User talk:Smartse

• Hi, welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message about anything you like. It's easier if conversations stay on one page though so if I've left you a message reply on your talk page and I should be watching it.

• If you want to know why your article was deleted, please read "Why was my article deleted?" before leaving me a note.

• If it's been a while and I haven't got back to you about something, then by all means drop me a note to remind me.

following up

Hi Smartse. I sent you a follow-up email with more relevant links - in response to your post. Could you let me know when you've had a chance to read it - for now I'll resend.

Thanks BrookyTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrookyTH (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

You've got mail

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. Anatomy48 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mahveotm (talk) 13:16, 27 January 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)

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: [2][3][4]. 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)

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 [5] (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 [6] and [7] 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)