User talk:Smartse/archive 16

Appreciated your work on Vocera Communications

Wondered if I could talk to you about it. I'm a noob, so unsure of how exactly to get in touch. Jeffthechimp (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Jeff

Hi Jeff. That article is a real mess! What exactly would you like to know? You found the way to get in touch ;) SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a reporter writing a story about paid editing for the WSJ. This is me: http://online.wsj.com/news/author/7854 -- Can I talk to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffthechimp (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jeffthechimp: Ah ok. Yep that's fine. If it's easier for you, email me at smartsewikigmail.com. SmartSE (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I started working on cleaning up that article, but found myself deleting everything in the article as unsourced promotion, so I have PROD'd it as unambiguous advertising. CorporateM (Talk) 23:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Haha, it's a bit funny that I didn't notice this section before deleting the article - I didn't see a worthwhile version to restore to, so I went ahead and G11ed the whole thing as unambiguous advertising. Jeff - we spoke last week. SmartSE can probably answer anything about this article better than I can because I only noticed it while looking through related articles, but feel free to ping me additionally about anything as needed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of this you two. I had a very brief look at it before and G11 was a sensible option for it. (I've no idea how Jeff noticed me having edited it 5 years ago though!) SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Adreno

Do you think I could borrow you to sanity check me here and tell me if I am off? CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're still sane for now ;) SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just a little crazy? I feel like the hip way to identify yourself as counter-culture is to say that you are a little funky in the noggin. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fluazinam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Botrytis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

de:Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC)

Dear Smartse,

do you know the fungicide classification based on the mode-of-actions? It's available here. Maybe you could start a list in the english wikipedia.--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre: Thanks for that source - it looks very useful! I don't have time to make use of it at the moment, but considering how poor our coverage of pesticides is at the moment, it is something I had thought of working on in which case this will come in handy. SmartSE (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your should be lucky. It hast cost me much work to let the german wikipedia catch up pass to the english one. German is leading in Herbicides without Defoliants (de 179/en 112) and Fungicides (de 151/en 79). English in Insecticides (de 193/en 227) without plant toxins. In defence of the english wikipedia I have to admit, that User:Rjh and I are using an automatic infobox filler program (example here).--Kopiersperre (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Trafigura: Business Activities Section

Hi SmartSE, I hope you're well – I've drafted a new section outlining the different areas of Trafigura's operations. It does draw heavily on the bond document that's also referenced (once) in the Company History section – as I said (here) when we were working on that section, that document is something of an anomaly as far as primary sources go in that it wasn't actually written by Trafigura but was compiled, reviewed and signed off by a range of third parties and published by the Singapore Stock Exchange. It's a document for prospective investors and so while it will obviously present the company's figures, market share, prospects etc. in a favourable light, it also has to be scrupulously accurate and so for neutral information on different business operations it's as good a source as any. One or two editors on the talk page have pointed out the lack of basic information about the company's activities – that's no one's fault of course as mainstream media coverage of Trafigura is limited. If you have time to look at what I've drafted here and feedback, that would be very much appreciated. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@HOgilvy: I've had a read of the draft and made some changes and added some comments in the text. It would be helpful if you could address these points. Having checked the prospectus in more detail I agree that it is reliable ("The information contained in this Offering Circular to the best of its knowledge is in accordance with the facts and contains no omission likely to affect its import."). As a primary source we still need to be careful with how it is used, but at the moment I don't see any major problem with it. Can you also work on incorporating the content in the current structure section into the draft? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back and for some helpful comments and changes – I've responded to your notes in the userspace. As for the structure section, I wonder if the subsidiaries section in this draft is a good enough replacement, better than a list? In any case the list isn't a particularly accurate reflection of the company structure and lumps information on Puma Energy (referencing the Puma website) under Impala, which is misleading. There's also a separate article for Puma. You may think some of that information is worth keeping though so let me know. Thanks again. HOgilvy (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, any thoughts on this? Also the infobox and the intro could do with updating – be good to discuss that with you at some point too. Thanks very much.HOgilvy (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@HOgilvy: Sorry for taking ages to have another look. I've replied to your comments and made some other adjustments. The current structure section probably can be replaced, but the bit about Lord Strathclyde would need moving (and rewriting). The investments section needs incorporating as well really, but I guess that could wait. If you can work on referencing the FT article instead of the prospectus, I'll hopefully be able to move the content over next time round. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE, I've had a look and I think the FT source is used as much as it can be now – it's from 2010 and most of the focus is on how the commodity traders fared during the financial crisis, and on how the competitive landscape shifted during the period through mergers etc. But I've reworded the sentence on price risk based solely on the article. See what you think. Thanks very much.HOgilvy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@HOgilvy: You didn't make any changes to the content: [1]. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't clear – I added to the notes below. To clarify I've now updated the passage on physical arbitrage and referenced it with the FT (as well as the bond doc, see my comment underneath for rationale). By the looks of things that's the last thing we need to agree on, as we've clarified what the Reuters source is for, clarified time and voyage charters and added the numbers of vessels used according to the Trade Winds article. Agree re using secondary sources where possible, but beyond the arbitrage sentence there isn't another opportunity to use the FT here in place of the prospectus. Let me know what you make of this section now. Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've also clarified Trafigura's stake in Puma (80%) and sourced it (FT). Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE – it's good to know you have a life outside Wikipedia but...just another reminder! Cheers. HOgilvy (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Defamation of character

Someone, with a chip on their shoulder, keeps editing my page. Saying that I was fired as the booker from Letterman because of a quote taken out of context about women comics...and then backing it with a not that some may have found the quote sexist. Which is a matter of opinion and NOT FACT! The truth is that I was removed because I did the interview without the show's permission. Please mind your business and leave the defaming of my character alone...or there will be a lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.47.146 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat by 67.243.47.146. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jesse long alleged alien abduction

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Jersey92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jersey92 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A finger for you!

	Middle Finger Salute
	Well, f u 2! Man, this hurts: this is my most frequent typo--been making it for years now. Guess you can't teach an old dog a new trick. Thanks for autocorrecting. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An essay

Is there already an essay somewhere about POV pushers finding weak sources that align with their POV then wiki-lawyering that they are acceptable? Stuff like "it may be a primary source regarding the lawsuit, but it's reliable and requires no interpretation" or "it's an op-ed, but reliable-enough for the author's opinion". CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing really springs to mind beyond WP:ADVOCACY. WP:UNDUE covers it and considering the importance of the policy that might explain why nobody has written an essay on it instead. Was there somewhere specifically there have been problems? SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think almost every POV pusher I've had to fend off was doing this; insisting a personal blog was an expert source or finding justifications for primary sources or op-eds. It came to mind because I glanced back at Banc de Binary, which is made up almost entirely of primary sources, and read this Talk page post justifying the inclusion of certain content by linking to a half-dozen junk sources. There seems to be consensus on that page to use an outrageous number of junk sources due to the article attracting a lot of anti-COI advocates and contentious editing. On the flip side it also came to mind from a PR post on your Talk page justifying a primary source (I don't remember the source, just remember it bringing this issue to mind). I was thinking about whether I should write an essay (maybe sarcastic in tone) about the behavior, though I'm not sure it would actually be useful. As you say the policies cover it, but they seem to be very vulnerable to cherry-picking and mis-representation and not to the extent that should actually be reasonably debated, but in extreme and abusive ways to support whatever their opinion is. CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisect

Hi Smartse

After a lengthy edit war between current and former band members, you kindly protected the Antisect page in May 2012. There has been a period of relative quiet, but I suspect that something may be about to flare up again, so would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on things if possible. The latest trend seems to be to change the name of the band from Antisect to Antisect Official - presumably some sort of feeble attempt to suggest that the band have sold out, although the reason doesn't really matter - the band's name is Antisect. Also, the tense changes to refer to them in the past rather than as a currently active band.

Many thanks

Antisect — Preceding 62.60.23.206 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)comment added by 62.60.23.206 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry I missed those edits. It's gone quiet since, but if you notice more problems again, drop me another note and I'll try to stop it. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Multichannel Group

Hello Smartse. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Multichannel Group, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 August

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

• On the Troy Fodemski page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Advice?

I'm working off-line on the article on Nestlé Purina PetCare, which was formed in 2001 through a merger between Ralston Purina and Friskies PetCare Company (I have a COI). I was wondering if I should work towards possibly (a) consolidating all three articles, creating devoted sections under History for both predecessor companies (b) use Summary style or (c) leave all three articles and focus primarily on post-2001 when "Nestle Purina Petcare" was formed. CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the Friskies PetCare Company is a bit useless isn't it! I haven't tried to look myself, but I can't imagine it meets WP:CORP in which case a redirect no NPP would be the best solution. Ralston Purina looks to be independently notable of NPP but I guess could be summarised in a new article, but I'm not sure how verifiable the current version is. Hope that's some help. Getting back to the previous thread - parts of the BDB article are a mess and verging towards OR due to the use of primary sources. The only way to solve it is through discussion, but with POV on both sides that'll be tough! I for one agreed with your edits back in June, but I don't have the time or energy for getting involved atm (only hunting socks ;) ) SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's a good idea. Friskies is probably notable as a brand, but I don't see any good sources about Friskies PetCare Company as a corporation, despite having been around for 15 years before the merger. The sources I've seen on the merger tend to give some background on Ralston and almost none on Friskies, so I will follow suite. Regarding Banc De Binary, I don't think it's worthwhile/productive to get involved, but it's interesting to think of how much better the same situation would be handled for a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 05:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

One more question. Should the list of Brands be comprehensive on this page, in a separate List article, or just the major ones. For example, should it include a brand introduced exclusively for Brazillian pet owners[2] or just the ones identified by MarketLine as its "billionaire brands". A lot of their individual brands have their own Wikipedia articles. I generally dislike lists unless it's a category or list article... CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Svenstpaul

Hi Smartse! In regard to Svenstpaul, I belive that account is part of a separate paid editing sock farm, with the overlap due to Greg115 and Svenstpaul being hired by the same client. I'm inclined to let the SPI run, and it may be that the CU will confirm my suspiciomns of the second sockfarm (or, indeed, show that I'm wrong and they are connected), but unless things turn out otherwise to what I expect, I'll be inclined to manage them as two farms rather than one. - Bilby (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This just got more complex. I just pulled up the connection between Svenstpaul and another account, which then connects with a third paid editor. I'll still wait for this to run through, but it looks like being uglier than I expected. - Bilby (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's very difficult to know how they're connected... it's more likely meatpuppets to be honest, but CU is certainly worth a go! Someone's been trying to promote IronFX and Michael Salzhauer here for months and months. Whether they're the same group or not though doesn't seem to be determinable. Some of them were in this SPI which split off from Sibtain 007. It seems to me that our way of dealing with groups like this is a bit haphazard. It's obvious to me that they're a group of paid editors only here to promote businesses and so should be blocked regardless in my opinion. I haven't been around a great deal the last few months but heard about the ToU changes - has this made any difference to how we actually deal with them? SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we're still working through the ToU changes. My approach is to block for any clear policy problems (socking, etc), and to warn in regard to non-disclosure, with a potential block to follow if they continue paid editing without disclosure. However, I need to be sure that they have enaged in paid editing after June 15, when the ToU changes came into effect. I've seen other people blocking for the ToU violations, but it is generally hard to prove.

In regard to IronFX and Michael Salzhauer, there are a fairly small group of editors active on each of the different freelance sites, and you get a bit of crossover from one client either hiring multiple editors for one job (I had six editors hired concurrently by the one client a few weeks back), or going through several editors at different times. Salzhauer has hired at least three different editors on different occasions, along with one of the players who works outside of the freelance sites. At least one of those editors has been running multiple socks, including "good hand" accounts that rarely directly edit the target articles. IronFX have generally only hired the one Freelancer (multiple times), but he has been using a large sockfarm. - Bilby (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I see you have some special tricks up your sleeve ;) Hopefully the community will come up with a reasonably sensible way to implement the ToU changes, but I think we need a better way of investigating cases such as this that are so broad and disruptive. Often SPI doesn't confirm much and even if it does the problematic content isn't dealt with. Something akin to WP:CCI might be better. It's reassuring to know that I'm not imagining things though with regards to IronFX and Michael Salzhauer though - sometimes I do wonder whether I'm just imagining it! Have you come across anything about Darren Cullen and Graffiti Kings on those sites? They're barely notable (if at all) and were being promoted by multiple editors. Also, any idea about Georgiasouthernlynn? There's no way that Gleeble Systems wasn't paid for, and from a brief look at some of their other articles there are other problems, but admittedly not as bad as most paid editors. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Georgiasouthernlynn I know - she's a paid editor who works with a second editor on WP. I raised this with her before, and although it is on a very minimal level, she now meets the ToU and self discloses, so I don't see a major issue. The problem is the second editor, who I believe is using socks, including Svenstpaul. I don't seem to have anything on Graffiti Kings or Cullen, although I have a feeling that I've seen something about them or the editors before. I'll dig around and see if I have anything useful. - Bilby (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ngenjung Sari

Okay thank you-I thought it might be but the page just was not well written, I'm going to put a expert tag on it. Wgolf (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Substance Abuse Foundation Inc. - Verdun House

Yes sir!

Apologies for my improper description of the facility; now I'd like to have the content revised, reviewed and hopefully republished to the public. How can I accomplish this task?? SmartSE Mayerz_14 — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mayerz 14:. There were multiple problems with the article that you posted. First of all, it was copied from the website making it a copyright violation. Second, because it was copied from the website, the content was not neutrally written and read like it was an advert. Language such as "our mission", "our values" etc. does not belong here. You could address those problems and rewrite the article, but unless the organisation has been discussed in newspapers or magazines (what we call reliable sources) then it is unlikely to be notable and so would likely be deleted anyway, but for different reasons. Sorry I can't be more help, but I hope you'd prefer me to be honest rather than have you waste your time rewriting it when it will be deleted again. If you have any questions, fire away. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that.... Ok; so I need to ask, how would an internationally accredited institution, based in the Caribbean, gain the requisite significant mention needed? Of course the writeup came from the site... We developed and published it.

Besides changing the style of writing for the article there must be a way of proving we are legitimate. Mayerz 14 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

SmartSE Mayerz_14 — Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mayerz 14:There's not much you can do if the organisation isn't notable according to our guidelines (WP:ORG that I linked to above). We just have to wait until sources do exist about it. Most small organisations will never meet our requirements though as it is not our aim to have an article about everything on the planet. That's not to say that I don't think you're legitimate at all and I hope that the organisation is successful and eventually we can write an article. SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@SmartSE: Ok... I'll stay at it and see what happens...

Sentient Jet

I am contesting deletion of the Sentient Jet article. Sentient Jet invented the jet card is the largest independent jet card company and is mentioned in at least five wilipedia articles currently. This company is very topical and important. Joeyfootball73 (talk) 1:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Joeyfootball73: I have placed a copy of the article here: User:Joeyfootball73/Sentient_Jet. Please add references to reliable publications and ensure that you explain why the company is important before moving it back to Sentient Jet. You should check that the company meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP as well if the article is going to survive in the long term. SmartSE (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Rouleur deletion

I can largely understand the reasons for the Rouleur editing and deletion, as it was slightly promotional - but do you have a copy of the old version, pre-deletion, so we can restore it more quickly to a satisfactory version aligning with Wikipedia rules? Otherwise, it's a case of starting from scratch.

Would have preferred a warning prior to editing so we could have attempted ourselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouleur (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rouleur: Hi. It wasn't massively promotional but it was written almost entirely by you, which is rather missing the point of what Wikipedia tries to do! You can see all the previous versions of the article here. Click on the date/time to access the text and then the 'edit' tab to view the code.

I'd strongly advise you against editing the page again per our conflict of interest guideline. It's very difficult if not impossible for someone with a close connection to write a satisfactory article. If you'd like to improve the article you should first have a read of WP:MFA and then find sources like these: [3] [4] [5] written by other publishers which demonstrate that the magazine is noteworthy. You can either add them to the talk page and let someone else use them to write content or write some content and suggest that someone else adds it. If you're also User:Gotack can you please only edit account from that in the future? If you aren't the same person, then it would be a good idea to change your username or someone else might block your account. Sorry for throwing the rule book at you... I'm afraid it's kind of unavoidable. Let me know if you've got any questions. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Trafigura

Hi SmartSE, I wonder if you could take a quick look at the current state of the Trafigura article just get another pair of eyes on it? Some fairly large edits have been made, not all of which I'm sure I agree with. See the conversation here. Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Susan Sennett

Hi, Smartse. I was thinking of restarting the Susan Sennett page. I was just going to create a stub, really, but I wanted to check with you first. Cheers. IronDuke 23:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

I was wondering if you had the time/interest to take a look here at my de-promotionalism of an article where I have a potential conflict of interest. I suspect a major contributor to the page is a non-disclosed paid editor and so there is a possibility of it requiring special attention of one sort or another. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)