This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Smartse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • 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.

Talk:Henry I. Miller[edit]

Cfulbright previously declared a COI. They knew the subject of the article and were editing it because the subject had expressed concerns over the content. Since Cfulbright now disputes that I don't object to your removal of the disclosure line, but I do object to your removal of the connected contributor line entirely. I'll look for the diffs supporting the COI tag. This will probably end up at the COI board since the user has restored the edits without discussion. Meters (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. They have not restored the edits. Meters (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Meters: Sorry about the delay. They admit to having "met him a few times" which is not something that constitutes a COI. Sure their edits are problematic, but in this case we should focus on explaining the problems with them rather than whether or not they have a COI. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not an off-the-cuff response to a one-time edit. I have been dealing with COI and whitewashing edits by this editor (and the subject of the article) for more than three years. I have extensively discussed the COI issue with them. I added the COI tag thsi time because Cfulbright returned to the article and made yet another problematic change despite all of the previous discussions. Cfulbright hasn't just met Miller a few times. He knows him well enough to have visited his home socially, to have taken the picture of Miller that is currently in the article, and to refer to Miller's wife by her first name. He also started editing this article at Miller's request. That's not just COI, but likely meatpuppetry. I suggest that you look at the page history and the various talk pages before suggesting that I have not already tried to explain this and deal with it. As I said to Cfulbright this time, if he wishes to contest the COI label then I will take this to the COI board for other editors to discuss the issue and make a determination. Meters (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Meters: Sorry for forgetting about this. I agree with you that it does indeed seem as if they have a COI based of the comment they added when they uploaded File:Henry Miller and dog.jpg. The article needs a good trim to get it more BLP compliant which I might get round to at some point. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits of Edelman[edit]

Sometimes I edit promotional articles too much, but considering the fact that the article itself is about a public relations firm, I can easily imagine that most of the article was written by editors with a WP:COI. While some of their campaigns may have been notable, I do not think that all of the ones included are. I edit promotional articles until I am 100% sure that they are neutral, and while sometimes I edit too much, I never intentionally try to make a WP:POINT. I want promotional articles that are still notable to still have enough information, but I don't want the article to be biased and possibly mislead readers. CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Smartse, I would look at Cjkoncur's edits to the article as well. — JJMC89(T·C) 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@CoolieCoolster: That's a quite a presumption to make. In fact most of the article was written by CorporateM who, while a paid editor on other articles, was not paid to write it. Apologies if my edit summary wasn't clear, but I was actually referring to the edits made by Cjkoncur when I referred to POINT (hence the link to JJMC89's talk page). They've written an article about a PR company they seemingly work for, and when content was removed from it, they went and removed what they thought was similar content from the Edelman article. You did go further though and completely remove the section on notable work which was unjustified considering the sources cited. The content that I replaced is hardly complimentary to the agency, considering that for the most part it discusses the various underhand tactics they have used on behalf of their clients. Looking at your trimming of the corporate history section, I think that was also over zealous and I don't see why you think that it is promotional. As I tried to explain on your talk page earlier, notability does not apply to article content, so only a single source is needed to support information. I don't see why to remove so much information that is well sourced that readers could find of interest. If you want to discuss it further, we should really move to the article talk page. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Lawrence[edit]

Hello, I have a wikipedia article. How should I remove this template? "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence52 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lawrence52: Hi Kevin. As the notice explains, the article was created by someone in return for pay, presumably under your instruction. While you were not to know, it is forbidden to edit Wikipedia for pay without disclosing that this is the case in order that other editors can review the edits. In this case, the article contains information that has no source e.g. your date of birth and you parents name. Per our policy on biographical content this would all need removing to make the article compliant. A bigger problem however is that I do not think that you have received sufficient attention from the media to merit having an article here, as determined by WP:BIO. As such, I have nominated the article for deletion and other editors will discuss whether they agree or not over the next week or so. Apologies that this is likely not what you would like, but I am afraid the fault lies with the people you commissioned to write the article as they likely should never have agreed to. Regards SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Restored page[edit]

I have restored this page to faciliate the discussion regarding how to address this sort of issue on meta. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


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

usernamekiran(talk) 19:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

Someone at Qualcomm raised concerns about this section. That individual's proposed corrections/clarifications eventually made its way to my desk. The issue is the entire section appears to rely exclusively on primary sources like email strings, an appellate brief, meeting minutes, and numerous documents (PPT, Word, Excel) hosted on Mentor, a DropBox-like service provided by IEEE to members of its workgroups. I didn't find any secondary sources to justify this topic at all. Given my COI, I was hoping you might have a minute to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 10:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)