This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Smartse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Confliction of Interest Wikipedia Page[edit]

HI, you delated page what i create, you should create the page instead of me. "Virtualex Consulting" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavicsuma (talkcontribs) 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Smartse, Thank you for your message. Regarding the deletion of the page I created and the COI, I want to tell you that I did not get any compensation from the firm I created the page about. At the moment I'm studying mechanical engingeering at the Technical University of Munich. In a lexture I visit with a fellow student we're learning about MBD and CAE software, for example Recurdyn developed by Functionbay. I also wrote a thesis using the software. So we thought it would be nice if there is a wikipedia page about the software and also the company, because during our research we found that there are many wikipedia pages about different MBD and CAE software programms (i.e. ANSYS, MSC ADAMS,...), but not about this software. So we thought why not create an article, so that on the one side there is more information for the students learning about it in the next term's lecture and also so that there is a wikipedia page on a topic I wrote a thesis about. So if anyone wants to know what it is and what I wrote about, he just can look it up on wikipedia! Best Regards, Kevin Kevinoliver1992 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.227.183 (talk)

Hiya Smartse, thanks for flagging a potential conflict of interest on an edited page. My disclosure is on my user page, but please shout if that is wrong. Pudsk (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Smartse. Thank you for your contributions to the Wikipedia community. I see that you have removed a great deal of information from the Café Britt page. This company is one of the most important coffee companies in Costa Rica. Every item that you removed was backed by references, many from established, independent news organizations from Costa Rica such as La Nación (San José). I see no reason why such an established company and facts from independent organizations should have been erased. Prior to adding information such as products, locations, and CSR, Wikipedia pages such as Cadbury and Godiva Chocolatier were reviewed. Cadbury, for example, has a list of all products, and yet you chose to remove an informational list of products from the Cafe Britt page. Godiva has a locations section, and yet you removed the locations from the Café Britt page. Furthermore, your changes did not account for a numbered reference, leaving the page with an error with had to be corrected. Can you please explain? Thank you. 11 November 2018 (I don't know how to add a timestamp)

Hello SmartSE. I made several related edits because I was researching on power semiconductors and realised I couldn't find enough companies in the sub-sector on Wikipedia, and the few that were there such as Bourns, TIMC and others have content that does not fit into Wikipedia's content rules. It is a sector that has notability because of its core place in the electric vehicle revolution, hence my interest. I am not being compensated by a person, group, company or organisation to promote the interests of GaN, Bourns, or any other company or personal profile whose Wiki I have edited lately. My only goal was to add to the encyclopedia and to improve the content on existing articles. I also noticed that, while you deleted the GaN edits, you didn't touch the ones on the other companies. Was it something in the particular article itself? Owaahh (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (EAT).

Notability tag[edit]

Hey there, I saw you tagged the newest version of the Revelator Coffee article. COI, fair enough (although I tried to omit as much COI material as possible); but what makes you say that the topic is not notable? It has received in-depth coverage from multiple indpendent outlets, including features, so it should pass WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Would you mind explaining your concern? Lordtobi () 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: The primary reason for the tag is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revelator Coffee closed as soft delete only 6 weeks ago, so two other editors deemed it non-notable then. All of the coverage in the article is in specialist coffee publications or local news which are generally not deemed suitable for demonstrating notability of businesses. This is admittedly a grey area however. Can you link to the three best sources you think provide the most solid coverage about the company and that aren't just routine coverage about them opening a new branch etc.? SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for the reply! I was aware of the AfD, though it seemed to me that the only reason the article was removed was on grounds of being promotional, not unnotable. This is why I attempted to write the article lesser promotional, more notable. Obviously, this is on a local level only, the company has never left the U.S. and I have, honestly, never even heard of it before doing the gig (since I live on another continent). Regarding in-depth coverage, these are a few: [1][2][3]. Eater is States-wide publication from Vox Media, a reliable publisher. Woven, I'm not 100% sure if they are the best fit but the site has been running for some years now and I couldn't find major downpoints on it. Lordtobi () 20:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: Hmm fair enough. I'd say it's still barely notable, but it does seem to just cross the line. A load of the content is completely run of the mill though and should be removed. e.g. "In December 2014, Meredith Singer became the company's director of marketing." "1,877 square feet of space" etc. - so what? The paragraph beginning "The usual equipment lineup of Revelator" could be summarised as "it is a coffee shop" not every detail in sources should be included in articles, especially when you have a COI. SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably true that not every detail is overly important, which is why I did not include every address of every shop, for example. But some key elements like executive hires should be included; after all, we are still including the names in the infobox. That's also how I usually write non-COI company articles. It'd be great if we could sort out major COI issues together, as am I new to that scene. Interimly, should we remove the Notability banner? Lordtobi () 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, I was expecting some kind of commumication regarding the aformentioned possible changes, though it has stood still on your side for sole time (see my most recent question from 14+ days ago). Because of this, I had the feeling that the issue had been abandoned [read: resolved] due on my previous reasoning. If this was the case, I don't see the issue in removing the banned whomever the removal is perofmred by; if this was not the case, however, I was hoping that you and I could work towards fixing the article. The present state of limbo is unpreferable for either side, COI'd or not. Lordtobi () 14:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: Sorry for not getting back to you yet. I haven't forgotten and will respond fully when I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, any update? Lordtobi () 20:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: Sorry - hardly around at the moment. I've made an edit to bring it in the right direction. The issue isn't that it is not neutral, but that there was an excess of trivial information. It's a small chain of coffee shops - we don't need to know the name of every person working there or that they serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. I think more should be removed and I am also still doubtful whether WP:NCORP is met - in case you aren't aware, the requirements have been strengthened recently - Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-04-26/Opinion. @Nick Moyes: as they nommed it for deletion before. SmartSE (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Jumping into this discussion having found the page through WP:NPP. Lordtobi I assume nothing but good faith from you in this process. However, given that you created this article with the COI and didn't go through WP:AfC as WP:COI says, I would suggest you heeds its strong recommendation to not edit directly and instead use {{request edit}} going forward. I agree with Smartse that the page is overly detailed (and have tagged it as such). I would suggest at this point you take a step back and let other editors work on the article. Again I'm assuming that your intentions here are nothing but to make this a better encyclopedia but think that WP:COI has wise guidance to help us avoid blindspots caused by those COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm glad the article is taking some direction now. While obviously it hurts seeing large portions of intricately researched details cut, I feel like multiple eyes can tell better what is necessary and what is not. I fixed some typographic errors, that you might have overseen, via AWB and also added an uncategorized tag (apparently I forgot to put any?). It'd be great to see the article streamlined with other, similar topics and properly categorized. Also, would it be possible to re-use the cut references for whatever details you might feel should be covered? Lordtobi () 08:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

about File:Ray Dalio.jpg[edit]

Hallo Smartse. I received the Wiki mail from you. But I don't understand the mechanism of Wiki mail, I am sorry, I write it here. the flickr link is https://www.flickr.com/photos/15237218@N00/12084252406 and upload date was 16 April 2018. Please check on that. --Y.haruo (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Y.haruo: Thanks for the details. I did receive your original email though and replied to it but maybe it got caught in a spam filter. Sorry for not replying earlier (and also rollbacking your post last week) but I've been away from my desk. SmartSE (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

About Speedy Delition of Contentstack[edit]

Hi, I was wondering about the speedy deletion of Contentstack. You mentioned that there's unambiguous promotion and everything, but I do folloqwed the lead other similar products and services laid down for me. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsalinasgardon (talkcontribs) 21:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mh17 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mh17. Since you had some involvement with the Mh17 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 07:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:PJMT12[edit]

FYI: I had the account CUed, it turned out to be unrelated. MER-C 19:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Bit of an odd one given their editing history. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Ferris for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Ferris 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/Christopher Ferris 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim Spohrer wrote: I improved the quality of the article - added more references, publications, and noted that Find Sources news - 3 of 10 news items were about Chris Ferris and HyperLedger, as well as Find Sources: WP Reference, all top items refer to Chris Ferris and HyperLedger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spohrer (talkcontribs) 12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the Bitcoin article[edit]

I looks to me that @Ladislav Mecir: has done a 2RR there, but I'm puzzled what he is doing or why. The 2 edits I made yesterday that he reverted are the mildest edits I've made in years.

My edit 1, his revert

My edit 2, his revert 2.

I've got no idea what he is doing or why. If I understand the restrictions correctly, I'm supposed to take this to ANI or 3RR, which I don't think I'd do in this case. Still, I don't want to see the old editing games start up there again. Any advice would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I've had a look but I'd not really classify those as reverts. The first changed what was originally "criminal activity", and you termed "Other alleged criminal activity" to "Alleged criminal activity". The second one was definitely the right edit to make as the source does indeed say that bitcoin has those qualities, not that it needs them. Unless I'm missing something, is there any reason that they are doing anything other than just normal editing? (I'm not too familiar with DS in general... I try to stay away!) SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it's just copyediting (at least those edits) that's going on here. Still, since the "Other alleged criminal activity" subsection follows subsections on "Price manipulation" and "Ponzi schemes" it seems like he is saying that those aren't "alleged criminal activities." The edit I made about "needs these qualities" I think better represents the article as a whole - which makes clear that the qualities are necessary but not sufficient. But the way it was originally (and was reverted back to) actually looks like a copyvio or plagiarism to me.
Note the Economist wrote (bolding added)

bitcoins have three useful qualities in a currency: they are hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify.

Our article had (and has)

Bitcoins have three qualities useful in a currency, according to The Economist in January 2015: they are "hard to earn, limited in supply and easy to verify"

Note that the 1st 8 words should either be quoted or paraphrased. I paraphrased. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Patrick James McGinnis[edit]

Hey Smartse. I'm interesting in recreating the Patrick James McGinnis article which you deleted as it was created by a user in violation of a ban. I wanted to find out if there were any other issues you had with the article before I submit a new draft for it at AfC. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 17:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: Sorry about the delay. I wouldn't have a problem if you had written the article yourself, but that draft was clearly a very slight adaptation of the version I deleted. As such, you were proxying for a blocked user, and I have consequently deleted it. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Smartse: Since it appears that my drafts will continue to be deleted despite having cleaned up the refs and changed some of the wording, kindly advise what I'm supposed to do next to get the draft a fair review. Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 07:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem page by possible minor[edit]

I'm not sure what to do with this but looking at recent page creations, I spotted User:Tannertcp/sandbox. It appears it could be be a minor attempting to write about their nn family. The username matches one of the children listed. Is is U5 eligible? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: I'd say just keep an eye on it. It's definitely not U5 eligible and it's not like the subject is completely non-notable, and nor do I see anything particularly problematic in terms of the content added. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Boost[edit]

Please do not delete that article. There are hardly any articles regarding shoe materials on Wikipedia at all. When it's left as a redirect to the Adidas page, readers are left with no info about the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bn.andrsn (talkcontribs) 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Institute for Molecular Bioscience page and subsequent redirect to UQ main page[edit]

Curious as to why the Institute for Molecular Bioscience page was deemed not notable and deleted, when it was the first of the major University research institutes, and more recent ones have their pages intact (e.g Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, Queensland Brain Institute, Translational Research Institute). The "undisclosed paid editor" is concerning, but on notability grounds it should be reinstated. Vcpmartin (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Vcpmartin (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcpmartin (talkcontribs) 02:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vcpmartin: Hi. Technically speaking, it is not deleted - anyone can click here and undo the change I made. If it was undone though, I'd probably nominate it for deletion via a week long community discussion as I do not think it is notable. The reason I decided to redirect it though was because I searched for source and I didn't consider it to meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. That guideline basically says that to be included here, a subject needs to have attracted substantial, independent coverage in multiple (3+) reliable sources. I haven't been able to look at the other specific articles you mention, but pointing out that other articles exist that probably shouldn't, is not a reason to undelete one. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
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.

User:Mredidiongekong[edit]

If I knew when the SPI investigation was ongoing, I would have participated. I added Edidiong talkpage to my watchlist, since I began monitoring his edits, but unfortunately there was no notification there regarding the case. I am 99% sure this is not his first account and I have on-wiki behavioral evidence of the possible sockmaster, I just didn't want to be the one to light the flame at that time. I tried to make him give a disclosure on his talkpage, but he just ignored me and blanked the page. I believe if he was truly a new editor, he would have appealed his block long ago. I also think this is a cartel of COI/PAID editors who have both Nigerian and non-Nigerian representatives, so it will be difficult to narrow it down to a single user or location. This is definitely not the end of this case! HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Smartse, I was wrong the initial time. Mahveotm (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Uniesse deletion[edit]

Hello Smartse, I wanted to know why was the Uniesse Wiki page deleted so that when we create a new one we don't make the same mistake. Please let me know at your soonest convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl ahlers (talkcontribs) 15:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Karl ahlers: Hi. The article was deleted because the user who created it was already banned from editing due to numerous violations of Wikipedia's editing policies and Terms of Use - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone/Archive. You are welcome to create your own article, but given that you appear to work for the company, you must abide by WP:PAID and WP:COI. In addition, the company may well not meet our notability requirements for companies and if not will be deleted regardless of who writes it. Happy to answer any further questions. SmartSE (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Knowledge Academy[edit]

Hi, I recently received a message after editing The Knowledge Academy's Wikipedia page asking me to disclose my affiliations. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was indeed asked by my employer to edit our page and bring it up to date. Now that I have disclosed, is it alright if I continue to edit the page? I am happy to suggest further revisions in the talk page if you would prefer. Thanks for your time! Samuel Cribb (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Samuel Cribb: I can't reply in full right now, but please stop editing the article. If this is you, that is not ok. SmartSE (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Samuel Cribb: Thank you for disclosing that you are an employee. Now that I have disclosed, is it alright if I continue to edit the page? The short answer is that it is best not to. As a new editor and as an employee of the company, it is nigh on impossible for you to navigate our policies and produce content that is good for readers. Disclosure is the first step, but is not a carte blanche to do what you like. I'd strongly advise that you begin by making small suggestions on the talk page in the form of "change x to y" or "add x here" supported by references to reliable sources. The references I listed here would be a good place to start as there is probably more information in them that could be added to the article. Do not cite the company website, do not mention awards the company has won, do not cite press releases and most certainly do not remove well-sourced criticism of the company. It is absolutely critical that you realise that we do not aim for articles to be "up to date" and that the company has no say on what is included in the article. Given the edit warring today (I can't tell if that was you or not) the article has been protected so that only registered and semi-experienced (10 edits & registered for 4 days) can edit it. You are still welcome to suggest changes on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Roth Capital[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the Roth Capital page and helping improve it. The changes you made were some that I was considering, so your edits affirmed the improvements. Cypresscross (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

about Steven Gundry[edit]

Just curious. I saw an explanation as "cherry picking" to provide content for this stub. And that there was no references. I am not so sure that this is true. The changes were factual and objective. You could cut them down, but to roll them back and add more subjective slander..???? I challenge you to make this a little bit more neutral. Adding a quote from a chef and just adding ecommerce page listings is not making the article stronger. I also believe that info about him as opposed if somebody disagrees with his book at the top of the stub makes a lot more sense. Maybe having a sub-heading section below the intro that highlights counterarguments makes more sense. But I am only suggesting this to make it look less like a biased tabloid article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.75.122.42 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Cherry picking was referring to how you added "It is true that lectins can be toxic — purified lectins may cause problems." while omitting "However, we have also evolved to eat foods that contain lectins. Lectins in modest concentrations in otherwise-healthy people may have advantages in reducing too-rapid nutrient absorption." As demonstrated by the sources I have added to the article, Gundry's theory is a pseudoscientific fringe theory and we are doing a disservice to our readers if we do not make this clear. On Wikipedia, neutrality means reflecting what reliable sources have written about a subject, this does not mean that your own, unsourced counterarguments (e.g. "Hence, Gundry's theories could cause concern for Campbell's followers who were basing their learnings from his certification") can be added to the article. What do you mean by "just adding ecommerce page listings"? And it's not just "a chef" but a writer for the highly reliable New Scientist. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
For starters, I have pointed out in many of the comments that the whole "disputed by other scientists" in the intro is not relevant to the stub. The guy has a career that spans beyond what a few biased people think of him. When I say think, I mean really just have a biased perception of Gundry. I guess you could say the exact same things about Nash Game Theory, that some intellectuals disagreed with him. You could say that some scientists disagreed with Stephen Hawking as well, but why would anybody put that in the opening summary of an article about their life? Makes zero sense, and looks biased from the outset. It is obvious that the only reason this stub was changed from a near naked stub about a writer of books to a biased attempt to discredit an author of a top selling author. I don't see anything else in the stub. No attempt at a balanced view or any ounce of respect for the individual. There is no connection between any quotes used and anything beyond biased viewpoints. You started off by cherry picking all completely negative views of a book in an attempt to discredit Gundry. Yet, there is plenty of actual scientific evidence out there to prove that plants carry defense mechanisms, many which can be classified as toxins when consumed by humans. You are in a straight attempt to portray this "pseudoscientific" theory, which could also be discredited in its own right, because it lacks the inverse arguments besides thoughts when compared to these quoted scientists, who have their own views on diet set in stone. Why would they agree with somebody else's views on diet? You cast your goal clearly here, and I think that you need to re-examine the point of this stub, the difference from the original version up just until you assume the subject was gaining popularity. When in actuality, he has 3 books over 10 years. You cannot just make a person's whole career into a speculative warning because people are interested in learning about the scale of plant defense mechanisms? T. Colin Campbell has an audience that believes his views, does that mean that because he doesn't believe lectins matter, that people who disagree with him should cast him as "pseudoscience"? A recent documentary "What the Health?" depicts the clearly misguided dietary guidance by the american heart association, so should we add to the summary intro for your additional expert that association makes him "pseudoscience" since recipes listed on the AHA site are clearly against the findings and suggestions of heart health professionals? If you don't allow a single change and you just add what looks like quotes as opposed to findings, these discussions will never end. There are too many scientists, as well as people who just like to research and have differing scientific viewpoints to narrow them all down to one. And to take quotes by people who have not read the book and likely just scan the web to analyze a diet lifestyle is a bit of a streamlined method to generating false positives in your case. T. Colin Campbell doesn't want society to think that all lectins are equal or dangerous because he teaches that all vegetables available for the case made in the China Diet (book) are healthier than what we eat in the US. Gundry mostly agrees, but has a differing viewpoint when it comes to beans and especially soybeans. So you have significant conflicting viewpoints, and Campbell can't go back in time and change the available vegetables in previously living societies in books already published and his elearning courses already taught to so many people.... Neither is Campbell pseudoscience, but if Wikipedia is being used to purely discredit somebody's reputation based on the view of lectins, this stub could easily be changed to gundry's theories on lectins as a title. Otherwise, you really need to include more balanced viewpoints of his whole life. Not an article that has a celebrity in the title, a pop science chef, and a guy who loves all vegetables and is on a tirade going after Gundry for views that threaten his own theories. My point about the ecommerce page, is that it does not make a clear case about anything. Cause does not equal effect, and Wikipedia generally has commercialism spelled out all over most of the top listings on the site, yet I look at the Facebook page and see a much more balanced, objective view, even with the mention of the privacy issues. The Youtube page doesn't say "scientists dispute the percentage of video views that are not bot driven" with quotes from a developer who off the cuff says "I think that Youtube traffic is mostly from Russian bots" according to an article in Computer Science Magazine....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d480:60f0:4db:268e:c8ef:c798 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2018‎ (UTC)
See WP:LEAD - what you call the introduction should in fact be summarising the rest of the article, hence why it sums up what others have said about his theories. You could say anything about someone else's theories but it's not important - as I've already said, we summarise what reliable sources have said about something. If you can find reliable sources that say that Gundry's theories aren't pseudoscientific then please add them to the article. It's the same reason why the article is mostly discussing his theories - per WP:WEIGHT we give space in the article to topics in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable sources. Gundry is only notable for his lectin theory, so it is only natural that an article about him will mainly be about his theories. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Amadi Peter[edit]

You presented a reason for deleting a contribution that does not align with the policy on Wikipedia you referred me to. The understandable rule applied to self published media, and not self authored articles published in a verifiable reputable journal which must have undergone rigorous peer review prior to publication. An article I authored does not necessarily mean it is self published. A clear difference exists between an author and a publisher. All mentions in that link was on self-published sources and not self authored articles which are clearly different in meaning, because I was left wondering the rationale in barring self-authored articles when these research articles are about the only sources of providing advancements in the existing information in those areas. I believe a reasonable preoccupation about these contributions especially those ones that improve the contents of the topics where they appear, should pertain to how verifiable the information are, and perhaps if further integrity assessments are necessary, the status of the editorial board of the publishers.Amadi Peter (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amadi Peter: WP:SELFCITE states "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies". Your addition added a piece of primary research to the biofuel article. WP:SCIRS details how scientific content should be sourced on Wikipedia. In general, secondary sources (i.e. reviews) should be used wherever possible, so regardless of who added the reference, the paper is not a great source to use. In this case though, all of your edits so far have added references to your own publications, which gives the appearance (whether correct or not) that your primary reason to edit here is to add these references, rather than to improve our content in general. If that is the case, you are not here to contribute productively and it is considered a form of spam. If that's not the case, then I hope you will listen to my advice. There have been > 1500 papers with biofuel in the title published since 2017 - what makes you think that yours is sufficiently important to be referenced in the article? The other relevant part of SELFCITE is "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." If I, as an independent reviewer think that there is a problem with your edits then you should stop and ask for guidance. I will be reverting your edit to biofuel and also to cellulase. If you are truly interested in improving Wikipedia, you will cite other people's work. This is a much better reference to use in the cellulase article and you (or your co-author) must know about it already because you have plagiarised content from it in your article. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@SmartSE: Thank you for providing detailed clarifications of your views. I am in no way contending for my edits to be restored, as honestly, whether added or not, I am yet to see any particular benefit. I cant find any reason to begin to add all my articles here, which quite honestly I cannot as that would be extremely laborious and in some cases contribute nothing not already here. I was obviously only uncomfortable with you rebuking contributions from self-authored articles as that was the only reason you provided earlier. Your point about relevance of contribution seems more reasonable than your earlier reason of not having users cite self authored works. Again, the link explaining "selfciting" was very clear, and provided understandable reasons for such position. I only felt the information I earlier provided, improved the contents and not necessarily because I wished to cite my articles of which I see no particular benefits in doing so. I also see your claims of a plagiarised content in our article as largely unsubstantiated and perhaps derogatory, because all statement of facts in the article cited other relevant articles accordingly. I wonder if you couldn't have clearly made your points without having to falsely condemn an article and by implication, the reviewers who accepted other cited articles. I hope you understand that I am gradually getting acquainted with the numerous rules here, as a new user. I do hope you understand that.Amadi Peter (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amadi Peter: Apologies for not making it clear the first time round. We have many conventions and it is difficult to explain succinctly why edits are problematic. The potential benefit to you is that by adding your work as references in Wikipedia, readers may find them and cite them, thus increasing your citation count. Regarding the plagiarism, it's a little off topic to discuss here which is why I didn't provide evidence before but since you asked:
Amadi et al. (2016):
In addition, both cellulase and chitinase activities in the digestive juices (luminal fluid of the gut) increased in proportion to body weight and the total protein content of the hepatopancreas, but not in relation to increases in digestive juice bacterial counts when, for example, the snails emerge from hibernation and start eating.
Watanabe & Tokuda (2001):
In addition, both cellulase and chitinase activity in the digestive juices (luminal fluid of the gut) increased in proportion to body weight and the total protein content of the hepatopancreas, but not in relation to increases in digestive juice bacterial counts when, for example, the snails emerge from hibernation and start eating.
The sentence beginning carbohydrase is usually specific with reference to both the linkage and to the monosaccharide constituents of the polymer it splits is also copied from this 2013 book.
I was a bit terse with you before because as a biologist myself, this is not what I want to find in the literature. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@SmartSE: Thanks for offering more explanations. I am getting more abreast with the basic rules here. Now, you could find my recent contributions in line with your policies. I think I find this environment a bit more appealing.

I acknowledge as scientists we take plagiarism seriously, and I feel those particularly matching words were purely oversight and not intended. We rather worked with, and acknowledged Strasdine and Whitaker who the original knowledge came from and was cited by Watanabe & Tokuda (2001). I'd say your remarks are well noted, and necessary steps will be taken soon about those.Amadi Peter (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nir Eyal unprotection request[edit]

There is a Draft:Nir Eyal, which looks OK to me. Could you unprotect the page so that I can mainspace it? Thanks. Catrìona (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nir Eyal[edit]

Hi there! I'm a (relatively new) WP:AfC reviewer and I've come across a draft of a page you've deleted twice previously - Draft:Nir Eyal. I was, in fact, about to accept this draft, until I saw that it previously underwent an AfD and two CSD's thereafter. Because of this, I wanted to get a second opinion on this article. Do you have an opinion of the article in its current draft state? Thanks! --HunterM267 talk 05:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT - it seems that Catrìona posted a similar remark just before mine. Please disregard my comment above. --Hunterm267 talk 05:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona and HunterM267: The article has been edited my numerous undisclosed paid editor sockpuppets in the past which is why I protected it. Атомная (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) also looks very suspicious to me so I would like to get them checkusered before anything else. @BU Rob13 and Berean Hunter: are you able to do the honours? Most recent at the article was (stale) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Plot_Spoiler/Archive but looking at Special:DeletedContributions/Атомная there may also be a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ohmy45/Archive although it looks more like MEAT than SOCK. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donnie Juanito

Odd behavior on W00w00 article[edit]

Just wanted to give you a heads up. I know you do some SPI work. I was jumping around on the site and came across W00w00. There was a long list of unsourced redlinked names, and I removed them, leaving just the blue links. I was reverted by user Jeffnathan. I started a discussion on the talk page, reverted the reversion, and then was reverted by a brand new editor, AdamPrato. It seems to be too much of a coincidence that the first edit for a new account would be to restore split columns, and the third edit would be to revert me. So that's #1. AdamPrato has replied on the talk page that he's going to try to get consensus by bringing in others who are affected. He says he's one of the people. So besides the WP:CANVASSING issue, there's also WP:COI. I don't want to piss off hackers since I'm easily identifiable, so I thought I'd alert you in case I'm doing anything wrong. You can see the current discussion on the talk page. Finally, I looked at an earlier AfD discussion for the article which closed as "extreme Lesbian delete" [[4]]. That's odd, and homophobic perhaps? Maybe an old Wikipedia joke that I'm unaware of? Should this be left as it is or perhaps edited to be a bit more encyclopedic? BTW - I think the group is just barely notable enough, based on the article sourcing, so that's not an issue - I actually removed the notability tag. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

and now I'm being threatened. [[5]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: Sorry about the delay - had just left for a long weekend when you wrote. That article is a mess and I agree that the long list of unreferenced (?) participant should go. I'll need to take a look at the sources just to check what should stay though. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem - I saw you were off the site. I just thought you'd be better able to take care of this than me, since it's a clear WP:NOTHERE with multiple SPAs, if not also socks. I'd add extended confirmed protection to the article to be safe, since these folks know how to get in and edit anonymously with burner accounts. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Any chance to look at this? The poorly sourced non-notable info still exists, and I know if I clean it up my efforts will be met with reversions and further threats. If you're too busy, I can post on ANI. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: Double sorry for the delay! I've removed the redlinks and am watching. If they carry on edit warring then yes, some form of protection seems like a good idea. Have you checked whether there blue links are all sourced? SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I was just removing the redlinked ones, since I thought, like on DAB pages, site convention is to remove them, since they don't meet the standards of notability. I looked a little more and just sourced Christopher Abad. I found Silvio mentioned in Phrack [[6]]. Wasn't sure if it was a reliable source. I can go through the rest. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As near as I can tell this is a self-directed, unwarranted, and unwanted crusade. Kindly cease it. Jbowie42 —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the only odd behavior on the w00w00 article is your, unaffiliated participation in its modification. Jbowie42 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jbowie42: A crusade against what exactly? All that's been done is make the article compliant with content policies as I explained on the talk page. I do not need any affiliation to do so, and in fact better, since I have only worked of the sources that are available. If you think that the group should be maintaining an article about itself, you are misinformed. SmartSE (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Abiodun Balogun[edit]

Hi you G5'd the above page which has been recreated 2 weeks after the deletion. The subject looks notable and almost certainly passes WP:NACADEMIC but I'm guessing this is a UDP and tagged it as such and maybe another sock. I can't find who the original sock master and puppet were can you tell me if you think it's worth pursuing? --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Thanks for the heads up. It was originally written by Disarjun who I blocked as a DUCK of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabriela Costa. Given the edits by Wisdomci in 2009, I suspect that they aren't a sock, but it's evident from the history that they haven't written the article themselves and it essentially identical to the G5d version, so it's WP:PROXYING so I will delete it again. I agree that they are notable though. SmartSE (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Smartse: Dear SmartSE, and Dom from Paris, this is WisdomCI. I am a Nigerian Educated physical therapist, and currently a professor of physical therapy residing here in the USA. I am also the Executive Director of the Nigeria Physiotherapy Network. I initiated the Preserving the History of Nigeria Physiotherapy Wiki project in 2008/2009 in order to bring attention to remarkable events and information, about the profession of physiotherapy and notable Nigerian physiotherapists. Some of the pages related to this project include:
The JA Balogun page was part of this project. But because I have been unavailable to upload to Wiki myself, the JA Balogun content was contracted to someone to code for Wiki for us. Unfortunately, we did not do our due diligence before contracting the Wiki coder, and therefore we got to learn afterwards that the wiki user we contracted, to was a banned user. That was the reason why I found time out of my busy schedule to do the page myself. But before I did, I contacted Wiki foundation to know why the page was deleted initially, that was when I was informed that we worked with a banned user. I asked if I can recreate the page, I was told by the foundation in an email that I can, as long as the banned user no longer has a part in the project. This is why I recreated the JA Balogun page. I am therefore seeking your support to get this page back us, as it is an import part of our Wikipedia project to Preserve the History and achievement of Physiotherapy profession in Nigeria and its professionals at home and the diaspora. You can read more about me at http://www.ebjohn.net, so that you can know that I am not part of a phoney wiki scam, but rather committed to the Nigeria Physiotherapy Wikipedia project. Please advise on the best way forward. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomci (talkcontribs) 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Wisdomci: Thank you for explaining the situation. I'm sorry to hear that you hired somebody who was dishonest to you and to our readers, by failing to disclose that they were paid to create the article. It is admittedly quite nuanced, but the content that you added was written by the blocked user and therefore did have a part in the project. Please note that the person who replied to your email to the Wikimedia Foundation was a volunteer like the rest of us, and may not have been aware of this distinction when they said you could recreate it. As I said to you on your talk page, you are free to recreate it, but you can't reuse the content that was created by the blocked user. If you do choose to recreate it, I would suggest making it substantially shorter and ensure that all of the information is cited to reliable sources. There is no need to list numerous research papers. Please let me know if you have any further questions. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Smartse: Dear SmartSE, actually we created the content, not the banned user. We only contracted him to turn it into Wiki code. He was not the author of the content, we authored the content. It has been some 8-10 years since I last actively participated in editing wiki pages myself, and was afraid the codes had changed or improved significantly. So we were looking for someone with current knowledge of wiki codes to help put the content into wiki code format. The mistake was that we allowed him to post for us, instead of posting the content myself, since he did not author it. I confirm to you that the content was not authored by the banned user. He may have helped to fine tune the codes, but the content is ours, not his. As an example, you can see part of my original work on JA Balogun from 2001 at: John EB (2001). Focus on Joseph A. Balogun. National PhysioNews, Vol. 1, No.3. page 22 I will appreciate your support, because this is our original content, not the banned user's. I take responsibility for all these, because I have been too busy to pay attention, but now, things will be done differently moving forward. Please advise. Thanks for your understanding and assistance. And thank you also for help us all to preserve the sanity and sanctity of our beloved Wikipedia, Sincerely, Wisdomci
@Wisdomci: Ok that does make a difference if you wrote it in the first place. I have undeleted it but have removed much of the content because it failed verification or was promotional. I will try to find the time to explain further at some point over the weekend. SmartSE (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the Uniphore article[edit]

Hello Smartse, I was going through Uniphore article with just a warning tag, but it looks like a 100% promotional article & request you to nominate the page as per your thoughts or remove promotional content.

From Products section it's all written like a web page content doesn't adhere to Wikipedia content guidelines.

Deepakhmwiki (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto Cancer Case RfC - text has changed, please review[edit]

Hi there, please see amended proposed text here and let us know if this new text alleviates your concerns, thank you! petrarchan47คุ 06:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Rome Douglas[edit]

Hi Smartse. You deleted and salted Rome Douglas as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". A new page has since been created at Rome Douglas (American football) by a user who appears in good standing. If you're OK it should be moved to the basename. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tassedethe: Thanks for letting me know. I've taken a look at ChrisGriswold but I don't come to the same conclusion as you in regards to them being in good standing, despite them being a former admin. As you can see here, they had barely edited in 10 years before recreating this article and Arjun_Malhotra_(entrepreneur). Both of those articles were salted at their original titles - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Malhotra and Arjun Malhotra and the last creator Shreyoshi_ghosh did disclose that they were paid. The chances of ChrisGriswold recreating these articles in good faith is essentially zero in my opinion, especially when much of the content has been reused. The most likely explanation is that the account is compromised and I will block it accordingly. We'll need to consider what to do with the articles, along with ThreatModeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and CalebEdwardAllistair (added photo to the Malhotra article). SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this more carefully than I did. I just checked that the editor had contributions going back pre 2018, clearly a lot more was going on. Tassedethe (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tassedethe: No worries - it's my bread and butter ;) will see whether Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasleen Ahluwalia brings up anything more. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ogbonna Ruby Ebere[edit]

May be back again with this account... Do you think it's them? Thanks, GABgab 21:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GAB - Sorry I was on my phone when you sent this and then forgot about it. Judging by Commons:Special:Contributions/Ogbonna_Ruby_Ebere I'd say it's pretty likely! I'm heading away for the next week, but if you want to use your tools that would seem sensibel to me! SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up / Signpost[edit]

Your username will be mentioned in the upcoming Signpost. You can see the draft here. Cheers, acting E-in-C ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: Thanks for letting me know. and to convince declared paid editiors that despite the rules, their work is nevertheless unethical. Is that right? I don't think that disclosed paid editing is inherently unethical and is way preferable to UPE. SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Those are Kudpung's words. I'm dithering over whether to ask him to reconsider it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: That would be sensible IMO - it's definitely not what the article discusses and to me at least, the signpost should just summarise what the articles discuss. SmartSE (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Crystal Lagoons[edit]

Hi @Smartse I see you deleted the Crystal Lagoons page. Could you please give insight into why exactly and what can be done to restore it so that it complies with the guidelines? Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.67.60.26 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As explained in the deletion log, it was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. The majority of the content was not sourced and language like They consume half the water required by a park and 30 times less water than a golf course. Furthermore, they use up to 100 times less chemicals than traditional disinfection systems and just 2% of the energy required by conventional filtration technologies. Floating crystalline lagoons are the company’s latest innovation allows for the construction and maintenance of unlimited size bodies of water etc. is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. The page will not be restored, but the company may meet WP:CORP in which case a new article could be created. This should be done at Draft:Crystal Lagoons in the first instance and you should read WP:MFA to find out how articles should be written. Per WP:COI and WP:PAID you must disclose your affiliation with the company. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Hilfiger[edit]

I have restored the market positioning of Tommy Hilfiger as a premium brand. The problem is that many people equate "premium" with "luxury" when the two terms are not interchangeable. True luxury brands are brands such as Burberry, Gucci, and Ralph Lauren Purple Label. I think the term premium is a fair and unbiased descriptor of Tommy Hilfiger, since it is above mid-range brands like IZOD and Chaps but below true luxury brands. ANDROS1337TALK 23:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

About Ananta Mandal Award section[edit]

Hello SmartSE, I'm WitchScarlet. I have seen that you recently removed some content from Ananta Mandal with this edit summary that you said (this whole section is promotional and unverifiable). I just let you know the Award section content was already there and beside all awards list there was verified link. I didn't added the Award section, I just edited some of the verified content and arranged the awards list in descending order. You should look on the sections just before I edited. You can see in what way they were. The section was not promotional anyway. Please check it once more and if you think you can undo your changes.

If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page (talk). Thanks. WitchScarlet —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)