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 Programsyt (talk | contribs) at 09:23, 23 February 2016 (→‎Youth Time page copyright violation?: 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.

The Hollywood Reporter

I thought you may be interested in this due to your work on the Janice Min page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wadhwa Group

You speedily deleted the article The wadhwa group on July 21, 2015 and it was re-created that same day with a capitalized title. The stub had been added to and I've just gone through and fixed up the references, deleting unsupported text, and there's not much more to the article than what was there when it was created on July 21. I think that this article probably needs to be deleted since the company is receiving only passing mention in the references and it was a recreation of something that had been deleted but I don't know if I'm right. Hence my message to you. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.171.77 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemoody sock?

Can this be looked at in the open OM case vice reopening it? The OM connection is this edit by a confirmed sock. Brianhe (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best just to start a new section at the SPI. Based on the OTRS of this file though I suspect that they have are personally linked to the company rather than being an OM sock. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow this editor doesn't strike me as a native user of Australian English [1]. More in line with the Pakistani IP who created the draft [2]. Isn't October 2015 too old for an SPI, though? - Brianhe (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm fair point! Three months is just up unfortunately, but it might still be worth asking if they fit OM patterns based on location even if the old account can't be CU'd. To be honest though, they've stopped editing and there is no way that the article is going to get put in mainspace so there may not be much to be achieved from blocking them regardless. Oh actually, Clownkong was active a week ago at Draft:Amcap Mortgage. Their edits were deleted but it would be possible to check if they are linked to Revolvar4500. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes [3]. Good luck to me. - Brianhe (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You have, with this edit, inadvertently created a duplicate copy of a thread that was moved back to WP:COIN's main page. To prevent the same thread from being archived twice, in two different versions, I must ask that you undo your action. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw you'd moved it back to COIN but it should also stay archived. I wanted to check whether there were any responses to the original thread but because you had removed it, nothing showed up in my searches and this is why there is a notice in each archive noting that it shouldn't be edited. There's no harm in there being two copies. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is harm in there being two copies; namely, one of them accuses me of WP:COI editing without giving me a chance to respond. Am I to understand that you refuse to undo your action? Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but any future search of the archives will bring up both threads. And to be fair, you did have a chance to respond for two weeks after you were notified until the thread was archived. So to be clear, I'm not going to undo my revert, because I wouldn't have made the edit in the first place unless it was the correct thing to do. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting archived sections upon unarchival to prevent thread duplication is common practice. There are many examples in the COIN archive, such as this one, or this one, or this one; needless to say, none of them were contested. You can see the same thing done everywhere, including the noticeboard where I'll be taking this particular issue once the time comes to archive the thread I re-opened today.[4][5][6][7][8] It really doesn't make sense to keep multiple copies of the same thread and as a general rule, what doesn't make sense simply isn't done on Wikipedia. You have a few days—a week at minimum—to think this over and change your mind; please do. I'm honestly not a big fan of starting noticeboard threads, even if I know for a fact the consensus will be in my favor due to the other editor's actions going against both the established practice and common sense. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Fielding Draft

Dear SmartSe. Thank you for your input on my proposed article. First, let's set everything straight. Yes, I do work for Fielding Financial but no, I am not being paid to write this article. Having written articles for Wikipedia before, I was surprised to find that Gill Fielding did not have one; hence I offered to write one for her. However, I thought it best to go via the AfC path to help ensure it was acceptable to the majority of editors. Please look at the modified article with neutral eyes yourself. Everything is now tied to the references - I have not used peacock terms or tried to exaggerate any claims; I have included controversial material. Please also assess notability with neutral eyes: Gill has had a TV programme made about her on a mainstream UK publicly owned channel; she has appeared in the UK upper and middle market press over a number of years (Daily Telegraph, Daily Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express); she has a chapter written about her in a book about millionaires. I don't like to use WAX, but how have articles such as Chek Whyte and James Benamor (also 'Secret Millionaires') survived? Is it because they went straight to main article space rather than via the AfC procedure? This is a serious flaw if this is the case and completely undermines the Wikipedia project. When you mentioned COI before I panicked as the guidelines say I shouldn't write an article at all. I did't know what to do, so I kept going. I really don't intend to waste the time of editors but I just want to move this forward in the most efficient manner. Please advise me; i believe the article is 100% neutral now and I believe that the references do enough to demonstrate the subject is a notable person. If this does end up being deleted, I don't want it to be because of a knee-jerk reaction to me but because of a carefully considered debate over the content of the article. Nevertheless, If this article is deleted and Chek Whyte and James Benamor are allowed to survive then I despair. Thank you again 109.148.57.19 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, wasn't logged in! Neilho (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChoiceTrade

Hello, you deleted the article for ChoiceTrade ([9])

I am affiliated with the company and I wrote the article. I hired what I thought was a reputable person on Fiverr to post it since I was unsure of how to navigate through Wikipedia. The article was posted then deleted and that user was banned. I wish to reinstate the article (under my user?). It is a factual, straightforward article about a brokerage company that has been in business for 15 years and has been ranked in Barrons Magazine surveys. It is notable because it was founded by alumni of National Discount Brokers, one of the first (if not THE first) online brokerages to offer trading over the internet back in 1995. Every other online brokerage has a page-- why not us??? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_brokerages_in_the_United_States

Wikipediachupa99 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipediachupa99. I'm sorry if you've been deceived - please see Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody for information about who you paid to edit. Generally we don't undelete articles written by them as we have to try and discourage them from editing. To be included in Wikipedia companies need to be notable which means having had articles that discuss them in detail in multiple sources (newspapers or tech websites for example) and the version that I deleted does not have such references, but instead mainly listings such as this. I have had a look for other sources myself but can't find anything that demonstrates that ChoiceTrade is notable. If I'm wrong then please provide links and I will consider moving the article to articles for creation where other volunteers will review it to decide whether it can be included. I haven't checked all of Comparison_of_online_brokerages_in_the_United_States but certainly some of there notable and others probably aren't. I'm aware this might seem unfair but we only deal with problems as we find them. SmartSE (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trustly

Hi,

Gave you a response on my own talk page but sending you one here as well. I am in no way affiliated with Trustly. I am the original author of the Swedish wikipedia page about them which I decided to contribute with after seeing a red link on an article about direct bank payments. I've followed the company over the years as I have an interest in Swedish fintech companies in general. I noticed the very empty English article about them and decided to contribute with a translation.

Johannes_Eriksson (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It just struck me as rather odd that only a few months after the company created an article about itself, that you, who shares a username with an SEO expert in Sweden [10] came along and rewrote the article. SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

article you moved

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MeraEvents DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:. Thanks for the note and sorry for moving it over your SALTing - I hadn't realised it was protected. SmartSE (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done just the same at times. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SockPuppetry

Hi,

This is regarding the sockpupptery link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattsabe. I'm not sure what a sock puppet is, but am new to Wikipedia and an Indian who has heard Dr. Shiva speak in Jaipur last year when he moderated a historic debate on GMOs at India's prestigious government run agricultural institute(http://www.ahuja-foundation.org/2015/10/we-care-about-mother-earth.html ), and have been very interested in his work. I want to contribute to Wikipedia. I read his interview on Tamilnadu.com, http://tamilnadu.com/entertainment/personalities/interview-with-dr-v-a-shiva-ayyadurai-the-inventor-of-email-and-systems-scientist.html#comment-180, where someone had commented giving access to the Wikipedia Sandbox page, from which I added a citation, which I thought was well researched. I did not know this was a violation.

Concerning my addition to GMO controversies page, I had initially posted something that was removed. I did not know that I had to post on the Talk page, before Undoing and re-editing. So, I am now posting on the Talk page. Kindly forgive my lack of understanding the process. It will not happen again.

Concerning my recent edit, I did do the research on his work and believe I was fair. I also included the EFSA posting(http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/885e.pdf) to balance my response. This is not promotional but the facts about Dr. Ayyadurai's work, which have now been widely shared in the media. Please tell me what I need to do properly to get this included. I had not intention of it being promotional, but what I felt important to share on a GMO controversy on Soy that is going on. Thank you. User:Robsweet1975 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsweet1975: Sockpuppets are when people use multiple accounts to try and evade the scrutiny of other editors. As the investigation confirmed, several accounts had been editing from the same IP address and were blocked as a result. Your edits were very similar to theirs which is why I added you, but evidently you came here independently. I've replied to your comment about the content you added at Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#GMO_SOY. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Time page copyright violation?

Please, explain.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smartse&oldid=706439166"