User talk:Smartse/archive 14

Publishers Clearing House
Hi Smart. I'm poking around to get a couple more editors involved here if you're interested. It makes me uncomfortable to "argue" with volunteers and I would rather facilitate a thoughtful discussion among impartial editors.

Your feedback on Proactiv was just what I needed and I appreciate that you tend to really dig-in and be on-target. In this case, the client had no input on my draft except copyedits, so I'll have to own up to any bias personally ;-)

However, if you don't have time, I would understand. CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have to pass this time I'm afraid. I'm very busy IRL at the moment so only keeping an eye on my watchlist. It'll probably be like that all summer. SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Smart. I wanted to let you know I finally posted a second draft of the Proactiv article you had reviewed in February. I know that you are busy IRL, so I advertised it on COIN and on my Talk page, mentioning you in both places. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

speedy deleted article Outsell
Hi, I noticed you speedy deleted article Outsell. First, I have no connection to this article, other than I made a single edit to it, and I frankly don't care if this article about an undistinguished company is ultimately kept. However, I also noticed that the creator of the article contested the speedy deletion of the article, but not before it was deleted. I am presuming they did this per instructions on their talk page. The time between speedy notice and article deletion was about 14 hours, which means that it is likely that speedy notice and actual deletion took place during a time period when this user was logged out. This is a new user, and probably doesn't understand how to request an article restored, so in an impulse of quixotic chivalry, I am requesting that you do this. The article should then be AfD'd, where it will almost certainly be voted for deletion. However, I think this is procedurally the correct thing to do. Thanks! 78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi 78.26. Thanks for your note. That the user has now retrospectively disputed the deletion doesn't mean a great deal IMO because it was unambiguously promotional - if it was an A7 deletion then I would agree to restore it as it would require discussion, but there was nothing worth saving. User:DGG (who tagged it) is a very experienced admin and User:Ameuwissen almost certainly has a conflict of interest so I think it would be a waste of all our time to go through AFD even if it was required to do so. It could potentially be rewritten from scratch, but there is no way I will restore an article that starts with "offers clients the ability to engage with consumers across distributed sales networks from the national to the local level". SmartSE (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. I agree with DGG's PROD tagging.  I agree it was unambiguously promotional.  It shouldn't have passed AfC.  I said my piece, you gave a reasoned response.  Thanks for your time.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * CSD not PROD but yep. It's not the first time I've seen spammy content like this go through AFC. I've left them a note on their talk page. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

OMICS Group Conferences-Page requested for restroration
Hei SmartSE, I request you for restoring the OMICS Group Conference web page. I need information as to why my account is being investigated for a sockpuppet user! I think the web page had relevant links and genuine information. I don't think it is testified. Looking forward to your answer. Feel free to discuss on my talk page. Refer to the guideline of considering someone a sock by mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet Jackysea (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In the time I've been here I've never seen a new user appear like you did who isn't a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. It's obvious that you are trying to spam Wikipedia and that's a good enough reason to delete the page. I'll await the information from Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral‎ before doing anything else. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion?
Hi Smart. I saw that you were back and was wondering if you had time to provide one more opinion on an issue here. CorporateM (Talk) 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That was only a one off I'm afraid. Still going to be a few more months at least before I'm back properly. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
User:Willemite wants to discuss some changes to DCI Group. Since you were involved in that article before, you might want to join in the discussion. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts
Was your message about multiple accounts meant for someone else? I have only one account. Thanks. Miranda_Race 11:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miranda race (talk • contribs)

CJC-1293
In April, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

On using Webreflinks to fix article
Hi Smartse, I'm contacting you because your name is presented in the Webreflinks tool. I attempted to use it to fix the article Monty Hall problem but it was of no use, I'm guessing because it presents references in the form of and Gardner 1959b. Can the script be modified to process these kind of references or am I stuck with manual one-by-one reference fixing over there? Cheers. Gaba (talk)  01:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Gaba. Sorry for not getting round to replying until now. I only wrote the instructions for using reflinks and have no idea how it actually works. If this is still a problem User:Dispenser may be able to help, or else ask at WP:VPT. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for getting back to me. I'll leave a message at 's talk page and see if he can do anything about that issue. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  13:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Steps to restore or rewrite MyPRGenie page
Requesting to restore / rewrite our page, MyPRGenie. The page was removed for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" reasons. Other companies in this space (e.g. Vocus, Cision, Prnewswire) have active pages (some also with issues). We feel it is fair and logical that we should also have our page up.

However with that being said, we would like to make an example of proper content so we don't get flagged again. The rewrite of our page will focus on objective history and description and avoid promotion or advertising copy.

Please consider this and let me know how to proceed. Thanks, --Ginslo (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Ginslo.


 * Hi Ginslo. Thanks for your note. I'm not active here at the moment, so I can't help you very much unfortunately. If you haven't already read it, take a look at this guide to writing your first article. The most important thing is to find high quality sources about the company before starting. If you create a draft at User:Ginslo/draft and post at WP:HELPDESK or WP:COIN someone will hopefully give you some pointers. Good luck. (And yes there is a lot of crap on Wikipedia, but we have to start cleaning it up somehow). SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Ginslo. I have a PR background and edit heavily on marketing topics. I would be the most appropriate editor for you to work with. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done a very rough cut of the most poorly sourced and/or most promotional material from Cision and PR Newswire. Hopefully an editor will eventually improve those articles neutrally and with proper sources. I did not look at Vocus, because it appears to have been authored by another Wikipedia consultancy, and it would therefor be inappropriate for me to participate. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New ant task force
Hello Smartse! I see you have edited a lot of ant-related articles. You may be interested in the recently created ant task force. Check out the task force's subpage and see if you're able to help out with any of the open tasks (or add new tasks). This list of ant-related open access may prove useful for expanding stubs and DYKs. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Abayima
The reason was lack of notability or news coverage, however there are already citations from several, including CNN which I just added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edokoye (talk • contribs) 09:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of HiveColab
Reason was for lack of non-primary news sources. Added references from BBC, United Nations and AllAfrica.com --Edokoye (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

MonaVie Awards Sourcing
Greetings, I hope this message finds you well. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding your standards for measuring credibility of sources {WP:SOURCE and WP:RS) with MonaVie, like for instance why the a Salt Lake Tribune Article written in 2012 isn't a verifiable source, or a Utah Business article, or a youtube (wp:youtube) video showing Larsen winning the E&Y Entrepreneur of the Year award isn't legitimate. If you could please show me examples from the types of sources which are acceptable I would appreciate it. There are awards sections all over wikipedia which are sourced exactly as this one and they have yet to be removed. Is it the placement of the awards section that bothers you as well? Looking forward to your thoughts. Blueskymorning (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Blueskymorning


 * Hi Blueskymorning. The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT. We need to determine whether the awards are significant or not before including them and the only way we can do that is if sources other than the company or the organisation that gave the award discuss it and why it was given. As far as I can tell, none of the awards have received any sufficient coverage to be included. Some of the sources you cited are particularly poor, e.g. this press release and this article doesn't even mention any awards. You are right that there are similar sections all over Wikipedia and I remove them whenever I find them (as do others). I can't find any examples from the commercial world that would demonstrate what would be required to include the awards, but they would need to be similar to those that discuss Oscars and Nobels given to people. I hope that helps. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lexi Placourakis - Speedy Deletion
Hello, I'm contesting the speedy deletion of the Lexi Placourakis article. I cited a major newspaper as a source AZCentral.com for the reason she was notable (being a successful plus sized model, represented by major agencies but not living in Paris or New York), which under the notability summary is sufficient. My source was verifiable, and reliable. I presented a stub, at best, which does not qualify the article for deletion. I must ask if you checked my source before deletion?

AZCentral.com - Lexi Placourakis - AZCentral.com is owned by Gannet Media. This is the parent company of USA Today, and 23 television news stations. This is a verifiable source, with a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not a blog. Thus, A7 is not applicable.

I also cited her personal website, HERE which is setup and managed by her modeling agency representation. She is represented by Ford, Heffner & Dawson. These agencies have numerous models with notable clients who have articles. They have numerous links to the pages setup by these agencies as verification of their representation.

I also presented significant coverage of the subject, by addressing her directly, in detail and not just passing mentions.

I am not affiliated with her in any way. I was merely looking for more information about her, after noting that she had over 100,000k likes on facebook and was in numerous catalogs and fashion spreads I had seen. Upon noting the lack of a Wiki Article, I wrote one.

Summary:


 * 1) Significant coverage.
 * 2) Reliable sources.
 * 3) Independent writer.

All three principal criteria for notability were deliberately met. Would you please review this and advise? I do not think this met the A7 criteria for speedy deletion.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenbates (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I deleted the following:

Lexi Placourakis is a plus size model. She is notable for being represented by major agencies such as Ford, Heffner, and Dawson - yet not being located in New York or Paris.


 * Even if the source you've linked to above had been cited it would still have qualified for deletion via A7 as it does not explain why she is important. Because it was speedily deleted you can go ahead and recreate it, but it is probably a wise idea to do it in a sandbox so you can work on it without it being deleted. To demonstrate notability you will need more than that single source however - it is wise to check that these exist before creating the article. SmartSE (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you back yet?
And can I tap you to help out on a couple articles where I have a COI?

I understand if you don't want to - IMO, every editor is entitled to their own personal preference on whether they want to work alongside paid editors or not. The time of an experienced volunteer that exercises good judgement is an extremely valuable resource to an editor in my position - forgive me if I am pestering. CorporateM (Talk) 12:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of back... but I'm not sure for how long and I'm not really in the mood for COI reviewing at the moment. And thanks for the note below - the article looks good, but I don't think I did enough to earn a badge. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Proactiv
I wanted to let you know an article that you made substantial contributions to has been awarded GA. In case you wanted to add a GA badge. CorporateM (Talk) 04:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
...William 14:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

MORE project, CNN iReport
Hey there! Saw you've been working the MonaVie page and wanted to drop you a line. Previously the MORE project had a single line in the company overview section, linked only by the company page and that has never been reverted. I made the new section with the introduction of the CNN Philanthropy page. You said that I cited zero independent sources, is iReport not independent? Looking forward to your thoughts.Blueskymorning (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Blueskymorning


 * ireport is user generated content so is self published and therefore of no use to us. The reference you cited says "Not vetted for CNN" twice. SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Doc. If there's one thing I don't like it's unknown academics spamming their work all over the place. It's more damaging than normal the standard PR crap because it's harder to detect. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And they've been doing it for at least two years...I noticed that took care of a few, and she's had a run-in with one of those cryptic accounts as well, the one you pointed out,, in a few edits here. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed it had been going on a while. "I had an account before... There is no cake and flowers for having an account, you only get bully, harassment and attack." makes sense when you look at their edits with those accounts. It seems that if the edit filter doesn't put them off then it might be time for a ban. PS. got an aeropress yet? SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of moving parts for early in the morning... I'm not likely to leave my Bodum french press, no. Besides, I'm not really a coffee snob per se, though I'm picky about the process--I buy whatever non-Maxwell House coffee is on sale. Starbucks, Gevalia, whatever. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha. Just wait til you drop your french press on the floor and it breaks. I most certainly am a snob what with my naturals, bourbons etc. I've even got a kilo on it's way made with my own humanure! SmartSE (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TMI, SmartSE. That's disgusting. I assume you live alone. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the ping, Drmies, and thanks to both of you for cleaning this up. I do remember the previous account. Lots of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and removal of academic sources that contradicated the account's POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I'm a longtime fan so if I get to give a shout-out because I have run into you in an article history, I'm tickled. Well, Master of Puppets set up a filter and that should take care of it. In the meantime, I'm sure my JM index puts me in the racist demographic (whatever that is), but I think I can live with that. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discrimination
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.35.242 (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Working on the edit filter, I'd like to make sure I don't miss anything - would you be able to give me a list of all of the IP addresses used up 'til this point? Hopefully it's not too much hassle - I'm just not sure how many pages have been affected, so I'd like to be sure. m.o.p  16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There are an awful lot of them! Here's a flavour (I'm getting most of them from Drmies contribs):




 * Is that enough? Thanks for your help btw. SmartSE (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Holy moly. That's a start, haha. Do you need more, Master? In my contributions, it's the ones from the last few days marked "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion...". The list of articles in that ANI thread is pretty complete, though SmartSE took care of the others--all the others, I think. Yes, thank you so much for volunteering your time and energy. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, the IP claimed (in the earlier ANI thread, I believe) that the book was actually published. Well, it is, I suppose, by "Ultravisum". Their website doesn't list a catalog, but an advanced search (for the word "a", including in product descriptions), delivers this result--hope you can read it. It lists two books: the Meng book and this one. Hence, it is "sort of" published. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's 'books' only available on CD... Hmm SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, Drmies, but I just wanted to get a sense of the dynamic range so that we don't miss any addresses.
 * Filter is up and set to warn, then disallow, per the conditions listed inside. I've made it incredibly specific, so it shouldn't ever create a false positive. m.o.p  17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I just realised that added it a few days ago as well. That might be a one off though as I can't recall seeing any others from that range. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know if anymore come from that range and I'll see what I can do.
 * Also, to touch on the book - Google lists it as published by Jenia Meng. Seems to fall under SPS. m.o.p  18:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Master of Puppets, thank you so much for your good work. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express
Hi Smart. If you have the time/interest, I would be interested in your thoughts here (some context here). This company has previously used a lot of socks, SPAs, and non-disclosed paid accounts, and I am concerned that now that they have disclosed, editors may erode NPOV out of sympathy for the article-subject. That being said, it's also possible some adjustments are needed and I am overly critical out of frustration with a company.

Usually in cases like this there are a lot of at-a-glance views, which lead to poor assumptions and whatnot and I thought of you as someone who may sink their teeth in a bit more. CorporateM (Talk) 12:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've commented there. I don't think there is a problem. I'll add it to my watchlist though. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Smartse blocked because of the username. Then, another editor removed their entry from the reward board, incorrectly saying that they are banned.  Editing on behalf of a blocked user is not entirely prohibited. When I read their entry, it looked like they were using the reward board as somewhat of a soapbox. Should their entry be restored? &mdash;  rybec   19:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The user Suburban_Express was criticized and blocked because some user(s) felt that it seemed to be shared username. Pursuant to the block, our posts to the reward board and bounty board were deleted, presumably because the username was blocked. I have registered a new username that is specific to an individual and is therefore compliant with wikipedia rules, and re-posted our entries on the two boards. Suburban Express President (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be removed. User:DGG nominated the bounty board for deletion as a result of that post and it's looking like the board will be marked as historical as a result. Like it or not, that soapboxing is now part of Wikipedia's history.


 * Considering the socks, canvassing, soapboxing, NPOV, harassment, and general trolling issues, a username violation seems like the most technical reason for a block. But if they are disclosed now and saying they will point out errors, it seems we should wait to see what they prepare, though I do not have high hopes for it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into the history of the socks, but yes the only reason to block User:Suburban express was the username. Their post at the reward board doesn't appear to contravene any guidelines so as long as the reward board says that monetary rewards are allowed it should stay (not that I agree with it). SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Surprised to see support for a Lead that omits all the controversy, despite WP:LEAD, but I guess that's consensus for you. I'm going to move on to Edelman (firm) - been on my To Do list for years. I use to work there about 7 years ago or so. And those articles are more in-line with my usual coverage area. CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that makes much sense either, but we appear to be in the minority and I'm not overly bothered. I'll be interested to see your progress with Edelman - there were certainly plenty of sources around when I wrote Richard Edelman. SmartSE (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I made some bold edits to Richard Edelman. Feel free to revert anything you don't like. Daniel Edelman needs work too, but I'll stick to Edelman (firm). It's tough finding historical sources for any company more than 20 years old, but I'll have to find what I can. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's as far as I'm going on the Edelman page. I was going to bring it up to GA, but it was a more boring article than I expected. At least it now resembles the beginnings of an ok page ;-)   CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Marjut Rimminen
Why did you delete my contribution without even warning me? During the past days I have tried to contribute to the en-wikipedia after 15,000 successful edits in fi-wikipedia, and today most of my contributions have been deleted, some even without warning. This is no way to welcome a newcomer. –Kotivalo (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Blatant copyright violations should be deleted on sight - there is no requirement for you to be notified (although I admit I should have told you afterwards regardless). I've now realised I made another mistake though as I had misinterpreted/slightly forgotten WP:CSD which does not include close paraphrasing. I have now restored Marjut Rimminen and Nazanin Aghakhani but I will be blanking them and the other articles per that policy until the close paraphrasing has been dealt with. As I mentioned on your talk page though, it is likely that they are not notable so will most likely be deleted eventually regardless - I am sorry that you did not discover this until now. May I suggest that you work on some existing articles to get a better idea of how articles should be written, particularly regarding sources, and start working on new articles later? Maybe look at some of the biographies that are featured articles. If you are unsure as to a subject's notability I will always be happy to take a look. Sorry once again for my mistake and I hope that you stick around - you've made me remember how difficult it is as a newbie round here. SmartSE (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
--     L o g     X    21:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FNDC5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precursor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board
Given we've kept it, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries about undo
No worries about undo at Électricité de France, no problem at all, some pages may be more relevant than others.

Have a great day!

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll notice I've removed another - why add pages that don't even mention it? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Similarly at United States diplomatic cables leak, no problem at all! Hope you are doing well! :) Some of those are actually mentioned at Streisand effect, and sourced! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Streisand effect. Many of these entries are sourced there, with explanations, you see? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can see WikiLeaks mentioned, but nothing about EDF. The others look fine though. SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And again, totally no problems! Thanks for your interest in the subject of freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Regarding changes in the Green Dot Corporation page, which were removed
Hi Smartse,

You have recently removed the "Reputation" section in the "Green Dot Corporation" wiki page, to which I had added some content. The reason you listed was: "we need secondary sources that discuss this, not primary sources".

In this case, an example of a primary source would be comments about the company's reputation from the company's own web site, or a quotes of a company official. The sources that I have cited are not primary sources. As a matter of fact, they may not even be secondary sources, because they don't represent a single entity that is providing information based on an analysis of primary sources. On the contrary, they are well known and well used independent sources, which are unrelated to the company.

Your concern about using primary sources may have been due to possible bias primary sources could sometimes have. The sources that I have used, by their very nature of being open to anyone, should statistically remove any bias from forming. In any case, they are not primary sources.

I undid the changes and left a comment that tried to relay what I wrote above in a small space. I figured I should send a more detailed message to clarify. Please let me know if you disagree.

Regards, Oreke (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Oreke. Thanks for writing me a note to explain your revert and sorry for taking a while to get back to you. I still think that they are primary sources - the reviews are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". More importantly than that (and what I should have said in the first place) is that they are user generated and therefore from the perspective of writing articles here 'unreliable'. That doesn't mean that I think that they are incorrect, but they shouldn't be used as sources here. If newspapers/magazines have written about GDC and mentioned the negative reviews on those sites, then we can include whatever they say as we generally consider them to be 'reliable' as they are written by journalists. I've had a look quick look on google news archive but haven't been able to find anything suitable. Please let me know if this makes sense now. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector)
I disagree with your redirect and effective deletion of this article; the third condition: "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981", in this case the event IS significant and the person's role is NOW well documented: the Spiegel cover story released today. Please remove the redirect and restore the original page. This man will be playing a central role in the future of art restitution law in Germany. Rpm bln (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a textbook case of BLP1E which was why I was bold and redirected it. He is only known for his role in the art find - nothing else (#1). He's also clearly a recluse who is likely to remain a low-profile individual (#2). Finally I disagree that his role is "substantial and well-documented" - there are no way sufficient sources to write as long an article as John Hinckley,_Jr.. Your claim that he will be important in the future is crystal balling. If he becomes more important we can recreate the article, but we should be conservative until then. Considering this, I am not going to revert my redirect, but there is nothing to prevent you doing so if you disagree with me, although if you do, I will take the article to WP:AFD for the rest of the community to decide it's fate. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the German wiki page. I live in Germany, and from the fact that every day for weeks an entire page of the Süddeutsche newspaper (like the New York Times of Germany) has been devoted to this is more than crystal balling.. there are going to be dozens of books published on this topic, and hopefully it will even force Germany to make a law which forces individuals to return stolen art. I work in the field. I know a number of people directly involved personally. I understand and appreciate your conservative stance on the matter and will take no steps. Just remember my having told you: you are wrong on this one. I realise that is not evidence and not admissible on Wiki ; ) Cheers Rpm bln (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ben Emmerson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gross indecency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yangpyeong Station
Jungang Line Yangpyeong Station opened in 1939. Also, Jungang Line Yangpyeong Station is a major station of Yangpyeong County. --0lympic (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Err ok. What's your point? If there are two subjects with the same name, we should determine which is the primary topic and link to the secondary topic at the start of that article. SmartSE (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear, User:0lympic. If you think that Yangpyeong Station (Jungang Line) is the primary topic, open a talk at WP:RM. But the disambiguation page is not needed. Sawol (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Labtronics
Hello Smartse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Labtronics, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''I think the awards section is enough to credibly incidcate the impotance of the subject. Doesn't immediately look like it would survive AfD though. Additionally, this has a speedy declined a few years ago, and it's no less notable now than then.''' Thank you. Ged UK  12:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hugh H. Smythe
I did not feel the the article aboutHugh H. Smythe had sufficient information or references to be considered authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makro (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CSD carefully. As long as a claim of importance is made, articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion (unless the claim is obviously false). If you are in doubt, send the article to WP:AFD. In this case though there is ample evidence to support the claim in the 'external links' section of the article. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Do you mind if I undelete User:Young Dedicated Proper (YDP)? If I understand rightly, much of the discussion at the relevant WP:SPI centers around WP:DUCK and other editing patterns. Since it's harder for non-admins to participate when major pages like this have been deleted, I'd like to move-without-redirect this userpage to somewhere in the SPI's projectspace, similar to what I did with Sockpuppet investigations/New life88/YDP. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Go ahead. Thanks for letting me know though. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; page blanked and moved and protected, and now located at Sockpuppet investigations/New life88/User YDP. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Alan Juristovski
Back in October 2012 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Everbridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tweets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)