User talk:Smartse/archive 19

Suspect editing

Another editor asked for my help with the Kinetica (software) article that was promotional and edited by multiple single article accounts. His (her?) edits were reverted after much work to improve the article. I reviewed and agreed that his work was superior, restored them and made some improvements, which were also quickly reverted. Another editor is also involved and has asked the offending editor(s) to comment on the talk page. I'm not sure how to address this but thought you would. Regards. Timtempleton (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking.That version they added was blatantly promotional so I've reverted it and left them a COI notice. If they carry on then WP:AN3 is the place to go since they've already been warned about edit warring. I'm on mobile til Monday so won't be watching after this. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

User:Draftingpage82/sandbox O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Datamatics Global Services

Dear SmartSe. Thank you for your input on my article. First, let me set this point forward ahead of time. You have reverted to an earlier version of Datamatics Global Services article which is really old and falsified. Yes, I do work for Datamatics Global Services but no, I am not being paid to write this article. The article changes which I had made and literally fought with Mean as custard as he kept reverting to the same old article which was wrong. Please check to see the releases by Datamatics Global Services or check the links which I had kept as references. Vandalism is I hope still not tolerated on Wikipedia bcoz I feel this case is similar to that. Datamatics Global Services Ltd is a public listed company and the links used to reference are completely neutral in nature. You could request me to tone it a bit or change the language which is completely acceptable with me But reverting to an older version which is completely untrue and falsified is unacceptable. Hope you can give it a second look with neutral eyes and revert back. I assure you that with your Help and support will change the tone and make it more informative in the coming days. Awaiting your valuable feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Regardless of whether you are being paid specifically to edit the article (not yours btw) you obviously have a strong conflict of interest and did not pay attention to the warnings that Mean as custard left on your talk page. Reverting your edits was certainly not vandalism since that requires a deliberate intent to disrupt Wikipedia which is not the case when removing advertising. While the version reverted to may not contain so much detail, I struggle to see how it could be 'wrong' or 'false' as you claim. Given the overtly promotional tone that you used, there was no other option but to completely revert your edit. Language like "focuses on helping their clients transform into a truly digital, data-driven enterprise and empowers them to take advantage of the digital revolution to innovate, differentiate and grow" does not belong on Wikipedia. Similarly inappropriate is a long list of awards. Then there is the fact that you copied content directly from here creating a copyright violation. So no, I'm afraid I won't be reinstating your version. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for the reply. I do give you the benefit of doubt here as you have no idea of the history of the company and hence cannot see the problem with the text used here. The problem lies in reverting to an older version which is itself not true, lemme ellaborate the statement,"Datamatics Global Services Limited set up a Dedicated Offshore Development Center for Wang Labs, USA, in 1983." was never the case as Datamatics was never associated with Wang labs,USA. Then again the correction of Mr. Vidur Bhogilal (Director & CFO)who no longer works with Datamatics was removed and which is again a problem here. And no even the statement "Although it is a public listed the majority of the shares rest with Kanodia family." is also not currently too as there are many non family members who own stakes in this now and even I could go on. Buy your edits are respected but I will take your inputs in consideration and will go ahead to edit the article again. Why I called it vandalism is without giving any reasons like you gave mean as custard went off to edit the article and which is a controversy by itself if he knew he was right he could just have explained his stand and I would have happily made the changes just ranting onn that the content is promotional does not help any one. But thanks again for clarifying my doubts and helping me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for reviewing my page but editing the article name is actually causing it to end up in disambiguation. There are other companies with the name Datamatics which are in no ways related to Datamatics Global Services viz "Maheshwari Datamatics Private Limited", "Royal Datamatics", "SYE Datamatics" and so on. Hope you can understand my point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talk • contribs)

Once again it is not your article - it is an article about the company you work for. I moved the article to Datamatics per WP:COMMONNAME and to be consistent with sources such as this "Rahul Kanodia of Datamatics" etc. Whether there are other companies with Datamatics in their name is irrelevant and not of a concern when choosing an article title unless another of them is notable.

Regarding your earlier points - if information is unsourced and incorrect then remove it, but that cannot be used as an excuse to turn the article into a promotional piece. SmartSE (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

phpList

Rather than deleting content about the hosted service of phpList (which runs the phpList software), would moving it to a separate, dedicated article be a solution? The software and the service are integral to one another, and information about both is valid, either together or separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtuke1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Samtuke1. In a word no - per WP:CORP to have a standalone article, companies require substantial independent coverage in reliable sources, which as far as I can tell does not exist for phplist.com. I've looked for sources and can't even find brief mentions of the company as opposed to the software itself which is why I removed it altogether. If there are sources which discuss the company, then let me know and I'll take a look. As the note I left on your talk page explains, please disclose if you have a conflict of interest as it certainly appears to me that you do. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

ThuggMiss

Please undelete The female rapper ThuggMiss. Page. Google has varified this Artist from her tours worldwide to her music sells as a underground artist. Her references show proof of who she works with, including national recording artist and producers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuggmiss (talk • contribs) 06:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thuggmiss. Unfortunately at this time it does not appear that you meet our standards of notability for musicians. This is quite different from what Google require, as we need articles to have been written about artists in magazines like Billboard. Because of this I won't be undeleting the article at this time. SmartSE (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article for reason 'G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion'

Hi, The article that you deleted citing advertising as a reason was edited by a number of people of which one editor (StarryGrandma who was possibly the last one to edit it) actually wrote in the history that his/her edit was to remove promotional content. I deleted a bunch of stuff for the same reason. Could you please let me know what else was left in the article that seemed like an advert or promotional? Maybe you could delete that part, as done by the other editors, instead of deleting an entire article? --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Roshni Kanchan. Can you first please disclose whether or not you have a conflict of interest with Raj Raghunathan? You are a single-purpose account who somehow knew his date of birth without citing a source. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE, Thanks for your reply.

About single-purpose account:

• My account was created almost a year and a half ago and I haven’t made any edits for a long time because a) Wikipedia rules, how-to and how-not-to’s etc are as straight as an imarti (google image ‘imarti’ and you’ll get the idea) b) I did not find a topic that I was confident enough about and /or that did not already contain all the knowledge that I had.
• Even for the deleted article, I hadn’t added much (I didn’t create it either). I was surprised to see the COI banner and asked other editors why it is present and how to remove it. It was a starting point for me to learn while on a subject I knew about. And thanks to other editors’ replies and their direct editing of the article, I did learn a lot. (Btw I didn't remove the COI banner, another editor did.)
• I’m not in a hurry to become a senior editor or multi-purpose account holder or acquiring any such label. And also am not aware of any benchmark for number of edits per day/week/month/year. If there is one, please let me know (hopefully a number and not one of the wikilinks that links to 100's of other pages).
  

About COI:

• My name is Roshni Kanchan and it is the same as a Wikipedia editor. I’m not hiding behind nicknames. I’ve taken prof. Raj’s online course and hence am his student. (I’ve read the COI link multiple times due to the banner that was on the article. Thanks for the link. I read it again)
• I got the DoB info from his Facebook page. So far I’ve not seen any article that cites a source for date of birth. Also no other editor pointed that out else I’d have deleted it or cited the source. (And I didn’t get how a date of birth is promotional? Will appreciate an explanation.)
  

Please note that other editors have also edited the article – before and after I did. It’d be useful to a new editor like myself to know about the promotional content that we all seem to have missed.

--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

YouTube at SpotOption

Thanks for taking a look at SpotOption. I personally don't see a problem with including their YouTube video as a source for the gambling section. It is absolutely clear that the sentence is verified by the video. The video is from SpotOption, so it's pretty much the same as quoting their own website. I don't think it is an advert in this context. That said, I don't want to belabor the issue. If you just want to reconsider the deletion, I'd be happy whichever way you decide, or if you want to move this to the talk page there, ok but it might be a distraction.

Thanks again,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Sure it's verifiable, but unless there is coverage other than the video (which I couldn't find) it's undue to include in the article. Primary sources need to be used very carefully. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jbuffkin

Hi, you might find these useful:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Chain_of_editors
• User:Calton/Watchlist#Group_4

--Calton | Talk 09:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin

Sometimes the mind sees patterns where there are none, so I wanted to run this by you. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brightify was created by me so I have a tendency to see this particular individual's shadow everywhere. I just noticed the similarity of User:Pylonrud to User:Pylonrudy. This other name User:Linespoak reminds me of User:Litespund in the sockfamily as well. However the editing patterns are very different so this doesn't really make sense. Your thoughts? Just coincidence? - Brianhe (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arpitset (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please review the changes , Don't delete full, This provide detail explanation on service apartments. User:arpitset

Michael S. Smith II

Hi there, Natsecobserver seems intent on pushing his flagrant promotional and likely COI version of that article at all costs and without dialogue. His (I say he, because I think he could even be Michael S. Smith II himself given that he also created the Kronos Advisory article which was deleted) edits, however, have not broken 3RR (per my report on him), so am I unsure of what next course to take with regards to keeping this article neutral, fact-based, and with appropriate burdens of information in an encyclopedic tone. Thanks, JesseRafe (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note JesseRafe. I'd noticed their continued disruption and if I weren't involved I'd probably have blocked them already by now. I will post at WP:COIN about it as this is the best venue to get more eyes on it. SmartSE (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully this gets settled easily. Appreciate your words and your time. JesseRafe (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Claire Benedict

Why did you delete the page on Claire Benedict? She is a notable British actress - see http://www.britishafrocaribbean.com/index.php/media2/24-claire-benedict and https://bbashakespeare.warwick.ac.uk/people/claire-benedict, and particularly notable for portraying the lead character Mma Ramotswe in the continuing radio adaptations of The No 1 Ladies' Detective Agency. Jim Craigie (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim Craigie. I noticed Ronhjones has already answered why he deleted the article here which largely covers why I deleted it as well: it was tagged and eligible for deletion. The version I deleted was very likely an autobiography "After two years there I applied for Drama School" bringing with it all kinds of problems and mainly consisted a long list of all the work she'd done. With nothing to justify why any of this was noteworthy, it qualified for deletion. FWIW, while Draft:Claire Benedict is now better referenced and formatted, I still see nothing to indicate that WP:CREATIVE is met since neither of those links are useful for determining notability and I've not been able to find anything which shows that she's received in-depth coverage about her work. Regards SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Roundup

You eliminated my addition to the glyphosate article. As it is now WP indicates without any reservation that Roundup is a glyphosate formulation. This is not true. My addition was pointing out that there are Roundup products without glyphosate. Maybe what I was saying could be formulated more clearly but WP should try to be correct. Ekem (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ekem I agree that it's a difficult situation, but stick by the reason for removing it, in that there aren't secondary sources discussing it. In 99% of cases, roundup does refer to glyphosate and the other products seem are an exception. If glyphosate containing roundup wasn't notable, then we wouldn't have anything about the roundup for lawns. We should really discuss this at Talk:glyphosate rather than here if you want to continue. SmartSE (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I started the discussion at the talk page.Ekem (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Travels

Hi! May I steal your userpage design idea for travels? Best, Lingveno (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Lingveno Please do! SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeated phishing attempts

Hey I saw you changed the page permissions of the AlphaBay article because this user was attempting a phishing scam. Well it appears they are back at it. Fibonachi11 has been repeatedly using the AlphaBay Market page to redirect to Draft:AlphaBay Market which contained the same phishing link. Internal links in several other pages have been edited to redirect to either this "Draft" or the "AlphaBay Market" redirect to it, including the List of Tor hidden services and Draft:List of darknet markets pages. I further noticed that they added the phishing link to the Simple English wiki article too. Perhaps these pages should also be protected to prevent future phishing attempts? Enix150 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

cheers for the heads up. I've blocked the user here and will sort out the articles later. Can't do anything about the simple wiki though unfortunately but will try to find someone who can. SmartSE (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

So I've fully protected AlphaBay Market and deleted the draft. List of Tor hidden services is already on pending changes. I can't see any links being added to Draft:List of darknet markets so I'll leave that for now. I've posted at simple:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard about the IP that's now taken up the reins but no action yet. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Phytoglobin

Hi Smartse, if you think my suspicion of copied content is unfounded, I'll remove my edits here [1]. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Change in my user rights

Hi, while changing my user rights (I thought my inactivity was the reason), I believe you've mentioned potential undisclosed paid editor. Wanted to know the reason for that because so far I've not added any promotional content and have tried my best to meet the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Vishal14K | Talk 11:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vishal14K. The reason for removing your autopatrolled right was indeed because I was concerned that you are an undisclosed paid editor. Your sandbox has in the past contained very promotional language e.g. "This was due to the fact that the know-how involved in synthesizing such a sweet was unkown before being experimentally developed by Nobin Chandra and then constantly remodelled and further standardized by his successors.". Given that the right is only intended to lessen the work by new page patrollers, if there is any doubt about it being misused it is better to remove it. SmartSE (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I thought users are allowed to experiment on almost anything in their sandbox. The language you are referring to was copied from one of the articles that I intended to modify according to Wikipedia guidelines. Anyway, I'll keep it in mind in future. Thanks. --Vishal14K | Talk 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maryann Keller

Hi there. I noticed that you did not delete The New York Times citation. My apology. However, I looked at some of the sources you deleted and they seem correct, such as this one. She was also on the board of Stamford Hospital in 2015-16, per the source cited. Am I missing something? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. No worries and thanks for asking. I came across the article because the user who created it had made this edit which I know was requested to be done by someone for pay at upwork. It's logical that this article was also created for pay and consequently contains over-hyped and thinly-sourced content. My clean up method is first to remove anything like this to make the article more compliant with BLP i.e. using secondary sources wherever possible. The first source is an article written by her so I didn't think it appropriate to support "Keller predicted that the Daimler-Chrysler merger would ultimately unwind." With the second source, to me this is a case of 'so what?' unless secondary sources have mentioned this position, why include it in our article? Hope that makes it clearer. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is the first time for me to write this. I will do everything to rewrite my errors. Can you tell me how to fix this page Maryann Keller? Thank you so much. Cutie girly (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Clear as a mud free river now. I share your disdain for paid editors. Thanks for your hard work. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That being said...Kodak Black had over 2.7 million views in the past year. Imagine if I got a nickel each time someone read it! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677 (talk) hello, in this situation I'm not paid editor.As a marketing student, I had studied texts related to Maryann involvement on Wall Street and her contributions in the auto industry. Therefore, I have decided to write an article about her. During this process, I used existing articles in the same category as a template in terms of style, structure and content. SmartSE (talk) I did a paid job only when I have been contacted by Stephen Robert Morse, but that page has already been deleted. I pray you to understand, I did not know how the site works. Now I've learned my mistake and will never happen again. How do I proceed now? Should I declare myself as a paid editor or is it something occasional? Cutie girly (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cutie girly: Hi there. This isn't my talk page, so I don't want to speak on behalf of Smartse. You may want to have a look at WP:PAY. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Given Special:Contributions/Jalicandri that's almost impossible to believe. Let's wait and see what Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LogAntiLog turns up. SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My paid articles

Hi, I am proposing the following: what if I send you the article drafts with the CoI so that you will be able to say that they do not belong in Wikipedia before I publish them to the article space? --Lingveno (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but that would mean I'd be working for free while helping you earn money. It's bad enough already having to clean up the mess you're making (see WP:BOGOF). WP:GNG and WP:V are not difficult to understand and if you comply with them then there is unlikely to be a problem. The problem you face is that nearly all of the jobs available on upwork are for non-notable people and companies... SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood. --Lingveno (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Right up your alley

• This may interest you.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets - Draft:Zahroof Valves

Hello Smartse,

I have no idea how to use this site or the language and technicalities used here. A company that I had hired was writing a Wiki page on the company that I represent, Zahroof Valves Inc. The page was "Draft:Zahroof Valves". At some point, the person who had created the initial draft asked me to take a look at it and sent me the link to the draft page. Instead of copying out the page and making mark ups in a different document, I found that I could mark up the page myself, and I did. Later, I got the notice that the draft had been removed for suspected sockpuppets (I really don't have a full understanding of this) and I believe I've also been listed as s suspected sockpuppet. Look, whatever that means, I don't think I'm a sockpuppet - I simply wanted to ensure the correctness of the draft of the company that I represent. Secondly, I would like that Wiki page on the company, because it is quite genuine.

How do I prove that everything I've done is above board and genuine? What are my next steps?

Regards, Zahroof — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZahroofM (talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ZahroofM. The company that you hired to write the article has broken several of our rules about how to edit. First of all, if someone is being paid to create articles here, per Wikipedia's terms of use, they have to disclose that this is the case so that other editors can review their edits. Whoever it was that you hired was almost certainly aware of this but chose to try and subvert our processes. Secondly, to try and hide from scrutiny they used different accounts (what we term 'sockpuppetry'). A limited number of users are able to check the IP addresses of user accounts and in this case confirmed that several accounts were being used by the same person. Although you were suspected at one point, the investigation found that you are not a sockpuppet. This was the reason that I deleted the draft that they had been working on as we have a policy of deleting articles created by sockpuppets in order to deter them from doing it again.

Regarding an article about your company: the vast majority of companies are not sufficiently notable to deserve a Wikipedia article. In order to create a page we need several newspaper/magazine articles from sources like Wired or New York Times which discuss a company in detail. In the case of Zahroof Valves, the company does not appear to have attracted such attention and so we should not have an article about it. I'm sorry that this is the case, particularly if the company you were dealing with told you otherwise. If I were you I would be complaining to the company you paid to write the article as they should never have taken you on as a client in the first place and they also used deceptive techniques in order to try and write it. SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets - Draft:Zahroof Valves

Hi Smartse,

I apologize for creating a new section. I couldn't figure out how to reply to the email.

Thank you for your explanation of the case. We do have several articles published in prestigious magazines in our industry. There should be some articles in Wired, etc. regarding our company. But, I don't know whether they fit your criteria. Due to my lack of knowledge regarding this, our PR firm proposed that they write a page for us on Wikipedia, and I agreed. I didn't know that they had subverted your policies or were doing anything out of the ordinary.

Best regards, Zahroof — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZahroofM (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smartse!

Dear Smartse,

I'm Paul Guerra, an Ecuadorean actor, and lawyer with more than 10 years of trajectory in the Entertainment industry. I've hired 6 months ago a person to create my Wikipedia page since that was my agent's advice. I just realized it got deleted by you because of a G5. I understand that and I'm sorry this person I hired did it, I just didn't know he was blocked or banned or anything.

Is there something I can do to put my page up again? I mean, I really have proof like magazines, newspapers, youtube clips, interviews, etc. that prove that I'm a legit artist.

I thank you for your attention to this matter.

All the best,

Paul Guerra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgrra (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Thanks for the note. It's an unfortunate situation for everyone I'm afraid except whoever it is you paid who is willing to disrupt a community of volunteers for their own profit. Rather strangely just after you left this note, someone recreated the article about you. It does appear that you meet our notability requirements for actors meaning that we should have an article about you. I have added some references present in the article I deleted which demonstrate this. I will not be restoring the full version however and request that you leave the article as it is and let if grow organically if someone is interested to write more about you. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Maryann Keller

Hello again SmartSE. Please can you tell me what is the status of your evaluation for my Maryann Keller page? There's been a misunderstanding. We have already talked about this on your old page here . Please can you help me to remove sign ‘undisclosed paid content’ because the page has not been paid for. Please. This is my first page. Thank you so much for your time. Cutie girly (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cutie girly I'm afraid that I don't believe you and your perseverance to get the tagged removed only makes it harder to believe you. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent article

I saw that you edited a a recent article. I'm actually writing a similar article here. I'd love it if you could give me some feedback on it. Once completed, I plan on moving it to wikipedia proper.VR _talk 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

VR Sorry about the delay. My only involvement at the article was to undelete it as it shouldn't have been speedily deleted. I don't know anything about the topic. I've had a read over your draft though and can't see any problems with it. It might be a good idea to link to 2015 Dadri mob lynching, 2016 Jharkhand mob lynching and 2017 Alwar mob lynching. If you want more feedback though, User:SpacemanSpiff and User:Sitush know a lot more about India than I do! SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Edits made by Anup.katz123

Hi Smartse, Thank you for your suggestion and guidance on page edits made by me. I have been working into technology space and over the years have gathered some knowledge around it. Hence, I thought of sharing some of them on wikipedia. I am new to editing Wiki pages and learning from the experts like you. However, you will mostly find me making edit's on technology related pages. Look forward for your guidance and support in future too.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anup.katz123 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Awards and Recognition Section on Datamatics page

Hello Smartse, Greetings! I am an IT enthusiast and follow many software and hardware companies globally to understand the trends. I understand that some companies like Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, etc. have received many accolades which are informative in nature and they rightly feature on their respective wiki pages. However, I just read a news yesterday about Datamatics receiving an Award which I feel is useful for the readers of that page. hence I updated it along with relevant citation. I do not understand why this news is considered as promotion and the awards received by other technology companies continue to feature on their pages and not considered as promotion. It was just an FYI news, as you will agree that media generally does not cover such Awards unless if it is an important industry recognition. I request you to please consider it and rev the changes so people visiting the pages get complete information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitech123 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Happiest Minds (Company)

Hi Smartse,

I have recently created an article on Happiest Minds Company

Which was deleted previously few years back.

Would request you to moderate this new article @ Happiest Minds

Thank you, --Deepak HM 06:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC) User:Deepakhmwiki

Hi Smartse,

Thank you for reviewing Happiest Minds article. appreciate your edits.

How ever, would like to cross check whether awards from Frost & Sullivan & such recognition can be added under awards section? Since the coverage from such sources are notable.

2017 India Digital Transformation Award Recipients

--Deepakhmwiki (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC) User:Deepakhmwiki

Avast Software

Pinged a couple editors in hopes of trimming some promotion to no avail so far. Do you happen to have a minute to take a look? Talk:Avast_Software#Products section CorporateM (Talk) 01:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've taken care of this. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner

Thanks for protecting the page. Techtrek is a PR representative of Wagner, should he be editing the article at all? Fences&Windows 20:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Fences and windows: He's a sock and blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Good, thanks Bbb23. I should have done more to prevent his disruption a year ago though I became involved by discussing content on the talk page. Better late than never. Fences&Windows 23:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OMICS

Just letting and Randykitty you know that I blocked the latest OMICS representative -- Nanonine per the community discussion on OMICS reps. This one was obvious and I've also tagged as a proven sock of scholarcentral, may not be the same person, but obviously a rep, and they're all following the same playbook. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Troublesome article move uncovered during AfD

Take a look at this. I don't think it's getting the attention it should. An editor basically took over a disambigation page, added their article content and moved it to a new completely unrelated name to bypass NPP. Likely a sock, first of all, but also a bigger issue exploiting a weakness that perhaps could be partially fixed by blocking article moves from any but autoconfirmed editors? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've closed the AfD and reverted to the previous state. That seems to be the SOP for these situations. Feel free to histsplit and delete or revert my close if you like. I don't see the point in discussing the best option for the project. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought this would be a bigger deal - I hadn't seen this technique for bypassing NPP - but sounds like you're on top of it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a big deal that paid editors are circumventing NPP. It has been reported at ANI a number of times. I don't think we should make a big deal out of fixing it though. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting - I didn't know this had happened before. Perhaps a move log that can be cross referenced with users' editing history would be less cumbersome but nonetheless a potential safeguard. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this JJMC89. It's the same tactic used extensively by the Highstages sockfarm. And Tim, yes there should really be ways of detecting dodginess like this automatically but there isn't even a way of filtering the move log manually. SmartSE (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Brown Gibbons Lang & Company

Hi, just wondering why you deleted this article as A7, as nobody had tagged it as such? Reason I ask is that there's a related article, Michael E. Gibbons being contested at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I was going through Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed_paid_editing_sockfarm. They nearly all need to be deleted one way or the other. This one did not explain why the company was important, hence it qualified for A7. There is no need for someone to tag it first. SmartSE (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay - sometimes when going through CAT:CSD I pop additional reasons on the end of the stock boilerplate you get in the "other" field. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Smartse,

I really just wanted to apologize for any trouble I'm causing you. As you can probably tell, I'm quite unfamiliar with all of the COI regulations, and I didn't realize I was doing anything wrong. I'm just a student who does freelance writing work on the side and thought that this was something fun to pursue. However, it was never my intention to create pages that wouldn't pass notability guidelines (a bunch of people are on these freelance writing sites just wanting me to post giant advertisements for them, and I say no because I don't think it's fair or right to have that kind of content on Wikipedia). I especially never wanted volunteers to have to sort through my mistakes, because that is not fair to you. I've tried my hardest to only create articles of note. I'm sorry about the editors who have been affected by my mistakes. I'm going to change my editing to volunteer-only in the future; I fully support Wikipedia and the service it provides and I wouldn't want to compromise that. I really believe that the two articles you flagged for deletion do belong on Wikipedia. How would a COI tag ever be removed? I wasn't trying to hide my COI by removing it, I just thought that it was put there because I didn't disclose. I've defended both articles on their talk pages; I'm not seeing how they wouldn't pass notability guidelines compared to similar articles. I'd like to fix any problems that I can myself. I go back to school soon and won't have much time to dedicate to editing, and I don't want to leave a mess for others to have to clean up. Rtt11^talk 15:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rtt11:. Hi. Thanks for your note. I appreciate that you have not been deliberately doing anything wrong and that you have only just started to become aware of the issues around COI editing. Unfortunately, being paid to edit can cloud one's judgement, especially if you are not fully versed in the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy, and this inevitably means that someone else has to make corrections. Here for example you the first sentence I removed was in no way supported by the reference cited, and even if it was, the source is an interview with the subject so their word can hardly be used to say how great they are can it? Then there was a long list of artists he has apparently worked with, but with a citation that only included one of them - lists like that are very promotional, especially without sources. There were similar problems at APS: [2] The first source in no way supports your claim that it was the "first" to do anything, the second does not support "began receiving elevated media attention for their approach to UPRT" and the third is a press release, which in 99 % of cases, should never be cited here.

Regarding notability, neither of those subjects are completely non-notable, but neither do they definitely meet WP:CORP or WP:BIO. For both APS and Prehn, the issue is also about the quality of the sources too since OK! Hello etc. are not considered reliable sources and while industry publications can be reliable, they are generally not great for demonstrating notability in comparison to mainstream sources.

If you can see what the problems are with some of your edits then please edit the articles further to remove them, but I think I will probably send APS and Prehn to WP:AFD and you may want to wait until their notability has been determined one way or the other before spending more time on them as the actual content of the article isn't considered in deletion discussions.

The COI tag can be removed once an unconflicted editor has reviewed the article to make sure that the subject is notable and that content in the article is reliably sourced, verifiable and not promotional.

Thanks again for being open about this now though and for being willing to correct your mistakes. Let me know if anything isn't clear. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind response. I appreciate you taking the time to educate me, and I'll keep everything you said in mind. Wikipedia can be overwhelming at times - it seems like I'm finding out new rules and guidelines every day! But most editors have been really understanding and have been willing to have conversations and explain things, which has been a wonderful resource - so thank you again!! Rtt11^talk 18:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smartse

i have check today morning that the page Rohit Shelatkar is deleted with following message. 10:57, 31 July 2017 Smartse (talk | contribs) deleted page Rohit Shelatkar (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) I have recently added 2 reference and even that Rohits.JPG media file is also belong to Mr. Rohit Shelatkar. I like to know what is the exact reason of deletion of that page? I will request you to restore the page and allow me to edit the same as per your guidelines. Best Regards, ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schinchkar1 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason for deleting the page is that it would require a complete rewrite in order to become neutral and non-promotional. Language such as "Rohit, with his business acumen, has led the Grand Showbiz team to venture" does not belong in an encyclopedia. Likewise, it is not suitable to include a large, unsourced section on philanthropy (which I should also point out was copied and pasted from a website, making it a copyright violation). Judging from your user talk page, your only purpose here so far has been to promote Rohit Shelatkar and his company. You were warned about this back in January [3] but then still went on to create the article about him. SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Laura K. Inamedinova page

Hello Smartse,

Just wanted to let you know that I did some vetting, restructuring, reduced the PR tone and removed some unreliable sources. There is still some more work to do. Please review the page and tell me if there is something to fix. Lukasds (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't fix the fact that she isn't notable, hence the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Finding paid editing sockfarms

Are you finding all those by hand, or do you have a power tool? Maybe we need some kind of graph algorithm which detects the appearance of tightly coupled groups of articles and editors. John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nagle: I've been using the new NPP Browser to search for keywords that I know crop up in UPE. It also lets you sort by the number of edits a user has made which is useful in detecting throwaways. For socks though, it's really just a case of demeonstrating dodginess and then asking CUs to look into it and hoping for the best! SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to your Message regarding paid editing

Hello. You stated that I was paid to edit pages related to Greylock Capital Management. Given the serious and ethical nature of your post, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I confirm that I have no compensated relationship with Greylock Capital Management nor with any of its principals. I last worked at Greylock Capital in 2011. I did not create or edit any pages related to Greylock Capital until many years after my departure date. I certainly know the firm well, but I confirm that, per Wikipedia guidelines, all of my edits are based on factual media coverage. Moreover, this coverage comes from major publications, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Business Week and The International Herald Tribune. Greylock Capital has been on the steering committee of a number of the world's largest sovereign debt restructurings, including Argentina and Greece. As a consequence, they more than meet Wikipedia's criteria for notoriety. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmodeste (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Henry I. Miller

Cfulbright previously declared a COI. They knew the subject of the article and were editing it because the subject had expressed concerns over the content. Since Cfulbright now disputes that I don't object to your removal of the disclosure line, but I do object to your removal of the connected contributor line entirely. I'll look for the diffs supporting the COI tag. This will probably end up at the COI board since the user has restored the edits without discussion. Meters (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. They have not restored the edits. Meters (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: Sorry about the delay. They admit to having "met him a few times" which is not something that constitutes a COI. Sure their edits are problematic, but in this case we should focus on explaining the problems with them rather than whether or not they have a COI. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not an off-the-cuff response to a one-time edit. I have been dealing with COI and whitewashing edits by this editor (and the subject of the article) for more than three years. I have extensively discussed the COI issue with them. I added the COI tag thsi time because Cfulbright returned to the article and made yet another problematic change despite all of the previous discussions. Cfulbright hasn't just met Miller a few times. He knows him well enough to have visited his home socially, to have taken the picture of Miller that is currently in the article, and to refer to Miller's wife by her first name. He also started editing this article at Miller's request. That's not just COI, but likely meatpuppetry. I suggest that you look at the page history and the various talk pages before suggesting that I have not already tried to explain this and deal with it. As I said to Cfulbright this time, if he wishes to contest the COI label then I will take this to the COI board for other editors to discuss the issue and make a determination. Meters (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: Sorry for forgetting about this. I agree with you that it does indeed seem as if they have a COI based of the comment they added when they uploaded File:Henry Miller and dog.jpg. The article needs a good trim to get it more BLP compliant which I might get round to at some point. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits of Edelman

Sometimes I edit promotional articles too much, but considering the fact that the article itself is about a public relations firm, I can easily imagine that most of the article was written by editors with a WP:COI. While some of their campaigns may have been notable, I do not think that all of the ones included are. I edit promotional articles until I am 100% sure that they are neutral, and while sometimes I edit too much, I never intentionally try to make a WP:POINT. I want promotional articles that are still notable to still have enough information, but I don't want the article to be biased and possibly mislead readers. CoolieCoolster (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Smartse, I would look at Cjkoncur's edits to the article as well. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@CoolieCoolster: That's a quite a presumption to make. In fact most of the article was written by CorporateM who, while a paid editor on other articles, was not paid to write it. Apologies if my edit summary wasn't clear, but I was actually referring to the edits made by Cjkoncur when I referred to POINT (hence the link to JJMC89's talk page). They've written an article about a PR company they seemingly work for, and when content was removed from it, they went and removed what they thought was similar content from the Edelman article. You did go further though and completely remove the section on notable work which was unjustified considering the sources cited. The content that I replaced is hardly complimentary to the agency, considering that for the most part it discusses the various underhand tactics they have used on behalf of their clients. Looking at your trimming of the corporate history section, I think that was also over zealous and I don't see why you think that it is promotional. As I tried to explain on your talk page earlier, notability does not apply to article content, so only a single source is needed to support information. I don't see why to remove so much information that is well sourced that readers could find of interest. If you want to discuss it further, we should really move to the article talk page. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Lawrence

Hello, I have a wikipedia article. How should I remove this template? "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence52 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lawrence52: Hi Kevin. As the notice explains, the article was created by someone in return for pay, presumably under your instruction. While you were not to know, it is forbidden to edit Wikipedia for pay without disclosing that this is the case in order that other editors can review the edits. In this case, the article contains information that has no source e.g. your date of birth and you parents name. Per our policy on biographical content this would all need removing to make the article compliant. A bigger problem however is that I do not think that you have received sufficient attention from the media to merit having an article here, as determined by WP:BIO. As such, I have nominated the article for deletion and other editors will discuss whether they agree or not over the next week or so. Apologies that this is likely not what you would like, but I am afraid the fault lies with the people you commissioned to write the article as they likely should never have agreed to. Regards SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Restored page

I have restored this page to faciliate the discussion regarding how to address this sort of issue on meta. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Smartse. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—usernamekiran(talk) 19:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

---

just wondering, did you get my email? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Yes I did and I have read it. Sorry been having a busy week and haven't had a chance to reply yet. Maybe tomorrow! SmartSE (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

Someone at Qualcomm raised concerns about this section. That individual's proposed corrections/clarifications eventually made its way to my desk. The issue is the entire section appears to rely exclusively on primary sources like email strings, an appellate brief, meeting minutes, and numerous documents (PPT, Word, Excel) hosted on Mentor, a DropBox-like service provided by IEEE to members of its workgroups. I didn't find any secondary sources to justify this topic at all. Given my COI, I was hoping you might have a minute to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 10:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree and so have removed it. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks SmartSE. I guess I was a bit impatient there in also pinging @Anthonyhcole:. I never know if one of the people I ping are going to take a look, so I apologize for the overlap. CorporateM (Talk) 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to bring this to your attention. From what I can tell, the editor restored 10,000 bytes of the same content you removed, then called it a spelling correction in their edit summary. May be a bad-faith situation. CorporateM (Talk) 13:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That's because this is getting a "streisand effect" and being posted over quite a few sites right now. A company trying to remove things that make it look bad and having them removed for no other reason then making them look bad is getting a lot of eyes on it right now. Just saying this will most likely get picked up and get a quite a few references now. Just a FYI from a uninvolved editor. ContentEditman (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@CorporateM and ContentEditman: Thanks to both of you for the heads up. I'm still happy with my reason for removing it and believe it is policy-based. I've looked again and still can't find any information about this in secondary sources (please correct me if I'm wrong). Given the apparent furore I'll post on the talk page and likely remove it again soon. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

From what I have seen and now read there have been some global stories about it but mostly small pieces the addition talks about. Since many of these companies are not US based the news in the US is fewer. Here is one good one that talks about the manipulation of votes by leaders of the pack in the 802.11a area. That's one of the better ones. Many others you have to pay to get past the headline. ContentEditman (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ContentEditman:Hmm that certainly suggests it merits mentioning but the content in the article. I haven't got time to do anything at the moment though. If you can find any other sources please put them at Talk:IEEE_802.11ax so that everyone can see them. SmartSE (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI needs experienced admin

L235‬ is looking for a second opinion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233‬ ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Email

I have just read your email. I don't have time to answer it now, but I'll try to get back to you on it soon. If you don't hear from me by Monday then please remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Just a gentle reminder for you but no problem if you don’t have time. SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Amr Shady Deletion

Hi - I noticed that you have been deleting my page whenever someone tries to create it. Not sure if you deleted the original page. I recall from browsing through it a while back it was well referenced and neutral in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashady76 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ashady76: Hi. First of all, please remember that it is not "my page" but an article about you. The reason it has been deleted is because multiple accounts who have been confirmed to be using the same IP addresses and devices: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Commanderofthescript/Archive. This is prohibited per this policy. In addition, they appear to have been being paid to edit, without disclosing that this is the case, which is against the terms of use of the site. I can understand that you may not have known this and could have been deceived by whoever you have paid, in which case I apologise that you have been caught up in this. If you send me an email to smartsewikigmail from an address that I can tell for sure is from you, and honestly explain what has been going on then I may consider restoring the article. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Stalkers please review

I've been looking into the notability of this guy as it's apparent that they were an innocent bystander in the sockfarm. I'm really on the fence about it so could do with your two cents. These are the best sources:

• This interview by Deutsche Welle the German international public broadcaster
• This coverage in Aswat Masriya an Egyptian news website.
• This interview in How we made it in Africa.

While I think these are all reliable sources the last two are by no means brilliant. I'm undecided whether I should create a stub (and possibly send straight to AFD), or redirect to TA Telecom. Thoughts? SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah marginal. When looking for sources I came across the article captured on Wiki2 and I see why you deleted it. I would say WP:NOTYET but close. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opining Jytdog that was pretty much my feeling too. SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Socks

I think you meant "RetroHunk" here[4], you tagged RetroHunk as a sock, if it is correct then his articles should be G5? Capitals00 (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm I messed up the tagging first time round and was waiting for some more experienced clerks to chip in. They're probably best described as a suspected sock of Liborbital based on the Ro2 malarkey. RetroHunk is younger than Mfarazbaig so should probably be tagged as suspected of them. I've grouped them some more at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Liborbital_sockfarm. SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you check the recent report on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Liborbital#24_October_2017? It is getting delayed. His socking is continuous and SPI' status show "CU completed" on the list due to multiple reports. Capitals00 (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:WikiRecontributer47

Like you, I'm getting very puzzled by this contributor's actions. There are all the hallmarks of a conflict of interest, and when anyone adds a warning or comment to her talk page, she immediately deletes it rather than responding. Deleting her own contributions makes me think she is aware of earlier mistakes, and yet the sections she's deleting were sourced. If she won't engage, let's just keep an eye on it. Deb (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deb: Yes it is very strange. I've had an eye on them for years but I think recently had decided that COI wasn't an issue... now I'm just confused! I can't understand why they would add content and then remove it again. They're uploading images on commons and claiming them as their own work when they clearly aren't. The lack of response to comments is also concerning but I guess there's not much that can be done about it right now. SmartSE (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

She's sailing very close to the wind and I'm prepared to block if necessary, on the grounds of disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

She appears to be out of control now and I have given her a final warning. Deb (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've now raised this on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as you previously did. Deb (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deb: Thanks. I'll post there when I get a chance but it may not be tonight. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I decided not to make any comment in the discussion; better for people to find out the facts and make up their own minds.Deb (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Smartse. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look please?

I left this note recently after trying at least two separate COI discussions with the user, but I don't think they are being honest or interested in adhering to our policies. I'm inclined to block for ToS violation but I'd like another opinion, so if you or Doc James could take a look, that'd be great. It all started with promo around Raheja Developers which has been a notorious paid COI problem for years, but now the editor has moved to other topics. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I see James has beaten me to it, but I would also have blocked them. SmartSE (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please remove all social media content from your user page

This is an encyclopaedia, for encyclopaedic content only, not a social network or teenager's pinboard. As an exclusionist, you must understand user created art and a biography of a non-notable living person are against what this very site is about and that deletion is the only correct course of action. 158.140.213.218 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I've hardblocked this editor one month for being disruptive and confirmed that the other disruptive edits by the IP are from the same user. Those are not edits by other people using the IP. This person is trolling.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Smartse:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 12:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Sources Pasge!

Hi - apologies if this is the wrong place to write this - I'm trying to add sources for the page Oliver Isaacs - I'm new so finding it difficult too Would you be so kind enough to add these sources - would be much appreciated!

Also you have added a UPE notice - can you let me know what needs to be done to remove this - I feel this page has been vandalised -I'm a fan of Oliver and have added many reliable sources to it which keep getting removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditions (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird/2017/10/18/is-bitcoin-benefiting-from-the-ico-crackdown/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurencebradford/2017/08/28/7-things-young-entrepreneurs-can-do-now-to-succeed/#9e9e6f520c54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditions (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wikieditions:. These sources have been removed because they are not reliable. Anyone can get articles published on forbes.comsites/ and there is no editorial control over the content within them. This has been discussed extensively by the community e.g here. SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse:. ah okay I understand now - thanks for clarifying! This forbes writer is notable in his field in cryptocurrencies - is this considered reliable no? https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird/2017/10/18/is-bitcoin-benefiting-from-the-ico-crackdown/ I understand why you may think about the UPE notice but I'm a loyal follower of Oliver - I follow his snapchat daily and I've learnt a lot from his daily storys - can you let me know what needs to be done to remove this as it makes the page look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditions (talk • contribs)

Can we please have this conversation at just one place, i.e. Talk:Oliver Isaacs?

Multiple accounts

Silver Penguin also edits as Golden Penguin. I don't think this is a result of a name change, but it's unusual and could have certain connotations. As I mentioned before, I'm rather tied up in RL this week but perhaps you and Tony could see what you think of it. I fear we may be looking down from the tip of an iceberg. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Kudpung and TonyBallioni: Check this which shows two renames: SP > Rire > GP. Did that then leave SP as available to be re-registered? SmartSE (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, once an account has been renamed, anyone can claim it as their own. That's why it is typical for many renamed users to immediately register their old usernames to prevent others from claiming it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: ok that makes sense but how do you explain there being no log of SP being created?! [5]. SmartSE (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I have no clue. The global account information sheds no light on this. It has SP being created before the rename: [6], and GP being created several years after the rename: [7]. It might have something to do with SUL (I always blame that when I can't figure out old accounts). TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

On my misguided edits

Hi, I have emailed you regarding our earlier discussion on my talk page. Hope we can sort this out soon. Thanks, Shannon [ Talk ] 03:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dumb question

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions

UPE = Undisclosed Paid Editor?

Sorry, I didn't sleep well last night... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Not so dumb. WP is full of alphabet soup. We need to know more acronyms than an airline pilot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks kudpung. And yes we do have plenty of acronyms! SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Pearcecruft

See my user page. There's a long list of single-purpose accounts who have added WP:PRIMARY references to Pearce's papers. Might be meatpuppetry, might be socks, might be student fanbois. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: Thanks for that. I guess it makes it a bit more complicated if he's notable, but things like Special:Contributions/74.219.71.20 make it hard to believe that there hasn't been a concerted effort to refspam this work over many years. Been away for a few days so have some catching up to do so can't look at this further now. And good to see you back and I hope things are getting better for you IRL. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I am not sure how much of this notability is the result of assiduous self-promotion, but I am pretty certain that most references to his work were added with, at the very least, a COI. And in many cases it's primary material of the form "recent research shows X, source, Pearce's recent research showing X". However, mostly it's between 2012 and 2015. I have not found an active spammer, as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Drafts by socks

I have marked two of them for G5,[8][9] you should delete both since you are more aware of the history of these accounts than others who will happen to decline G5 saying the user wasn't blocked at the time. Capitals00 (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Rich Riley

Can't this page simply be restored to a version prior to the sockpuppet's revision? i noticed it was up for years without any issue until the sockpuppet edited it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiggers8301 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Craiggers8301: It has redirected to Shazam (service) since August 2016 and had suffered from conflict of interest issues for many years prior to that. If you think that he is independently notable, then please start a thread at Talk:Shazam (service), listing the sources which demonstrate that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have moved the discussion over there. Greatly appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiggers8301 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Another possible sock

Hi Smartse, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HRS395, cheers. Another editor has just popped up at Gregory John Boyle to make the same changes - Sugarcube73. I wasn't sure what the appropriate step is to ask whether this might be yet another sock, are you able to check that out? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Melcous: User:JzG has already blocked them. Personally I don't think they are a sock though - they've been around since 2010 (way before the other socks) and would most likely have been caught by the CU that was run. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Another knob warrior with a fixation on Boyle. I will watch and see if xe asks for unblock, though. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)