User talk:Smartse/archive 10

Active discussions

Use of db-a7

FYI: Huggle's pull-down menu for "tag this page for deletion" has "A7 importance/significance not asserted" as an option. Huggle probably needs to be fixed. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this is related to, but if that is indeed the case, it should be changed as A7 is for very specific classes of article. I've left a note here to see if the drop down menu can be changed to something more like twinkle's. Thanks for letting me know. SmartSE (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You had removed an A7 from some article which was tagged with Huggle. Which one, I don't remember. Jim1138 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks Must have missed that, would never intentionally short change an editor.Thanks, Thanks.TheHappiestCritic (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks Edit - Journalistic Privilage

I have revised the edit and believe that I have conformed to the original research policy you quoted earlier. I reposted the edit but it does not appear. Is it under review, or is there more that I need to do in order to conform?

Thank youLouiscelli (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MXE/ Mephedrone

Hi thanks for the info, am a brand new user on this so will be more aware of sources now! Great to see you involved in the Mephedrone page, and looking forward to conacting you about new designer drugs as and when they come, as well as any further research on the long term effects Mephedrone & Ketamine have. No idea if they have a pm system on here if I needed to contact you in future, else will just add future messages on here! Best Wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandalMelody (talkcontribs) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you're active!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! I never realised I'd stopped! SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORGNAME procedure

Hi SmartSE, I happened to see, think about and then mention your block of User:TripAdvisorUK in a new thread at WP:CO-OP Talk. As I note there, it is not meant to be critical of you personally, but rather what I recognize as the default procedure for WP:ORGNAME violations, and I have suggested an alternative. Please add your thoughts if you're so inclined. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll reply there. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Eliel lazo

Hi Smartse. You've deleted this page during my clean up. I've restored it. Please, let me know if you have any objections. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks fine - certainly better than what I deleted. Thanks for letting me know though.

Bryan Flagg

Not sure why you deleted "Bryan Flagg" from the Warren NH page. The paper's website which is published was listed to verify. Warren is a town of about 900 people! If you feel it is promoting the paper, then above his name is Joe Moniger, Author who has every one of his ISBN books listed to promote those. Don't get it. This is why I tend to dislike Wikepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosilauke (talkcontribs) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moosilauke, thanks for your note. The reason I deleted the page is because it did not demonstrate why Flagg is important - as WP:BIO explains, relatively few people should have articles in the encyclopedia. I hadn't seen the Warren article and telling me that another crap article exists isn't much use. The main reason that Joe Moniger isn't deleted is because they are a professor, which is generally seen as a suggestion of importance - whether or not we should really have an article on him would require some more research. Let me know if you have any questions. SmartSE (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


I didn't know if it'd really qualify for the speedy, but it's one of several articles that were added about or relating to a specific director that I wasn't able to find any information about. There's very little out there that wasn't something put out by the director. There's one other article that I'm going to add this PROD to, if you don't mind. If one or both of them don't get deleted, I'm going to take them to AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

No probs - sometimes it's annoying that speedy categories aren't a little broader so that we can delete things like this that clearly don't belong more simply. SmartSE (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, just want to ask you why my article about was deleted after 5 min I have published it ? What I have done wrong ? thank you Milos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukatm (talkcontribs) 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted it because the article did not explain why is important and it also appeared promotional. Very few companies should have articles here - WP:CORP explains what is required for an article about a company. You may also find this guide useful. SmartSE (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Methoxetamine legality information

You removed the information about MXE because of the lack of original research, even though it was fairly important information and quoted from the original legislative documents. Do I need to find a secondary source discussing it or is there another way I can include this information. Testem (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply at Talk:Methoxetamine. SmartSE (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

How to avoid the deletion of our next attempt at a "Kenward Trust" article

Hello. I can see that we were a bit naive/hasty in our first attempt at publishing an article on the Kenward Trust charity. I'm assuming, as things stand, that this charity does merit its own page on Wikipedia but that we need to work on the content of that page, so that it doesn't just read like a promotional item without any references to reliable sources. Was it the absence of references, along with a promotional tone, that were the main thing that led to the page's deletion. The content we'd put up was something of a starting point and I realise now that it needs to be more-evolved before we attempt to promote it into the main article space again. Have I correctly identified the areas that you found the article wanting, or is there more to it than that. Thanks, in advance, for any advice you can give. joining-dots (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding, previously unsigned comment added by Joining-dots (talkcontribs) 14:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joining-dots. Thanks for dropping me a note rather than recreating the article. You're right that the problem with the article was that it was completely promotional - anything along the lines of "Its focus is on recovery, reintegration and resettlement. The Trust’s strap line is transforming lives, creating choice." whether referenced or not, does not belong here. WP:MFA and WP:NPOV provide guidance on how to write your first article and how to be neutral. The second problem though, is that I'm not certain that we should have an article on the Kenward Trust as it may not be sufficiently notable. As WP:ORG explains, to be included, organisations need to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" meaning that unless there are books/newspaper articles directly discussing the trust we shouldn't have an article. I had a quick look myself and the only thing I found beyond passing mentions was this but that's not exactly ideal as a source. Finally, your use of "we" suggests that you have a conflict of interest and as such need to be extra careful to be neutral. If you know of more sources that I couldn't find, then feel free to create another version, but please do it at User:Joining-dots/draft first and drop me a note asking me to take a look before moving it back to the proper article title. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much indeed for the reply Smartse - as you might imagine, it's really helpful. The use of "we" in my previous note doesn't really indicate a conflict of interests, as such, we're not part of the charity it's just that there's a couple of colleagues and myself that wanted to help this charity have a wikipedia page, if possible. They seem to be helping a lot of people overcome drug and alcohol addictions and it'd seemed like a good idea if the various agencies and individuals in the UK, that might have a use for that kind of thing, might be able to read a Wikipedia entry that puts what they do into some sort of context. I realise (now!) that the copy we got from them didn't acheive that aim, even a little bit, and, as you say, the referencing link you've found, in the telegraph site, is less than ideal too! We will, as you suggest, work up something in a draft area like you mention and (if we reckon we've managed to come up with some evidence that Kenward Trust could be regarded as sufficiently notable) we'll drop you a note, when we've done that, to see if you'd mind having another peek at a proposed article. Once again, thanks very much for the advice. joining-dots (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, why did you delete the Modellus page? I'm one of the creators of Modellus who also edited the page. Modellus is a free software used world wide, you can search google and see several search results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukkev (talkcontribs) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dukkev. As the deletion log shows, the article was deleted because there was "No evidence at all of notability. No independent sources. Also, the article is distinctly promotional" - I've added links to the relevant guidelines for each of those reasons. A tag was placed on the article and left there for one week, after which, as it had not been removed, the article was deleted. You are welcome to recreate the article (and I can provide a copy of it if you wish) but you need to ensure that the information in the article is primarily based on secondary sources, independent of yourself. As a creator of the software, you should also be very careful to maintain a neutral point of view as you have a conflict of interest. Note that our requirements for inclusion are considerably higher than simply being free software that is used worthwhile - you need to demonstrate that people have have written about it in books, newspapers, magazines etc. for us to have an article on it. If you wish to recreate the article, please do so at User:Dukkev/draft and drop me a note so I can check that it is suitable to include. Let me know if you have any questions. SmartSE (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Smartse, could you please provide me the deleted article? I have no copys of it. Thanks in advance.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukkev (talkcontribs) 23:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Check your email. SmartSE (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


FYI, I've undeleted this since we have OTRS permission for the text. Of course, this doesn't prevent speedy dletion under criteria other than G12, nor nay other deletion process. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

LightHouse StoreHouse

Hello. I am not sure how I am to communicate, I hope this is correct. I wrote the article for LightHouse StoreHouse and I do not understand the two reasons why it was deleted. Promotion and importance? I was not promoting as in soliciting people in any way - I just explained who they are and what they are about. And I thought their importance was written correctly. They are a non profit - non discrimiting organization who provides for the needs of Washington State residents. Their sole objective is to provide for the needy. I gave background information on how they got started. It is my first article. But I am confused on how it was decided to be deleted. I tried to add references,but it said I needed some template, and no matter how I tried it didnt show up. So I just made it a subheading. I used all the references I could find. So if you can please give a few pointers, that would be perfect. *smiles* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slturner (talkcontribs) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slturner. Regarding the promotional part, language like " a very unique civic resource. The vision for this remarkable asset is simple." is not neutral (which our articles must be) and made it sound like you were trying to promote the charity, even if you were not. Regarding importance - you need to show why the charity is different from all the other charities that do good deeds and provide secondary sources to show this - like newspaper articles. As WP:ORG explains, relatively few charities (or organisations in general) receive enough publicity to have an article - being a charity makes no difference unfortunately. If you can find them, then feel free to recreate the article. If you were having problems with formatting references, please see WP:CITE for instructions, if you still don't get it, then just copy and paste web addresses into the text and someone else will fix them. Let me know if you have further questions. SmartSE (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will see what I can change and look for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slturner (talkcontribs) 02:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Smartse,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoring Edits Containing Foul Language

Hello, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. You're probably saving lives by editing the recreational drug pages.

However, I am asking you to please refrain from restoring the Cannabis (drug) Talk page entry which contains foul language, because it is very innapropriate for Wikipedia. I expect a high level of decorum here.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the talk page guidelines, you shouldn't generally remove other people's posts. People here can say 'bullshit' if they wish - see WP:NOTCENSORED. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Seneca (cigarette)

You denied Speedy Delete, saying, "decline speedy - whilst it does kind of qualify, as the refs I've added show, it's clearly a subject we should have an article on." I will contest this. As I stated there, the article is not notable. The references merely report on various problems that this manufacturing company has faced. Having problems does not make a company notable. You yourself have noted that it "does kind of qualify". I say that it qualifies, and should be deleted. There are many small companies in the world that have had reported problems. That does not make them notable. David Spector (user/talk) 15:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi David, speedy deletion does not determine whether or not a subject is notable - you need to nominate the article for deletion to do that (after following WP:BEFORE of course). Speedy deletion should only be for clear cases where it is clear that something should be deleted - it is better for admins to err on the side of caution in cases like this, where the company/brand could well be notable. Whilst there may be many small companies, that have problems, not all of them get reported in the NYT. Generally speaking, if they are reported in the NYT then the company is notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


This is a significant and credible organization. Please justify deletion of Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, otherwise, restore the article. Thank You. Marcus334 (Talk) 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be so, but the article made no "indication of importance" - the reason it was deleted. Feel free to recreate it, but ensure that you use independent secondary sources to reference information and explain what the organisation is important. You may find WP:ORG useful too. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Smartse, thank you for dealing with the Cryometer article. I tagged three articles by the same user, but there are many more. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No probs. I think I deleted a few others yesterday and have taken care of a few more today. If you think there are still more, WP:CCI might be the place to go. SmartSE (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


It's been about 3 days, and no replies on the Folia Primatologica article requests. Given that most requests there seems to either get immediate or no replies, I'm guessing that it's not looking good. If you don't mind, can you get copies? I won't rush you. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I'll try to get round to it one day next week. SmartSE (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Input sought

Please see Talk:Botany#Botany_article_structure_and_concerns. Thank you.512bits (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note about re-started talk page

  • 15:11, 14 February 2012 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Narongrit Waraporn" ? (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I've commented at the AfD and tagged the article as G11. SmartSE (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


I see now that I should have opposed rather than agree. I read it a little different very late last night. But how do I fix it? Strike thru our sidebar and then choose Oppose? With a note explaning my error? I think our litte chat made some good real world correlaries that deserve being considered. Please advise how to repair? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just indent your support comment by changing # to :# so that the number disappears. Then you can write your own oppose in the relevant section. I think we broadly agree btw - the thing is though, if editors do blatantly ignore COI then it is evident by their crappy edits and we can do something about it. If they persist then they will be blocked. If people have a COI, yet they manage to edit with nobody noticing (assuming that someone has actually seen the edits) then the COI doesn't matter. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cryohydrate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cryohydrate. Since you had some involvement with the Cryohydrate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Two colleagues of mine insist this is notable "for the select geek" ... so send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps too hasty on Cults, Fife

Smartse, I think that Blogspot page may have been copied in turn from this 1851 public domain source, but you zapped it before I could compare more than a few words. Would you do so and restore it, if appropriate? Thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The content does appear to be in that link, but it's not a simple copy and paste to the blog - it is very selective, and I'm not sure whether that makes the blog a new work in itself in terms of copyright. I'm not happy restoring it to main space, but I'm happy to put a copy in your userspace if you want to fix it up properly. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, do, please. Put it here or create a new sandbox 6, your choice, and I'll take a look at the copyright issue. I'm not particularly interested in rewriting it for him but I'll repost it if the copyright allows. Thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's at User:TransporterMan/Sandbox/6. SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

International Assoc. of Bryos

I have a question related to this wikipedia page: Several weeks ago someone from this group added a large amount of information produced for the group as a historical document. It is my understanding this person agreed to have the information posted on wikipedia as did the group's leaders. When the information was posted each paragraph of the new information ended up in a box of dashed lines which scrolls off the right side of the page. I did some reformatting and thought the problem was fixed but I never saw the text or code that created the problem. Currently only the paragraph starting "The idea of founding an international . . . ." is still in the box. But I cannot find the code that would allow it to be read normally. Can you help us with this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedgehead (talkcontribs) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sedgehead. Thanks for your note - I fixed it up for you. The problem was that there were spaces on the left hand side of the edit window which cause the box and blocky text to appear. Compare:

and this. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a followup question related to the same page. The folks who posted the info failed to do adequate citation. This is not surprising. How can I flag it for "citation is needed for this section" or something like that? Do you know? Thanks for your abundant help, as usual! Sedgehead (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Sedgehead
You can either use {{refimprove}} at the top of the article, {{refimprove-section}} at the top of a section, or add {{cn}} to get a [citation needed] tag at the end of a sentence. If the article has been written by IAB though, its important to get back in contact with them to make sure that this information has been published elsewhere before. Remember no original research? SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Guy Bavli

After a long pause, I replied to your note on Talk:Guy_Bavli#copyright_violation.2Fclose_paraphrasing_of_an_unreliable_source. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   21:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Arena Solutions speedy deletion

Hello - I am associated with the Arena Solutions page you recently deleted, and I was wondering whether you can please send me the original text so I can make the appropriate edits?

Thanks, AlyssaKateS — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlyssaKateS (talkcontribs) 23:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've put a copy at User:AlyssaKateS/arena. Please read 'my first article' and our guideline about which companies should have articles before working on it. I have had a quick look for sources, and it appears as if the company may not have been the subject of sufficient in depth coverage to be included. Can you also let me know if you think it is suitable to be moved back? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted before I could complete it


I was not finished creating the wiki page and therefore it didn't meet the site standards. Can I please be given a time deadline 1-2 days in order to finish it before it is marked for speedy deletion and in this case deleted. Are you able to restore it?

The page is

Thank you, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJames1234 (talkcontribs) 15:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi James. I have put a copy of the article at User:SirJames1234/ECI_-_Empire_Commuications_Inc. Please read my advise in the thread above though, as the same applies to you. It is quite unlikely that we should have an article about the company. SmartSE (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smartse. Thank you very much. I will read your advise in detail before proceeding. If I determine that the page is acceptable, I will work on it in the temporary location that you moved it to and then copy it after I complete it (this is simply to prevent it from being flagged for speedy deletion before it is done). Thanks again for the advise. I might have some questions once I finish reading it.SirJames1234 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Let me know if you want me to take another look. SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ginny Deerin deletion

Hello there, Smartse. I just wanted to drop a note by and get your thoughts on an article that you've recently deleted -- I was involved in the discussion process.

I'm new here and this deletion discussion was my first of its kind, but I truly feel the subject was notable and didn't receive a fair go. When I look at the WP:N for people, she quite easily meets the basic requirements. One of the last comments made on the discussion regarded a paid classified for the article -- I don't know how that became part of the discussion, and wouldn't that issue best be addressed through tags or requesting improvement of the writing? And further, two contributors to the discussion said they would consider changing their votes if reliable sources had been introduced, and I think they were, but those contributors never had the chance to change their votes.

Would you kindly review the article and consider opening it up for discussion again?

Thanks so much! OldGeorgie (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi OldGeorgie, as the closing admin, I weighed up the consensus in the discussion, which was clearly to delete the article. We don't have any form of supervote to turn over what the community thinks. I have double checked though, and I am sure this was the correct decision since neither WP:BIO or WP:GNG were met. You can take it to deletion review if you think that I misjudged the consensus. SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Your insights are much appreciated! I'll consider taking it to deletion review, but I'm not sure I care all that much. See you around, cheers! OldGeorgie (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored edit

Smartse, I strongly object to your restoration of this edit. An editor has been IP-hopping in a campaign of harassment against Wim Crusio and should not be allowed to carry out the harassment on the article talk page. They have already expressed their opinion regarding the possible COI on the talk page in the section directly above, there is absolutely no reason they should be allowed to continue with their personal attacks by repeatedly making the same uncivil claims on the page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, I admit this is a tricky situation, but I still don't think it should be removed. I agree that it is not civil, but as the TPGs say posts that are merely uncivil shouldn't be removed, and in borderline cases, comments should be left. The comment about the grad school research is legitimate - a case could be made for OR being used to write most of the article, since there are pretty much zero secondary sources discussing Crusio (I've checked quite a few times). If you think that anything in the comment is particularly offensive, then please refactor it, rather than completely removing it. SmartSE (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines should not be an open opportunity to soapbox or carry out some type of personal vendetta against anyone whether they are a subject of an article or another Wikipedia editor. I warned the IP that they would not be allowed to continue to use Wikipedia as a platform to continue making personal attacks. Their response to my warning was to open yet another COI section on the talk page "no one but his mother would care", "is apparently the only place he can throw his weight around" and "I feel sad when I read this entry and about the person who thought he had to go through the hoops and post it about himself" before posting this and this. As an uninvolved admin who came across the article while declining protection at WP:RFPP, I've been trying to put a lid on the personal attacks and harassment - allowing the IP-hopper free reign to use the talk page as part of an apparent vendetta is distaseful and "ignore all rules" trumps talk page guidelines is situations like this. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, well we obviously disagree, but I'll remove most of it while leaving the more factual comment. If you think more should go, then go for it. SmartSE (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kimberly Young

I notice you have made some amendments to the Kimberly Young page. Whilst we are new to Wikipedia we as yet do not fully understand the process behind building a page - but we are working hard! You removed the Media Contribution section and whilst I understand the reason, would it be possible to include that information in a different format for instance, rather than just a list? I say this because I think it is an important aspect of the page, but that it only my opinion and of course, I value your opinion too! Regards, Nick Bushell & --Thomas Catterall (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A better way to deal with it would be to find the articles online (presumably you can access factiva or highbeam) and then use them as references to discuss what the media thought was interesting about her work. That tells me as a reader infinitely more than just the fact that an article was published. Let me know if you're not sure how to do this. SmartSE (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. We have access to Athens but not Factiva or Highbeam. We will continue to work and see how we get on. Thanks --Thomascatterall (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, well google news is also pretty damn useful just make sure you put quotes around the name and use the archives. SmartSE (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


See [1]. I did better on the trichomes (hairs) than I thought. 512bits (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi Smartse,

I've uploaded the two articles that you requested from the Journal of Organic Chemistry at the resource exchange. You can find links to the files at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

about LearningMiles

Hi Smartse, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning to delete my article. It wasn't a commercial text nor irrelevant. It was about a company, it's history and doings. Why it is not allowed, while companies as such are not banned in wiki (for example Volvo etc etc)?

Br SigGor — Preceding unsigned comment added by SigGor (talkcontribs) 10:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi SigGor, reading WP:CORP and perhaps WP:MFA should explain why not all companies have articles here. The actual reason for deletion though was because it was not neutral. Phrases like "purpose and Vision" "unique blend" "true processes" etc. set off alarm bells round here - they certainly make articles read like adverts, even if that is not the intention. If you've read the two links and still don't understand, feel free to drop me another note. SmartSE (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Smartse/archive 10".