User talk:Smartse/archive 9

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 want to explain something. In Brazil, we have brazilians that HATE brazilian press, because one Political Party (PT), who is communist, do a lot of propaganda against press, trying to force a censorship agains press (with the support of the people), because Brazilian press denounces theft and breaches of the PT. So, this "Al Lemos" is a PT-lover, Hugo Chavez-lover, Fidel Castro-lover, communist-dictatorship-lover (yes, in Brazil have a lot of this). Problably he is affiliated or employee of PT, and he tries to CENSOR what does not apply to him. He think he is the OWNER of this article, and into 1 month he does almost nothing here, but appears as a flash to revert edits that article. You need to understand that he is not here do help Wikipedia, he is here with a political mission: "attack brazilian press" (no, I'm not crazy, but I see this crazy people all day, here in Brazil). When you will block this guy to edit here? 186.205.17.133 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume this is related to me not blocking Al Lemos (talk · contribs) for supposed vandalism... I'm not knowledgeable or really interested in Brazilian politics I'm afraid and I don't have time to become so. If you are in a dispute, please discuss it with Al Lemos or on the talk page of the article. If that still doesn't work, start a thread at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See the article's history, fellow, and you'll know about I'm talking. This problem not started today. - Al Lemos (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detrended_Correspondence_Analysis (DCA) says DCA was created in 1979. There's a problem with that. I was using DCA in the early 1970s. Is there a way to leave a note for needed corrections on a Wikipedia page? I found a couple journal articles refering to DCA as early as 1968, but didn't find any good citations.

Also: How do I find other wikipedians like yourself to consult with? Just look for page editors and contact them through talk pages? Any other ideas? Sedgehead (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Sedgehead

One option is to leave a note on the talk page of the article and then add ^{[dubious – discuss]} by adding {{dubious}} at the end of the sentence. If you have found papers using it before 1979 then leave a link to them on the talk page too. The problem with that is that there is probably no one else who will notice, and so it might just stay as it is for a long time. If you can find a source confirming you are correct then it would be best to correct the article yourself.

Regarding other wikipedians, it depends what you need. There are Wikiprojects that cover specific topic areas, like countries, plants etc. which have their own talk pages that generally someone will answer to. Then there are noticeboards for discussing problems, like whether a source is reliable or not. But you're right that you can just ask anyone, you just might want to check their contributions first to make sure they are active. SmartSE (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. Just noticed this page UR-144 by this same User:Vasiliy 100 who made UR-12 a few weeks back. These seem...umm problematic additions? They are not hoaxes as such, because in both cases the compounds are known from the literature and are (barely) notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. But there are several things that seem dodgy, the code names are both invented, and imply the compounds were invented by the same companies when they are not. Also both pages had made-up Ki values that were completely inaccurate and stated the compounds to be potent CB₁ agonists (i.e. possibly psychoactive cannabinoids), when in fact in both cases they are in fact fairly highly selective CB₂ agonists (i.e. more likely to be non-psychoactive anti-inflammatories and immunomodulators). Also both pages had a list of references which are mostly about related compounds or research by the same people, but the original reference in which the compounds were first reported were not given. Seems very odd, I'm not quite sure what this person is trying to achieve. There was a somewhat similar pattern of mostly accurate additions of borderline notability from User:Nuklear a few years back, in this case they did end up adding a large amount of valuable content, but also eventually got banned (twice!) for disruptive editing, mainly adding made-up details or off topic rants to the pages they had made, plus abusive comments on talk pages and so on. But unfortunately these pages aren't nearly such good content as what Nuklear added. I especially don't like the made up code names and Ki numbers as those are very hoax like and suggest the author is trying to promote the sale of these compounds as "research chemicals" - but then the pages are about real and somewhat notable compounds so deletion tends to be declined. Any thoughts on this? Meodipt (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I had noticed that one too as you might have noticed. Thanks for sorting them out and making them accurate. I think that it's quite likely that they are in someway related to people trying to peddle these as "research chemicals" and reporting inaccurate Ki values is therefore serious. I will warn them about this and if necessary block them to prevent more hoaxes appearing. As to the compounds, personally I don't think they meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage" but then it seems a shame to take them to AfD when they are accurate. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest...a spam is always a spam, the point is to break the communication between the spammer and its target, dunno if there's a rigid policy about it on this wiki but, to me, common sense should prevail. In fact you can see here how many requests I did and how many of them were accepted ;) have a nice day. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I hate spam as much as anyone! Thanks for removing what you have. I know that there is a general rule that talk pages shouldn't be deleted I can't find anything specific either though. I couldn't see why the page should be deleted though, as after removing the spam there is nothing left. I see that I'm not the only one to think this. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

From a statistical point of view you're quitely in minority :p

Anyway, clicking on "see diff" the user will be able to read it the same, so the above-mentioned communication won't be broken.

--Vituzzu (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, I have rewritten the content for Capillary Technologies. Hope its acceptable now.

Just getting to learn about writing article for wikipedia. Will be happy to get some feedback on areas of improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhibajaj (talk • contribs) 11:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, i need your help in creating an article about a company. i've tried several times but everytime it gets deleted. you've deleted it the 3rd time. can you help me in writing it ? ( so it doesnt get deleted ) .. or basically tell me how to do it without any mistakes -pls. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farah26 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Which company would that be? The post here is your first contribution. Anyway, if it has been deleted three times already, you should probably start by reading WP:MFA, WP:CORP and WP:ARTSPAM as they explain what should and shouldn't be in an article and whether or not we should have an article on a company or not. SmartSE (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Smartse. Good to see you taking on some GA reviews. I noticed that you edited the main WP:GAN page when accepting one. Just thought I would let you know that this is unnecessary. Only the bot needs to update that page, by simply creating the review page it knows you are its reviewer. Any questions about the process or anything else give me a bell. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've never been good at reading instructions! SmartSE (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Smartse. I realise I should given you a note here as well that I'm working on a new verison at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia africana 2 - sorry for not mentioning here before. Other Portia hunt as individuals and use the same set of hunting techniques, but Portia africana hunts in groups and without most of these techniques. --Philcha (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Smartse. I've done (IMO ?) the main text at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia africana 2. On Sun 12 Nov I'll do the lead there. --Philcha (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Smartse. I've done the lead at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia africana 2, and checked links and DABs at present. Over to you, in the Sandbox. --Philcha (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to upload some photos I took today for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silene_stellata.

But wikipedia commons will not let me log in. I DID log in to wikipedia and edited the page. But I can't upload photos that way. I found another method but was not sure how to give wikipedia permission to use the photos. Any ideas? Sedgehead (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Sedgehead

You should have a unified login across all the different projects, but if you aren't automatically logged in on commons, try logging out here and relogging on. When you enter your password, there should be an option to login to all the projects. Then go to COMMONS:Special:UploadWizard and follow the steps there. If you upload them but are unsure whether you have the given the right permission for them to be used then drop me a note. SmartSE (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi Smartse,

On October 5th you left me a message stating there were not enough grounds for Youngman to have a wiki page due to a google search. Youngman's website has not yet been created though I don't believe this is ground to hold his Wikipedia page. His first single is released on January 15th and has already racked up over 30 plays on BBC Radio one, the UK's leading national radio station. It has just earned the #8 spot on the Music Week Cool Cuts Chart. He has completed a world tour as the frontman to Skream and Benga, the UK's leading dub step DJs, as well as countless tours with UK DJs, including Shy FX and Breakage.

I ask that you reconsider and reinstate his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philclark86 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.techniquerecordings.co.uk/artists/youngman-mc/ http://www.urbantakeover.co.uk/urbanartists/Youngman.html http://www.discogs.com/artist/Youngman+MC Hope that helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philclark86 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Smartse, I would like to bring to your attention a problem with an Italian Administator, Vituzzu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vituzzu . He is keeping deleting all posts made by a group of sport fans who contact sport fanatics asking them if they are interested in an international forum about Olympic sports (completely non profit and totally free) that is absolutely not a Wikipedia's competitor.

He considers it spam and we don't, anyway even if whole Wikipedia considers it too, this doesn't justify what he started doing for some days. As you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Biodin#Vietnam he started telling users that they will be FORCED to SPAM the forum on wikipedia. That's absolutely false and that's a heavy damage against the forum. Contact single users asking them if they would be interested in the forum could be considered spam (at least for Vituzzu) but that's a defamation and we really hope some decisions will be taken about that to stop him with his actions to damage Totallympics reputation.

Hope to receive good news. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.167.3.255 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. 1) Vituzzu is not an admin here, only on the Italian Wikipedia, which is a completely separate site. 2) Your unsolicited posts on talk pages about non-wikipedia topics is by all definitions spam - it doesn't matter if you aren't selling something or not. 3) Whether or not Vituzzu was right to post what they did on Biodin's talk page, you accusing them of defamation is only going to make things worse for yourself as we have a policy against any legal threats. I would therefore request that you refactor the above comment. SmartSE (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Then why does he delete everything he can, even if it's not about the forum?

2) Ok, I take note

3) That's not a Legal Threat, we don't have money to buy some ads and you think would we make legal actions against anyone ? :D

It's something that aims to damage the forum so I think wikipedia shouldn't allow that, and I thought it would have been deleted and or ::reported. Was I wrong?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.224.5 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

All I can see him doing recently is deleting spam, just as I would have done if I found it. Whether you can take legal action or not is not the point. You're not in a position to complain really and I'm certainly not going to do anything, but if you disagree, vent your anger at WP:ANI, but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Thanks and good night. SmartSE (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet another lie, they did *heavy* legal threats per email to me...and actually they gave me some elements contrasting with free and non commercial. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the filter...I'm considering it but it will just make them change target, I'm considering the possibility to ask WMF to complain about this spam campaign to OVH. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's not really our or your problem if that happens. I'll request an edit filter - if you want to go ahead and contact someone off wiki then go ahead. SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here my rectification according Italian and international Law, by forcing I meant asking them regardless of anything, it was just a clear fault of me. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, just please don't get arguing about the law here please. SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hate doing so, but it's needed, you know... --Vituzzu (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this, that lube is already a year old; I only learned about it a couple of weeks ago. You think anyone actually uses it? I know Mrs. Drmies will close up the garden if I so much as break the seal. I noticed something else, which strikes me as funny and encyclopedic: this section, with a question mark. Is that your handiwork? Oh, this morning I was soaking bread in custard to make French toast, and my two-year old was asking what I was doing--I said "weken", the Dutch word for "soak". And she says? "I love bacon!" Later, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it was an April Fools joke from 2009 but they only just got round to making it after so many people wanted it. Apparently thousands of people have bought it so I assume they're going to use it for something... Did you notice who made the redirect (and wrote most of the article btw?) But no, that ? isn't mine... Custard?! I hope it wasn't cooked before you were soaking bread in it... I know this is bad, but I have to confess that I'm more of a crack addict than bacon lover, or at least today as it's a Sunday. <drool> SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the redirect--yes? Is that your mother, or the company's PR agent? And the French toast was delicious: I had made raisin and currant bread a couple of days ago, and used that. Pork rinds, I don't know. I will tell you that I'm partial to salt pork. I may well be baconed out, to use Mrs. Drmies's expression. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's right, as well as a bunch of other stuff including the "charity" info - you may notice I've taken care of that now. I should have given you a better link - pork rind ≠ crackling - it's much better. Salt pork looks gooood too but I don't think I've ever seen it over here :( SmartSE (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

SmartSE, do you think you can poke someone to have a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Punta Brava? It's languishing... Drmies (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get on to it shortly. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also non-bacon related: in AeroPress, capitalization is used inconsistently, I noticed. I see that you haven't edited the article, but maybe you have some thoughts. BTW, is it worth it? PS--and while you're at it, tackle this, "Uses slightly more finely ground coffee than drip, but coarser than espresso machines use"--which is found in the section that compares it to a French press but doesn't mention it (a French press is what I use, incidentally). Drmies (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This article told me something interesting about one of the article contributors. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if it should be AeroPress so I went ahead and changed it. And yep I'd say so - (a) none of that gritty crap you get with a French press (b) no cleaning required and (c) you can preload it, chuck it in your bag and then make awesome coffee wherever there is hot water! As you worked out as well, if a guy can improve the frisbee that much, don't you think he can improve the taste of coffee too? (That bit about inverting them though is BS - I could never work out what they meant, but I just saw a video on youtube and they turn it back the normal way before plunging so the oil is still going to be left in the coffee). SmartSE (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions on improving this page, especially the website citation? I just created it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovate-leaved_Catchfly. I plan to drag out some references and put in more detail, so don't worry with that. I finally was able to upload photos. Previously, wikicommons would not let me create a profile. I will also play with the photos and their locations within the page. I also have some photos from a friend of a friend in China I'd like to upload. What type of citation is required for the permission to use the photos? All I have at the moment is an instant message saying "My friend took these photos and says it is ok to use them." I know that won't cut it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedgehead (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the article to the latin name per the plant naming convention but the common name redirects there still. I removed a double link to the reference, if one is included inside <ref></ref> then it doesn't need to be repeated again. Regarding the structure, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template might be worth a read. I also copied over a taxobox from another Silene article but have hidden it from view for the moment as I thought you might like to change it to be suitable to use in the article. You can add one of the images to the taxobox using the code here. To use someone else's photos see Wikipedia:CONSENT, but bear in mind that photographs should be used to illustrate articles, rather than the article being a gallery of images - that's what commons is for though and we can link to a collection from the article here. Is that clear? SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added text to the page from a few references. I should be working on other things, but you know how it goes. One additional question. How can I cite a webpage a second time? I just copied the webpage citation from another citation to create it. I known I probably can't use the name= ref format. Sedgehead (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Sedgehead

I'm not really sure what you mean - I can't see any references used twice, but if you do use one twice you can use the "ref name=" just like for books over at Xin River. SmartSE (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use any web references twice. BUT I could have!^[1] The current web references have no "ref name=" and I'm not sure if I should add it or where to add it.^[2] I could just cite the same full reference twice like I've done here just for fun! Sedgehead (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Sedgehead

Ah ok, just change the <ref> to <ref name = xxx > in the first reference and then use <ref name = xxx /> next time you want to cite it. SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand how to do that. But when I tried it with the webpage, it did not work. See the current version. And THANKS! Sedgehead (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Sedgehead

You'd forgotten to include the "name" part. I fixed that for you. I changed a few other things - images should normally not be a specified pixel width, because this allows people to change the size to a set value across all articles based on the size of their screen. If you want large ones for a large monitor you can change it in your preferences and if someone has a small screen/slow connection they can have small thumbs. Also, you'd included original research in the article, based on your observations - whilst I don't doubt that it is true, you can only report what reliable sources state - so if they say it flowers from June to September, you can only include this, even if you know it to be not entirely correct. This looks as if should be a useful reference by the way. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm learning a lot from you! Thanks! I'm not surprised with the original research, though the photos show the flowering date in real life! Sedgehead (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Sedgehead

Hi Smartse, you recently deleted User:Rjmains. Please advise how it can be restored back. Thanks. Rjmains (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted your userpage as it was unambiguously promotional, containing links to your businesses and detailing how you will help charities increase their web presence. You are welcome to recreate the page, but you should read WP:USERPAGE first, paying attention to what what should not be present. Essentially, it should only detail what you do here, not what you offer to do elsewhere. Let me know if you have any other questions. SmartSE (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Smartse, you recently deleted an article on CompuCom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuCom citing that it was G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSDH)). I am a senior marketing manager for CompuCom and would like to know how to reinstate this page. What other way do you suggest to describe my company other than in terms of what we do? If you can provide your rationale for the deletion I'd appreciate it. Thank you and appreciate your help Chcarr0084 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You are correct it was deleted as being unambiguous advertising. I'm uncertain whether or not we should have an article on CompuCom at all though. WP:CORP tells you which companies we should have articles about - essentially you need to have multiple independent sources which have discussed the company. If you think those exist, then please read WP:MFA about writing your first article, and then create a draft at User:Chcarr0084/CompuCom. If you let me know once that is done then I can take a look and decide if it is suitable or not. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, how is this, more and more of this will be written over the coming weeks. Can we look at a Wikipedia page now? http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/nov/30/new-band-youngman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philclark86 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification. Out of curiosity, can you tell me what the altered criteria was (the article was deleted before I saw your message)? Also, why you didn't think it was an A7 or G11? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something in the CSD criteria. Glad to hear it was a bug in the tool rather than in my understanding of the criteria :-) Thanks for deleting that article (again). Best, Sparthorse (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, I don't suppose you'd have any time or inclination to read through this article and give me your opinion on it? I'm aiming to have the article as "clean" as possible before FAC. Of course, it's rather long, so please feel free to decline. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I was just looking at it already a minute ago! I'll read it through entirely shortly. SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Smartse, you recently deleted an article on CompuCom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuCom citing that it was G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSDH)). I am a senior marketing manager for CompuCom and would like to know how to reinstate this page. What other way do you suggest to describe my company other than in terms of what we do? If you can provide your rationale for the deletion I'd appreciate it. Thank you and appreciate your help Chcarr0084 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You are correct it was deleted as being unambiguous advertising. I'm uncertain whether or not we should have an article on CompuCom at all though. WP:CORP tells you which companies we should have articles about - essentially you need to have multiple independent sources which have discussed the company. If you think those exist, then please read WP:MFA about writing your first article, and then create a draft at User:Chcarr0084/CompuCom. If you let me know once that is done then I can take a look and decide if it is suitable or not. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I apologize for the delay in responding. I will read the articles you mentioned and be in touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chcarr0084 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smartse! So my previous note on MTS Red Energy was deleted. Went through the guidelines. Came up with a new note for the same topic. Here it is- Red Energy is a program launched by MTS – India that provides users with a tool to measure their social media interaction. Red Energy is the measure of how every user impacts the social web and conversely, how the social web impacts that user. The more active a user is on social media, the more his Red Energy grows. Red Energy measures activity on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google+ and LinkediIn. cREDits – Red Energy Currency Red Energy measures social media activity. Based on the amount of Red Energy one scores, a currency is earned. This currency is the cREDit. Users earn Red Energy which in turn helps them earn cREDits. cREDits can be used to redeem Red Energy rewards. These rewards are intangible gifts that help better that user’s standing in the real world. Rewards – Increasing social standing The Red Energy program is a ‘loyalty program’ for social media. The more loyal a user is, the more points he earns and thus, he’s more likely to take back special benefits (rewards). Red Energy gives users rewards that money can’t buy. A date with a celebrity, a chance to feature in a Bollywood movie, etc. These rewards help users move up the social ladder. The point to the program is to help users use their Red Energy (or their social activity) to help better their real life standing. Rankings A user’s Red Energy determines what level (or rank) he’s at in the program. There are 12 ranks a user can get to: - Newbie - Cadet - Rookie - Hobbyist - Amateur - Semi-pro - Pro - Hardcore - Phenom - Legend - God-like - God Notable events: October 2011: Red Energy helps Pune band Zepheroth make it to the finals for India’s premier rock fest – Independence Rock. December 2011: Red Energy cheat code and Red Energy Fast Forward introduced in MTV’s Booty Call contest.

Is this okay? Can I put this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarsheetaShah (talk • contribs) 09:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi DarsheetaShah, thanks for your note and for asking advice rather than recreating the article. I don't think that the text above is suitable to be included here for several reasons. First, I still can't see how the above shows why red energy is important (the reason I deleted it), similarly it seems promotional in nature as well, which could mean it would be deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Even if those were fixed, for the article to remain in the long term, you would need to show that WP:PRODUCT is met, which as far as I can tell from a quick search is not the case at the moment. If you can find any reliable sources discussing red energy then it might be worth briefly mentioning in the MTS India article. Let me know if you have any further questions. SmartSE (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

You might like to use {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} to welcome new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created a page at Wikipedia:Cambridge University Wikipedia Society, please sign up to that and help coordinate future efforts! Sorry for the sloppiness over the past few months about this. Deryck C. 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've been logged out for most of the holidays but I noticed that you marked Purificacion Angue Ondo for deletion. I agree that significant coverage of her doesn't really exist. As an ambassador to the U.S., I thought she was a significant-enough figure to warrant a page. Also, regarding the U.S. Embassy in Malabo. It's a new building and an important one for Americans in Equatorial Guinea. I didn't find much information on it beyond the embassy website when I made the page but will keep an eye out in the new year for better content for both the ambassador to the U.S. and the embassy in Malabo. Cheers.--Ratfinx (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your assistance. I didn't see the previous Afd. Thank you. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SmartSE. I wanted to let you know that I've made a couple of edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exivious, first to format the AfD since it wasn't possible to tell from the log which article it was about, and then to link to the second nomination, since I realized my first edit had made your rationale lose it's sense. I hope everything is okay. Best regards — Frankie (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand why it was deleted - that it looked like plain ol' advertising. I really do want to post the theme of muscle cars and focus on the ones I've built a "business" (hobby really) around; which are the ultra rare, limitted production, muscle cars that not many people know about.

If I can just have my content back, I'd like to use it on my website (www.midsixtiesmuscle.com) and I can re-try a Wikipedia page without any advertising.

Thank you in advance.

jpilk99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpilk99 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, my appologies for not being a more articulate Wikipedian; I guess I'm not even that :-). I appreciate you getting back to me and giving me the link to the original page I created. But, after I created & saved that first draft I went on to add a lot of details on an updated version -- the last one I had done before it got flagged and deleted. Can you please get me that content (it had a lot of details I went out and researched on the horsepower and displacement of BMWs and Mercedes Benz).

Thanks again for your help.

Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpilk99 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem with the Afghan National Army page: You are accepting U.S. Army press releases and statements as "sources" to back up previous U.S. Army press releases. The entire article is self-sourced to the U.S. Army basically. SOMEONE is deleting any effort at editing this page, and the panguage is maintained exactly as approved by General Caldwell. I didn't say Wikipedia was controlled by the U.S. Army, I said the ANA page is controlled by the U.S. Army, which any rational observer can see for themselves. The 2009 article provides a mathematical formula for calculating the size of the ANA, developed by the Naval Postgraduate School by academics, with help from the State Department. This formula can be applied to U.S. Army statements using 100% U.S. Army provided statistics to prove conclusively that the ANA cannot possibly have as many men under arms as it claims. All that is being requested is that the dispute between the U.S. Army and senior, tenured academics, scholars and analysts be acknowledged. I THOUGHT this was the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhokara (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The 2009 article states that 100,000 is the level at which new recruits = annual losses. It's pretty simple. No matter how many recruits they get, the larger the size, the more men lost to attrition (desertion) and non-reenlistment each year. I'm not Einstein, but I'm sure there's a mathematical term for this kind of constant algorythm. It also states that this was originally determined by the U.S. Army itself, at the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The problem is that the U.S. Army has won this fight -- the number on the article page is still the wholly imaginary number of 180,000, and the article reflects no academic dissent from this number. I want the main article to indicate that the true size is "disputed." I know at least a half a dozen senior academics and U.S. government analysts that dispute General Caldwell's number of 180,000. I don't want it say that General Caldwell is a brazen liar, which he is, but rather that "The current size of the ANA is disputed. The number has been placed between 100,000 and 180,000 men." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhokara (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I created an account under Bhokara when I forget how to sign on as Khiva. Yes, the writer using an IPO in Islamabad is U.S. Army, and yes, I do reject U.S. Army reports on what the U.S. Army is doing. All credible academics dismiss these as propaganda like the Pentagon Papers. The first victim of every war is the truth. No, I'm not a "sockpuppet," I'm an academic who has published more articles on Afghanistan than the Army drone criticizing me would if he lived to be 1,000 years old. But you won't get any "concensus" on the talk page, because the U.S. Army won't allow it.

Bhokara (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Bhokara _____

Here's the citation:

“However, the ministry [i.e., of Defense] and AMF [i.e.,Afghan Military Forces] commanders had an interest in overstating the number of troops under their command, as they could claim more resources from the central government to feed, house and remunerate them... a large proportion of the AMF personnel on the payroll of the Defence Ministry were in fact ‘ghost soldiers’.”

Mark Sedra. “Afghanistan and the Folly of Apolitical Demilitarisation.” Journal “Conflict, Security & Development ,” Volume 11, Issue 4. London: Taylor & Francis, 2011. Page 9.

Bhokara (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Bhokara

here's your recent source that the number is in dispute:

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/22/transition_to_nowhere_the_limits_of_afghanization

Foreign Policy Magazine, scholars Professor Thomas Johnson and Matthew Dupee at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Bhokara (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Bhokara

"Of all American military training programs around the world, the most publicized in recent years has been the one building up a local security force to replace U.S. (and NATO) troops as they ever so slowly withdraw from Afghanistan. By 2014, that country is supposed to possess an army and police force of at least 350,000. At staggering expense, their recruitment and training has been a Washington priority for years. But here’s the twist: just about every year the training program has been operating, reports have appeared on its striking lack of success. These almost always mention the same problems: massive desertion rates (with “ghost soldiers” still being paid), heavy drug use, illiteracy, an unwillingness to fight, corruption, an inability of Afghan units to act independently of the U.S. military, and so on. Year after year, Washington’s response to such problems has been no less repetitive. It has decided to pour yet more money into the program (over $29 billion through 2010). Again repetitively, with each new infusion of money come claims of “progress” and “improvement” -- until, of course, the next dismal report arrives." http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/?pos=2

"Wages and salaries, especially for ‘ghost’ policemen and soldiers, are key issues" Key Finding, DFID, "Working Paper 4 for Afghanistan Public Expenditure Review 2010 Second Generation of Public Expenditure Reforms Security Sector." http://siteresources.worldbank.org/AFGHANISTANEXTN/Resources/305984-1264608805475/6739619-1276813833351/Paper4.pdf

Bhokara (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Bhokara

"Official reports indicate the Afghan National Army (ANA) is currently 134,000-strong. However, desertions, casualties, and “ghost” soldiers – with commanders pocketing real salaries – have made the official figure suspect."

"Success in Afghanistan? Historical Ironies and Plenty of Foreign Aid" by Blair Watson © FrontLine Defence Vol. 7 No. 6 November 2010

http://www.frontline-canada.com/Defence/index_archives.php?page=1533

How many scholars and sources do we need to show that the whole NMTC-A narrative is a shamof smoke and mirrors? I can find you a lot more where these came from. In fact, the only source on earth which purports to believe the ANA has 180,000 men IS the U.S. Army. Bhokara (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Bhokara

I sent you some text via e-mail this morning of the suggested new ANA section on size. Bhokara (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Bhokara

---

I want to dispute the objectivity of the entire page. I think the whole thing is a hagiography written by the U.S. Army as propaganda. I want to get one of those graphics with scales at the top of the entry with the comment "the objectivity of the article is disputed." ____ Bhokara (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Bhokara

Hi Smartse,

I've uploaded the article on Afghanistan that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

With this edit, it was unclear what your previous warning was for since there wasn't any linkage to specific articles. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, I was being lazy, but as MS had already given them a level 3 warning and they hadn't edited after, giving them 2 more level 3 warnings didn't seem right. SmartSE (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, that makes sense. I guess it seems like I've come across a lot of vandalism lately that gets reverted but then the reverter doesn't leave a notice/warning/welcome about it on the vandal's page so I tend to go the opposite direction of leaving very specific warnings. Shearonink (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do with this new article. Could you advise? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was sleeping! Looks like Beeblebrox took care of it anyway. SmartSE (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, SmartSE. I noticed your comment on the "Paid Editing Watch" Talk page about the Cracker Barrel article, and the possibility of someone doing a source review to determine whether the information was "cherry-picked" or used responsibly. As the writer of the article, I would welcome such a review. One catch is that I did my research in Lexis-Nexis, so the majority of sources are not available online. I do still have this research file, but another catch is that (I presume) I cannot post it online without it becoming a copyright issue. Do you have a recommendation for how I can make this available? Let me know here or on my Talk page, when you have a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The only way you could let others look at the sources is to email them, rather than posting them online for all to see. In my comment (which was just using CB as an example) I was thinking more of the problem with there being sources out there which aren't used in the article, rather than content being selectively taken from the sources already used. The only way to solve this is for someone else to independently search for articles on LN. I do have access, but I'm not sure I have the time at the moment to fully look into it. Maybe someone else does? SmartSE (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Smartse, You've recently marked my article as "WP:CORP - cannot find any secondary coverage whatsoever." Could you help me to improve it, because I'm not an experienced wiki user. I've added a cross-link between 2 articles (UkrsibBank and Ukrsib Asset Management company), and now this article not an orphan. Can I remove the "proposed deletion/dated' notice or should I add some more information? And just to let you now, this article is English version of main one in ukrainian. Thank you in advance and I will be very grateful for the assistance. AnnaPol (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anna, thanks for your note. As the guideline I linked to (WP:CORP) explains, for a company to have an article here, we need sources independent of the subject which show why the company is notable. What this means is that the company needs to have been written about in things like newspapers to be included. As far as I could tell this isn't the case and that's why I proposed that it is deleted. If there aren't any sources, then I can't help to improve it. You can remove the deletion notice if you wish, but without providing any sources to show it is notable, the article will probably be deleted through a deletion discussion instead. Please let me know if you have any further questions. SmartSE (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, Thank you for responding so quickly. This article includes some links to an independent sourses (e.g. investfunds.ua, expert-rating.com, which is an independent organisations and shows a statistics and rankings of investment funds and asset management companys). And accordingly to it's statistic, UkrSib AMC is one of the biggest Ukrainian Asset Management company and also is an subsidiary comp of UkrSibBank (BNP Paribas Group). Is it enough to find the company as notable? AnnaPol (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed those references, but they aren't enough - they only show that it exists, not that it is notable. SmartSE (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you and thank you for helping me. I've added an information that Ukrsib AMC had a rating of TOP-100 ukrainian companies, who have influenced the formation and development of the stock market over the past 10 years. This rating was published in the magazine "Investgazeta". If that's ok, what should I do then - remove 'proposed deletion' and explain why? AnnaPol (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's still not providing significant coverage I'm afraid - by which I mean several paragraphs discussing the company. SmartSE (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you recently left a note at User_talk:Vempalligangadhar regarding COI insertions on various articles. This followed a report by myself at WP:COIN. The user has just done exactly the same thing again. What do we do? - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've blocked them for three days for spam. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Blimey, that was quick :) - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They chose a bad time to start spamming! SmartSE (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for the note. I don't think anything in the text is bad -- I just find the headline for that section to be poorly worded. I think that "misleading" sounds like people actually think they're buying bath salts and are surprised to find that they're actually buying drugs. In the text you say "inaccurate" which I think is better. Another approach would be to change "Misleading descriptions" to "Mislabeling" or a longer form such as "Mislabeling as Benign Products" -- what do you think? --Quasipalm (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I can see what you meant now. I've changed the section to inaccurate descriptions and added another ref to show that it is for similar reasons in the US and Europe. If you still think this isn't right, then we could change it to a simpler 'labelling' instead. I've also changed the hatnote but kept some of your wording which was much better than my original. If that's ok, can you remove the npov template? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome -- I just removed it, thanks. --Quasipalm (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers SmartSE (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Smartse (cool name I should agree). Noticed that you were interested in creating an article on the above species sometime ago. I am especially keen on genus Streptomyces and was planning to improve the articles on the genus as well as some of the member species (starting off with Streptomyces griseus -which I created sometime ago). Wondering if you are still interested in creating the article on S. scabiei. And also if you would be interested in expanding and cleaning up other S. griseus? Sorry if you are no longer interested in this subject. I have been carrying the guilt of not contributing much into what am actually qualified for and a bit desperate to find a collaborator. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wiki San Roze, thanks for the note. Yep I still am interested - I've had a draft at User:Smartse/Streptomyces scabiei for about a year and am researching it still for my own research. Since I started that a few months ago, I've been a bit snowed under by the sheer number of papers! I'm doing a literature review at the moment, so soon I should be able to work out what's relevant and finish of writing the article. I'm interested in the more ecological and molecular aspects of Streptomyces rather than the pure microbiology, but I'll be happy to give you a hand if you want some suggestions for how to improve S. griseus. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that you have already started cleaning up S. grisues. It just occurred to me that S. caviscabies, a plant pathogen, has been under S. griseus for a while now. I should probably start with that. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't come across S. caviscabies being under S. griseus yet but it doesn't surprise me as defining species of Streptomyces seems pretty much impossible! I got a couple of recently published books from the library today - Streptomyces could do with a lot of work, as could Streptomyces coelicolor which is the model species of the genus. If you come across any sources that you can't get hold of, let me know as I can probably get them. One other thing - you might find {{cite doi}} useful. SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I will start off with the genus then. Although interesting it would be hard to deal with "Streptomyces coelicolor" as the strain that was actually sequences was not really a coelicolor but S. lividans. Unfortunately, by that time Professors David Hopwood and Keith Chater had published a lot on this particular strain as coelicolor. After this error was pointed by Michael Goodfellow it is now more common to write the taxa within quotes. With its whole taxonomy messed up I reckon it would be too difficult to pass this message across to a reader (who are mostly stressed-out undergrads). --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, they neglected to mention that in the new book! S. scabies is pretty much ready to go now - I decided it is best to deal with common scab in a separate article as it's caused by many other species in addition to S. scabies. I'll work on the genus as well when I get the time. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not need independent references for information regarding CXO positions. In these cases, the organization is the *most* reliable source. And I see you replaced the source with a blog - which we very rarely consider to be a reliable source. Rklawton (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We may not need an independent source, but secondary sources are always better if they are available. Company websites may be reliable, but not so much so in the sense of what we consider reliable. Also it is not a blog, but a newsblog - which is very different in terms of determining reliability. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Common sense indicates that a corporate press release regarding a new hire is going to be not only more reliable than a secondary source but the actual source for all secondary sources. See also "common sense"[1] Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That link says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" - that's why an independent source is better, even if we know it is based on a primary source that we could cite. It's not really worth arguing about is it? SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you close this review? It appears everything's stopped now and no more's going to be done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder! SmartSE (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I received feedback on how to change the Delcan page so that is does not sound like advertising. How can I recreate the page? Or can I send you the information to confirm that it meets the requirements? Thank you YaniraKat (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can recreate the article whenever, but it would be sensible to create is a draft first, which won't be deleted. If you click here you can write the article and then seek further advice. I would strongly urge you to read WP:CORP in detail however - very few companies in existence are sufficiently notable to have an article, and if Delcan is not, it won't be kept for long. SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest in my article Millepora alcicornis which I have nominated for GA. It is my first experience of this review process and I expect will prove useful in improving my articles in general, as in writing better lead sections. I have ventured into GA territory because I have entered the WikiCup and thought some extra points might be useful, particularly at later stages of the competition.

I see you have added a diagram of a section through a polyp to the article. I'm not sure that it is appropriate for the article however as this coral is not a typical stony coral and is in a different class, Hydrozoa. The polyps, according to my description, come in several types and may be differently structured. It would be a good diagram for other coral pages however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, thanks for your note. I added the diagram as I thought the average reader might have problems working out what polyps are from the description. I admit that I hadn't realised that it wasn't a stony coral so it's best to remove it. Have you come across any diagrams of hydrozoa polyps anywhere though? If you have, I might be able to knock up a diagram sometime. Good luck with the GAs - I'm sure this will be promoted and from what I recall, you've written plenty of other articles which are pretty much GA standard already. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have found a nice simple diagram here, the one in the 4th row labelled HYDR006B.cdr . I was unsure about the copyright position for such diagrams but I see that their use is permitted with certain conditions. I could probably even work out how to use the diagram if I tried hard enough! I have just added a drawing to my new Elysia rufescens article and am waiting for someone on Commons to tell me that what I have done is wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks good, but we can't use it directly due to copyright - it was published in '94 and no fair use claim could be made. What we can do though, is use it as a source to make our own diagram. I won't have time until Sunday at the earliest, but I'll try to knock one up at some point. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I check the slug pic and that looks fine as the author has been dead so long. SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For info, this has been recreated subsequent to your deletion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've deleted it again and left the creator a note. SmartSE (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I'm trying to follow the directions given on the adoption page as best as I can. It said to post a message on the adopter's user page, that I thought might be the best fit for me. I'm interested in Biology, and your brief paragraph in the adopter's page was the only active account that mentioned Biology at all. I love Biology; animals and humans in particular, are interesting to me. I also love different foods and am curious about things that I find either during travel or in restaurants.

I'm not new to Wiki, I'm just not often posting in Wiki--I, like the tons of other users here, read Wiki on a daily basis. I want to try to start contributing more to wikipedia, but have found that all the formatting to be intimidating. I am really worried that when I try to change something, it might end up looking horrible, and then I don't know how exactly to get it to look better, and in the end I just hit the "undo" button.  :( I have tried to read pages on wiki about formatting. So, for example, I kinda get the link thing where you put "[" characters around text you want to link to an article within wiki, and I get how to post thumbnails. But, adding icons and boxes and icons that link, etc...to make wiki edits look more professional instead of sloppy, I don't know how to do that yet. I don't want to add to wiki if my addition makes it super ugly looking and sloppy.

I was hoping that you could give me some advice on where to go to find this sort of information, but also hoping that I could ask questions if some of it doesn't entirely make sense to me. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelidimari (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kelidimari (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kelidimari, thanks for dropping by! If you're interested in biology then I'm sure there is plenty you can do to help. The first thing I'd say is don't be afraid about being bold - don't worry if your first edits aren't properly formatted - the great thing about a wiki is that someone else will come and tidy up after you. To have some idea of what the code means Wikipedia:Cheatsheet will be helpful. You'll also find it easier if you go to Special:Preferences click the 'gadgets' tab, and then under 'editing' tick 'Wiked'. That tool changes different parts of the code into different colours which makes it a lot easier to work with, as it's not just a block of black and white text - see this example. Once you've gotten used to that, you can try to improve some articles. Maybe a good place to start would be Category:Animals and try to find things which need improving. By "icons and boxes and icons that link" do you mean things like the box at the top right of article like Gastrotrich? They are called taxoboxes but to be honest they are quite complicated, and most of our articles already have them. Hopefully that's of some use.... Let me know if you have any other questions. I'm going to be away for a couple of days though, so if you want quicker help, maybe ask at the helpdesk instead. Good luck! SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay thank you very much! Kelidimari (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Ah, right now it won't let me use the tool you linked, because it gives me a white page with an error message, but I will fix it when I get home today. =) Thank you! Kelidimari (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion. FWIW, I didn't actually know that I recreated it permanently when I restored it. I just recreated it so that I could have the information available from it, and I copied it into my e-mail. And, FWIW, if you look at the relevant article, [{Ebionites]], and particularly the talk page history, you will note that there were rather obvious failures to assume good faith, even including clear questions as to whether I was lying, when I first provided abridged material. Unfortunately, there does seem to be a group of non-notable "Ebionite restoration" groups, and it seems that they have had sufficient numbers to basically prevent making the article any better. In the next day or two, I intend to start an RfC on the article, providing the evidence that the academic view of some of the fringe sources, at least one of which has already been called that at FTN, are fringe. And, yeah, I probably will be requesting that ArbCom take another look at the conduct of everyone at the article. Of course, as I said at my RfA, I am willing to withdraw my adminship if anyone presents clear evidence to me that my conduct merits it. As a fellow admin, I think that, if you believe such is merited, you are free to withdraw my adminship priveleges and/or request me to do so. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (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.