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.

Suspect editing[edit]

Another editor asked for my help with the Kinetica (software) article that was promotional and edited by multiple single article accounts. His (her?) edits were reverted after much work to improve the article. I reviewed and agreed that his work was superior, restored them and made some improvements, which were also quickly reverted. Another editor is also involved and has asked the offending editor(s) to comment on the talk page. I'm not sure how to address this but thought you would. Regards. Timtempleton (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking.That version they added was blatantly promotional so I've reverted it and left them a COI notice. If they carry on then WP:AN3 is the place to go since they've already been warned about edit warring. I'm on mobile til Monday so won't be watching after this. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI[edit]

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


User:Draftingpage82/sandbox O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Datamatics Global Services[edit]

Dear SmartSe. Thank you for your input on my article. First, let me set this point forward ahead of time. You have reverted to an earlier version of Datamatics Global Services article which is really old and falsified. Yes, I do work for Datamatics Global Services but no, I am not being paid to write this article. The article changes which I had made and literally fought with Mean as custard as he kept reverting to the same old article which was wrong. Please check to see the releases by Datamatics Global Services or check the links which I had kept as references. Vandalism is I hope still not tolerated on Wikipedia bcoz I feel this case is similar to that. Datamatics Global Services Ltd is a public listed company and the links used to reference are completely neutral in nature. You could request me to tone it a bit or change the language which is completely acceptable with me But reverting to an older version which is completely untrue and falsified is unacceptable. Hope you can give it a second look with neutral eyes and revert back. I assure you that with your Help and support will change the tone and make it more informative in the coming days. Awaiting your valuable feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talkcontribs) 11:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Regardless of whether you are being paid specifically to edit the article (not yours btw) you obviously have a strong conflict of interest and did not pay attention to the warnings that Mean as custard left on your talk page. Reverting your edits was certainly not vandalism since that requires a deliberate intent to disrupt Wikipedia which is not the case when removing advertising. While the version reverted to may not contain so much detail, I struggle to see how it could be 'wrong' or 'false' as you claim. Given the overtly promotional tone that you used, there was no other option but to completely revert your edit. Language like "focuses on helping their clients transform into a truly digital, data-driven enterprise and empowers them to take advantage of the digital revolution to innovate, differentiate and grow" does not belong on Wikipedia. Similarly inappropriate is a long list of awards. Then there is the fact that you copied content directly from here creating a copyright violation. So no, I'm afraid I won't be reinstating your version. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well thanks for the reply. I do give you the benefit of doubt here as you have no idea of the history of the company and hence cannot see the problem with the text used here. The problem lies in reverting to an older version which is itself not true, lemme ellaborate the statement,"Datamatics Global Services Limited set up a Dedicated Offshore Development Center for Wang Labs, USA, in 1983." was never the case as Datamatics was never associated with Wang labs,USA. Then again the correction of Mr. Vidur Bhogilal (Director & CFO)who no longer works with Datamatics was removed and which is again a problem here. And no even the statement "Although it is a public listed the majority of the shares rest with Kanodia family." is also not currently too as there are many non family members who own stakes in this now and even I could go on. Buy your edits are respected but I will take your inputs in consideration and will go ahead to edit the article again. Why I called it vandalism is without giving any reasons like you gave mean as custard went off to edit the article and which is a controversy by itself if he knew he was right he could just have explained his stand and I would have happily made the changes just ranting onn that the content is promotional does not help any one. But thanks again for clarifying my doubts and helping me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talkcontribs) 03:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Well thanks for reviewing my page but editing the article name is actually causing it to end up in disambiguation. There are other companies with the name Datamatics which are in no ways related to Datamatics Global Services viz "Maheshwari Datamatics Private Limited", "Royal Datamatics", "SYE Datamatics" and so on. Hope you can understand my point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talkcontribs)
Once again it is not your article - it is an article about the company you work for. I moved the article to Datamatics per WP:COMMONNAME and to be consistent with sources such as this "Rahul Kanodia of Datamatics" etc. Whether there are other companies with Datamatics in their name is irrelevant and not of a concern when choosing an article title unless another of them is notable.
Regarding your earlier points - if information is unsourced and incorrect then remove it, but that cannot be used as an excuse to turn the article into a promotional piece. SmartSE (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Rather than deleting content about the hosted service of phpList (which runs the phpList software), would moving it to a separate, dedicated article be a solution? The software and the service are integral to one another, and information about both is valid, either together or separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtuke1 (talkcontribs) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samtuke1. In a word no - per WP:CORP to have a standalone article, companies require substantial independent coverage in reliable sources, which as far as I can tell does not exist for I've looked for sources and can't even find brief mentions of the company as opposed to the software itself which is why I removed it altogether. If there are sources which discuss the company, then let me know and I'll take a look. As the note I left on your talk page explains, please disclose if you have a conflict of interest as it certainly appears to me that you do. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


Please undelete The female rapper ThuggMiss. Page. Google has varified this Artist from her tours worldwide to her music sells as a underground artist. Her references show proof of who she works with, including national recording artist and producers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuggmiss (talkcontribs) 06:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thuggmiss. Unfortunately at this time it does not appear that you meet our standards of notability for musicians. This is quite different from what Google require, as we need articles to have been written about artists in magazines like Billboard. Because of this I won't be undeleting the article at this time. SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article for reason 'G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion'[edit]

Hi, The article that you deleted citing advertising as a reason was edited by a number of people of which one editor (StarryGrandma who was possibly the last one to edit it) actually wrote in the history that his/her edit was to remove promotional content. I deleted a bunch of stuff for the same reason. Could you please let me know what else was left in the article that seemed like an advert or promotional? Maybe you could delete that part, as done by the other editors, instead of deleting an entire article? --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Roshni Kanchan. Can you first please disclose whether or not you have a conflict of interest with Raj Raghunathan? You are a single-purpose account who somehow knew his date of birth without citing a source. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi SmartSE, Thanks for your reply.
About single-purpose account:
  • My account was created almost a year and a half ago and I haven’t made any edits for a long time because a) Wikipedia rules, how-to and how-not-to’s etc are as straight as an imarti (google image ‘imarti’ and you’ll get the idea) b) I did not find a topic that I was confident enough about and /or that did not already contain all the knowledge that I had.
  • Even for the deleted article, I hadn’t added much (I didn’t create it either). I was surprised to see the COI banner and asked other editors why it is present and how to remove it. It was a starting point for me to learn while on a subject I knew about. And thanks to other editors’ replies and their direct editing of the article, I did learn a lot. (Btw I didn't remove the COI banner, another editor did.)
  • I’m not in a hurry to become a senior editor or multi-purpose account holder or acquiring any such label. And also am not aware of any benchmark for number of edits per day/week/month/year. If there is one, please let me know (hopefully a number and not one of the wikilinks that links to 100's of other pages).
About COI:
  • My name is Roshni Kanchan and it is the same as a Wikipedia editor. I’m not hiding behind nicknames. I’ve taken prof. Raj’s online course and hence am his student. (I’ve read the COI link multiple times due to the banner that was on the article. Thanks for the link. I read it again)
  • I got the DoB info from his Facebook page. So far I’ve not seen any article that cites a source for date of birth. Also no other editor pointed that out else I’d have deleted it or cited the source. (And I didn’t get how a date of birth is promotional? Will appreciate an explanation.)
Please note that other editors have also edited the article – before and after I did. It’d be useful to a new editor like myself to know about the promotional content that we all seem to have missed.
--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

YouTube at SpotOption[edit]

Thanks for taking a look at SpotOption. I personally don't see a problem with including their YouTube video as a source for the gambling section. It is absolutely clear that the sentence is verified by the video. The video is from SpotOption, so it's pretty much the same as quoting their own website. I don't think it is an advert in this context. That said, I don't want to belabor the issue. If you just want to reconsider the deletion, I'd be happy whichever way you decide, or if you want to move this to the talk page there, ok but it might be a distraction.

Thanks again,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Sure it's verifiable, but unless there is coverage other than the video (which I couldn't find) it's undue to include in the article. Primary sources need to be used very carefully. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jbuffkin[edit]

Hi, you might find these useful:

--Calton | Talk 09:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin[edit]

Sometimes the mind sees patterns where there are none, so I wanted to run this by you. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brightify was created by me so I have a tendency to see this particular individual's shadow everywhere. I just noticed the similarity of User:Pylonrud to User:Pylonrudy. This other name User:Linespoak reminds me of User:Litespund in the sockfamily as well. However the editing patterns are very different so this doesn't really make sense. Your thoughts? Just coincidence? - Brianhe (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arpitset (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please review the changes , Don't delete full, This provide detail explanation on service apartments. User:arpitset

Michael S. Smith II[edit]

Hi there, Natsecobserver seems intent on pushing his flagrant promotional and likely COI version of that article at all costs and without dialogue. His (I say he, because I think he could even be Michael S. Smith II himself given that he also created the Kronos Advisory article which was deleted) edits, however, have not broken 3RR (per my report on him), so am I unsure of what next course to take with regards to keeping this article neutral, fact-based, and with appropriate burdens of information in an encyclopedic tone. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note JesseRafe. I'd noticed their continued disruption and if I weren't involved I'd probably have blocked them already by now. I will post at WP:COIN about it as this is the best venue to get more eyes on it. SmartSE (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully this gets settled easily. Appreciate your words and your time. JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Claire Benedict[edit]

Why did you delete the page on Claire Benedict? She is a notable British actress - see and, and particularly notable for portraying the lead character Mma Ramotswe in the continuing radio adaptations of The No 1 Ladies' Detective Agency. Jim Craigie (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim Craigie. I noticed Ronhjones has already answered why he deleted the article here which largely covers why I deleted it as well: it was tagged and eligible for deletion. The version I deleted was very likely an autobiography "After two years there I applied for Drama School" bringing with it all kinds of problems and mainly consisted a long list of all the work she'd done. With nothing to justify why any of this was noteworthy, it qualified for deletion. FWIW, while Draft:Claire Benedict is now better referenced and formatted, I still see nothing to indicate that WP:CREATIVE is met since neither of those links are useful for determining notability and I've not been able to find anything which shows that she's received in-depth coverage about her work. Regards SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


You eliminated my addition to the glyphosate article. As it is now WP indicates without any reservation that Roundup is a glyphosate formulation. This is not true. My addition was pointing out that there are Roundup products without glyphosate. Maybe what I was saying could be formulated more clearly but WP should try to be correct. Ekem (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ekem I agree that it's a difficult situation, but stick by the reason for removing it, in that there aren't secondary sources discussing it. In 99% of cases, roundup does refer to glyphosate and the other products seem are an exception. If glyphosate containing roundup wasn't notable, then we wouldn't have anything about the roundup for lawns. We should really discuss this at Talk:glyphosate rather than here if you want to continue. SmartSE (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion at the talk page.Ekem (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi! May I steal your userpage design idea for travels? Best, Lingveno (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Lingveno Please do! SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeated phishing attempts[edit]

Hey I saw you changed the page permissions of the AlphaBay article because this user was attempting a phishing scam. Well it appears they are back at it. Fibonachi11 has been repeatedly using the AlphaBay Market page to redirect to Draft:AlphaBay Market which contained the same phishing link. Internal links in several other pages have been edited to redirect to either this "Draft" or the "AlphaBay Market" redirect to it, including the List of Tor hidden services and Draft:List of darknet markets pages. I further noticed that they added the phishing link to the Simple English wiki article too. Perhaps these pages should also be protected to prevent future phishing attempts? Enix150 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

cheers for the heads up. I've blocked the user here and will sort out the articles later. Can't do anything about the simple wiki though unfortunately but will try to find someone who can. SmartSE (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
So I've fully protected AlphaBay Market and deleted the draft. List of Tor hidden services is already on pending changes. I can't see any links being added to Draft:List of darknet markets so I'll leave that for now. I've posted at simple:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard about the IP that's now taken up the reins but no action yet. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi Smartse, if you think my suspicion of copied content is unfounded, I'll remove my edits here [1]. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Change in my user rights[edit]

Hi, while changing my user rights (I thought my inactivity was the reason), I believe you've mentioned potential undisclosed paid editor. Wanted to know the reason for that because so far I've not added any promotional content and have tried my best to meet the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Vishal14K | Talk 11:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vishal14K. The reason for removing your autopatrolled right was indeed because I was concerned that you are an undisclosed paid editor. Your sandbox has in the past contained very promotional language e.g. "This was due to the fact that the know-how involved in synthesizing such a sweet was unkown before being experimentally developed by Nobin Chandra and then constantly remodelled and further standardized by his successors.". Given that the right is only intended to lessen the work by new page patrollers, if there is any doubt about it being misused it is better to remove it. SmartSE (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I thought users are allowed to experiment on almost anything in their sandbox. The language you are referring to was copied from one of the articles that I intended to modify according to Wikipedia guidelines. Anyway, I'll keep it in mind in future. Thanks. --Vishal14K | Talk 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maryann Keller[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you did not delete The New York Times citation. My apology. However, I looked at some of the sources you deleted and they seem correct, such as this one. She was also on the board of Stamford Hospital in 2015-16, per the source cited. Am I missing something? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. No worries and thanks for asking. I came across the article because the user who created it had made this edit which I know was requested to be done by someone for pay at upwork. It's logical that this article was also created for pay and consequently contains over-hyped and thinly-sourced content. My clean up method is first to remove anything like this to make the article more compliant with BLP i.e. using secondary sources wherever possible. The first source is an article written by her so I didn't think it appropriate to support "Keller predicted that the Daimler-Chrysler merger would ultimately unwind." With the second source, to me this is a case of 'so what?' unless secondary sources have mentioned this position, why include it in our article? Hope that makes it clearer. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is the first time for me to write this. I will do everything to rewrite my errors. Can you tell me how to fix this page Maryann Keller? Thank you so much. Cutie girly (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Clear as a mud free river now. I share your disdain for paid editors. Thanks for your hard work. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
That being said...Kodak Black had over 2.7 million views in the past year. Imagine if I got a nickel each time someone read it! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Magnolia677 (talk) hello, in this situation I'm not paid editor.As a marketing student, I had studied texts related to Maryann involvement on Wall Street and her contributions in the auto industry. Therefore, I have decided to write an article about her. During this process, I used existing articles in the same category as a template in terms of style, structure and content. SmartSE (talk) I did a paid job only when I have been contacted by Stephen Robert Morse, but that page has already been deleted. I pray you to understand, I did not know how the site works. Now I've learned my mistake and will never happen again. How do I proceed now? Should I declare myself as a paid editor or is it something occasional? Cutie girly (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cutie girly: Hi there. This isn't my talk page, so I don't want to speak on behalf of Smartse. You may want to have a look at WP:PAY. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Given Special:Contributions/Jalicandri that's almost impossible to believe. Let's wait and see what Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LogAntiLog turns up. SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My paid articles[edit]

Hi, I am proposing the following: what if I send you the article drafts with the CoI so that you will be able to say that they do not belong in Wikipedia before I publish them to the article space? --Lingveno (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but that would mean I'd be working for free while helping you earn money. It's bad enough already having to clean up the mess you're making (see WP:BOGOF). WP:GNG and WP:V are not difficult to understand and if you comply with them then there is unlikely to be a problem. The problem you face is that nearly all of the jobs available on upwork are for non-notable people and companies... SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Understood. --Lingveno (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)