User talk:Smartse/archive 18

Orangemoody sock?

Can this be looked at in the open OM case vice reopening it? The OM connection is this edit by a confirmed sock. Brianhe (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's probably best just to start a new section at the SPI. Based on the OTRS of this file though I suspect that they have are personally linked to the company rather than being an OM sock. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Somehow this editor doesn't strike me as a native user of Australian English [1]. More in line with the Pakistani IP who created the draft [2]. Isn't October 2015 too old for an SPI, though? - Brianhe (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm fair point! Three months is just up unfortunately, but it might still be worth asking if they fit OM patterns based on location even if the old account can't be CU'd. To be honest though, they've stopped editing and there is no way that the article is going to get put in mainspace so there may not be much to be achieved from blocking them regardless. Oh actually, Clownkong was active a week ago at Draft:Amcap Mortgage. Their edits were deleted but it would be possible to check if they are linked to Revolvar4500. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Here goes [3]. Good luck to me. - Brianhe (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Note

You have, with this edit, inadvertently created a duplicate copy of a thread that was moved back to WP:COIN's main page. To prevent the same thread from being archived twice, in two different versions, I must ask that you undo your action. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I saw you'd moved it back to COIN but it should also stay archived. I wanted to check whether there were any responses to the original thread but because you had removed it, nothing showed up in my searches and this is why there is a notice in each archive noting that it shouldn't be edited. There's no harm in there being two copies. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There is harm in there being two copies; namely, one of them accuses me of WP:COI editing without giving me a chance to respond. Am I to understand that you refuse to undo your action? Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but any future search of the archives will bring up both threads. And to be fair, you did have a chance to respond for two weeks after you were notified until the thread was archived. So to be clear, I'm not going to undo my revert, because I wouldn't have made the edit in the first place unless it was the correct thing to do. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting archived sections upon unarchival to prevent thread duplication is common practice. There are many examples in the COIN archive, such as this one, or this one, or this one; needless to say, none of them were contested. You can see the same thing done everywhere, including the noticeboard where I'll be taking this particular issue once the time comes to archive the thread I re-opened today.[4][5][6][7][8] It really doesn't make sense to keep multiple copies of the same thread and as a general rule, what doesn't make sense simply isn't done on Wikipedia. You have a few days—a week at minimum—to think this over and change your mind; please do. I'm honestly not a big fan of starting noticeboard threads, even if I know for a fact the consensus will be in my favor due to the other editor's actions going against both the established practice and common sense. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• This message constitutes a notification that a request for assistance has been posted at WP:ANI regarding the issue discussed in this section, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please restore the creatin of page Johan Matton. This was not a duplicate recreeatin, you are right that the previous article has been deleted privously and that the reason for that was insufficient notability. The subject of matter had this time one year later gained major rocognizition in 40 new articles after the premier of the film Till We Meet Again. IndieWire amongst others wrote about the subject of matter which is also the festival director of Nordic International Film Festival. Please search for John Matton and Johan Matton fo find all articles though the subject has to aliases. Thank you. Please admit the misstake and restore the page, Wikipedia should not be about pride but rather journalism.

Gill Fielding Draft

Dear SmartSe. Thank you for your input on my proposed article. First, let's set everything straight. Yes, I do work for Fielding Financial but no, I am not being paid to write this article. Having written articles for Wikipedia before, I was surprised to find that Gill Fielding did not have one; hence I offered to write one for her. However, I thought it best to go via the AfC path to help ensure it was acceptable to the majority of editors. Please look at the modified article with neutral eyes yourself. Everything is now tied to the references - I have not used peacock terms or tried to exaggerate any claims; I have included controversial material. Please also assess notability with neutral eyes: Gill has had a TV programme made about her on a mainstream UK publicly owned channel; she has appeared in the UK upper and middle market press over a number of years (Daily Telegraph, Daily Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express); she has a chapter written about her in a book about millionaires. I don't like to use WAX, but how have articles such as Chek Whyte and James Benamor (also 'Secret Millionaires') survived? Is it because they went straight to main article space rather than via the AfC procedure? This is a serious flaw if this is the case and completely undermines the Wikipedia project. When you mentioned COI before I panicked as the guidelines say I shouldn't write an article at all. I did't know what to do, so I kept going. I really don't intend to waste the time of editors but I just want to move this forward in the most efficient manner. Please advise me; i believe the article is 100% neutral now and I believe that the references do enough to demonstrate the subject is a notable person. If this does end up being deleted, I don't want it to be because of a knee-jerk reaction to me but because of a carefully considered debate over the content of the article. Nevertheless, If this article is deleted and Chek Whyte and James Benamor are allowed to survive then I despair. Thank you again 109.148.57.19 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, wasn't logged in! Neilho (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ChoiceTrade

Hello, you deleted the article for ChoiceTrade ([9])

I am affiliated with the company and I wrote the article. I hired what I thought was a reputable person on Fiverr to post it since I was unsure of how to navigate through Wikipedia. The article was posted then deleted and that user was banned. I wish to reinstate the article (under my user?). It is a factual, straightforward article about a brokerage company that has been in business for 15 years and has been ranked in Barrons Magazine surveys. It is notable because it was founded by alumni of National Discount Brokers, one of the first (if not THE first) online brokerages to offer trading over the internet back in 1995. Every other online brokerage has a page-- why not us??? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_brokerages_in_the_United_States

Wikipediachupa99 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikipediachupa99. I'm sorry if you've been deceived - please see Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody for information about who you paid to edit. Generally we don't undelete articles written by them as we have to try and discourage them from editing. To be included in Wikipedia companies need to be notable which means having had articles that discuss them in detail in multiple sources (newspapers or tech websites for example) and the version that I deleted does not have such references, but instead mainly listings such as this. I have had a look for other sources myself but can't find anything that demonstrates that ChoiceTrade is notable. If I'm wrong then please provide links and I will consider moving the article to articles for creation where other volunteers will review it to decide whether it can be included. I haven't checked all of Comparison_of_online_brokerages_in_the_United_States but certainly some of there notable and others probably aren't. I'm aware this might seem unfair but we only deal with problems as we find them. SmartSE (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Trustly

Hi,

Gave you a response on my own talk page but sending you one here as well. I am in no way affiliated with Trustly. I am the original author of the Swedish wikipedia page about them which I decided to contribute with after seeing a red link on an article about direct bank payments. I've followed the company over the years as I have an interest in Swedish fintech companies in general. I noticed the very empty English article about them and decided to contribute with a translation.

Johannes_Eriksson (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. It just struck me as rather odd that only a few months after the company created an article about itself, that you, who shares a username with an SEO expert in Sweden [10] came along and rewrote the article. SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

article you moved

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MeraEvents DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@DGG:. Thanks for the note and sorry for moving it over your SALTing - I hadn't realised it was protected. SmartSE (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done just the same at times. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

SockPuppetry

Hi,

This is regarding the sockpupptery link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattsabe. I'm not sure what a sock puppet is, but am new to Wikipedia and an Indian who has heard Dr. Shiva speak in Jaipur last year when he moderated a historic debate on GMOs at India's prestigious government run agricultural institute(http://www.ahuja-foundation.org/2015/10/we-care-about-mother-earth.html ), and have been very interested in his work. I want to contribute to Wikipedia. I read his interview on Tamilnadu.com, http://tamilnadu.com/entertainment/personalities/interview-with-dr-v-a-shiva-ayyadurai-the-inventor-of-email-and-systems-scientist.html#comment-180, where someone had commented giving access to the Wikipedia Sandbox page, from which I added a citation, which I thought was well researched. I did not know this was a violation.

Concerning my addition to GMO controversies page, I had initially posted something that was removed. I did not know that I had to post on the Talk page, before Undoing and re-editing. So, I am now posting on the Talk page. Kindly forgive my lack of understanding the process. It will not happen again.

Concerning my recent edit, I did do the research on his work and believe I was fair. I also included the EFSA posting(http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/885e.pdf) to balance my response. This is not promotional but the facts about Dr. Ayyadurai's work, which have now been widely shared in the media. Please tell me what I need to do properly to get this included. I had not intention of it being promotional, but what I felt important to share on a GMO controversy on Soy that is going on. Thank you. User:Robsweet1975 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robsweet1975: Sockpuppets are when people use multiple accounts to try and evade the scrutiny of other editors. As the investigation confirmed, several accounts had been editing from the same IP address and were blocked as a result. Your edits were very similar to theirs which is why I added you, but evidently you came here independently. I've replied to your comment about the content you added at Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#GMO_SOY. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Youth Time page copyright violation?

Please, explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programsyt (talk • contribs) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Programsyt: The content you added was from this page which I presumed to be copyrighted. I now realise that it is creative commons licenced, but that doesn't negate the fact that the content is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Three other editors agree so please stop edit warring. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Constellation Research Page - Please Advise

Hi - I spent two hours today creating a page for a research firm that doesn't have anything on Wikipedia. I mirrored how the other research firms did theirs - Forrester, Gartner, IDC, etc.

I have edited Wikipedia on and off for two years, mostly focused on updating pages that interest me - like acquisitions, I thought I would try creating a page to be helpful for the community.

You should have given me time to contest and correct your concerns. The page in its last state had an about the company section, a descriptor, competitors, etc. It had external links to backup what was written.

Someone had flagged that I should add categories and connect it with other pages; I did that. I followed the guidelines and the feedback from others in the community. I even took out something you might have found promotional, even though it was written in a third-party site.

I understand that the page had been taken down in the past, but I had NOTHING to do with that. So it's really rude for someone who helps update things in the community when big events happen that you wouldn't give me a chance to make edits and contest the issue.

Please add my page back... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanCoggins (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bryan. I'm sorry if you felt that I didn't give you time to address the problems, but I didn't find the comment that you made on the talk page persuasive to negate deletion and you didn't say that you were going to try and fix it. User:DESiegel has already given a good explanation of why the article was deleted so I won't repeat that, but I will point out the yahoo source he mentioned is a press release, so really of no use here. Even without the promotional language, it would qualify for deletion via WP:CSD#A7 because it didn't explain why the company is important. I have now moved the article to Draft:Constellation Research where you can continue to work on it, but if you want to make sure you don't waste more time, I'd highly recommend reading WP:MFA and WP:CORP to check whether we should really have an article about this company since from a cursory search, it doesn't appear to have had "substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources" which will be required if the article is to survive in the long term. Unless there are some articles that discuss the company (not just mentions or press releases) even if it is non-promotional then it will likely be deleted via WP:AFD. I'm happy to advise you on whether any sources you can find are sufficient to mean we should have an article. SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE - I went through the draft page and updated sources and modeled the page after some other similar companies. Will you please take a look and see if this is something we can change from draft to a live page? Thanks again for your help on this! BryanCoggins (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Bryan

Deletion of BrightPath Foundation

Hello,

You recently deleted a page I had posted = "BrightPath Foudnation".

I would like to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement.

Thank you very much,

JMHP (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi JMHP. I can provide a copy, but could you please acknowledge that you have read Jimfbleak's comment on your talk page first and disclose any conflict of interest you have. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Eugene Kaspersky

I shared a draft on the Talk page about a month ago. Neither of the editors that participated on Talk years ago have shown any interest. The draft would remove a lot of promotion and add a large controversy-type section (one of those rare cases where a dedicated section on a particular controversy may actually be warranted). It would be pretty silly for someone to claim the direction I'm suggesting would make the article more of a COI problem.

However, I would say this article is a little less routine than average and if you have any interest, I'd be interested in your thoughtful input. More than happy to wait a few weeks for you to get around to it if you're busy, or you can brush me off entirely of course. It's a lot to look at and the available source material is quite vast. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 06:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No promises, but I will try at some point! SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Antisect

Hi Smartse

Looks like the Antisect edit wars may be about to begin I'm afraid. The same disgruntled ex-band member has been adding his unofficial USB stick of Antisect demos to the band's discography. This isn't a 'release' recognised by the band, in fact, this person did not get the agreement of those who own & perform the material on the demos to make it public, release or advertise it in any way.

Grateful if you would keep an eye on this.

Many thanks.

Antisect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.40.176 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I will try to keep a closer eye on it but sometimes it slips by if I'm away for a few days. SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thank

...er, or something like that. Where that came from was that I was going through Flickr for pictures to add and there's an agricultural supply company, Chafer, that have added a lot of pictures of their equipment. All promotional, naturally, but looks like might be interesting for coverage of the kind of industrial agriculture topics that maybe aren't so extensively covered on Wikipedia. I added a few onto Wikimedia that looked potentially useful but thought I'd let you know the source in case any of them jumped out at you as potentially interesting. Blythwood (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me for thanking you! I spotted where they were from and noticed another one that would be ideal for crop desiccation so will try to upload that sometime. There are also some more modern ones of potato farming that could be added to potato. And yes, our coverage of agriculture is rubbish... I guess caused by there not being relatively few practitioners and them being too busy to contribute. SmartSE (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology References

Some more references added [11] to a medical article. I am not an expert, grateful if you could check one or two. Peter Damian (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this editor is that the tools aren't a good guide to the amount of content added. He typically creates a whole article or whole section in a single edit, so the fact that he only has 4 or 5 edits to an article doesn't mean that he hasn't added much content. E.g. this article. Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter, you're very correct. My method of article creation is bad. At the moment, I need help. I never created those contents in bad faith. I knew I messed up, but right now I need help. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That first edit is just using WP:REFLINKS rather than adding any content. That article is problematic for other reasons though because it is based off this paper and was written by an editor who appears to be from the same department as all the original authors raising OR and SELFCITE issues. The folks at WT:MED would be better to ask about it than me though. The appearance of User:BiH there is odd since he was an undisclosed paid editor, but I don't see a problem with Wikicology's edits. This is a great tool for checking contribs - originally made for copyvio investigations but it works for cases like this as well as it looks for the biggest edits made to articles. SmartSE (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sent to AFD although to reiterate, this isn't to do with Wikicology. SmartSE (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

J. Schaul

Dear Smartse: Sorry I think I added this note to the wrong page. This is J. Schaul. I noticed a tag was placed on my page today. I have made a number of edits to the article over time, and I've made some mistakes, but I always defer to editors. I think it is an objective and neutral account. I'd really like to prevent it from being deleted. Is it possible to just put a block on it. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.Jpop73 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page history request

Would it possible for you to look into the edit history of Lenovo Pocket Projector and check the very first few edit summaries for a phrase like "Creating article. Will expand. Please do not delete"? This relates to COIN. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Like this, this, this.... - Brianhe (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There were only two edits and the first edit summary was just "Creating article." and the second was tagging as G11. SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for checking that. Geogene (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reinstatement of OnceAlpha contributions

I work with a group of authors who believe in sharing what they know on Wikipedia. As one of these authors, I have written 9 books and have contributed significantly on data-related topics on Wikipedia since 2009. Over the last month, we added content from several of our experts. We received a warning that this was a conflict of interest, and we responded that the content is not selling any products, we reference books to substantiate what we are adding to Wikipedia. On April 1 all of our posts were removed. We would like to request these posts be reinstated. OnceAlpha (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. As discussed here and here the community views the edits that you have made as WP:REFSPAM. If you only purpose here is to add content that references your own books then you are not here to contribute constructively as you are putting your own interests ahead of the community's. For that reason I won't be reinstating the edits and if you want to pursue it further you will need to argue your case at the conflict of interest noticeboard. SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

COI

Dear Smartse,

When I was on the council of Int. Assoc. of Bear Research and Management and the IUCN Bear Specialist Group, I either created or edited their repective Wikipedia pages. Again, I really didn't understand this whole conflict of interest concept, I just wanted to be helpful, had some knowledge about the organizations, and enjoyed creating pages. So, I just wanted to share that I was involved with those pages as well, if you need to take action on them. I deeply regret that I did not pay attention to policy, but I wanted to at least make you aware as I noticed that those have not been tagged or noted on my talk page.ThanksJpop73 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note and apologies for not replying last week. I do realise that the majority of your edits were made in good faith and that while you do have a close link to many of the subjects, your intention wasn't necessarily to promote them. Do you mean International Association for Bear Research and Management? You haven't edited that article. Bear Specialist Group had already been merged into IUCN_Species_Survival_Commission#Bear_Specialist_Group. I don't think there are any problems although I doubt whether the International Association for Bear Research and Management meets WP:ORG. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Igogo festival

Hi Smartse,

I need your help. I don't want to start arguing with any editors that raised concerns about my articles. User:Plx1 once stated on the evidence page that every single sources in the Igogo festival are fake and forgery. This is very untrue. The major mistakes I made was that I never knew that the exact page is what should be cited when citing google books. I fixed the problems with sources in that article, I also add new sources. I explained these mistakes of not citing the exact page on the evidence page under my section. One of the sources User:Plx1 described as forgery " Poynor, Robin (November 1987). "Ako Figures of Owo and Second Burials in Southern Nigeria". African Arts (UCLA James S. Coleman African Studies Center) 21 (1): 62–63+81–83+86–87. doi:10.2307/3336502." did supported the claim that Igogo festival is combined with new yam celebration and I used the source to support that single line. User:PIx1 returned to the evidence page to write ""a new reference has appeared, supposed to be about the celebration of new yams. This Poynor's paper is easy to find [1]. Page 86 is made of end notes. None of them is about yams or the Igogo festival. Nor any other part of this reference paper. Dear mentors, any comments ?"

I was surprised to see this comment because that source on page 86 reads: 

"The number seventeen seems to be of ritual significance in Owo. Igogo, the most important annual festival in the kingdom, a combination of New Yam festival and purification ceremony merged with a memorial to the goddess Oronshen, also takes place over a seventeen-day period. The burial of the Olowo takes seventeen ritual days. These and other significant ceremonies all begin on the day of the five-day market."

Is it that they didn't checked the source before they called it false, fake or forgery? I became confused and I left a message on their talk page here pointing them to what the source actually say. I asked if there is something I am missing so that they can point me to it because I don't understand why they felt the sources didn't supported the claim. User:Plx1 ignored me and returned to the evidence page to write

l these fake references have been trashed out by their author (and the article reduced from 11,250 bytes to 6,928 bytes). At [11], a new reference has appeared, supposed to be about the celebration of new yams. This Poynor's paper is easy to find [1]. Page 86 is made of end notes. None of them is about yams or the Igogo festival. One of them, note 3, is about the signification of a 17 days period. One line refers to yams. Nor any other part of this reference paper. Dear mentors, any comments ?

I am perplexed to see this again. I am learning but I'm not sure why they feel the source didn't supported the claim and the source is a forgery. The editor choose to ignore me. Please help to clarify. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that arbcom will carefully evaluate the evidence and User:Pldx1 has clarified that they were originally mistaken. Reading it myself, I don't think it supports the information you added: the reference is saying (in very brief passing) that the festival is similar to the New yam festival but doesn't explcitly state that yams are celebrated during Igogo. From a quick search it appears that they might well be, but that's beside the point. SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Igogo, the most important annual festival in the kingdom, a combination of New Yam festival and purification ceremony merged with a memorial to the goddess Oronshen, also takes place over a seventeen-day period. Although English is not my primary language but I don't think the source is saying "Igogo festival is similar to the New yam festival". Is that what the statement implies? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

English has never been my strong point... presumably you're confused by 'combination of' the best way to explain it is with another example:

"Their traditional year begins some time in February or March with Spring Festival, a sort of combination of Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year and Easter all rolled into one"

Chinese New Year isn't anything like Christmas but is serves a similar function, which is what I think your source is also saying about yams. SmartSE (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Smartse. I am very grateful. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ben Perreau

Hi Smartse,

I am a new editor and I would like to take your recommendations on how to improve the content on the pages. I can find that after my editions on Ben Perreau, you find that it was still promotional. I have re-edited the content to make it more neutral. If you find that the content is still promotional, can you help me in editing it probably I am missing something. If its still promotional, please edit the page, it will help me in identfying where I was wrong.

Where I can find relevant sources to identify my mistakes or do you have any recommendations of the pages I can edit on Wikipedia and contribute here? Muschatim (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Muschatim: Hi. I've made some edits to the article to make it more compliant with our policies and less promotional. You can read my justification for each edit in the page history. Please note that if you know the subject or you are being paid to edit the article you have a conflict of interest and should disclose that this is the case (you must if you are being paid). The reason I ask, is that you are obviously keen to remove the advert tag and you called him a "strategy consultant" based only on this which was written by him and makes zero mention of that. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Other COI

• Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Meka Niyi Olowola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bekeme Masade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Murtala Muhammed Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gaona Tlhasana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know if there is any connection to the other affair, but all these article are created by the same editor (Ebubay01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and all appear to have issues. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi (Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and Smartse, Thank you for helping me improve by calling my attention to the articles, but not all is a case of COI and i presume the proper thing would be as much more experienced editors to guide me into improving the articles. I'm not a very experienced editor and only through your recent reads i have come to understand some rules/guidelines here. i will appreciate if you can help/guide me in improving the existing articles and also mentor me in contributions on here, there are not very many editors from my country Nigeria on here and i'm passionate about contributing on wikipedia. Ebubay01 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to this on your talk page since that is a more natural place to discuss your edits. (And Peter, thanks for the heads up, but I was already on it). SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion tags

Dear Smartse: Hope your day has been good, i'm Ebubay01 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC) I noticed several tags placed on pages i created and some even deleted. I have made a number of edits to the articles over time, but I always defer to editors in some, like in the case of Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode. I have tried to make an objective and neutral account of the persons/organisations i've profiled. I'd really like to prevent them from being deleted. Is it possible to just put a block on it and help with improving the contents or any help you can provide to help me improve my writings, contributions and the articles would be greatly appreciated.Ebubay01 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ebubay01: I'm afraid I don't have the time to teach you how to edit in detail. The principles are very simple though - find good sources and repeat what they say. Can you not see how this is not neutral (it was completed unsourced as well)?

"Gaona Tlhasana is the true definition of the modern female entrepreneur who is not afraid to break new ground and is driven by a true passion for media and love for people."

"She is a storyteller who also enjoys helping people tell their stories and strives to create and showcase premium content about the African continent and its people through various media platforms"

SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please restore the creatin of page Johan Matton. This was not a duplicate recreeatin, you are right that the previous article has been deleted privously and that the reason for that was insufficient notability. The subject of matter had this time one year later gained major rocognizition in 40 new articles after the premier of the film Till We Meet Again. IndieWire amongst others wrote about the subject of matter which is also the festival director of Nordic International Film Festival. Please search for John Matton and Johan Matton fo find all articles though the subject has to aliases. Thank you. Please admit the misstake and restore the page, Wikipedia should not be about pride but rather journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundsvik21 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Refspammer

Hi, according to some of your recent edits, I figure you might find this discussion at ANI of interest. Thanks for cleaning up after this guy. — Gorthian (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

Dear Smartse - You may recall that we have communicated before and successfully on the biography of a living person. In the interests of transparency and accountability, I would now like to create a small Page devoted to my company TPPR (possibly in due course its sister company PendryWhite) and one to myself as an individual operating in non-business contexts (mostly in historic UK political contexts). There is an opportunity to create the latter at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst_%28think_tank%29 and the former seems logical now that I note that a number of British and American PR companies have Pages devoted to them. The aim would be simply to have factual material (evidenced from the web wherever possible, excluding only material that was defamatory) evidenced and I am happy to provide links to various material in due course and not to be shy of 'Controversy'. The standards I applied to the biography of the living person would apply to these two proposed pages. I may be busy for a while and I am sure you are but I will check in on my own Talk Page in about ten days to get your opinion. TimPTPPR — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimPTPPR (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Thanks for asking. WP:CORP is the guideline by which the notability of companies is judged to decide whether or not we should have an article about them. In short, we require multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the company in depth. From my searches I can't find anything that meets those criteria so I would advise against spending time writing an article. If there are in-depth newspaper articles or books that I have missed then please provide links and I'll review them. Regarding Catalyst (think tank) - I'm not sure if this meets the same guideline either and should probably be merged into Compass (think tank). SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, I will come back on this later but, as a matter of fact, there is no connection to my knowledge between Catalyst and Compass. I should know about the former because I was instrumental in founding it and several other similar operations. Catalyst and Compass were two entirely separate think-tank operations. Indeed, the personnel did not overlap much if at all, although I recall attending one Compass 'inner counsel' away weekend as a guest - again, unconnected to Catalyst. I do not think they even overlapped in time at any stage. Tim P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimPTPPR (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Importance of awards

Dear Smartse, I edited the article TEAMS Design. What would you consider as a notable award? It's a struggle to understand what is notable and what is not. Or, if there is another way of proving an award is notable? This would also help the other articles I've edited for IDSA and ICSID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minervaone (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The simple way to determine it is whether anyone outside either the organisation giving or receiving the award has written about it. Films winning Oscars receive independent coverage (newspapers etc.) whereas >95 % of corporate awards are insignificant to the wider world. Does that make sense? SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to undelete FX Empire Wikipedia page (English version)

Hi Smartse,

First of all I'm very impressed by your Wikipedia profile, thank you for all your contributions.

I would like to suggest to restore FX Empire Wikipedia page (English version). The main reason for deletion was for "lack of coverage from reliable sources".

I have made an investigation and I found a list of reliable domain names covering FX Empire (fxempire.com). Here's the URLs:

Extended content

<ref>http://www.traderplanet.com/profile/FXEmpire/</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 44) <ref>http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/15/03/p5299959/finance-website-fx-empire-awards-bigoption-the-most-reliable-binary-opt</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 76) <ref>http://www.forexfactory.com/fxempire.com</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 58) <ref>http://www.fxstreet.com/company/fxempirecom</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 63) <ref>http://www.investing.com/education/fx-empire</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 72) <ref>http://www.options247.co.uk/fx-empire-your-trading-partner-2/</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 12) <ref>http://www.thefxcity.com/signal-providers/fxempire</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 23) <ref>http://www.financemagnates.com/executives/move/fxempire-shakes-up-executive-management-taps-new-ceo/</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 55) <ref>http://www.freeforexsites.com/site/FXEmpire/</ref> (Domain Authority from MOZ of 10) Furthermore please see the URLs with good mentions/citations for FX Empire: <ref>http://www.insidefutures.com/author/482/Jason%20Forman.html</ref> <ref>http://www.forestparkfx.international/resources/tools/currency-exchange-rates</ref> <ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-for-forex-traders-and-investors-in-one-image-2014-4?IR=T&r=US&IR=T</ref> <ref>http://forextv.com/author/f-x-empire/</ref> <ref>http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/news/14430/gbpusd-pound-to-dollar-exchange-rate-christmas-week.html</ref> <ref>http://www.ifxexpo.com/cyprus2014/attendees</ref> <ref>http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Natural+Gas+Plummets+to+hit+Bottom+at+2.36..+Called+by+FXEmpire.com.-a0327721971</ref> <ref>http://www.thefreelibrary.com/eToro+Awarded+Best+Social+Trading+Platform+by+FX+Empire.-a0281087894</ref> <ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/in_the_news</ref> <ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/forex-technical-and-fundamental-analysis-for-october-27-2011-2011-10?IR=T&IR=T</ref>

Thank you very much for your time.

ZoomBali (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Decisions to delete that are made at WP:AFD (such as this one) need to overturned at deletion review. I don't see any links there that would change my mind though. Simply being present on the internet is not enough to create an article. If you are being paid to recreate the article, then please follow WP:PAID and disclose that this is the case. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for the deletion of the page I created. vishalkumarsahu 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

On Facebook's astroturfing

Sorry I reverted the page without talking to you first.

Yes, the article doesnt specificially mention astroturfing but Facebook's methods like making their members that sign up with their real names to send form letters to the government's regulatory body that say how good Free Basics is good for their fellow poor people ie only highliting the goods and not the bads i thought was a good example of astroturfing. Facebook here is being like Cassius conning the members of the public to send 'letters'.

Good day.

There is an editor, it appears they are inadvertently sock-puppeting

I noticed that you had edited the Heather Bresch article. There is an editor who has edited that article & also edited the article's talk page. They are a paid editor, they've disclosed that fact, but from some of their edits it appears that they tried to rename their account?...I frankly don't know what to do and would appreciate your advice. They edited the article talk page here on November 11 2015 and on their talkpage on August 20th they said they were semi-retired. I would just like to delete the errant (COI) notice they placed on the article talkpage and notify them that this appeared to be a mistake but am hesitant to do so. Appreciate any advice. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've known User:CorporateM for a long time and I don't think there is anything malicious about this. It seems to me that he was going over and beyond what's required by WP:PAID by adding extra details as well as his username which is what has caused the confusion. If somone removes the " / David King" part from the template then everything will be fine. I'll drop him an email to alert him to this and ask him if he can edit the template himself. Cheers. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason the template was like that is because editors have, in the past, said I was required to disclose my real-world identity, which is what I was attempting to do. Unfortunately this disclosure, as expected, has resulted in off-wiki harassment at my work email address. In any case, I've fixed it. Regarding the controversy that has sparked a flurry of activity, I don't have any plans to get involved. I'm not really in the business of "damage control" every time there is negative press and it looks like the page has enough eyeballs such that it's been handled responsibly by organic volunteers and there is no value/need for my participation (less so on the Mylan page). If there is something I can help with let me know, but keep in mind I am not a spokesperson, not responsible for their actions and haven't even read any of the sources myself. I am probably not very useful. CorporateM (Talk) 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey CorporateM/DaveM, I figured it was an attempt to be transparent. I am very hands-off when it comes to other editors posts on talk-pages and didn't want to summarily delete the template on my own - didn't quite know what to do. Thank you for your candor, Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Basedow

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Basedow. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Smartse. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Smartse. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow (2nd nomination).
Message added 03:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StonefieldBreeze (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Kable v Dpp

~~ Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all. Gkable (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

~~Smartse What is wrong with the external links they have been there for 5 years? How does that overshadow wikipedia? I put them back please explain? Why do I get attacked by two admins now that I talked? Why did an admin remove the vandalised links I talked about. What kind of bulliing is that? Admins should also be accountable and could appreciate help in tackling vandalism? Why isnt that important smartse and dm310? How come niether of you fixed the problem I came here to fix yesterday by find bruce? You have just gone along with the vandalism so did you look at what that person did? Or do you send in the clown first? What did you remove? External link Getting Justice Wrong. The Law according to Gregory Kable opening speech he gave at the First National Conference of Community Based Criminal Justice Activists. The Conference was hosted by Justice Action. Anyone can look it up but why not from here? This is a civil rights issue why not you? Gkable (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This user was blocked per WP:NLT shortly after this and remains so... SmartSE (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Spalding

Heya, bear with me as I'm new to the Wikipedia community - relatively, at least. Can I remove the notice of previous deletion on the talk page of Tyler Spalding because the content is different, or does it need to stay regardless? Chitownchic (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)chitownchic

Hi Chitownchic. No the notice needs to stay regardless. Apologies for adding the speedy delete template - I accidentally only checked the first version that you created rather than the later ones. Looking at it again though and in more detail, I'm not still not sure that the notability standard for biographies is met in this case because there aren't sufficient sources that discuss him rather than the companies he works for. This can be difficult for newcomers to grasp, but we need multiple sources such as this that was mentioned in the previous discussion. Unless I', mistaken, nothing similar to this has been published since 2014, so he may still not be notable. Can I also ask where you got his date of birth from? I can't find it in either of the first two citations where I should be able to verify it. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE, thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it! I'll take some time and do some digging - would expect there to be a bit more around him as a person with his recent position at Raise.com and the unicorn hype around that. Date of birth - it was Crunchbase I believe? I'll make sure that's included - may have just misordered the references. And no worries! that was my own fault for hitting publish too soon. Appreciate the help.  :) Chitownchic (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)chitownchic

Deletion Tag

Why are you tagging Wikipedia articles for deletion specially created by me? While those articles recently reviewed by other Wikipedia admins. Mindcap (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Answered on your TP. SmartSE (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Kasha Mann

Isn't Kasha Mann eligible for G4/G5 speedy instead of your second AfD? Maybe G5 has to wait for the SPI to complete, but it would seem G4 applies instantly. - Brianhe (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same content, so I think most admins would decline G4. The SPI's unlikely to confirm that it is actually Smileverse since the old accounts are stale, so G5 is also unlikely to apply. Given that, AFD seemed the best choice. Looking at the history again, I realised that it was first created by an account that Mr.sahota edited alongside on other articles as well. SmartSE (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Opinion Requested

Here if you have a minute. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Genetically Modified Organisms -- Fruit flies

The second sentence isn't cited. Is it from the same article as the first sentence? If so, you should cite at the end of both sentences. Dianerrs (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dianerrs: Hi. I didn't write that myself, but the main reason that we add citations to articles is so that the reader can check the information themselves. Does the first reference contain that information? If not, maybe you can find a reference that does support it in the Drosophila melanogaster article and add it to the GMO one. SmartSE (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

European Outsourcing Association

Hi,

Could you tell me why you insisted an admin make the call on the CSD tag? There's no policy that says only admins can remove them. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

That's right, but since there is no claim of significance in the article I reverted to get another opinion. Since admins are the only users who can delete, it's generally best to leave declining speedies to them as well, unless the tag is completely spurious. SmartSE (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"there is no claim of significance" - well, I (and, evidently, Ritchie333) disagree. Not sure why you say it's best to leave declining to admins, as I thought admins have no higher status than "normal" editors, especially in matters that do not involve the tools? Adam9007 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Shiva Ayyadurai again

Lest I violate WP:3RR, could you take a look at what YatesByron is up to, please? ... richi (hello) 22:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Uhh. I've removed the quote. FWIW I think that they have a point about the "incorrect claim" part as it had been introduced recently and is a little too nasty. That'd be best discussed further on the TP and if YatesByron carries on as they are, they probably need adding to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattsabe. SmartSE (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Aeropress

Wow--a fellow Aeropress user! And there's even a userbox. (Why am I surprised?) Do you use the invert method? Barte (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha yeah couldn't live without it. I did have to make the userbox myself though... No, I go for the put-so-much-coffee-in-that-it-doesn't-drip-through method! SmartSE (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It also turns out to be a good backpacking accessory. Best coffee we've ever had.....if you're 20 miles from the nearest road. Barte (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

BGF Ventures

The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Thanks for the note. It's off to AFD we go... SmartSE (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Smartse.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Thanks for all the cleanup at Glyphosate. A lot of that ended up there through the edit warring that was one of the final straws before the ArbCom case, and I've always had a bit of aversion into digging back into that all whenever the article caught my eye again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. It's been on my to do list for a while but still needs plenty of work. I'm trying to concentrate on removing the poorly-sourced content for now but there's also a lot of information missing. Hopefully someone might join in and help out at some point ;) SmartSE (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh it's on my list too. I'm not editing like I used to until work settles down, but I'll be taking a good glance at what sources actually say (especially what reputable government agencies say). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smartse. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified biomass crops

Hey, where would you advise I put this edit such that It would be relevant?

"Biomass in the form of grasses are used to generate electricity in North America. These grasses include: Miscanthus, Switchgrass and Prairie Chordgrass. Chordgrass (Spartina pectinata) has been known for a time to be resistant to high salinity, and flooding. More recently, however, it has been noted to be resistant to freezing. This would be highly beneficial to the growing of the plant in cooler climates that are more prone to frosts. This is due to gene patterns specific to the species. Research in University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES), has found that once the genes responsible for this have been identified, this could be introduced into other grasses to produce species that are more viable in a wider range of environments therefore increasing the space available for production of biomass. These sequences could also be introduced into various crops allowing production in colder climates or through winter. [68] This same process could be applied with regards to plants that have resistance against other extremes such as pH changes, salinity, or drought."

Nah, Gyoungju; Lee, Moonsub; Kim, Do-Soon; Rayburn, A. Lane; Voigt, Thomas; Lee, D. K. (2016-03-31). "Transcriptome Analysis of Spartina pectinata in Response to Freezing Stress". PLOS ONE. 11 (3): e0152294. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152294. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4816275 . PMID 27032112.

Thanks, Erenevi1097 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erenevi1097 - thanks for asking. The main problem with your edit to Genetically modified organism was that the paper you cited is a primary source, meaning that . Our policy WP:WEIGHT describes how we should choose which sources to cite where, and in this case citing a primary source in such a broad-angled article is inappropriate as it is a very small slice of the available knowledge. There are thousands (millions?) of papers where GM has been used so we need a way of determining which are important. We should rely on reviews in journals to decide what to include, as the authors are normally experts who know the literature. For the section of the GMO article, this could be used, but even then it is probably too specific to include there and genetically modified plant would be better. Your reference could only really belong in Spartina pectinata, but there are better sources available e.g. which discusses their potential for use as biofuel. Sorry I can't answer your question positively, but I hope that the above makes sense. SmartSE (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll look further into it. Erenevi1097 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mindcap

Draft:Balaji Loganathan is likely related to the sockfarm, probably created by the subject first and then outsourced to the spammer. —SpacemanSpiff 04:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that but given that it seems to be an autobiography, I wasn't sure what the best plan of action is. Similarly, I thought it best to leave the AFD to run so that there is a consensus regarding notability, even though I think it is fine to delete it per G5. SmartSE (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_tree_training

Hi Smartse,

I was wondering if you could review my article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_tree_training

so that it can be indexed?

Thanks Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjackclayton (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jack. The article has already been reviewed by User:Jbhunley and is now indexed in search engines. I've also taken a look and agree with him that the company is not notable. Please folow the advice he has left you on his talk page. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Would like some assistance

I've also left a note about this on DGG's talk page....came across both your names on WP:COIN so am posting to both your talk pages.
A fairly-new editor - User :Usman Khalil - is trying his best to follow WP's rules/guidelines re: doing paid-editing. This editor has been very open to adjusting his editing, placing COI notices onto his edits, etc. I came across him on Frederick Achom a while back and have been mentoring him from time to time. I would appreciate it muchly if you could maybe keep an eye on his edits & his talk page. I am concerned that he will inadvertently run afoul of some rule and get blocked or whatever. My most recent thread on his talk page is User talk:Usman Khalil#WP: PAID - I posted how I thought he should proceed going forward and just wanted to make sure that my advice was correct. Cheers - Shearonink (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink Thanks for asking. That looks like good advice to me. It would also be sensible to advise them to only use the best-quality sources available as this tends to limit the chance of them adding promotional language. They claim to own File:Erik_Angra.jpg which obviously isn't the case so that needs fixing ASAP. I cleaned up Henry_Herbert_Tailors which has had a history of COI editing since creation - his edit that added "has a strong service-ethos, delivering tailoring in an innovative way" is obviously problematic, but other than that I can't see any other problems. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Vista Outdoor

Would you please look over my work at Vista Outdoor and tell me if I am on the right track? Thanks. 103.6.219.2 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding

It's rude and a method of bullying. Don't do it, even if someone has the audacity to disagree with you. Just a warning. Earflaps (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'll take it that you deny being a paid editor then. This will need to go to ANI at some point, but not today. SmartSE (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 December

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a biggie

I can only imagine people are doing their Xmas shopping rather than paying attention to ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the more I look the worse it gets: User:Brianhe/COIbox43. I did think about waiting, but I know all too well how easy it is to get distracted and forget. It is quite TLDR as well, but given the seriousness of the accusations, I figured it best to go into as much detail as possible. SmartSE (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose if it's really possible to charge $600/year[12] for watching over an article, it's possible to make a tidy sum with this lark. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm clearly in the wrong game! Not sure if you're just using that as a generic example, but that sure sounds like our guy. SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's possibly them I suppose. I reckon Cerebro1974 is a puppet too, used to insert the more extreme PR into Hampton Creek. This editor's two main articles of interest (in their brief contributon history) overlap with EF's. I don't suppose it's worth adding to the ANI comments as there's enough to digest there already. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

They're smarter (or should that be bearer) than that I think. Cerebro could well just be the company's own PR rep editing. Nice catch on the article though - this is another nice example of how I wasn't the only person to notice something was off. SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I didn't realise Joshua Tetrick was CEO of Hampton Creek. Another thought: Could EF be a sock of OnceaMetro? Both editors use the distinctive and odd section title "Philanthropy and boards"[13] and OnceaMetro's protestations when discovered ("A couple of my most recent edits were for Bill Gates and Paul Allen. If I knew them I wouldn't be having this conversation especially if they gave me compensation"[14]) sound rather similar to what we've just had an ANI ("If I'm paid to work for billionaires, why the world do I live in a basement?"[15]). Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I have anything more recent, but I had the editor marked down as one of a family of socks from about five years ago, but didn't have enough on-wiki to create an SPI. I'll do some digging and see if I have anything more useful. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Josh Wilkinson

My bad, sorry about that. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for taking care of all the G5s. SmartSE (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

911 Restoration Inc.

Hello SmartSE,

You recently deleted an article for 911 Restoration Inc.

Researching this, I’ve found multiple issues and completely agree with the decision. Through a few days of research, I am hoping I’ve resolved the problems.

First, I noticed some of our accounts were marked as sockpuppets. This was unintentional and naïve on the part of a former marketing professional (and it didn’t help that they continuously violated other policies.) I am trying to clean this up as well. The only accounts I have are MilestoneMiri (which I would like to keep,) MilestoneSEOInfo (which needs to be deleted), and Keith Santos (which has been blocked). Do I need to do anything with the other two accounts to fall in-line with Wikipedia’s policies?

Secondly, on our latest attempt to successfully and correctly create a Wikipedia page for 911 Restoraton Inc. I seem to have made a common mistake, judging by the previous “ChoiceTrade” section on your talk page, by hiring a Fiverr person to create a Wikipedia page. Clearly, this didn’t work out very well. So, I have rewritten some of the content, eliminated anything I thought might be glorifying the company, and added new reference links. I am not trying to advertise for 911 Restoration. I am trying to create a policy-following Wikipedia page for them.

Thirdly, Servpro, a similar company, has a long-standing Wikipedia page with its links coming from its own website. If the links I have provided as reference are not sufficient, can I create articles on 911 Restoration’s Blog to reference on Wikipedia?

I’m new to this and would like to create a legitimate Wikipedia page for 911 Restoration. I appreciate you reading and responding to this. If I am still far from the mark, can you point me in the correct direction? Again, thank you for your efforts and help. Milestonemiri (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Milestonemiri. Thank you for your note and for being honest about what has been going on.

Accounts can't be deleted, so simply stop using them and there is no problem. Both those accounts have actually been blocked for > 5 years anyway.

Yes using Fiverr was definitely a mistake. Editors who advertise their invariably break both the terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing and use sockpuppets to try and evade detection. While Draft:911_Restoration is an improvement on what I deleted, the main problem is that the company is not notable, meaning that newspapers and books have not written about it in depth. No amount of rewriting can change that and blog posts on a corporate website are of no help either. To be frank, if you work for http://milestoneseo.com/ then regardless of how you view it, creating the article most certainly is advertising.

Regarding Servpro, yes that article was a mess. As a volunteer project things often slip through the net. I have edited the article and also nominated for deletion and I am 90 % sure it will be deleted in a weeks time.

I hope that makes things clearer, even if it isn't the answer you wanted to hear. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG clean-up

In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)