draft:Nir Eyal, which looks OK to me. Could you unprotect the page so that I can mainspace it? Thanks. Catrìona (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nir Eyal

Hi there! I'm a (relatively new) WP:AfC reviewer and I've come across a draft of a page you've deleted twice previously - Draft:Nir Eyal. I was, in fact, about to accept this draft, until I saw that it previously underwent an AfD and two CSD's thereafter. Because of this, I wanted to get a second opinion on this article. Do you have an opinion of the article in its current draft state? Thanks! --HunterM267 ^talk 05:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT - it seems that Catrìona posted a similar remark just before mine. Please disregard my comment above. --Hunterm267 ^talk 05:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona and HunterM267: The article has been edited my numerous undisclosed paid editor sockpuppets in the past which is why I protected it. Атомная (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) also looks very suspicious to me so I would like to get them checkusered before anything else. @BU Rob13 and Berean Hunter: are you able to do the honours? Most recent at the article was (stale) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Plot_Spoiler/Archive but looking at Special:DeletedContributions/Атомная there may also be a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ohmy45/Archive although it looks more like MEAT than SOCK. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donnie Juanito

Odd behavior on W00w00 article

Just wanted to give you a heads up. I know you do some SPI work. I was jumping around on the site and came across W00w00. There was a long list of unsourced redlinked names, and I removed them, leaving just the blue links. I was reverted by user Jeffnathan. I started a discussion on the talk page, reverted the reversion, and then was reverted by a brand new editor, AdamPrato. It seems to be too much of a coincidence that the first edit for a new account would be to restore split columns, and the third edit would be to revert me. So that's #1. AdamPrato has replied on the talk page that he's going to try to get consensus by bringing in others who are affected. He says he's one of the people. So besides the WP:CANVASSING issue, there's also WP:COI. I don't want to piss off hackers since I'm easily identifiable, so I thought I'd alert you in case I'm doing anything wrong. You can see the current discussion on the talk page. Finally, I looked at an earlier AfD discussion for the article which closed as "extreme Lesbian delete" [[8]]. That's odd, and homophobic perhaps? Maybe an old Wikipedia joke that I'm unaware of? Should this be left as it is or perhaps edited to be a bit more encyclopedic? BTW - I think the group is just barely notable enough, based on the article sourcing, so that's not an issue - I actually removed the notability tag. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

and now I'm being threatened. [[9]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Sorry about the delay - had just left for a long weekend when you wrote. That article is a mess and I agree that the long list of unreferenced (?) participant should go. I'll need to take a look at the sources just to check what should stay though. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem - I saw you were off the site. I just thought you'd be better able to take care of this than me, since it's a clear WP:NOTHERE with multiple SPAs, if not also socks. I'd add extended confirmed protection to the article to be safe, since these folks know how to get in and edit anonymously with burner accounts. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Any chance to look at this? The poorly sourced non-notable info still exists, and I know if I clean it up my efforts will be met with reversions and further threats. If you're too busy, I can post on ANI. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Double sorry for the delay! I've removed the redlinks and am watching. If they carry on edit warring then yes, some form of protection seems like a good idea. Have you checked whether there blue links are all sourced? SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I was just removing the redlinked ones, since I thought, like on DAB pages, site convention is to remove them, since they don't meet the standards of notability. I looked a little more and just sourced Christopher Abad. I found Silvio mentioned in Phrack [[10]]. Wasn't sure if it was a reliable source. I can go through the rest. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As near as I can tell this is a self-directed, unwarranted, and unwanted crusade. Kindly cease it. Jbowie42 —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the only odd behavior on the w00w00 article is your, unaffiliated participation in its modification. Jbowie42 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jbowie42: A crusade against what exactly? All that's been done is make the article compliant with content policies as I explained on the talk page. I do not need any affiliation to do so, and in fact better, since I have only worked of the sources that are available. If you think that the group should be maintaining an article about itself, you are misinformed. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Abiodun Balogun

Hi you G5'd the above page which has been recreated 2 weeks after the deletion. The subject looks notable and almost certainly passes WP:NACADEMIC but I'm guessing this is a UDP and tagged it as such and maybe another sock. I can't find who the original sock master and puppet were can you tell me if you think it's worth pursuing? --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Thanks for the heads up. It was originally written by Disarjun who I blocked as a DUCK of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabriela Costa. Given the edits by Wisdomci in 2009, I suspect that they aren't a sock, but it's evident from the history that they haven't written the article themselves and it essentially identical to the G5d version, so it's WP:PROXYING so I will delete it again. I agree that they are notable though. SmartSE (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: Dear SmartSE, and Dom from Paris, this is WisdomCI. I am a Nigerian Educated physical therapist, and currently a professor of physical therapy residing here in the USA. I am also the Executive Director of the Nigeria Physiotherapy Network. I initiated the Preserving the History of Nigeria Physiotherapy Wiki project in 2008/2009 in order to bring attention to remarkable events and information, about the profession of physiotherapy and notable Nigerian physiotherapists. Some of the pages related to this project include:

• Nigeria Society of Physiotherapy
• Physical Therapy Education in Nigeria
• Arinola Olasumbo Sanya

The JA Balogun page was part of this project. But because I have been unavailable to upload to Wiki myself, the JA Balogun content was contracted to someone to code for Wiki for us. Unfortunately, we did not do our due diligence before contracting the Wiki coder, and therefore we got to learn afterwards that the wiki user we contracted, to was a banned user. That was the reason why I found time out of my busy schedule to do the page myself. But before I did, I contacted Wiki foundation to know why the page was deleted initially, that was when I was informed that we worked with a banned user. I asked if I can recreate the page, I was told by the foundation in an email that I can, as long as the banned user no longer has a part in the project. This is why I recreated the JA Balogun page. I am therefore seeking your support to get this page back us, as it is an import part of our Wikipedia project to Preserve the History and achievement of Physiotherapy profession in Nigeria and its professionals at home and the diaspora. You can read more about me at http://www.ebjohn.net, so that you can know that I am not part of a phoney wiki scam, but rather committed to the Nigeria Physiotherapy Wikipedia project. Please advise on the best way forward. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomci (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wisdomci: Thank you for explaining the situation. I'm sorry to hear that you hired somebody who was dishonest to you and to our readers, by failing to disclose that they were paid to create the article. It is admittedly quite nuanced, but the content that you added was written by the blocked user and therefore did have a part in the project. Please note that the person who replied to your email to the Wikimedia Foundation was a volunteer like the rest of us, and may not have been aware of this distinction when they said you could recreate it. As I said to you on your talk page, you are free to recreate it, but you can't reuse the content that was created by the blocked user. If you do choose to recreate it, I would suggest making it substantially shorter and ensure that all of the information is cited to reliable sources. There is no need to list numerous research papers. Please let me know if you have any further questions. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: Dear SmartSE, actually we created the content, not the banned user. We only contracted him to turn it into Wiki code. He was not the author of the content, we authored the content. It has been some 8-10 years since I last actively participated in editing wiki pages myself, and was afraid the codes had changed or improved significantly. So we were looking for someone with current knowledge of wiki codes to help put the content into wiki code format. The mistake was that we allowed him to post for us, instead of posting the content myself, since he did not author it. I confirm to you that the content was not authored by the banned user. He may have helped to fine tune the codes, but the content is ours, not his. As an example, you can see part of my original work on JA Balogun from 2001 at: John EB (2001). Focus on Joseph A. Balogun. National PhysioNews, Vol. 1, No.3. page 22 I will appreciate your support, because this is our original content, not the banned user's. I take responsibility for all these, because I have been too busy to pay attention, but now, things will be done differently moving forward. Please advise. Thanks for your understanding and assistance. And thank you also for help us all to preserve the sanity and sanctity of our beloved Wikipedia, Sincerely, Wisdomci

@Wisdomci: Ok that does make a difference if you wrote it in the first place. I have undeleted it but have removed much of the content because it failed verification or was promotional. I will try to find the time to explain further at some point over the weekend. SmartSE (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the Uniphore article

Hello Smartse, I was going through Uniphore article with just a warning tag, but it looks like a 100% promotional article & request you to nominate the page as per your thoughts or remove promotional content.

From Products section it's all written like a web page content doesn't adhere to Wikipedia content guidelines.

Deepakhmwiki (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto Cancer Case RfC - text has changed, please review

Hi there, please see amended proposed text here and let us know if this new text alleviates your concerns, thank you! petrarchan47คุก 06:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Rome Douglas

Hi Smartse. You deleted and salted Rome Douglas as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". A new page has since been created at Rome Douglas (American football) by a user who appears in good standing. If you're OK it should be moved to the basename. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tassedethe: Thanks for letting me know. I've taken a look at ChrisGriswold but I don't come to the same conclusion as you in regards to them being in good standing, despite them being a former admin. As you can see here, they had barely edited in 10 years before recreating this article and Arjun_Malhotra_(entrepreneur). Both of those articles were salted at their original titles - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Malhotra and Arjun Malhotra and the last creator Shreyoshi_ghosh did disclose that they were paid. The chances of ChrisGriswold recreating these articles in good faith is essentially zero in my opinion, especially when much of the content has been reused. The most likely explanation is that the account is compromised and I will block it accordingly. We'll need to consider what to do with the articles, along with ThreatModeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and CalebEdwardAllistair (added photo to the Malhotra article). SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this more carefully than I did. I just checked that the editor had contributions going back pre 2018, clearly a lot more was going on. Tassedethe (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tassedethe: No worries - it's my bread and butter ;) will see whether Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasleen Ahluwalia brings up anything more. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ogbonna Ruby Ebere

May be back again with this account... Do you think it's them? Thanks, GAB^gab 21:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GAB - Sorry I was on my phone when you sent this and then forgot about it. Judging by Commons:Special:Contributions/Ogbonna_Ruby_Ebere I'd say it's pretty likely! I'm heading away for the next week, but if you want to use your tools that would seem sensibel to me! SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up / Signpost

Your username will be mentioned in the upcoming Signpost. You can see the draft here. Cheers, acting E-in-C ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: Thanks for letting me know. and to convince declared paid editiors that despite the rules, their work is nevertheless unethical. Is that right? I don't think that disclosed paid editing is inherently unethical and is way preferable to UPE. SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are Kudpung's words. I'm dithering over whether to ask him to reconsider it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: That would be sensible IMO - it's definitely not what the article discusses and to me at least, the signpost should just summarise what the articles discuss. SmartSE (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Crystal Lagoons

Hi @Smartse I see you deleted the Crystal Lagoons page. Could you please give insight into why exactly and what can be done to restore it so that it complies with the guidelines? Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.67.60.26 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As explained in the deletion log, it was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. The majority of the content was not sourced and language like They consume half the water required by a park and 30 times less water than a golf course. Furthermore, they use up to 100 times less chemicals than traditional disinfection systems and just 2% of the energy required by conventional filtration technologies. Floating crystalline lagoons are the company’s latest innovation allows for the construction and maintenance of unlimited size bodies of water etc. is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. The page will not be restored, but the company may meet WP:CORP in which case a new article could be created. This should be done at Draft:Crystal Lagoons in the first instance and you should read WP:MFA to find out how articles should be written. Per WP:COI and WP:PAID you must disclose your affiliation with the company. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Hilfiger

I have restored the market positioning of Tommy Hilfiger as a premium brand. The problem is that many people equate "premium" with "luxury" when the two terms are not interchangeable. True luxury brands are brands such as Burberry, Gucci, and Ralph Lauren Purple Label. I think the term premium is a fair and unbiased descriptor of Tommy Hilfiger, since it is above mid-range brands like IZOD and Chaps but below true luxury brands. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 23:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

About Ananta Mandal Award section

Hello SmartSE, I'm WitchScarlet. I have seen that you recently removed some content from Ananta Mandal with this edit summary that you said (this whole section is promotional and unverifiable). I just let you know the Award section content was already there and beside all awards list there was verified link. I didn't added the Award section, I just edited some of the verified content and arranged the awards list in descending order. You should look on the sections just before I edited. You can see in what way they were. The section was not promotional anyway. Please check it once more and if you think you can undo your changes.

If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page (talk). Thanks. WitchScarlet —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@WitchScarlet: Apologies for the delay - I haven't been around much lately. Yes I realise that the list was there before you edited the article but I don't see why that is relevant? The only reference cited was the subject's website and this is where such information belongs. If an award is important and has been reported by indepdendent, reliable sources then it should be included, but local art society awards are unlikely to have this happen. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @SmartSE:, don't need to apologize. I can understand you were busy in your personal life. Thank you for getting back. Yes, the list was there before I edited and the awards mentioned in the list were all verified and from reliable sources. Please note there are no local art society award. They are all international and nation level awards. The awards belong to the most prestigious art exhibitions held globally, in India as well as internationally. Like Bombay Art Society, Mumbai, Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata they are all India's most well known prestigious National level art society and art organization along with many International Art Societies to mention. And it is essential that at least enough information should be there in Wikipedia where people look into. Also you can take a look at India's living contemporary artist Paresh Maity's Wikipedia profile. He has that plenty list of his awards and solo exhibition. Besides, Ananta Mandal is an Indian young contemporary leading artist, everyone is aware of the name in art field along with other famous contemporary artists. So, can you please UNDO the edits? Please get back. Thanks. WitchScarlet 19:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

GaN Systems

Hello SmartSE. I made several related edits because I was researching on power semiconductors and realised I couldn't find enough companies in the sub-sector on Wikipedia, and the few that were there such as Bourns, TIMC and others have content that does not fit into Wikipedia's content rules. It is a sector that has notability because of its core place in the electric vehicle revolution, hence my interest. I am not being compensated by a person, group, company or organisation to promote the interests of GaN, Bourns, or any other company or personal profile whose Wiki I have edited lately. My only goal was to add to the encyclopedia and to improve the content on existing articles. I also noticed that, while you deleted the GaN edits, you didn't touch the ones on the other companies. Was it something in the particular article itself? Owaahh (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (EAT).

@Owaahh: Given that the article was created by a sockpuppet only 6 months before you, your explanation is not at all convincing. I'm afraid that explaining what was problematic about the article content would only help you avoid scrutiny in the future. SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)