User talk:Smartse/archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Smartse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have been told that you deleted a page I was working on for the Circus Historical Society, Inc. I do not understand why. I had the Circus World Museum's Wikipedia page open and was patterning it along the lines of the information they provided. I had trouble in understanding the resources tags, so I saved my page to try to ask a friend for help. When I got back on today, the page is deleted. What has happened? Thank you, Bob Cline CHSmember (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I deleted your userpage as being unambiguously promotional after it was tagged for review by another editor. Language like 'that educates one and all' and 'Their premier periodical' as well as a 'mission statement' are not suitable for article here, where maintaining a neutral point of view is critical. Looking at it again, I have noticed another problem in that you had copied the content from this webpage creating a copyright violation that would also have been a reason to delete the page. Because of these problems, I won't be able to undelete it for you. If you wish to have another go, then please read WP:FIRST which explains in detail what you need to do to write your first article. Most importantly, ensure that the CHS is notable which means that you need to find newspaper articles or books that discuss the CHS in detail. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am part of the uncategorized task force adding categories to uncategorised webpages, when I stumbled upon a article you proposed to delete. I added an appropiate category and added, hopefully, enough info to keep this page from being deleted. Please go check it out. Thanks for the consideration, Dbeckelheimer (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the sluggish response. I personally think the article should still be deleted since one reference to a specialist publication isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. If you disagree though, feel free to remove the PROD notice and I'll send it to AFD for the opinions of the wider community. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Smartse,

I noticed that you added an advert tag to this article. Are there are any specific passages that I should change so that the advert tag can be removed? Any help you can provide in steering me to the parts that should be revised would be very appreciated. Thanks! Braedon Farr (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay... To me the whole article is spammy, although not sufficiently to be deleted under WP:CSD#G11. The 'background section' is basically just a list of extremely positive quotes "a winning hybrid combining the rigor of a strategy consultant with a specialist brand focus" is not anywhere near neutral even if it is verifiable. I wasn't sure of the best way to address it which is why I added the tag. I'm still not sure what the solution is other than removing anything overly positive. Does that help? I'm pretty busy atm but I will get back to you when I can if you have any further questions. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to apologize for the delay. I removed the quote you mentioned. It was indeed overly positive. When you have a chance, please let me know if that change warrants removal of the advert tag of if you feel further changes are necessary. Thanks!Braedon Farr (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Smartse!

You deleted a article named MinecraftEdu and I was pondering now, that were there editing errors made since the deletion message I got was "20:23, 29 October 2012 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted page MinecraftEdu (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH))". And I do not see the connection with things mentioned previously. I might have cited a lot of blog posts made by one of the MinecraftEdu workers, though.

Since then I have found better cites/refs to make use on the page, such as this time.com article about MinecraftEdu

You think I should re-work the wikipage from a scratch?

Appreciate the help. Thanks! Masennus (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Masennus. Sorry for taking a while to reply. That reference is certainly useful, but for an article to stay here in the long term it needs multiple references as the general notability guideline explains. If more exist then by all means recreate the article, but please read 'my first article' if you haven't already done so and remember to write neutrally. Sections like "main tools" can make articles seem like advertisements and will be deleted regardless of the references they contain. If you prefer, start the article at User:Masennus/sandbox and then drop me a note and I can take a look and provide feedback. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I tagged a few more. Antelope Hunter (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Smartse, Hi. If you want to delete the article named "Canadian Ski Coaches Federation," I will ask you to post a copy in my sandbox. Thanks. --JellyBean4.1 (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but how about reading 'my first article' and the notability guideline for organisations before creating more articles? Very few organisations are sufficiently notable to include here. SmartSE (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your nomination for deletion of the above mentioned article and on the grounds you nominated it. I took the effort to improve the article by cleaning up some issues and adding references. Please take a look at the article and see if you feel that your rationalle still is valid for the AfD. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new Cup of Excellence article, and for improving Wikipedia's coverage of coffee-related topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE, for what it's worth, I mentioned your slow edit wars example in a couple of posts to the wikien-l mailing list. Cheers, Andreas JN466 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The thread's been archived now so seems unlikely to go anywhere unless it's bought up elsewhere - any ideas where people might be interested/able to implement it? SmartSE (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You could try one of the Village Pump subforums; or perhaps ask Rich Farmbrough for advice on what kind of programming job it would be, and where people like that hang out. I hope someone will pick your idea up. Andreas JN466 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll chase it up when I get the time. SmartSE (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a very sensible response to your question about the PRSA and enforcement of its code of conduct (RE astroturfing). In a nutshell there were legal and resources boundaries to trying to enforce it, so they focus more on education and encouragement. Corporate 17:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the link. Hmmmm. So they have a code of ethics, but it's fine to completely ignore it? They'll just aim to 'inspire' people to be ethical instead. Sounds like the PR industry at it's worst to me I'm afraid. SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I thought it was a pretty down-to-earth answer. There is value in developing a "guideline" for ethical conduct and having members agree to it, even if you have limited means to enforce it. The same could be said for the FTC, for Wikipedia or anywhere else, where actual detection and enforcement is too resource-intensive to be done at-scale. Corporate 18:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I was glad to see someone correct the edits at Trilantic Capital Partners. I didn't realize how far that conversation had veered off. BTW - I had an interesting experience recently RE PRSA's code of ethics (in particular those for accuracy). I went to a local PRSA networking event and two people told stories about their slight of hand techniques. I guess this kind of boasting wouldn't have registered on my radar as much if I didn't have some experience as a Wikipedian. It seemed somewhat ironic for the conversation to take place at a PRSA event given their code of conduct and especially considering the PRSA backing CREWE, who claimed PRs are publishers of neutral information like a GLAM.

I still don't think the code of conduct is a bad thing, just a bit hopeless... :-D CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Corporate - apologies for the slow reply. I was surprised that no one else did it before me! But yes, any code of ethics is a bit useless if people don't get into trouble for breaking it. It seems that adding misleading references is increasingly common, since if editors see something is cited to the FT they are less likely to remove it than if it were uncited. Unless people take the time to check the source then they won't realise that it was entirely made up! They can edit truthfully if they want to - but to a large extent, what's the point of a PR agency doing that? SmartSE (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Could you give your opinion on the deletion request for RipLinuX about whether or not it should be deleted? See the request for deletion. Thanks. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nude Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franz Ferdinand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you SmartSE, for your many contributions to wikipedia.

I do have a bone to pick, however: What is wrong with wikipedia comprehensively covering Linux distributions? Linux distributions are almost entirely monumental volunteer efforts. They have a lot of relevance as powerful tools released by volunteers and used in public. The price of covering a few of the more obscure distros is cheap compared to the cost of listing all the TV episode descriptions for nearly every commercial TV show. I just don't see why deleting an imperfect article on a notable (but now dated) linux distro is a priority. Especially when there are active users willing to improve it. Sure, cleave off what is truly dead. But wait until that happens at least. People are still using it. It is an important distro for a small group. We aren't talking about preserving every defunct linux fork. We're talking about something that is relatively up to date being speedy deleted.

I can understand that there is a large, nearly overwhelming volume of PR, spam and BS that one must vigilantly combat daily on wikipedia and I commend and thank you for that. However, I think in this case your appraisal of the situation (Re: [Leeenux Linux]) may have been hasty. It's an understandable mistake. Please don't dig your heels in.Rusl (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rusl. There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia comprehensively covering Linux distributions, but so long as they are notable. WP:42 explains what is required most succinctly. We are wikt:disinterested, relying on what has already published to determine whether something is important, rather than deciding ourselves what should and shouldn't be included. We can't make an exception to Linux distributions just because they are volunteer projects like Wikipedia - we would not be neutral. I came across Leeenux while patrolling pages tagged as spam but declined the deletion, but because I did not think it was notable I nominated it for deletion. Often my priority is to remove spam, but if I come across something else that needs dealing with it makes sense to do deal with it. Leeenux wasn't speedily deleted either but instead deleted as slowly as Wikipedia deletes articles, through articles for deletion. As Spinningspark said when closing the discussion and has reiterated, there were no convincing reasons to keep the article, so it was deleted. I imagine that from where you're sat, I and Spinningspark probably look as if we are throwing information into the memory hole, but we think that it improves the encyclopedia overall. SmartSE (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

smartse, I noticed that you have deleted my edits on The Knot (company) article twice. While I realize that there may have been some issues with non-neutral comments on this page before I do not understand what you find biased about my current additions. I am doing these edits for a university class and I have just added a website link and a sentence with factual information about a new site that this particular company has launched in 2012. I would appreciate it if you could revert these edits or, if you could actually explain what needs to be changed in order for them to become more neutral, as opposed to just deleting them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommunication (talk • contribs)

Hi Kommunication. I reverted this as it was not neutral - "one of the lifestage leading technology companies" and "the company continued to expanded their online offerings" are not even close - I suggest you take a read of WP:NPOV and WP:V if you haven't already. That edit and the next both contained inappropriate external links. WP:ELPOINTS explains that links should not be included in the body of the article, but instead only in the external links section. If no newspaper articles have been published about theblush.com then we shouldn't link to it or mention it. Please let me know if you have further questions. SmartSE (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In connection with your G11 deletion of the Devolli Corporation, would you mind please having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shkëlqim Devolli and possibly commenting there. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We look for your help! pls reply asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ĐỀ NGHỊ XOÁ NGAY LẬP TỨC (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your first edit using that username so I can't be specific. This page explains what you need to do to write your first article though. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Smartse- You deleted the post Associated Builders and Contractors yesterday citing A7, no indication of importance. Since your prior complaint suggested "promotion," I was wary of explicitly playing up notability. That said, ABC currently exists as a subsection of a pejorative article on Anti-Union Organizations in the United States. Moreover, the group is currently referenced 53 times in other Wikipedia articles. This clearly establishes the rationale for its own page. Furthermore, the political importance should have been evident in the last sentence: "The Center for Responsive Politics has designated ABC as a "Heavy Hitter", rating it among the largest overall contributors to federal elections over the past two decades." A7 guidelines state that "it is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied." I look forward to your response, and ultimately hope to have the article restored from deletion. However, I appreciate your feedback and will gladly improve it with your help.--40ayoh (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi 40ayoh. Yes, I deleted it because it did not explain why it is significant. I did not consider the funding claim to be enough to pass A7. It is irrelevant to the decision to delete, but the source says "the association ranked 109th". I have since looked for sources to see whether it meets WP:ORG and it seems as if it does not - there are many, many mentions of ABC in the media but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Without that it is impossible to write an article. If you disagree, I am happy to undelete the article though and you can find some sources, or I can send it to WP:AFD. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response- that makes sense. If you would undelete I will add significant/reliable coverage. If you might steer me to an example from another org article on WP it would be helpful to get a frame of reference. In the meantime this piece may be acceptable. I'd also like to add a reference to the Washington Business Journal ranking of 50 Largest Associations. Still may fall short of your threshold but eyeballing the list (p. 31-32) virtually every other peer org has its own article. Thanks again for your help. Ayoh40 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smartse- can you please undelete this article when you get a chance so I can retool appropriately? Thanks 40ayoh (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - been even busier days than usual and I must not use my tools when I shouldn't but I will sort this out tomorrow night. SmartSE (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's done, but please improve the article or I will list it at articles for deletion. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Greatuser's talk page.
Message added 18:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greatuser (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still interested, & thx for clearing that up! TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wanted to ask why you would deleted a celebrity page? The original page was created over a year prior and al errors were rectified so uncertain as to why a year down the line this page was deleted. Please advise and re-activate as a matter or urgency as he is googled regularly and on radio 6days a week on one of the UK's leading radio station Choice fm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giverandnotataker (talk • contribs) 02:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Giverandnotataker. I deleted Abrantee Boateng because there was a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Abrantee where it was decided that he is not notable. After that, you just recreated the page under a different title, which is rather deceptive. The version that I deleted was substantially similar to the version previously deleted and did not address the reason that the article was deleted. It therefore qualified for deletion under WP:CSD#G4. Being a DJ on a national radio station is not an automatic licence to have a Wikipedia article and unless new sources can be provided to show that he has received substantial independent coverage, it won't be reinstated. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've closed the (dated) discussion you initiated in November 2010 at Talk:Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor/Archive 1#Merger proposal as merge. Please feel free to perform the merge. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_North_American_drought&diff=529482209&oldid=529349931

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smartse&diff=529467788&oldid=529331078 See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:A_nice_cup_of_tea_and_a_sit_down&diff=next&oldid=529331365 24.73.46.138 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Another sock of the same IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir, please can you advise what are the steps I should be taking to help improve the article to meet Wikipedia's guide lines? Thank you very much.Veredai (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Veredai. Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. For starters, section headings like "mission and technology" are not neutral. The whole article is promotional in my opinion and it is fairly celar from your contributions that you have a conflict of interest since the PMA is the sole thing you have edited about. This could perhaps be improved through editing, but since it is not clear that the notability guideline for organisations is met, I have nominated the article for deletion. If you think the article should be kept you need to show that someone has written about the PMA, rather than just mentioning it briefly whilst discussing wireless charging. SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear SmartSE, Thank you for your kind and elaborated reply. I will follow your recommendations to do best to meet the Wiki policy and standards. Indeed - the PMA is the first article I am editing. I find this experience to be highly important and educative for me in the personal level. Since I'm a wiki reader and frequent visitor, this editing experience contribute to my endeavors editing the PMA article - from a place of respect to the wiki legacy and guidelines. To be able to take part of this legacy and taking part in the community of editors is an exciting experience and practice. Again, thank you for your time and comments. Happy New year! --Veredai (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent note on my talk page. I don't consider reminding Mr. Rubin that he's the reason I left Wikipedia when I see him bullying someone else to be a "personal attack", but I suppose that's a matter of opinion. As for your threat to block me -- where was all this concern a few months ago, when Mr. Rubin was deleting my work out of anger and spite? Or when he was vandalizing my User Page, or lying to try to cover his tracks when he got caught? Did you threaten to block him as well?

For many years I worked on Wikipedia without a single problem. Editors all worked together cooperatively, had respect for each others' work, and tried hard to improve Wikipedia. But there's been a big change in the last few years. I'm afraid all I see nowadays is an attitude of "Who can I put the screws to today for violating a Wikipedia rule?" I see lots of abuse, anger, bullying, Wiki-lawyering, reverting, and deleting, but little constructive work. No wonder editors are leaving in droves.

Feel free to block me if you like. It makes little difference to me -- I'll probably never even notice, since I'm unlikely to log in again after today, except maybe to revert occasional vandalism of my user page. But you should consider what kind of Wikipedian you want to be. Will you stand with the editors who are making an honest effort to contribute something worthwhile, or will you stand with the bullies who will stop at nothing to get everything their own way? The choice is yours. SimpsonDG (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered about the specifics, but if you have retired, why are you still here? That is why I left you a note. Everyone here has disagreements with other editors, but if you let that become overly important, you won't get anywhere. SmartSE (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe next time you'll take the trouble to get all the facts on an issue first, before you start making threats. And we're not talking about "disagreements" with other editors...we're talking about wholescale deletions of other editors' work without any discussion. That's why I -- and many other people -- no longer contribute to Wikipedia. Why should we, when we know anything we contribute will be immediately deleted? I recently spoke with another physicist at my institution who's one of the top people in his field, and he's had the same experience here. Wikipedia could have benefitted from an article on space physics written by one of the leaders in the field, but somebody decided his article violated some Wikipedia policy or other -- and instead of fixing it, just deleted the whole thing. It's such a waste. Wikipedia is really going downhill. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear SmartSE! Are you already looking for that article? I can help you probably ... -- Doc Taxon (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I never did track it down... I'm not entirely sure now what I wanted to check in it, but it is still cited. If you can access a copy easily then I would like to have a read of it. If you could send a pdf to smartsewikigmail.com that would be great. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I was curious about why you deleted the page on Jonathan D. Lovitz after the time had been taken to properly update the page with links, add support information, and remove anything superfluous or subjective. Mr. Lovitz has announced candidacy for public office, and that alone should be grounds to keep the page for users to learn more about him and his work. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BroadwayTV (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the page because it was still very similar to the version deleted after this deletion discussion in November. In particular, nothing had been done to demonstrate that the subject is notable, which is the primary reason that the article was deleted in the first place. Evidently, I was not the only admin to think this, since Nick-D came along afterwards and prevented the article being recreated. If you think that we are all wrong, please start a discussion at deletion review. Unless new sources have come to light in the last month, it seems extremely unlikely that the decision will be overturned. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I create a "page" for a thermohygrograph on wikipedia? Actually, the page is already created as a thermo-hygrograph. But when I searched on Thermohygrograph if did not find the correct page. It needs to link to Thermo-hygrograph as an alternate spelling. Any ideas? Sedgehead (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Sedgehead

Hi Sedgehead. You need to make a redirect. Click on the red link to thermohygrograph and then add '#REDIRECT [[thermo-hygrograph]]' to the page and save it. Then if you search for thermohygrograph you'll automatically go to thermo-hygrograph. Let me know if you have any problems. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That was easy! Now, if I can just remember it when I need to do that again in 2015! (I'll try to remember to check wikipedia for "redirect" if I forget! Sedgehead (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Sedgehead

Oy! I don't understand why my page is deleted, i am new in wikipedia. I am not promoting myself, ((sad))

Raymond Seger (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. The main problem was that you are writing about yourself. You may not think that you were promoting yourself, but to everyone else that is how it appeared. Wikipedia isn't the place to write about yourself - try starting a blog instead. Ryan shell has already pointed you to 'your first article' which explains what you need to do to create an article. SmartSE (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smartse:

Thanks for your wise edits on the page. A question: I had citations for the awards from the ADDYs folks and the SABRE folks (direct citation to the website of the folks who give the award, not questionable PR newswire or anything of that sort). Does the information need a citation beyond that? Thanks in advance for your response. ----harriett888----

Hi Harriett888. There's no particular guideline to quote about awards, but my preference is to only include them if sources other than the company and the award giver write about them. From what I've seen of the PR and advertising industries they like to dish out a lot of awards, and we shouldn't try to include all of these in our articles. WP:WEIGHT is the best way to explain it. SmartSE (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. Appreciate you lending clarity. Harriett888 (talk)

Hi, As the New York Times didn't use the word "plagiarism" in its story, would you consider using another word in the AfD? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, it seems that he openly admits working for the Bahraini government. Perhaps "covert PR" is not the best description of his work, even though both of us might agree that it is distasteful work? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said alleged plagiarism although that wasn't really necessary anyway - "lifting quotations" is plagiarism. People clearly disagree on when "media awareness" or "education" becomes lobbying and PR, but I don't see what the problem with my wording is. Anyways, seeming as the consensus is clearly against me, I'll withdraw the AFD and head over to the article and reference the independent sources rather than the current unsourced info / OR. SmartSE (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Photorespiration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxygenation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

He's recreated it again, only this time from a new account. WP:DUCK much? Pol430 talk to me 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Quack quack. Thanks for the note - I've blocked Tanium as a sock and TannerJonesDriver as a spam only account. SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No probs, I see Black Kite has protected the title as well; that should slow them down a little. Pol430 talk to me 21:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

New allegations against User:Tokerdesigner by User:Mjpresson are answered in now archived text at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tokerdesigner/Archive&diff=prev&oldid=538610229

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your note. Now that it is archived and no action was taken I don't think there's anything for me to do. SmartSE (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this is a company listed on a major exchange, which I think is enough to avoid A7 speedy. Would you please take a look at the deleted article and if is indeed a listed company, consider undeleting it? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi - the article was a single sentence that didn't claim anything extraordinary and something copy and pasted from their website. IMO that makes it qualify for all of A7, G11 and G12. That's not say that it isn't possible to write an article about the company, but there was nothing worth saving in the article so I thought it was right to delete it. If you want though I can userfy it to your userspace minus the copyvio. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No that's OK, I couldn't remember how much detail it contained. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WHY WAS MY ARTICLE DELETED? IT WAS ALL REAL >:| — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsimpsons (talk • contribs)

Purple spotted donkeys? Somehow I doubt that they are real. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

They are extremely rare Elsimpsons 18:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. Thanks for the heads up. I leave it in the hands of the community. I have never hidden the fact that I was affiliated with the club. The club is not a commercial enterprise and is a non-profit, with nothing to gain financially here. I will continue to comply with all Wikipedia rules and regulations. Whether the article is fit for inclusion or not shouldn't rest on whether I created it or not. I made every effort to write it in a non-promotional, unbiased tone. I consistently stated facts backed by media sources and not opinions. Clearly only someone with knowledge of the club could put that article together or would even spend that many hours working on it and sourcing those citations.

I hope the community can objectively make a decision and I will abide by that. At the end of the day the Milton Rotary Club is a bunch of people trying to have a positive impact on the world. There's no fame or glory. Just hard work for the benefit of others. I'll be staying out of the discussion from here on out. All the best, Rod McLachlan (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Smartse Is there any wat to retrieve the (T.J. Maloney) page that was taken down. I think I can easily rectify the problem. Also if I could be pointed to the specific part(s) of the page that caused the problem, it would be appreciated. By the way I find this whole wiki world rather amazing and hope to get better at this as time goes by. Thanks Buttsco (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)buttsco

T.J. Maloney deleted page part 2

Smartse Can I redo the page, with corrections (eliminating all copy/pasted material) using my own original language? I didn't realize how strict Wiki was in this ( copy/paste) regard, particularly as the passages used were rather bland and basic ( " Maloney grew up in Pelham, New York and attended..." or " Prior to law school, Maloney worked, through his family businesses, in a range fields ...") I can certainly fix this and will do so but I fear it will look somewhat similar to the original and even though they will be in my own words, they might get the ax. Also can I copy/paste from my own word document? Thanks Buttsco (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buttsco. Thanks for your notes. As the article was all copied and pasted, I can't undelete the article for you as this will replace the copyright violation. I can email you a copy though if that would help. Before we do that though, it is worth establishing whether T. J. Maloney is notable: Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there haven't been several in depth newspaper/magazine articles about him, then it is very likely that the article would be deleted. I have had a quick look and the only suitable source I could find is this in Forbes but that is not a good source to base a neutral article on (Am I right that you want to create the article to remove this article from the top of a google search for T. J. Maloney?) If you think there are more in-depth articles out there, then I'd suggest you post the links here and I can take a look and give my opinion as to whether they are sufficient. There is nothing to stop you recreating the page, but I would prefer that you don't waste your time writing something that will only be deleted. Regarding copy and paste, the most sensible rule is simply to never copy and paste anything, but if you have written something in your own words and it is in a word document, then of course there is no reason why it can't be copied here. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Smartse. Thanks for the input. I do think T.J. Maloney is suitable for a Wikipedia page He is a big presence in the world of Private Equity and he has done a lot for Boston College ( Maloney Hall and current mermber of the Board of Trustees) and Fordham Law School ( The T.J. Maloney Chair in Business Law and the T.J. and Nancy Maloney Library). These links should provide good, if not overwhelming, evidence to support my claim:

• http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/inside_fordham/november_10_2008/news/alumnus_gives_back___31816.asp
• https://law.fordham.edu/alumni/8512.htm
• http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/alumni/ltw/ltw_newsletter_archive/Spring2012_Main/making_the_heights_home.html
• http://www.bc.edu/about/trustees.html
• http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=72886&privcapId=21511&previousCapId=320333&previousTitle=WABASH%20NATIONAL%20CORP
• http://www.privcap.com/deal-flow-dynamics/
• http://www.privcap.com/global-portfolio-global-ir/
• http://www.privcap.com/bios/tj-maloney/
• http://privcap.podbean.com/2011/04/10/privcap-keynote-tj-maloney-lincolnshire-management
• http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2009-02-05/heavyweights-bearish-on-private-equity-fundraising
• http://www.pehub.com/22336/lincolnshire-doubles-fund-size/

Thanks 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttsco (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the links. Personally, I don't think they are enough to merit an article yet - we need independent sources that discuss him in detail. Anything related to his company or university is of no use for establishing notability. The Privcap links suggest that he is well known in his field, but we need more mainstream sources too which discuss the fact that he is. SmartSE (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Smartse I think its important to keep in mind that for many important individuals, they and their company are somewhat tied to the hip - think Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway or even Steve Jobs and Apple. Of course I am not for a second comparing Mr. Maloney to those two business titans but I do think that the prestige that Lincolnshire Management has garnered in the middle market of Private Equity is largely due to T.J. Maloney and therefore his page-worthiness should be evaluated in that light. Also regarding his working with Boston College and Fordham Law School, the fact that he has a Chair at Fordham Law named in his honor (T.J. Maloney Chair in Business Law) and a major building ( Maloney Hall) is named for him at Boston College are certainly meritorious and deserving of consideration in his evaluation. Lastly, you mention that you are not quite convinced that he merits inclusion but would you necessarily take down a resubmitted version minus all the cutting and pasting? Thanks for giving this consideration.Buttsco (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenticel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

very speedy you did'nt gave me time to disccus any or explain ion the page wht is not possibile to delete....

Who decided this ? You by yourself ? Is this democratic ? Is this good for wikipedia ?

--Carcamagnu (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In your message you wrote that is posbile to contest... but really is not possibile....

("you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". ")

02:08, 8 March 2013 Secret (talk | contribs) deleted page 1967 NZ Universities rugby union tour of Hong Kong and Japan (A7: Article about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Hi Carcamagnu. I only nominated the article for deletion. As the deletion log shows User:Secret took the decision to delete it 8 hours after you were notified. Therefore two of us thought it was unsuitable to be included, but importantly, we were following the community-wide consensus that articles about events which do not explain why they were important or significant should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a democracy and in my opinion, yes it did improve Wikipedia. We shouldn't have an article about every university sports tour that has ever happened as WP:EVENT explains. If you dispute this, then I am happy to undelete the article and we can discuss it at WP:AFD. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Eight hours were a very little time.... considered that people don't leave 24 on 24 on wikipedia.... it's absurd that you put in deletion with only eight hours in advice...Expecially if the author is sleeping ... This is not correct , this is not respect for author... for my/our work...

Is impossible to make any correction. And now it very diffculto me to recover the page and correct and complete it... This is not improving wikipedia.... --Carcamagnu (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry about that - 8 hours is quite long compared to how quickly a lot of articles are deleted. Unfortunately we have no way of telling whether an editor is sleeping and it is not disrespectful. As I said before, I am happy to undelete it if you wish, but this will be futile unless the tour was notable. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite long ? Eight hours ? In thi way the decisions could'nt have discussioin and become Authoritarism. Is not easy for me to explain it in english but the fatc that you have no way of telling whether an editor is sleeping must be a reason to expand the time. That's common sense....

--Carcamagnu (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to helpful. If you think there is something wrong with speedy deletion, I suggest you take it up at WT:CSD. If you want a copy of the article back then you can contact Secret or post at WP:REFUND. SmartSE (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Before I proceed, I apologize for the inconvenience regarding the now-deleted article of DDR Dance Wars. It was my mistake, and the original article is in my drafts.

What I want to ask is about bringing back this draft of DDR Dance Wars into an article. It isn't done, but in some near future it will be. According to Wikipedia regarding the deleted article, if I am to recreate an article which is deleted, I will have to contact the deleting administrator, and according to the history, you are the one who deleted it. I want to know if I'm allowed to publish the draft about DDR Dance Wars if it is finished.

I'm sorry if my question is too complex, because I'm still quite new to Wikipedia, and I will be very glad if you can reply this message. Thank you.

TheSirius17 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Thank you, SmartSE. Grammarxxx, W.O. Saunders was a contemporary of H. L. Mencken. There are several printed books which bear reference to him [i.e. biography and accomplishments] I placed the article as a stub, and I am working on fleshing this out. Please advise if this is inappropriate. NENCGuy (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm asking the two single largest contributors to Bacillus thuringiensis to look into resolving the copyright issue. Is this something you can do to help?

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Talk:Bacillus_thuringiensis#Copyright_review..
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi SmartSE. Thank you so much for your message and for your useful suggestion, I will! Cheers, Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. I don't disagree with the deletion nom of Snacko as it is a obviously a WP:NEO. The snakco is a shit job, sometimes given as a punishment, but usually given to the lowest guy on the totem pole. I am concerned by the blocking of the editor who started it, User:Esnacko. That action seemed a bit heavy handed. How is their name a violation of the username policy? If I was a law enforcement officer and signed up with a name like "Ecop" would you block that? It makes it look like they were blocked so their article could be deleted without their participation. Perhaps I do not understand the policy like I thought I did. Just my two cents, take it for what its worth. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:COIN#Snacko - it confused me as well at first, but I think it is justified. SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that a single issue, IP is again editing this article, without comment or rationale. You may remember the piece was subject to edit warring in the past. Could you take a look again. I do not know who is 'right' or 'wrong', nor frankly care, but it might be worth nipping in the bud. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's already been reverted by ‎Theopolisme. I think the IP was the one in the 'right' before in that they were removing poorly sourced defamatory information, but they do seem to want to WP:OWN the article. I'm keeping an eye on it and will act accordingly. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be a bore, but the edit warring has started again on this article, and I have had a note on my talk page regarding the matter. As you may have guessed I do not really want to get too involved in this. However, I do believe an admin's input, including cracking of heads (if necessary) is vital, to once again stop this article veering wildly around. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. SmartSE (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My edits are referenced and are not controversial. "Siding" with an anonymous editor whose only edits are removing content from this article and making baseless claims of websites not being trustworthy seems odd. You also removed references from an archives page of a former Nude Records artist who posted a longwided post about their experiences with the label.

92.8.29.174 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not siding with anyone, just following our policies and guidelines. Please see Talk:Nude_Records which is where we should discuss this. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I had reason to search for Carex nigromarginata on Wikipedia and when I didn't find a page, I created one. I have completely forgotten how to add photos (I took some good ones yesterday). Can you point me in the right direction? I can use the "Ovate-leaved Catchfly" page to get the text I need, but I don't recall where to upload the photos to!!! I know I also need to give Wikipedia permission to use them, that's no problem as long as I do it correctly! Most of my work on Wikipedia now happens quite quickly . . . making minor corrections or adding simple pages that others can build on like my Xin River page (China) which keeps growing from others' contributions. Sedgehead (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Sedgehead

Hi Sedgehead. It's gopd to hear from you and I'm glad that you've started writing about sedges! To upload photos you should use COMMONS:Special:UploadWizard. It should be a fairly stress-free process! You might also want to add a WP:TAXOBOX to the new article - you can copy most of it from another Carex article like Carex helleri and just change the relevant parts. Let me know if you can't work anything out. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smart. Since you previously provided feedback on the Proactiv article, I thought you might be interested in a related article on Guthy Renker, where I've provided a first draft at: Talk:Guthy-Renker#First_draft.

If you have an interest, I would be appreciative of your time considering our work and any feedback is welcome. Cheers.CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You PRODded (or rather, PROD2-ed) this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: 14:26, 29 March 2013‎ Smartse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,460 bytes) (-4,414)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 547559940 by AnomieBOT: Articles need to be based of secondary sources, not a person's own website. (also large WP:COI issues). (TW)) (undo) Most of what you removed had links to impartial third parties. The biographical information was, indeed, linked to my website, but all of that was once on an official State of California website for elected officials. Regardless, recommend restoring book citations to Amazon.com as well as other citations that linked to news stories. Sadly, the page is now missing the meat of its biographical info, most of which was posted by others long ago and which I had simply made minor corrections or updates to over the past 7 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckdevore (talk • contribs)

Hi Chuck. This was the only reliable source that I removed. The rest was cited to your own website. Wikipedia articles should be based predominantly on secondary sources such as newspapers not personal websites - if people want to know what you think about yourself then they can visit your site, but we should present a more independent viewpoint. If this means that the article doesn't include every single piece of biographical information at the moment, then so be it. Someone will come along and fix it eventually. Per WP:AUTO I would ask that you refrain from editing the article directly from now on, with the exception of removing anything which is unsourced and defamatory. If you would like to suggest changes, please find independent references to back up the information and then start a section at Talk:Chuck DeVore placing {{request edit}} at the top of the post and someone will come along to review it and add it if it is suitable. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Visionat's talk page.
Message added 22:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Let me know if you want me to stop posting TBs. Gold Standard 22:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Visionat's talk page.
Message added 23:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again, let me know if you want me to stop posting TBs. Gold Standard 23:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make an edit on Ujurak. It was Lusa bear, why chew ME out? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 15:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on your talk page because they had began discussing it there already. I left them a talkback so they'll read it. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been working hard on the holistic management article, which was deleted earlier this month (I didn't write the original). I got it userfied then completely rewrote it and since have been fine tuning it and adding multiple references, both in links to other wiki pages and external links. Whenever I have a reference that may seem weak and/or weaker, I have tried to add multiple references showing multiple POV. I have tried to reference it from mainstream press, trade journals, scientific journals, Government press releases, industry, NGO's, International and local Awards, historical, cultural, political, educational and any other context I could think of while still maintaining a logical coherent flow and not cluttering it up too much. Luckily the weather here is bad, so I have had some spare time to work on this. The best thing I am finding about writing a wiki page is that in the process of referencing it, you learn so much! I actually could write a lot more on it, but the juggling act is to avoid turning it into a fluff piece. With Allan Savory doing power point presentations, Joel Salatin doing power point presentations, Michael Pollan doing power point presentations, even Prince Charles!, a number of books like "The Carbon Fields: How Our Countryside Can Save Britain" all with glowing reviews, I had to put a stop to it somewhere, otherwise it would take on a "to good to be true" tone. In my opinion it is far better than the average wiki pages I ever used (and I use wiki a LOT) but I fully admit since I wrote it, that opinion is obviously biased! hahaha I request you take a careful look and see if it meets wiki standards. If you think it does, please recommend it for publishing in wiki, or put it up for consensus. If it doesn't, please message me with improvements you think it still may need. ThanksRedddbaron (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Redddbaron. Thanks for your note. I'll need to do some research of my own but will try to let you know my opinion later this evening or tomorrow. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the article has already been moved so I don't think there is anything for me to do. Nice work though! SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh and I also moved your comment about Holistic Management International from the talk page to the deletion discussion. I hope this is ok. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All good. I don't know as much about HMI. I had researched HM for a project I am running to develop a new scale-able model in organic crop farming, so that gave me enough background to write the HM article. But the organization? That's tougher for me. I always was a "who cares whose idea it was, just tell me how to do it" kind of guy. LOL To me the work is far more important than who is doing it. However, I have taken a stab at the HMI article as well. Just don't expect as much. :P Thanks for all your help. Redddbaron (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I represent the firm Virtus Investment Partners, with whom Joe Terranova is employed. I am contacting you because Joe's assistant mistakenly requested the page to be taken down, and we would like it to be made live again. From reading your deletion log [09:45, 3 April 2013 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted page Joe Terranova (No non-copyvio versions and the subject appears to be requesting deletion)] and corresponding materials on wikipedia, please let me know if part of the issue was due to copyright issues. If so, we will work with them to ensure they know the proper procedure for adding and editing material to the site to ensure there are no issues going forward.

I appreciate your time in this matter and can be reached via my email address which is included in my profile.

Thanks, Jon— Preceding unsigned comment added by KCOJB (talk • contribs)

Hi Jon. I'm sorry if I deleted the page if that wasn't what was intended. If a user claiming to be the subject of a biography appears to want their article deleted then I'm inclined to listen. That said, the copyright problems were the primary reason that I deleted the article. I've had a look through the article history in further detail but can't find any versions that were not copied from other sources. While it looks as if you could release those sources under free licences and then I could restore the article, I don't think that this is really the best solution since Wikipedia articles shouldn't be the same as a person's biography on their company's website. Articles require independent secondary sources such as newspapers and books and these should be used to write the majority of the article. I've searched factiva and google books to try and track some down but can't find anything other than this which I can't fully read: Futures. Commodities Magazine. 2004. Do you know of anything else published where he is the subject of the article (i.e. not briefly mentioned in the context of another story)? If nothing else exists, it suggests that Joe Terranova may not be notable. You're free to create a new article but considering your conflict of interest it is advisable that you create it in a sandbox like User:KCOJB/Sandbox and only use secondary sources. Let me know if you have any questions. I'd prefer it if we kept communications here though. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear and quick response. Would it be possible to see the content of what was up on the page, so we can see what information was not sourced correctly? Joe Terranova is also an on-air contributor to CNBC - would a bio on that page count as an independent secondary source, as it is a credible media outlet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCOJB (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will email you a copy of the most recent long version - you can put it in the sandbox I linked to above and press 'preview' rather than 'save' to look at it properly. Please do not save it though as that will restore the copyright violations. A CNBC bio isn't really independent, so it's not terribly useful compared to if other media organisations talked about him. SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I am meeting with Joe Terranova tomorrow morning to discuss his Wikipedia entry and would like to clarify a few points beforehand with you if you have a moment today. I appreciate your time and cooperation on this front. With regards to proper citations, I am wondering why we cannot use clips from Joe on CNBC's Fast Money as proper citation he is one of the hosts of the show:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45149954

Additionally, to cite his employment and title with Virtus Investment Partners, why can we not cite articles where he is attributed as such:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100661545 http://www.cheshireherald.com/node/7176

Outside of those questions I am pretty clear on the citation guidelines. My only other question is in regards to releasing sources under free licenses to restore some of the content of the article. What does that entail and why did you recommend against it? I read through the 'Donating Copywrited Materials' section and while some of it was clear I cannot say I fully understand what the process entails.

Again, thank you very much for your time and help in this matter. - Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCOJB (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Or for instance this article to source him being the author of the book "Buy High, Sell Higher," as well as his position with Virtus: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577128990068112940.html

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCOJB (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. The CNBC articles aren't independent of him and the other two are very brief mentions. As I said before, we need multiple, independent, reliable references where he is the subject of the article - this is an example of what is required to show that Don Grierson (geneticist) is notable - I don't think there is anything similar about Joe Terranova. I advised against donating the copyrighted material because it wasn't neutrally written, so can't be copied here even if there wasn't a copyright problem. This recent article might be of interest to you - it's written by someone in PR about notability. SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. To be clear - not arguing that you are wrong, just needed to get the most clarification possible because I will be asked to answer these same questions when going through this with Joe and his team. So again, thank you very much, it all makes perfect sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCOJB (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm putting the Yeast article through a Good Article Reassessment. I've left some comments on the review page: Talk:Yeast/GA2, and the review is on hold for an initial seven days. As you are one of the main contributors to the article, I thought you might be interested. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to 2012–13 North American drought. 108.73.113.98 (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, The history of this IP, under probably a few hundred different IP addresses, goes 'way back. Roughly two years ago his main account was at the Kalamazoo (Michigan) Public Library. As of almost 2 years ago, the IP's edits have either been trivial, or else in the nature of WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; The prolific nature of the external links and absence of substantive editing last year resulted in the IP being blocked for WP:SPAM in the form of external link spam to support the IP's POV on religion, politics, and global warming.

Worse, the IP after being blocked just hopped IP addresses, which means he started engaging in regular in-our-face WP:BLOCKEVASION. So the blocks got longer and longer. We stopped meticulously documenting his editing sessions in January or so, but only because it took so much blessed work! The block evasion continues apace. All of the IP addresses on Arthur's list are this IP.

In conclusion, I would welcome substantive work on the drought article. Simply stringing along news briefs is not what "substantive work" means. So by all means use the IP's sources - or your own - if you can work them into to something besides a news summary. Meanwhile, there are a *lot* of pending blocks against various sock accounts for this editor, and their work is revertible on sight. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

PS If you want to know more about the IP, please see the section on my talk page that talks about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I made some key updates to the R/GA page yesterday (9th April). Namely to add some new clients and delete old clients, and also update the sections that describe our agency model as this is now out of date. However, these edits were removed and we also lost some sections of the R/GA page.

Plase can you advise on how to best get these updates made. I can assure you they are not promotional but are instead key info that needs udating from a factual perspective.

Thanks,

George Griffwell (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment at Talk:R/GA/Archives/2013#updates_needed which hopefully answers your question. SmartSE (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the IP Admin of 220.244.41.132 There is an unknown editor using this IP that has been posting copyright material on the Wikipedia forum. Our organisation provides free Wifi internet on this fixed IP to our users who are mainly professionals. Recently, one of our members alerted to us that materials that he has used as part of an academic discussion paper (including references) was found on Wikipedia. The issue is not so much in the cited copyright material itself, but that the poster had made it seemed like our member has made the comments on Wikipedia. The reason is that the information provided is a specialised content and identifiable based on his past contributions in academic papers and media articles. There was already one or two editors on the forum that had made that wrong impression and incorrectly replied to him on the Talk forum using the member's name. The member feels it is damaging that someone should provide comments on an open forum without signing authorship, and implicating him as the source. All users of our Wifi are aware that the IP Admin reserves the right to remove their material if they do not properly attribute authorship and/or misrepresent the organisation using this IP.

We note that under Wikipedia's guidelines, Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed under the following conditions:

   * If you have their permission.
   * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.

Users of this IP have given us the permission as condition of their use. We are simply removing the libel and copyright material sent through our IP and not removing any other editors' contents.

Please allow us to resolve this with Wikipedia through the copyright and defamation resoluationchannels before undoing the deletion of copyright materials. For legal reasons, we are reluctant to speak more freely in this open forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.41.132 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding GNU C-Graph. The thread is Complaint Against Summary Deletion of "GNU C-Graph".The discussion is about the topic GNU C-Graph. Thank you. -Visionat (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

	Thanks
	Thanks for the welcome and thanks for the advice on citations. I think I have if figured out now... Bakanae (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Poop. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're an English professor and that's the best swear word you have?! SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to prior editing on the page (which I think was done by company execs, not the PR guy), I feel I have gotten so defensive on this article that I will justify reverting anything and have actually already reverted some "ok" edits by their PR guy out of defensiveness. I'm going to take it off my watchlist and mosey about somewhere else, but was hoping you or a Talk page stalker would take up the cause of watchlisting it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm they're pretty persistent aren't they? I don't think you've removed anything that you shouldn't have though - this might be ok, but it's a copyvio. I'll keep an eye on it from now on though. You made an interesting point with "the best way for a PR person to get attention drawn to their article is to themselves be problematic" - I definitely agree that this is the case but it's an inevitable consequence of there being relatively few editors here that we concentrate on current problems rather than picking articles to edit at random. At least if they draw their attention to articles though we can fix them up and make them more compliant. Articles like PA Consulting Group which are used as corporate blogs for years and years are the most worrying COI articles, but it is pretty difficult to find them by chance. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well... His contribs are not that much worse than mine use to be (but I was never so bad as to copy and paste an About Us page). If you asked me a year ago I would have thought his edits were good. At the time I believed it was acceptable for PRs to add only the positive stuff, so long as we didn't censor anything negative already on the page. And most PRs have a similar mentality.

I also understand that he is just doing his job. Thusly I feel it is my job as a volunteer to make sure the best way for him to serve his client/employer is to be valuable to us and our readers, rather than the prevailing PR mentality, that we are entitled to argue every point to the last. Or the prevailing habits of the community, which encourages bad behavior. CorporateM (Talk) 04:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You've come a long way and that demonstrates why it is almost impossible for a 'social media expert' to just come along here and immediately write anything worth keeping. It takes time for anyone to learn how to edit properly. They are doing their job, but only in the sense of 'promote our company' or 'update the wikipedia article' not 'learn how to edit wikipedia'. The equivalent of what most PR editors do here on facebook would be to go around spamming links on groups etc. which hopefully an 'expert' would know isn't the correct thing to do. A lot of the CREWE discussions seemed to be orientated around the PR industry wanting us to teach them how to edit, rather than trying to learn. As I mentioned here this Qorvis blog post shows just how little clue some people have about Wikipedia is and isn't. We've certainly tried to explain things and we sure have enough COI advice pages. If they can learn it would be great as there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to edit reasonably neutrally. In my experience this is very rare though and most times that I have offered advice to COI editors about how to do things properly, they don't go on to improve articles. It seems to me that paid editors such as yourself are definitely preferable than marketing people who work for a company as you know policy and are more neutral. The fact that you have a reputation to maintain here also makes it much less likely that you'll write poorly. I'm quite surprised to have come to this conclusion as it's not what I used to think! SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In part my improved performance is from becoming a better editor, but it is also due to learning how to persuade stakeholders as to why the content must be a certain way, learning which clients to accept and overcoming other business problems.

It would be unethical of me to represent Wikipedia's interests and my clients' simultaneously, because this is a conflict of interest. Clients hire me to represent their interests solely, but without breaking any laws. When astroturfing laws are followed, it's in their best-interest for me to help them be as neutral as I can and Wikipedia's interests are served incidentally.

Wikipedia does not present enough billable hours for any PR person to justify the time investment to learn, unless they are going to be a dedicated expert for their entire agency. It's far more sensible (for everyone) for them to spend a little bit of money on someone who does it full time and whola, I'm here.

I disagree - I think our COI documentation is horrible. But I do agree that CREWE is very vocal, but mostly inexperienced. They spread misinformation to support their cause and I've been told send private block threats to group members that are not aligned with their message.

If a PR editor wants to point out a factual error or grotesque bias or other problem, they should not have to learn anything. The error is the community's fault in the first place and we should accept the burden to correct it when our attention is draw to it. Those who want to write content will only do well if they have the following three elements (a) Wiki-competence (b) an internal advocate for ethics and (c) desired outcomes reasonably aligned with what Wikipedia wants. The existence of all three are very rare. Even though I can provide (a) and (b), I still turn down 75% of business inquiries on account of (c). 03:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for your help with my Wikipedia bio. For the last 2-3 years I--and other female Indian journalists--have been targeted by certain ideological groups on the internet and they have been repeatedly vandalising my Wikipedia bio. Thats why I had been correcting and adding information! Now that you are watching it, I know its safe, and won't intervene further. I really would appreciate it if you did keep checking it please. ( I will too) A huge number of people consult Wiki for information about me as I am a public figure and I really don't want any false or obscene material to be put out there. Thanks again for your support! sagarika — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.194.134 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your improvements to the monsanto article today! Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw the discussion on your talk page and thought I'd have a look. I think the article is ok at the moment, but I agree with your that there are weight issues. There's barely anything about the company itself and mountains of controversy. It's obvious that a large proportion of the article will be about controversies, but there must be other information out there about the company's history. Do you have access to factiva? I find it's a lot better than google news for finding high quality references. If you don't I can try and find some myself and provide copies if it would be any help. SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Smartsense, Thanks for helping with the Power Matters Alliance page. I am making changes piecemeal so appreciate your feedback as I do that. Reverting all the changes makes it difficult to make any progress and I would think making changes on current versions to keep it nuetral would be better for everyone. After reading some documentation on WP, I went back an removed a lot of links as well as some biased language. Can you please let me know if there are other specific things that would help to keep it neutral?

Thanks, Shea

Hi there,

The Intro to March Against Monsanto currently reads "On May 25, 2013, an estimated 2 million supporters participated in marches and rallies (in 436 cities around the world)" based on the following:

Millions march against Monsanto in over 400 cities LOS ANGELES (AP) — Two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto in hundreds of rallies across the U.S. and in over 50 other countries on Saturday.

From what I understand about Wikipedia guidelines, this is perfectly acceptable. I did make a note about CNN's newly added caveat in the body of the article. petrarchan47tc 00:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right that it is acceptable, but is it correct? When there are plenty of other sources saying that this is what the organisers claimed and that it couldn't be verified, why should we not make it clear to readers that this is the case? As editors we should use our own judgment to decide what content belongs in articles, not blindly follow just because AP have reported it. This isn't really explained in guidelines as it is a relatively rare occurrence, but I know that it is common for us to ignore 'reliable' sources covering current events for example the Boston bombings. Journalists are often lazy (churnalists) and we should set ourselves a higher level of quality. SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been almost exactly a year. I came back to see if we can make the botany article better. If you have ideas, let me know. I hope you are well.512bits (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Smartse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.