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.

Your changes to the JFrog page

Hi Smartse You recently deleted a large section of text I added to the JFrog page. I have gone through it and edited it to better comply with NPOV. I'm a newbie on Wikipedia, so if you have more reservations about text on that page, I'd be happy to get specific comments on its Talk page (or my Talk page). Thanks Rhws (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi Smartse. I've been working the COIN board for a while and looking at sockpuppeting/paid editing issues. In the course of that, I came across this but I don't see that you followed up at SPI or COIN. Did I miss something, or did you change your mind, or just get distracted? thx Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog. The case I was working on at time was spun out from Sibtain_007 to here. Neither the article or the user who created the article are listed there and six months on the only thing I can see that made me think it was written by them was that it was started in a sandbox and moved to mainspace to avoid NPP which was a common tactic of those socks. Oh actually - these edits were what lead me to the article in the first place - check that (blocked) users' contribs to the Adobe suite of articles which were listed in this bizarre page. Happy hunting! SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that group is still around somewhere btw - check Special:Contributions/Geogiaboy. If I wasn't already trying to do two jobs at once I'd try to help out. SmartSE (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for replying! i thought your call, that the account was a sock, looked accurate, and was surprised not to see it followed up on. i figured it was distraction.. and it sounds like it was. i actually came across that in a three-hour binge of looking a different set of socks/conflicted editors, so i totally understand. hang in there - it is always great to cross paths with you. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll hope be around more again at some point. How come you don't have a mop yet? Hunting socks is a lot easier when you can view deleted contribs as you can find the really crappy articles that get G11ed and it often leads to more that didn't get noticed. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have thought about it, but i have a lot of haters. would be contentious. and just recently, have been through too much drama at ANI - some of it self inflicted :( . maybe later this year or next though! i just noticed that you got the tools - congrats! Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC

Richard Edelman

Regarding this, the link given in the citation is a broken link, but I found a working one here. The article does not appear to even mention Richard Edelman or support the article-text; as far as I can tell, this is unsourced content about a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

i added an archive link to the right article. Yours is a completely different one! Can you revert? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the archive link, which was to a different source and for different text than what I was referring to. I reverted myself, then removed the part I was referring to, restoring the part you are referring to. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being rather blunt before - I was on mobile and with only one hand. I see why we got ourselves confused here as we were evidently mixed up over which source and which content we were discussing. I was also a little hasty to revert and wrongly assumed that I had added the content, when it was actually there before I started. I've had another look, and found that the quote in the removed content can be found here [1] and for some reason the wrong link was added, based on the hit piece at Source Watch. It's probably undue to include in the grand scheme of thing though. Sorry for not looking at it more closely before! SmartSE (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

COI related article nominated for deletion

Hi Smartse,

There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently nominated for deletion. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.

Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the top 10 contributors to the COI Noticeboard, expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.

Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 22:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Melody (potato)

Thank you for fixing some of my errors. Would you be able to find out when it was invented/patented and start a page about the breeder? They own the rights to quite a few potatoes apparently... I don't know if they are a subsidiary of Meijer--I have found no evidence.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi no probs. It's a topic I have a special interest in. Plant breeders' rights last for 30 years for potatoes, so it would have been listed_{wow this shouldn't be red} in c. 2000, but the original cross would have been earlier in around 1993 as it takes a long time to develop a variety. Unfortunately there are few good sources for potato varieties, normally this site has more info, but it doesn't for this one and what I've written is original research. I'm growing some of these this year, so will try to remember to take some photos and add them to the article. What drew your attention to it? SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I very much doubt that the breeder is a subsidiary of Meijer. According to their website they're a small family-owned company and that's pretty typical of potato breeders. SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Source for introduction in 2000. SmartSE (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I bought them at Tesco for my dinner...Do you grow them in the UK, if you don't mind me asking? Yes, pictures of the plant would be good. I created a category on Wikimedia Commons. Do you grow anything else?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah ha. Yep, they're quite a popular variety here. I've also got Estima (potato), King Edward potato, Jelly (potato), Maris Piper, Markies (potato) and Marfona. How Maris Piper still doesn't have an article is beyond me. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

They come from a farm in Colwall, Worcestershire, owned by this man Phillip. Certified by the Organic Food Federation. Enough details for now; have a nice evening.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!

You haven't been on much for a while; I actually thought you may have retired. I just spotted you at COIN here, glanced at your contribs and went, hey, he's back! You didn't seem that interested in working with me on pages where I have a COI, so I won't bother you with them. However, your devotion to following the sources and upholding high sourcing expectations is an example we should all aspire to follow, so I was happy to see you editing again. Lets pretend I gave you a teacup, or a hot cocoa or whatever it is someone should offer to welcome an editor that hasn't been on much in a while. CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers CM. I'm only back temporarily for now as I'm off work with a Colles' fracture from snowboarding (this guy makes it look easy) so I'm left-handed for now. Fortunately that doesn't interfere with removing crappy content, but additions will have to wait for the winter. And sorry about ignoring your COI requests - had a very full-on schedule for the last year. Now I'm remembering the addictive nature of watchlist refreshing! Hope all's well with you. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm always trying to subtly get a read on whether a particular editor enjoys collaborating with me even where I have a COI, or if I am dragging them to articles they don't really have an interest in, but never seem able to get a straight answer ;-)

If it's more of the former than the latter, I think the the Heather Bresch page could use some fresh discussion strings to hammer out stuff like primary sources, the dedicated Recognition section (promotional), and the lack of any substantial information about her primary claims to notability (lobbying for legislation, female CEO, CEO of a Fortune 500) and I was wondering if you have an interest in hammering out some edits with me.

It's been a very slow-moving article, due primarily to strong opinions about paid editing and the MBA controversy and could use the help of a disinterested editor that insists on following the sources. Perhaps I am canvassing a bit, since we share - I think - a similar POV of insisting on high-quality sources, something I have probably picked up in part from you, but have increasingly learned to value while you were out, as the absolute best method to respond to POV pushers of all kinds, who typically rely on mediocre sourcing to achieve their editorial agenda. CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Kate-Margret

Requesting help regarding page asap. Please! <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Hello, Please contact me asap regarding deletion of page Kate-Margret, we are ready to correct what ever is needed and all the info is related to the singer and we own all rights. How can we get help with this , and restore the page. Thanks, Kate.M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.35.254 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted because our notability standards for musicians are not met and consequently, there is nothing that can be done to restore the page at the moment (see WP:TOOSOON). Not that if affected the decision to delete the article, please note that paying people to create an article about yourself is very frowned upon here, especially as in this case where the editor did not disclose that they were being paid. Regards SmartSE (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

BiH

Hey Smartse, just a note to let you know that I concluded that BiH has not been socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH). BiH left a note on my Talk page (before my findings) complaining about your removing his autopatrolled right. Actually, I think he should have talked to you, not me, but putting that aside, I know that the logged basis for the removal was because of concerns about paid editing, but I wanted to make sure that possible socking wasn't part of your reason. Also, he complained that you did not discuss this with him. Even if your determination is that he's not entitled to the right, it might be constructive to reach out to him and give him more information. All up to you, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for the heads up, I should have explained myself at the time. Socking wasn't really the issue, although it's abundantly clear from my perspective that they are doing something dodgy and I hope you think I made the right decision. SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you made yourself clear in the log. I just think it would be fairer to make yourself clear(er) to BiH. I confess I'm on the fence about the paid editing issue, which, as you know, is a tricky thing from a policy perspective. In any event, you're not alone in your reaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that you left a long message on BiH's Talk page. Nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam Jane Brown

Can I ask why you undeleted Sam Jane Brown? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A good question! I didn't mean to at all and I must have misclicked while checking the deleted contribs. I've just redeleted it. Thanks for letting me know. SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Microorganism page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Guggenheim Partners

I am in contact with them about Hollywood Reporter, Janice Min and other pages. I saw your name pop up in a few places, cleaning up after their PR agency or blocking their agency's accounts[2] for advertising. I noticed their agency edited quite a few other un-related pages and I got the feeling there was probably a larger investigation and cleanup going on, but I didn't find anything searching COIN or SPI.

I was wondering if there was some context/history you might be able to give me, or a link to a central discussion where I could get more background? Do you suspect this agency has other accounts not yet discovered? I was considering seeing if I could get an introduction to the agency, where I can make a best effort to persuade them to disclose all their accounts if there are more. CorporateM (Talk) 22:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kip_78. I recognised the username from before (not exactly sure where) and had presumed that it was inactive which is why I let it be. That group of articles have had other PEs though e.g. Special:Contributions/Adotrde. It's difficult to know whether they are linked to this group of socks or whether Troy Fodemski has just hired someone else. I'm not aware of any other users, but as usual it's impossible to tell who are socks and who are meats and there is a whole lot of dodginess going on! SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The PR agency world is notorious for being a revolving door both for clients and for employees; even when an employee and client both stay at the same firm, the staff is often re-assigned to different client accounts, so you would see a new account by whoever was shuffled to that client. However, since they are all puppets of the same paymaster, they will make similar edits. Sometimes one employee will make the same exact edit as a prior employee or a prior PR firm, without even knowing the edit was already made previously.

In my opinion, they are more like meats of a group account(the corporation), though technically the group account was never registered on Wikipedia. I'm not sure of what our Meat rules say exactly, but in my opinion paid editors that do not have editorial control over their contributions, because they are following instructions by their paymasters, are some kind of meat or group account.

CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, I will see what I can find out. As it is in most cases, it's unlikely there is intentional "dodginess" going on, as oppose to ignorance. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't really matter - it's the content that's important, but when people use throwaways it's a lot harder to track down the crap. I'm afraid that I have become rather cynical again about the majority of PE (at least the recent ones at COIN) since the problems (copyvio, fake refs etc.) must have been intentional and presumably is intended to pass of PR copy as referenced material. SmartSE (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In my experience and based on data I've collected (100+ assessments I provided over 1 year), there are very few cases (less than 10%) where it is an ABF situation. However, there are also very few cases (30%) where the article-subject's objectives are reasonably aligned with Wikipedia's content policies and even fewer (10-15%) where they make useful edits. Most editors contribute in a manner that makes Wikipedia reflect their own views; they only become POV pushers when their views conflict drastically with the source material, as is the case in most COI situations. So my perspective is that we should continue to AGF and be civil (except in the most extreme cases) even as we're blocking accounts and deleting articles and never assume a COI isn't in that 10-15% exception.

PS - When I saw that you patrolled User:CorporateM/Public Storage, I realized I should have pinged you here, since we were both involved in the Public Storage page previously, before I had a COI. I got the sense that you preferred investigating covert practices more than this line of work, but figured I should at least have pinged you, given you an FYI, etc. so you're in the loop. CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please ..

Hi! Please could you have a word with User:80.168.218.99? I've given him a {{uw-coi}} with no response. I don't want to pursue matters any more as I may lose my rag at him. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up. SmartSE (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

GW501516

About your undoing my changes on the page: GW501516

You said: "Not in agreement with the majority of sources and this is inappopriate citing of a primary source."

I don't want anymore wiki fights; however, in the opening paragraph, there are things that are just plain wrong.

To my knowledge, there is no study that shows that GW501516 causes cancer by itself: ONLY one study mentions cancer, and ONLY when it is combined with the intentional carcinogen DMBA. There aren't any sources that say that GW501516 causes cancer, and only one other mentions polyps (which aren't cancer). This stuff is uncommon enough, that the sources will be mostly primary ones. This can't be helped.

In fact, mentioning cancer should probably be left out. It DOESN'T cause cancer by itself.

One of the previous writers said "rats". The referenced studies were of mice, NOT rats.

The most common name for this stuff is Cardarine, and should be included in with the other names.

I would really appreciate it, if you would let my next edit remain. Karl 71.218.216.109 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it, if you check out my in depth comments to your reply, on the GW501516 talk page. Thank you. Karl 71.218.216.109 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wadhwa Group

Hello SmatSE,

Thanks for your attention on the above article but you probably should not have deleted the article per A7. A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability. In fact, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as our general notability guideline and organization notability in this case. In the same vein, inclusion of reliable secondary sources in an article may itself be an indication of significance. The inclusion of the Economic Times and Indian Times in the article are enough to pass A7. I will be glad if you can restore the page now and allow the WP:AfD to run its course. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Don't border to restore the page, I recreated the article as a stub. I respectfully suggest you should always allow an WP:AfD to run its course before you close debates in the future. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wikicology. Apologies for the delay in responding. The content in The_wadhwa_group consisted of a very brief description that did not explain why the company was significant, a section copied and pasted directly from their website and a list of properties. There must be many Indian property companies and with no explanation of why this one was important it qualified for A7. This is distinct from the organisation being notable and an article being listed at AFD doesn't protect it from speedy deletion. I'm sorry if you think I made the wrong choice, but I've checked again and stand by my decision since there was nothing worth salvaging and there was no claim of significance (this needs to be written in prose rather than derived from linked sources). SmartSE (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd the editor who originally speedied this article: and i'm not sure that any mustard is cut by the present very slender claim to notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Halpin for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this user page OK to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ncox ? Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's certainly better than it was, but it still seems to be a long list about what he does IRL rather than what he does here which isn't what the userpage is for. I'd prefer it to be dramatically pruned and for him to link to the article about himself instead to create a clearer difference between article and user space. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think so too - it is basically an article about himself. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Signpost paid editing

Do you have any interest in writing two paragraphs about paid editing for the SignPost?

I offered to help put something together that's a collection of short viewpoints that answer two questions: What is the overall effect of paid editing on the project and what can be done to handle it better.

The idea is that a lot of the Signpost stories on paid editing are written by editors with strong opinions, extreme views, or financial interests, and I wanted something a little more balanced and reasonable. Editors with strong views are never ideal in article-space either!

What I've started on is located here if you have the time/interest. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up. Left my two cents there. Ping me if they're too long and I'll try to trim them. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. I just added some missing commas if you don't mind. So far the page gives me the impression that most people have an "it depends" mantra, which seems very sound and reasonable. I'm glad I'm not the only one to point out that most paid edits are bad. I'll stop pinging you to review my work, since you obviously don't like it. You should take it as a compliment though! It's very difficult to find good-quality editors that are not biased by a COI disclosure and won't start making edits based on whatever their opinion of COI is, rather than sources and content. CorporateM (Talk) 19:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was on mobile and my writing skills were never the best ;) It's not that I don't like reviewing PE but all too often I find something which seems more urgent. I do normally take a look at any articles you post about but if I don't see any immediate problems I don't tend to edit. I'm hesitant of saying that everything is fine without checking the sources and then I forget... The public storage article was still on my watchlist and your draft looks good - most certainly an improvement on the current version! I've tweaked the signpost thing to hopefully make it clearer. SmartSE (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to comment that the draft "looks" good, but you haven't checked the sources, this is also useful. Un-involved editors generally want to see input from previously involved editors before participating and someone else may choose to check some of the sources after you comment. Also, I am comfortable with the Request Edit G ("go ahead") template if you'd like me to make the edit, so that you are not taking credit for something that you didn't research yourself. What I usually do is just check a couple/few sources and if they check out, I presume most of the others do as well. If you check each source individually and extensively, at that point you might as well have written the article yourself - defeats the purpose. CorporateM (Talk) 21:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Smartse. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:28, 26 July 2015 (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.

—SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Jobedu

i would kindly ask for the recovery of this page for further reasons . as previously noticed, the page had been deleted due to its performance of advertisement for a certain company . i apologize for that , it was indeed a mistake that should be corrected . i would like to either edit the page here on wikipedia or either receive it from you on my email . as you can see this was a page intended to serve a huge purpose in delivering information on the bedwans and how people support them and belong to them through their creations , whether it was in a business or through creativity. i would kindly politely ask for the recovery of the page or for it to be send to me on my email for future editing and revising .the page was made with a lot of effort and i am willing to double that effort with great dedication and hard work, thank you very much }}

ill explain clearly why the subject of the article is notable, and please have reputable, independent references that support it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to inform people about the marketplace so ill try to improve that aswell. since it was deleted twice for being an advertisement, I am guessing that it seemed to much to be trying to publicize its subject, and too little to be trying to document something that had already achieved notability. independent sources (such as newspapers and journals) providing coverage of theorganization, it is probably not notable by Wikipedia standards.

i just need it to be send to me on my email please if you would be so kind :) i am sorry for the horrible mistake i will try my best in my next article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarakhalaf (talk • contribs)

Sock?

Hi. I just want to be sure I understand this edit correctly. So that means article creator User:Moonlight78644 should be added to the open SPI for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure at the moment who's sock they are... The Dawnn Karen article was started before by User:Happydit who I blocked as a spam-only account but I can't find them actually listed in an SPI. Ah now I see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ali_cruse/Archive which was spun off TimeQueen32 but that was inconclusive, although blatantly dodgy! They'll all be stale by now so SPI isn't much use. Personally, I wish that we could CU them to find out the other accounts that they're likely using but that's a slippery slope. SmartSE (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

About the page Harjap Singh Bhangal

Hello dear, I have a question why you don't want any one to add more information to this page? as i added some info and you revert it. There was noting promotional or advert in my contribution. Regards IAmFiona (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

and also i added more enough information to the page why didn't you just fix it or remove the particular lines you think not necessary rather then revert all the information. As you are the admin its your right and you also have to improve the articles so people can get more info about the subject. IAmFiona (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)