Jump to content

User talk:Smartse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gruntfuttock115 (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 12 May 2014 (→Gurpareet Bains: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • 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 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.



Trafigura

Hi SmartSE, thanks for getting back to me on this. I've left a reply (here) and have reworked the draft (here). Some feedback when you've got a spare moment would be great. Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HOgilvy. I've only managed to take a quick look at that so far. It looks to be an improvement but I won't have time to look at it properly until mid-January or so. Feel free to poke me again if I forget about it. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks SmartSE. HOgilvy (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SmartSE, if you do have a spare moment to have a look at this draft that would be really great. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1.800.Vending

Hey, do you think I can ask you to watchlist it with me? I just noticed this edit summary, which seems to allege my edits are part of a systematic censorship attempt and suggests to me that it will eventually become the usual drama of being accused of a covert COI agenda (I do not have a COI). CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It looks like the article is headed (appropriately) for the trash bin. CorporateM (Talk) 22:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niama-Reisser

I significantly appreciate your dedication in deleting Niama-Reisser articles. You, and your fellow volunteer colleagues surely do not read what they decide to delete or edit. Your remark, "essentially a catalogue" referring tp my article with what I uploaded. If you would do your homework, you would realize googling "Niama-Reisser" and Reisser Hat Ihr Bad Stirrgart, Germany, you would realize the company's heritage is over 140 years old and Mr. Heinz-Gustav Reisser is the fifth generation of the family business Gustav Reisser KG, today, Reisser Hat Ihr Bad. They employ over 1,500 employees. And our market leader in southwest Germany. To date, I haven't had the time to chronologically establish all of the relationships but a reporter did so in Germany. I'm sure you can use Google Tranalate. Here is the Link:

http://www.wirtemberg.de/gustav-reisser.htm

You should undelete the article ASAP! I will write and mail a letter to Wikipedia stating the unwikipedian approach and conduct that you and your friends did to my niama reisser revised article!

Thanks, Alreim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alreim (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alreim. Sorry for not replying until now - I haven't been around here for a few days. I did read the article before deleting it and I considered it to be entirely promotional. The articles you've written since are slightly better, but they don't demonstrate that the company, car and engine are notable enough to be included here at the moment. I will shortly be listing the articles at WP:AFD where other editors will decide whether they agree with me or not. You are welcome to comment there. SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use citations

I've received a comment from you with no reference to a specific edit, page or source, please consider not violating the subsequently linked policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countimur55 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err... that policy applies to articles, not notes on user talk pages. And as you've only edited one article, it should be pretty obvious what I was talking about. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back yet?

I was wondering if you were "back" from your semi-wiki-break and if so, if you had time to collaborate on an article like Diners Club, which I cannot improve without a partner in crime on account of my COI. I would understand if you don't have time (or just aren't interested). The current article is sort of just a mess and while they are not as significant now, their historical significance is quite substantial. CorporateM (Talk) 20:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am... but I'm still don't have a great deal of time and have plenty of deadlines looming. I'll keep a watch on the article and might be able to give some comments, but I'd prefer not to commit to anything for now. Btw I found this very amusing, I thought American's weren't supposed to understand sarcasm though ;) SmartSE (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking lessons in humor from user:Drmies :-D
I need to circle back to that article eventually, but I really want to bring History of public relations up to GA and all my other volunteer projects are mostly on hold until then. I didn't realize just how time-consuming that article would be. CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm jealous of the lobster. I should write something nice about W. W. Norton & Company--one of their reps bought me lunch six or seven years ago. As a matter of fact he was just here but I can claim total editorial independence, since I was eating potato-cauliflower casserole leftovers. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bread and rice is enough food to put the impovershed masses of starving Wikipedians into the realm of COI, but I'm high-brow. I have COIs like The Cheesecake Factory. Because their white chocolate macadamia cheesecake is so dam good I ate it until my stomach was about to explode, and my stomach controls my brain. I don't think I could edit their neutrally.
I legitimately have a COI with Noodles & Company. I warned them that a neutral article is so positive for them, that somebody will contest its neutrality. However, I also think my perspective could be skewed, not because they're paying me, but because I eat there. My wife asked if I could accept payment in gift cards and food - she was only joking at first. I drive about 45 minutes to go to Noodles & Company, when there's a Chipotle, Taco Bell and Subway around the corner.
You keep kidding that I need to pay for your edits, but I can't afford you, but if you had my wife's banana French toast, you'd feel re-imbursed for a lifetime of contributions to Wikipedia. A lifetime! It's that good. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I should have known the Dr had something to do with that! History of public relations looks to be coming along nicely btw, not surprised it has taken you a while - writing broad articles is much harder than ones with a narrow scope.
Bread and rice?! They're a bit pricey. I have an endless supply of free potatoes so it was bacon hotpot wow bacon and a redlink! jazzed up with some chipotle chilli sauce. Someday I'll get around to sorting out Potato#Growth_and_cultivation with some proper sources (or sauces)... Those noodles must be good, but I'm still recovering from noodle (pho) overdose over Christmas. Right, time to see how the zombies are doing after a few months off! SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:45 - 1:05 http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6941965/the-most-awful-deathbed-confessions-youve-ever-heard CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenomics

User:Jni has already undeleted the content by putting it on their talk page, so I'm not sure what else there is for me to do. It really doesn't belong here though: WP:NEO. Come back when everyone knows what Oppenomics is. SmartSE (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at OMICS Group

Please consider fully-protecting this redirect until disputes are resolved. The discussion at Talk:OMICS Publishing Group#Content Controversy seems to have petered out without resolution and may need a kick-start. @Lizia7: as he may have relevant information that may affect your decision to protect the redirect or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've fully protected it for another two weeks. SmartSE (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see for notability: as I wrote above that the group is into various businesses:
  • Educational Society- Holding around 6000 students from primary school level to degree level
  • Films and movies- turnover of INR 300 Crores / 65 Million USD Business as per the box office records
  • Conferences- only publishing group organizing scientific conferences; world-wide conferences and the largest conference organizer; organizing around 100 conferences per year
  • Health TV Channel- 1st Health Channel; monitored exclusively by OMICS Group; operating in English, Hindi and Telugu languages
  • Scientific Alliance- Collaboration with more than 150 non-profit scientific associations
  • Journals- operating 350 open access journals for the sake of disseminating knowledge for free
Since Journals is just a part of the business, a general page is of course required. To prove the matter, please refer to reliable sources published on OMICS Group page Lizia7 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Creations

OMICS Creations article is about movies and films and re-written as per WP, Please check carefully., until the review done by admin/copyright clerk we should restore the article instead of redirecting to scientific journals publishing OMICS Publishing Group as it is comes under meaningless redirection. Movieking007 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant - you're edit warring which is why I protected the page. It's always the WP:WRONGVERSION for someone. Unless the company itself is notable, the redirect should probably be deleted anyway, but I'll leave that to others. SmartSE (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks !! Need Your Support to fix the issue

HI SMARTSE

Thank you for your support in removing the conflict ; we have the official proof document ( passport & voter id ) to prove the DOB year is 1989 ; we need your support in fixing the issue and bring back the DOB as 5th may 1989 . Other admin Jim is spamming the page with illegal proof . Also need ur support in uploading the images

Lakshmi Rai is famous south indian film star and we are very concern with her DOB it reflects bad image on her career especially being a female artists Looking forward to your support

Varmais (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PA Consulting Group

Hello Smartse, and thank you for your message re. clean up of PA Consulting Group. I have done some more editing along the same lines and think the page now meets the criteria for having the NPOV tag removed. What do you think? If there is anything else needed your advice would be much appreciated.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits there - it was a real mess before and is much improved now. I'm not sure that the 'Services and Company Structure' and 'Global Structure' really belong though unless there is independent coverage. They were added by one of the many COI editors in October and they're poorly sourced. In my opinion, things like this are better dealt with on company's own websites rather than here. I think I'll remove that and the tag because otherwise the article is now reasonably neutral. SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous, thanks. --Evenmadderjon (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to provide some comments here, but realized they are a competitor to a client of mine. Smart, if you have time, I'd be interested in your input on the Yelp, Inc. article. There have been a whole bunch of arguments on this page (see Talk) about quite a few things between Wikidemon, Candle, Keithbob and myself and I'm trying to make a push to get some of them hammered out. I guess I made a fairly non-neutral RfC and consensus was reasonable to interpret, but the question arises whether that consensus is contaminated by the non-neutral RFC wording and I should start over. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article redirected?

Hello,

I would like to know why my article has been redirected to the page DJ Chus? Thanks in advance --Chus & Ceballos (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons - first it appeared to be an autobiography which is strongly discouraged, second it was not neutrally worded e.g. "Their evolution throughout the past years has led them to the pinnacle of the global music scene." which made it promotional. I've just noticed that it was also copy and pasted from here making it a copyright violation as well. Our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages people from writing about themselves, but if there are reliable sources written about Chus & Ceballos then please list them at Talk:DJ Chus and another editor will take a look and edit that article accordingly. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Conflict of Interest Disclosure (Dr. Amen article)

Are you employed by any part of the pharmaceutical industry that deals with ADD or ADHD treatment medications or drug development (as a contractor or as a direct employee)? Also, are you employed to do public relations work on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. Please note that these are two separate questions.

Third question, are you a lobbyist for the above mentioned areas of the pharmaceutical industry? 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Do you sell SPECT machines?<sarcasm/> These discussions are unnecessary - we focus on content not contributors. SmartSE (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't sell those machines. Nor do I know Doctor Amen or have any association with him.
Actually there is a new Wikipedia policy that requires such disclosures. Please answer.::2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No there's not. There is an ongoing discussion about whether disclosures should have to be made, but if that is agreed on, it won't mean that editors can go around accusing people of having a COI without any evidence. I've made >25,000 edits here and very few are about pharmaceuticals. If you take a look you'll find most of my time here is spent removing PR from articles (funnily enough that's how I got involved at Daniel Amen). SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Wikipedia rule requiring such disclosure. It is already in force-- It is on the page WP:COI, more specifically under WP:NOPR (Under the Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing section)-- here is the direct quote from that section.
"You should provide full disclosure of your connection, when using talkpages, making edit requests, and similar. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other edit, and may not be acted upon."
I am not accusing you of anything, I am just asking.
2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I needed to make a disclosure then I would. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor you recently blocked for promotional editing

See the revision history of an AFC submssion by this editor, particularly the remarks by MER-C in July and August 2013. Morning276 plus 1??? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't spotted that - thanks. It's obviously hard to say whether they are linked to Morning277. They were mentioned in the SPI but without any real evidence - there edits don't seem to overlap with the habitual behaviour of those socks. They're obviously a paid editor and were creating crappy articles and apart from trying to track down more articles they've created, it doesn't matter a great deal who they are. SmartSE (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just listed that particular article for G11. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Bailey

Hi Smart, Is this the correct way of talking to you? if not very sorry still learning. With regards to DJ Bailey page, is copying text not allowed? I would of thought that was more correct? (talk) please don't get angry I'm still learning. — Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. SmartSE (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato (company)

Hello -- it appears as though you deleted my company's Wiki page on March 10th. The page has been present on Wikipedia for several years, and was updated last month to be more comprehensive. The reason you cited is that the page was ambiguous or acting as marketing, neither of which was intended to be the case. We are a renowned design collective with a worldwide following, and simply presented our company history and credentials like any other design/advertising company which has created a Wikipedia page about themselves. For reference, please see Radical Media, B-Reel, BBDO, etc. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to correct any issues that you identified, and have our page restored as soon as possible. Short of that, we would at least appreciate having a copy of the text. Please advise soonest. Thank you. Tomatostudio (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tomatostudio:. You're correct that I deleted it and yes it had been here for many years. The recent changes made the article considerably worse in our terms e.g. "Throughout its history, Tomato has sought projects that allow the collective to create breakthrough experiences across media types, and this has formed the backbone of its international reputation." is not neutral language, particularly without a citation to a reliable source such as a newspaper. If you are renowned then these should exist and will form the basis of any decent article about the company. I looked through the history of the article before deleting it, as I am sure User:DGG did before nominating it, but all the versions were equally as bad and would be deleted very quickly if created as a new page, which is why despite it's age it qualified for speedy deletion. We're aware that there's load of crap on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take action when we find it. I've had a look at the articles you mentioned and made some edits - Radical Media is particularly bad. The thing is, that no agencies should be writing their own articles.
I can email you a copy of the article if you like, but there is no way that similar content is suitable for Wikipedia. You are welcome to create a new article, but you need to be extremely cautious and make sure everything is supported by reliable sources, similar to this, this or this as the source of all the information, rather than your own personal knowledge - in my experience this is extremely tricky, but possible. You should make sure you change your username as well before though, as we have a rule against corporate names (yes we have a rule for everything ;) ). Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks very much for the detailed reply. It helps an incredible amount. We can follow the guidelines as you described - including more supporting references - and nominate a outsider to create the new page. Would it at all be possible to have the old page made available to us in some way? Understand if not, but it would be a huge advantage if so. Again, greatly appreciate your help. Thank you. Tomatostudio (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomatostudio: I've emailed you a copy of the code. To reiterate though - none of that is suitable for Wikipedia - it's tone is appropriate for a corporate website, not an encyclopedia. If you want me to take a look at a draft article e.g. at Draft:Tomato (company), let me know. SmartSE (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've received the code. We'll do a wiki-appropriate version, but it's great to have the original code as a basis. If it wouldn't be imposing, I'd welcome your review of the page when it's ready, to ensure we've followed the guidelines and won't get flagged again. I'll send you a message when it's complete. Thanks again. Really do appreciate your help. Tomatostudio (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the editor for the new Tomato (company) page. Earlier today I posted a revised version, and before I could send it to you for review, another administrator deleted it. I do not understand why, as the new article has only statements of fact supported by appropriate references. I have now re-posted the page to my sandbox and would be very grateful if you could review it, as you kindly offered above. Thank you. Quiller1970 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quiller1970. There were many problems with that article so I am not at all surprised that User:Nawlinwiki deleted it - I would do the same. Some of the references where much better, but the tone is still completely wrong "Today, the collective includes a worldwide group of directors, designers, artists, writers, producers and composers, developing cross-platform projects that are commercial, artistic and research based." " Among the primary media utilized by Tomato are commercial film and content, cross-media campaign development, branding, interactive and digital/app creation, corporate and location identity, print, product and packaging design, installations and motion graphics." etc. reads like an advert. It is imperative that you write from a neutral point of view - this means being boring. I wonder if @@CorporateM: can give you an example of a well-written article about a similar company (design and branding) that you could look at to see what you should aim for. Start it in a draft as I suggested above and if you start slowly I can give you feedback. SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. I must admit that I do not understand why those two sentences would be problematic. They are simply statements of fact -- supported by numerous newspaper and magazine articles -- as to what Tomato does. The text is also written in plain English, with no adjectives or promotional elements. Under this viewpoint, Coca-Cola couldn't say it makes various brands of soda, or Sony Pictures couldn't say it works in film, television, branded content, etc. Also, those sentences are no different than what our competitors are using (apparently, without a problem), such as B-Reel, which opens its wiki page with the following: "B-Reel is an international production company working in three areas: Commercials and Branded Content, Digital and Feature Films." I don't mean to argue, but we are on highly subjective ground now, and while I can supply an amended version, I fear that nothing I write will somehow pass muster with an admin. Surely, those sentences aren't controversial?Quiller1970 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see the deleted article somewhere? I haven't done any design-firm articles, but professional services firms are all pretty similar. See Waggener Edstrom for a GA-ranked page on a PR firm. Also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation is a much better place to submit new articles if you are a newbie or are working on behalf of the article-subject. This also has the effect of attracting completely random article-reviewers, which de-personalizes the issue of having a specific editor delete your work.
I had a hard time seeing if the company met Wikipedia's requirements for an article, since "Tomato" is such a general term. CorporateM (Talk) 21:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Quiller1970: It's hard to explain - but it reads like an advert and everyone here would agree. I had a look at B-Reel and you are right - that article sucked, I'm not even sure if they are notable. Waggener Edstrom should give you a better idea of where to aim. Get rid of all the lists and write about when the company was founded, who by etc.
@CorporateM: Thanks for chiming in. I've put the most recently deleted version at Draft:Tomato (company) (guess I should have done this before). They are definitely notable but yes the name makes it hard to find sources. Try including 'underworld' or 'trainspotting' in your searches (there are some gbook links further up). SmartSE (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the help. I have done a slight rewrite based on Smartse's comments, but didn't drastically change the sentence that lists the primary media types used by Tomato. It really is important to express Tomato's multimedia roots (they were perhaps the first truly integrated media agency), and the list is valuable because it shows specific application of design and creativity. It's also no different than Waggener Edstrom's list of its practice areas, and that's GA ranked. Also, Underworld is fundamental to the history of Tomato, but I avoided references to specific projects (such as Trainspotting) for now, as I just want to get a basic page going. Down the road, I could add a "notable projects" section with references. What I have done for now is submit the revised article to AFC for review, and this version is also in my sandbox. Welcome you to have a look. Thanks again. Quiller1970 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review/Assessment

Based on the draft here I have the following comments:

  • creative partners
  • What is a "multi-discipline design and film collective?" Is it a company?
  • Normally we list all the founders individually, but considering there are six, I would just say "six designers" (or something)
  • The sentence starting off "Today, the collective includes" should be replaced with a list of divisions or practice areas in a new "Services" section. The Services section should also summarize what the company sells.
  • Awards: Everything in the current article about awards should be removed as promotional. In most cases, awards should only be included if they are mentioned in profile articles about the company (see Waggener Edstrom)
  • Similar with clients. We avoid indiscriminate lists, unless it is a List article. A Notable works section should include only the most significant projects in paragraph-style prose and it should describe what the work was and why it was significant (and include both positive and negative projects).

A decent amount of the content in the deleted article was good (neutral) encyclopedic content, but I think it was promotional enough to warrant a deletion. If the intention is to just get a stub started, I'd be happy to trim it down to an acceptable version. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reported you

Check here Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarah1971 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hey Smartse,

I would like to say that I am not using any other account besides this (Vishal1811). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal1811 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For doing the hard work to protect Wikipedia, even when it isn't always easy or fun. CorporateM (Talk) 09:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! It's reassuring to be reported to ANI and find that most editors agree with my actions and suspicions. (And I wouldn't do it, if I didn't find it at least slightly fun!) SmartSE (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same ring of paid accounts that reported me to ANI a while back regarding Suburban Express and engaged in similar story-telling. They alleged that I must have been hired by a competing local bus company in the same college town as the article-subject in an effort to de-fame their competition on Wikipedia. One of the drawbacks of disclosing a COI is that editors were actually convinced by their redicilous narrative, where they wouldn't be were it anyone else.
Anyways, you may want to check out Htowncat as another possible sock. They were one of the accounts I suspected were associated with the same ring of paid accounts on that article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Christ. There are certainly some dodgy characters about! Trying to work out how all these socks are linked is difficult as there are obvious ways to get around CU etc. I had a look at Htowncat but it doesn't seem as bad as the rest, but the problem with sock-hunting is that after a while everyone looks like a sock! Still struggling to AGF that this could be the first edit made by a newbie who can't spell 'his' though... Eventually I tired of reverting ridiculous claims at Darren Cullen so took it off my watchlist - plenty still wrong with it though if you want to work some magic ;) SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to balance being naiive versus being jaded/paranoid. The whole paid editing thing puts a lot of strain on our founding principles. I took a glance at the source on the Darren Cullen article. It looks to genuinely warrant a separate page. I still wouldn't mind helping improve it, but you can imagine what it would look like for me to go around meddling in another paid editing businesses' articles. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A puzzling revert

This one. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - must have misclicked somewhere! SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite alright. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smartse

Odbrana is tactical system with over 10000 members and more than 100000 followers worldwide. Odbrana page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odbrana_(tactical_defense_system) ) was proposed for deletion by you. I am not familiar with all Wikipedia rules but I am one of the guys who study, practice and write about martial arts. Personally I admire Odbrana, Krav Maga and Systema, sense they are the only combat self defense systems around the world. Some of the Odbrana members started Odbrana page year ago and I took some part of editing as well. Probably we need some guidance from you guys in order to meet some of the Wikipedia terms and conditions sense there is no questions about paid editing, false marketing etc. Can you please let me know how can I make all terms and conditions right if we did something wrong. Thanks Smartse, Respectfully, Srbtiger 06:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srbtiger. The problem with this and Vladimir Djordjevic (martial artist) is that they do not appear notable - WP:42 explains what we mean by this most simply. Unless there are suitable sources, then we should't have an article about something and this is regardless of how many members an organisation has, or how important you or I think something is. Although the articles were both almost certainly created by a paid editor, this isn't in itself a reason to delete the articles. So - you need to find multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss Djordjevic and Odbrana or the articles will be deleted permanently in a week or so. This means newspaper articles or books, not links to directories or answers.com as you added earlier. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and based on you designing the logo of Odbrana, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:NOTPROMO all apply to your editing. SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmartSE, if you get a second, could you please take a look at this discussion and the related article here? Someone nommed the article for AfD, a brand new SPA with six edits in article space sprung up and made some vandalism accusations, and is giving a lot of push-back on things as minor as adding cleanup templates (see article history). I say it's tangentially related because the SPA first contacted one of the accounts mentioned in the SPI. I've dropped a note at WikiProject Music asking them to take a look, but we'll see if that goes anywhere. I'm mentioning this to you since you participated in the SPI. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did you see my comment after yours at the SPI? It's tricky to know how best to deal with cases like this as it's difficult, if not impossible to distinguish between socks, meats, newbies and the subjects of articles. The link to TimeQueen32 seems pretty shaky to me and so we should just treat the newbie as we would anyone else. They also contacted another user, so they could have (however unlikely) just stumbled across the article today. Good idea posting at WP Music though - I had a look for sources myself though and they are very thin on the ground. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yeah, I did see your other comment. Lemme run something past you: I've been taking a lot of flack lately for being on the wrong side of AfDs, and although I've flopped to Keep I want to make sure that I'm doing it for the right reasons, and not just because I'm being pressured by the RfA process to do something differently. Firstly, the Fescal article is really funky to me. I find it really suspicious that two single-purpose accounts, Simon and Popnrock have sprung up to defend it. And Happydit has been implicated in an SPI. It's also interesting how these other reviews are springing up. My suspicious mind wonders if these aren't just paid/inserted reviews meant to blow the artists, or to allow their writers to climb further up their own asses. This one... omg. Anyhow, you've been around--if we generally consider sources reliable unless proven otherwise, shouldn't these blog review sites be considered "reliable" as "new media" until we could disregard them? (I'm dying inside as I write that...seriously, I'm suggesting that blogs should be reliable?) And wouldn't these reviews be considered "significant" coverage of the works enough to warrant the subject's inclusion, or do we need content that is written directly about the subject, David S/Fescal for inclusion? Sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to repair mistakes I've made in the past. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky and working that out is what AFDs are for! With music especially, it is hard to know what we should consider 'reliable' as from just looking at the sites it's hard to tell whether they are respected sources or not. As I've said over there, I'd like to see at least some mention in a more reliable source to demonstrate notability more clearly - it's lacking anything reputable at the moment. While the links might be ok as sources in the article, I don't think they're sufficient to show notability. Newspapers review a lot of albums, even if only briefly and I'd expect to find something if a musician is notable. OTOH, for the music I listen to, pretty much the only sources that exist are similar to those and finding anything on the most-respected artists can be very difficult. This site is the best source being published, but I'm not sure you would (possibly even should) distinguish that the sites listed at the AFD. Reviews of albums in RSs are completely sufficient to meet BAND and we don't need coverage of the musician as a person.
As to the socks, yes it is suspicious - KiranAN123 also looks a bit suspect to me as they've added questionable content before. If only a CU would get round to letting us know which are linked... SmartSE (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Stanzione

Hello SmartSE, I see you have been working on the Vince Stanzione TV Commerce page, you have stated that a Channel was closed down, this is false, the channel that was closed down and referred to in the independent article was Look for Love run by TV Concepts, I can understand that you made a mistake, it has now been deleted http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/licensing-updates/look4love2 TV Commerce was fined but was never told to close a channel down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.245.87 (talk • contribs)

Hi. The source is very clear on this:

StarDate TV - owned by stock market-listed TV Commerce Holdings - has been closed by regulators for ripping off consumers via a premium-rate phone line.

It also mentions that another channel was shut down owned by another company, which I'll presume is the one you're referring to (I've only checked the preview version today). I haven't 'made a mistake' at all, so will be replacing the content. If you have any further queries about this, it would be better to start a thread at Talk:Vince Stanzione where other interested editors are more likely to respond. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you get the full article and you also provide a second source, If TV Commerce had a channel closed by the regulators then it would have an Ofcom adjudication which is not the case, Ofcom relates to look4love. Agreed the firm was fined £25,000 by the telecom regulator as were many other TV channels.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.245.87 (talk • contribs)
I have read the full article and found another source which says the channel closed as a result of the fine, which I guess is slightly different so I have reworded it. Regardless of that though, why are you removing the bit about consumers being ripped off as well? SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the company decided to close the channel as part of the fine and changes in regulations - at no times was the channel closed down - thanks for the rewording — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.245.87 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one PR agency

I kind of have a hankering now to work on a company article with a negative or controversial slant. Of course I rarely get to as part of my sponsored work, because I have to consult them they wouldn't be happy with a neutral article and should not use my services. We bumped into each other a while back on an article about a PR firm that had a sort of seedy reputation for helping dictators and the like and I was thinking of circling back to it (the Edelman article was exceedingly boring). Do you remember what the article was? CorporateM (Talk) 23:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Qorvis. I collected some sources together from Factiva last year, but I don't think I ever got round to incorporating them all. Let me know if you want a copy. SmartSE (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small little thing

You deleted the page, but left the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Egyptian_Drilling_Company_(EDC) (Just a small little something) Ging287 (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Looks like someone has already taken care of it though. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AB 1995

Hello, today i got a a messagage that my article has been deletd. the reason was that → → 18:50, 1 April 2014 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted page Anurag Bishwas (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH)), i don't understand it. i am a real person and i have written 100% truth. pls what i have to do now pls, reply fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB 1995 (talk • contribs)

Hi. As Largoplazo has already explained to you, the reason is relatively simple - you're just a normal person (i.e. not important or significant). To be included in Wikipedia, people need to have been written about in detail in newspapers or magazines. Whatsmore, creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged and it appears that the reason you created it is to promote yourself. Wikipedia is not not another facebook or a free web host. Because of this I have deleted the version that you reposted. Please do not recreate it again as it will be considered disruptive. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory Incubator

Hi Smartse, I saw your comment about the article on Articles for deletion page. Think there's definitely a good reason why we should keep the page for Regulatory Incubator - journalists and companies use this term in articles and search, just perhaps edit down the contents and keep it relevant to what a regulatory incubator (or a regulatory umbrella) does - these two terms are practically interchangeable. In your comment you say you see a merge or a redirect to an article about Sturgeon Ventures as an option. I've submitted it some time ago but it was rejected. As a result I though that creating an article for the term 'Regulatory Incubator' would be the right thing to do, even though there are some high quality sources referring to the company, including the Financial Times. It looks to me that there are two options: 1. Keep Regulatory Incubator article but improve the copy or 2. Publish an article for Sturgeon Ventures and put a merge/redirect in place. Please let me know your thoughts - Many thanks Kt1502 (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kat. The problem is that there isn't any verifiable evidence that people are using the term - we need sources that demonstrate it is a widely used term before having an article. We can't improve it when there are no suitable sources to expand it with - that's fundamental to how we work here. I saw the SV draft but unless that goes live then there is nowhere to redirect or merge the article to. If you can get the SV to be suitably neutral then we can redirect to that article, regardless of how the AFD turns out. Also, considering your COI, it might be a good idea to disclose this at the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

questions

I have few questions:

Puccetto has a clear COI and my guess is that they are being paid for editing. I also think there may be socks involved, but I have yet to prove that still. JMHamo (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Puccetto: I can't know why JMHamo nominated them for deletion, but we have to assume thought it was done in good faith. "fails WP:CORP" isn't a great deletion rationale but that's up to the nominator. I had a quick look at it yesterday and it doesn't look as if WP:BEFORE was followed but that isn't a reason to sanction the nominator. If someone was nominating tens of articles like then blocks would be appropriate but I don't think this is the case.
@JMHamo: What evidence is there of a "clear COI"? I do a lot of COI clean up and Puccetto's contributions look much more like somebody with a specialist interest (watches and jewellery) than a paid editor. Regardless of that though, you shouldn't nominate articles for deletion without following WP:BEFORE and certainly in the case of Buccellati it is immediately obvious that the company is notable. If you think there are socks involved then start an SPI but be sure that there is strong evidence first. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stories about payment and socks are funny very much: Buccellati, Morellato, Bulgari, Damiani do not need wikipedia for watches selling and Breil, Philip Watch, Locman, Tommaso Buti, Naloni, Franchi Menotti, etc. too. Furthermore wikipedia is used for political propaganda by some organized groups who makes entrism and in this case who does pay who? I have only simple questions to you, founder Jimbo Wales including: for this reason I never did edit in articles of political matters--Puccetto (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.Minkowiski

Please check Special:Contributions/A.Minkowiski for further proposals to delete articles immediately by A.Minkowiski. This newly (today!) created user seems to think he is a samorai. I suggest he should be blocked because he gives a lot of work, and even much more annoyance. DrMennoWolters (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look and some of their tagging is fine so I'm definitely not going to block them. I'll give them some advice on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes I am new editor, but is there anything wrong in my edits? Let me know if it is. I Would definately revert. A.Minkowiski (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Institute

Hi Smart. I keep trying to rope you into articles where I have a COI, mostly unsuccessfully, but color me persistent. I just brought the SAS (software) article up to GA and I'm targeting the SAS Institute article next. (see my work in progress here). The thing is, I can already tell it will be the most positive article I have written in recent times, because that is what is representative of the sources (nobody is going to believe me when I say this). They are best known for being a good place to work and for showing that greed doesn't always win.

I figured you more than most understand that what is neutral depends on the topic and would check the sources before passing judgement. Maybe I can persuade you to check out my draft when it's ready? CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The funny part is as a marketer I would find myself naturally attracted to the positivity. Now that I am more Wikipedian than marketer, it makes me want to gag, but I'll hold it in for fear of puking rainbows and fairy dust. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the rant ;) I've had a look at that section and agree that the sourcing is fine. Normally a section like that would set off alarm bells, but for once it appears to be genuinely due. Are you sure this is reliable though? I can't find anything about the publication. I'm not sure about the 'Charity and community' either - presumably you're going to cut that? I can't vouch that there are no problems with the rest of the article as I'd need to spend some time searching for sources myself, which would take quite a while, but the workplace bit certainly seems ok to me. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed draft still has a charity section, but it is supported by secondary sources and half the length. It also has a citation needed tag in there for something I need to see if there are sources for still. It is not clear where to draw the line between the charities of the CEO/owner and the company, but I saw a source that said the company's primary philanthropic activities was in improving education, so I have that in there for now. They created a division for this purpose that sells software products for schools at-cost as a sort of "non-profit" type division.
The Software Business publication looks to be defunct (their url is no longer active) - this clip was archived by the College of Agriculture at the University of Nevada. I notice at the bottom that it says it is a column and the author appears to be a consultant. It may qualify as an expert source, but I am edging on it being very iffy now that I look into it and there are plenty of better sources that say the same thing.
I rather figured that chasing down covert COIs was maybe just more fun than collaborating with me and wasn't expecting you to chip in ;-) I've started going through it section-by-section here as suggested by another editor (even for me it's overwhelming to do the whole page at once). Any interest in hammering it out with me? I'm ok waiting however long it takes for you to get around to it - I just want to stop bugging other editors for help if it's already on your To Do list. It's also not practical for me to collaborate with a group of editors on a single page, because each one has to become reasonably well-read on the topic. CorporateM (Talk) 06:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Software Business source - the stuff it was supporting didn't seem to important to the article anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 06:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think those sources are enough to call the section 'charity and community'. I can't find 'philanthropy' or 'curriculum' in the first one - what page is it on? The second one doesn't call it charity but rather “corporate responsibility”. Curriculum Pathways might deserve a mention, but it's probably better just to create a more neutral title and only discuss that. The rest of the section needs to go, unless there are sources. I only just saw the current version though - your draft is already an improvement!
If you can find the same information elsewhere, it would be better to get rid of the Software Business source.
Chasing covert COIs is certainly more fun and doesn't require much concentration to checking sources etc. which is why I tend to do more of that than writing these days (although my first DYK in a long while is in progress). I'll keep a watch on Talk:SAS Institute and might chime in at some point. I'm getting busy with work again soon though so might not have time to look at things in detail. Sorry for always taking ages to respond to you - your posts generally take a lot longer to reply to than most people's (especially when I close the tab half way though)! SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right! None of those statements are actually supported by that source. I haven't really vetted that section carefully yet and I must have mixed things up somewhere. Doing some quick Googling, and I think it is usually presented as part of the company culture, so it should be consolidated as you suggest. I will incorporate your comments as I work my way up the page. Regarding the Redcliffe page, I could offer some suggestions if you like. CorporateM (Talk) 04:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Redcliffe N. Salaman

Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Battlefield 5...

I had reviewed the google hits for it, but they are all forum posts and a couple questionable videos. The only close-to-reliable source is IMDB and as IMDB is not reliable in general, there's no RS's to support this. (In addition, Battlefield 4 only just came out, and it is extremely doubtful that a game 4 years out would be announced at this time). --MASEM (t) 17:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I though the release date was suspect, but not that the whole thing was made up. Did you use quotes in your search? I found this and this which I thought was enough to avoid G3 even though they're hardly RSs. Now I've noticed an article at examiner.com grr blacklist! which says that a domain was cybersquatted and that it was a hoax "it appears that “Battlefield 5” won’t be coming out anytime soon.". I see that Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) has already taken care of it. SmartSE (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any official announcement of a specific release date for BF5 before the end of 2014, I vow to eat my keyboard. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public Storage‎

Along the lines of the discussion there about trivial lawsuits, I thought you might be interested in User:CorporateM/Extant Organizations. It's comparable to how we have a policy for BLPs focused on respecting their reputation, a guideline for medical articles focused on sources and.... now an essay for company articles focused on WP:NOT. It covers how to avoid trivial lawsuits, awards, directory information, etc. I was originally thinking it would be ideal as a guideline, but to avoid the drama of a COI meddling in policies/guidelines, I'm going to keep it as a user essay for now. Still if you're interested in taking a look, I'd love any input you have. CorporateM (Talk) 01:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed your post on Drmies' talk page about the essay and had a read of it then. I certainly think that it's a good summary of our guidelines that would be useful for someone writing a new article. A few thoughts: maybe mention something along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, since this id often something that comes up (our competitor has a page, so we should too, or article x contains this information, so why shouldn't ours?). Shouldn't WP:CORP also be included? If not, then you should make it clear that it's about what should be in articles, rather than what we should have articles on. I'm not so sure about the Wendy's example - it's not mentioned in the article, but sources like this suggest that it certainly could be. I've never really got into policy/guideline/essay editing, but if you want to seek consensus, an RFC or a post at the village pump would be a good way to get wider input. It's understandable that people could be concerned with you writing content guidelines, but it doesn't look as if anyone else has been too interested in it before! SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP is in there under the Sources section. I think part of the reason it is difficult to get consensus on COI issues is because it focuses on the editor rather than the article, so I was going out of my way to stay focused on content. I've posted it on the Village Pump, but it was archived without discussion. A few months ago I shared an earlier draft on Jimbo's Talk page. DES supported it and Coretheapple went on about how I should not even suggest it due to my COIs. My initial hope was not to complete it myself, but that someone else would be inspired enough to take initiative and take the project off my hands, in order to avoid COI drama, but nobody did, so I just kept working on it.
I'm not sure what to do with it. I think it would be overwhelmingly useful, but from what I've seen it is near impossible to get consensus for anything like this, due to the community's general resistance to change - even more so without bold editing due to a COI. So it seems like it would be very useful, but also unlikely to succeed and very likely to be a source of controversy, etc., so user space for now until I make up my mind. CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I missed that part. Perhaps you should state at the beginning that it's about content rather than what we should have articles on. It's difficult to know where the best place to seek input is... VP can be rather quiet and Jimbo's talk page tends to attract more dramatical editors than most places. You've tried ANI 2.0 as well - you're moving towards WP:SILENCE. I'm not sure if anyone will notice, but WT:BUSINESS could be another place to try or start an RFC. If that still doesn't work then I think you should just be bold and move it to WP space. If people disagree with it then I'm sure they'll let you know! It's not like you're suggesting anything radically new with it, so I don't see why anyone would have a problem with you having written it. Bits like the award section are indeed the exact opposite of what most COI editors would argue for. If some editors are too thick or blind to see past you being a paid editor, then there's nothing that's going to change that. I think it's fair to say that not many people are interested in writing company articles - even the largest company articles are generally pretty poor e.g. Starbucks - and this is probably why not many people are interested in it. SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know WP:ADAM? Jayen466 (talk · contribs) wrote that and I always think that it's a model that far too many company articles follow as well. Maybe he would have some comments on your essay. SmartSE (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The balance of the essay could use slightly more anti-coatrack material, as it is heavily focused on anti-promotion atm; probably because that is what I am most experienced in fighting against. I was thinking I might do a regular RFC under the policy and company/economics categories. I think claiming WP:SILENCE and being bold by moving it into article-space is probably in Wikipedia's best interest, but may get me into trouble. OTOH, like with most Request Edits, it is unlikely someone else will move it and irregardless of if they do, it won't make a difference, which is why it would have been better if someone else wrote it, but oh well. CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding which 'controversial' material should be added or removed is definitely more tricky than promotional content as it's all a matter of weight and it takes a lot of reading to work out where the balance lies. If you ask for comments and improvements to be made at the RFC and also whether it should be moved to WP: then I see no reason why you would get into trouble - you've already asked for feedback so now it's time to ask the wider community. If there is a consensus that the contents of it are ok then it can be moved to WP: with no problems. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, I love that this YouTube video disabled the comments feature, preventing Wikipedians from commenting in a way that is visible to their readers. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... that's rather worrying, but it looks to only be on the Portuguese WP e.g. here and it looks as if it has already been removed. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad the clients the video is targeted at can't see that their methods were not as effective as advertised. This little cottage industry I work in is very corrupt on the balance. Thanks, maybe I will take your advice RE the essay, if there is clear and unambiguous consensus or continued silence. I have been doing more article-space editing as I gain confidence, but usually just for vandalism, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 16:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is! I came across this edit today which made me chuckle. Plenty of tidying up after them to do! I noticed the comment on your talk page RE PS - it's a pity that they chose to comment on your perceived POV rather than focussing on the crappy content that was in the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten use to it. A long time ago an editor was harassing me and a bunch of other COIs and didn't get banned until he engaged in the same behavior to a non-conflicted editor. I brought Credit Suisse up to GA on a volunteer basis and someone added a bunch of critical commentary to the article saying that the article was vetted by their PR, merely because their PR guy pointed out (on Talk) an error I made. In other cases even editors that know me well have speculated that I have some covert COI on articles where I don't and POV pushers LOVE having such an easy mark as my disclosure for their Wikipedia:POV railroading. Remember Suburban Express - people were actually convinced by the astroturfing COI's claims that I must have been hired by some competitor (a small bus service in a college town apparently - I may be cheap, but I'm not that cheap).
I have seen enough RFCs on company articles about dedicated Controversies sections to know they always have the same outcome, so when I saw the outcome of this RFC in support of a controversies section, I knew the cards were stacked against me and it was time to quit. The frustrating part is that editors keep putting me on a pedastool of how disclosure and Bright Line work well and there's no reason not to follow it and I could just as reasonably claim the opposite is true. Like with everything, it depends on the specific scenario and situation. Some experiences are good and some bad and I (and the marketing community) can't complain that crowd-sourced editors don't always get it right, because neither do we. Thanks for listening to my rant ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP chat conversation

Conversation with Wiki/help/chat I hope this is the right place to talk with you about this.

I went to the wiki/help/chat site to ask to whom I should report a site on a scientific subject that had no inline references. Three responders there agreed there is no WP requirement for inline citations in a scientific article so no action was needed. The site is "Dynamic energy budget". I copied and pasted the conversation I had on my wiki page in case you would like to look at it. Are you interested as an Administrator in checking the site for some kind of flagging? If you don't agree with the info they gave me, should anyone get back to them, or are they right?

I have no personal interest in this: whatever action or inaction that is taken is OK with me. I'm going back to editing!

Oh there is one other topic: I came upon a site I think needs a title change: it's Energy balance(Biology). It looks like to me that it would better called Energy homeostasis - I edited the first line to say that's what it means. Is changing the title to the page something you could pass judgment on, or refer to someone who can? Again, the outcome doesn't matter to me - just want to point it out for potential review.

Thank you.

IiKkEe (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I don't know how to cut and paste: that chat site conversation I alluded to is not on my user page. Probably not worth pursuing without documentation and names.

IiKkEe (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All content needs to be verifiable, and ideally would have inline citations, but the other editors were correct that there is no 'requirement' to have inline citations. That said, as a reader, it is much better for an article to have inline references and you'd be justified to add {{inline}} to the top of dynamic energy budget. I'm not sure about whether whether 'balance' or 'homeostasis' is a better title and it would depend largely on what the sources use. That article was started by Mikael Häggström who is still active, so he would be a better person to ask than me. SmartSE (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. I agree Energy balance (biology) may be moved to Energy homeostasis. After all, it is already a fork from Human homeostasis (Human_homeostasis#Energy). Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a discussion entry at Talk:Energy balance (biology). Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing my edit

"Mfero" has changed a single word in the first sentence in the Intro of Platelets from a correct to an incorrect statement ("vertebrates" instead of "non-mammalian vertebrates") Do I change it back, and explain why he's wrong on the talk page, or click on his page from the Edit history and discuss it there? Thanks.

IiKkEe (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The change was more substantial than that. I think Mfero made a very valid point while reverting your edit though - the first sentence of an article should be simple enough for readers who knows nothing about a topic to understand what the article is about. "biconvex discs, fragments of cytoplasm 2–3 µm in diameter" may well be correct, but would everyone understand what it means? Their involvement in clotting should definitely be mentioned.
Regarding the mammals/vertebrates issue, this is definitely something that needs discussing on the talk page, and you need to show which source you've used to come to that conclusion and invite Mfero to demonstrate why they think they are correct. If you do this, you'll be following the bold, revert, discuss model of editing, which is often the best way to make progress. SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once again I failed to see your response until 4 days later - which this time turns out to be good thing, because ironically on my own I concluded exactly what you recommended: I posted a note on his user talk page inviting him to discuss his revision on Platelet talk, outlined BRD to see if we agreed on how to proceed, and pasted a paragraph from the text Platelets supporting my view that platelets are in mammals only. When he didn't respond I changed the opening sentence - not a reversion, but a rewrite to accommodate his excellent suggestion to start with what they do in sentence one, and keep the language simple. That stimulated me to redescribe what they look like, put more citations in the lead, and rewrite the whole Structure section. So only good things happened, and all is well in WP land.

IiKkEe (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick glance at that and it looks to be going well. The beginning of an article is one of the hardest things to write as it needs be accurate but also accessible. I'm glad you have someone who knows more than I about platelets to discuss it with. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection upgrade?

You have had Genetically modified organism as pending-changes for a year or so. There's a constant stream of IP vandalism or other unacceptable edits being rejected, but I'm also not seeing any nonreverted edits from IP/newbie. Maybe upgrade to semiprotection and save everyone some time? DMacks (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMacks. I've taken a look at the history since I applied PC and I still think that this is the correct choice of protection. While the article does get vandalised fairly often, it's not at a high enough frequency to justify permanent semi-protection at the moment. A fair few of the IP edits are made in good faith as well and I'm hesitant to block all of those. SmartSE (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense...thanks for double-checking to confirm. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem at Integrin site

I've adopted you as my "mentor": tell me if I'm misusing or overusing you.

There's a chart at Integrin. The font is too big so it's doubled over on itself. I asked WikiHelpChat if they could fix it, they said they didn't know how, post the problem on Integrin talk.

Do you know how to fix font size , or refer to someone who does know?

Thanks!

IiKkEe (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)![reply]

No problem adopting me ;) I can't promise to give you particularly speedy replies in the next few weeks but I'll do my best. The folks over at WP:HELPDESK are very helpful if you get bored of waiting.
Do you mean the text "Integrin alphavbeta3 extracellular domains" etc. at the top of the boxes on the right hand side? If so, then it can't be changed really as it is coded in {{Pfam_box}} which sets the size across thousands of other articles.
If it's not that, which text do you mean? SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title singular or plural?

Back with another question. It seems strange to me that Pages like Platelet, Red blood cell, White blood cell, and Integrin are titled in the singular, when 99% of the time they are talked about in the pleural. Just looking at the Pages themselves and counting the singulars and pleurals woud make the point. Hoping to leave you out of this one, I went to WP Help Chat, asked who decides these thing and how are they decided, they said "community consensus" and "go to Wikikipedia medicine". That brought up visions of 1) procedures akin to a constitutional amendment and 2) going into a black hole - so I'm back to you for feedback: who does this and how is it decided? easy to submit request for consideration or overwhelming?

Thanks!

IiKkEe (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IiKkEe: WP:SINGULAR is the relevant policy but I can't say it's something that I've ever much experience with. Policies have been debated previously, but are always open to change and can be ignored if necessary, but generally I just go with the flow of them. You could post suggest here that the articles are moved, but it's unlikely to be changed. Many editors aren't like myself, but I prefer to deal with content rather than debating trivial things like this. (also see my replies above) SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpareet Bains

Dear SmartSe, I have seen that you have nominated Gurpareet Bains for deletion, among others. Though I accept sound reasons for deletions, I do feel that my choice of career is drawing attention to wikis that otherwise would be viewed as perfectly fine. Gurpareet is a household name in the UK and abroad and this is fully supported in the sources chosen. His notability is amply demonstrated by the significant national and international coverage he receives. I welcome the chance to discuss things further with you. Gruntfuttock115 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smartse&oldid=608223503"