User talk:Smartse/archive 21

Gofa
Hi Smartse,

You indef protected this back in 2012. Could you move Gofa (disambiguation) there?

Thanks — kwami (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure thing ✅ SmartSE (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

SMU School of Law
Good day, User: Manderiko have reverted what you have eliminated in SMU School of Law to reduce advertisements and overly detailed articles. Im not sure his repeated reverts constitute to any COI his/her to protect the page to his/her version.Applepineapple (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Company Page
Hi @Smartse You recently deleted an article for Commercial & General under a G5. From what I understand the consultant that uploaded the content is not/nor has ever been a banned or blocked user. I don't think they can create a page if they are banned or blocked? The content of the page is sound and can be checked by all references. I encourage you to check Commercial & General for yourself and review to reverse this action? Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baynsey77 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * created the article and was found here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Highstakes00/Archive to be editing using the same IP address as a long-term abuser of Wikipedia. How is that you came to understand that they were not banned? I will not be reinstating the article. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you watch Quadriga Fintech Solutions?
A very bizarre story, just coming into focus. I think we need to be very flexible in what we say because the official story doesn't make much sense. The sources only refer to "questions" or similar, so I think that's about all we can include - the official story that doesn't make sense, and the fact that there are questions. Any help appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Shall do. And yeah was reading about it yesterday. Agree that there doesn't seem to be much certainty in RS. SmartSE (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

tkabal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol
The point being made where the edit was added, is widely miscited. The article referenced clearly outlines the math utilized so people can have a reference for the counterpoint. Without it, the Wikipedia page is one-sided and not providing a good source of information on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkabal (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Answered on their TP (5/2) SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Blue_Rose_Publishers edit
Hello SmartSE. I made edits because I was researching self-publishing in India. I am not directly or indirectly compensated for my edits by anyone. I just found content and tried to make an addon in Wikipedia. There no one is directly or indirectly paying me for my edits. I just thought it will helpful for others that's why I created that page. the only purpose to create that page is to help people who searching for publishing in India... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabshukla (talk • contribs) 10:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User blocked for UPE. SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sonia Mackwani
Hi Smartse, you just nominated Sonia Mackwani page for deletion. I found few things that make her notable: National People's Awards Karmaveer Puraskaar, Author of 3 notable books, founder of a non-profit organization that helps poor children. What else you need to justify her notability why you want to delete this page? However i tried to find other resources and add on her page, please check if that work.SamSamK (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As explained at the AFD, they would need to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Please keep comments about this at the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

What3words
Hi SmartSE, I hope my adding `advert` and `third-party` to What3words was not excessive. Egroeg5 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Pharmacy2U updated content
Hello Smartse.

My name is Chris Cantrill and I left some updated copy on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pharmacy2U.

Is it possible to get some feedback on it?

Also, I am really struggling with how to upload a company logo - getting lost in the tutorials! Any help greatly appreciated!

All the best,

81.110.178.130 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris. Sorry for not commenting on the content yet. The main problem with it is that it is as you point out, 'copy' which is not the same as an encyclopedia. Additionally, because you have completely rewritten the content, it is not easy to see what has been changed. It would be better if you could explain sentence by sentence what is being added or removed. I will try and get round to explaining in more detail, but you can also place request edit on the talk page to ask another editor to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you and no worries - that info is super helpful and I'll get cracking on a more detailed breakdown of the changes. It has been written as an encyclopedic entry but will make the exact changes clearer.

Thanks again - C Cantrill (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

OmniScriptum has not 40 Wikipedia imprints. the 2 imprints that published Wikipedia content are mentioned later on in the Article, and are not active.
My edit of accurate info was removed, replaced with inaccurate info about 40 mystical Wikipedia imprints of this company that have no source. I have checked the imprint information of this company by actually buying books from Alphascript, and there is no mention of the OmniScriptum company in the impressum page. So statement that the company has 40 Wikipedia imprints is false.

Afueras
I've indeffed him. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (posted above) is obviously an employee of the company as well. Should have warned them ages ago. but would appreciate you keeping an eye on them. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

possible UPE
Hi. Long time no see, I hope you are well. Could you please take a look at special:contributions/Viralvilla? Its evident that they are new not just at UPE, but on enwiki as well. There also seem to be use of multiple accounts, but the other user might just be a random newbie coming across a newly created article of an unknown individual, and an IP editing consistingly too. While the account edited Vaibhav Palhade, the IP edited other article. — usernamekiran (talk)  08:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying until now, I haven't been around much. This looks to have been taken care of though. SmartSE (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Presumed guilty?
I was quite surprised to see this editor blocked. I don't know how UPE blocks work, and I've only seen the SPI and the COI noticeboard discussion (where he's only mentioned), so let me know if there's anything I'm missing. It seems strange that a long-standing editor could be blocked simply on the presumption that he's involved with a recent sockfarm. He's been around since 2005, has made tens of thousands of edits and has extensive contributions to language articles. As far as I can see, his activity at AfC, which appears to be what has arisen the suspicion, only dates back to two months ago. I don't know, I would have expected some discussion maybe, and if found guilty of COI then probably a ban from reviewing or something of the sort. But an outright indefinite block? – Uanfala (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. You're right that there isn't a great deal of discussion about the on-wiki. The reason I blocked them is that nearly all of the articles written by Sockpuppet_investigations/Japanelemu socks were accepted by them. There are other pieces of evidence that I've shared privately with other admins which I consider to make it exceedingly unlikely that this was happening by chance but I would prefer not to share those publicly, since that would only make it harder for us to detect this in the future. I was obviously aware that they've been here since 2005, but obviously that is no excuse for abusing editing rights. As that SPI shows this is a very sophisticated operation and having a "good cop" to accept articles via AFC was very valuable to them and I see no other option for such a gross case of abuse but to block them indefinitely. They are of course welcome to request an unblock, but they have not done so. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Really?
(This edit) Thinker78 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You need to examine that diff more carefully. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nathalie Gagné Article Deletion
Good day SmartSE, I read your notice about the deletion of Nathalie Gagné's article. I’m new to Wikipedia and I can confirm that I am not directly or indirectly being compensated for my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Martini (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Luther Burbank
Greetings,

I am new here, please forgive any poor etiquete on my behalf. I wasnt sure how else to communicate with you, hence this post. Another user was kind enough to inform me that my edit to the Luther Burbank page had all or part removed due to copyright infringement. I can understand that, however, I am hoping you might be so kind as to enlighten me with any potential knowledge concerning the following items:

1) My original edit is not an acyive link, while thd othrts were, can you possibly explain this dichotomy?

2) Could you possibly inform me how much of the original quote I can use under the fair use act, how many quotes I may use from the same author and what specifically was wrong with the quotation I posted.

3) Can you please explain why the rest of the non copyrighted information I posted was removed, INCLUDING the information regarding his membership in a Eugenics Society that was included before my edits?

If I obtain permission from Mr. Edwin Black (or his publisher), the SF Chronicle & the current copyright holder of Mr.Burbanks book which I quoted, could I then repost my origjnal edits, albeit properly credited?

Being a HIGHLY respected man of influence, Mr. Burbank's involvement and approval of Eugenics had a SIGNIFICANT impact on countless lives, not go menyion Adolph Hitler & coinyless millions who went along with him. Not including this VITAL aspect of HISTORY, further opening doors for it to potentially be repeated...

Hopefully you can help me find a more acceptable method of conveying this within the bounds of your rules, the idea of this site being user editable, protecting free speach and not whitewashing history to find a compromise between all or none..

Thank you very much for your assistance. This is the very best user name of them all (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for asking and thanks for adding the information as this does seem to be something important left out of the biography previously. If by "not an active link" you mean it is because the text you added was copy and pasted from the source and was deleted as a result. You can use some under fair use but it's rarely appropriate to include large sections of text copied from a source regardless of copyright - we want to summarise sources for our readers not just copy them. In the case of the SF Chronicle source, I reviewed it but I could not see Burbank mentioned anywhere in it. You can't link him to Hitler if no published sources have made this link, This is the information that I kept from your original edit and made some further changes to, which show that Burbank's interest in eugenics has been discussed in multiple sources. There is undoubtedly more that could be added e.g., but it must be consistent with what others have written about him. If as you claim here his involvement in eugenics had a significant impact on others then you need to present sources confirming this specifically, and not two sets of sources, one that links Burbank and eugenics and another linking eugenics to atrocities. Hopefully that covers your questions, but if not please let me know. SmartSE (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies
Looks like we pushed full protect at the same time on Janis Joplan. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Massimo Boninsegni
Hello, I appreciate your comment but I am entirely in disagreement; I therefore restored the text that you have removed and would ask you not to continue to remove it because it seems to me that you are acting based on your opinion and interpretation of policies. Policies serve most of the time as mere guidelines, and ought not be interpreted in an overreaching way which may de facto render them counterproductive. While it is certainly reasonable to discourage individuals from writing about themselves, ultimately the decision of whether some content is appropriate or not should focus on its accuracy. I have never requested to have a Wikipedia page about myself, nor was I the person creating it -- I have absolutely no problem with it being removed altogether if need be. However given that someone thought at some point that there should be one, as long as it is out there I think I should be allowed to put out about me whatever information I deem relevant and useful. The notion that information about me should be withheld until someone else says something (possibly inaccurate), in which case I should intervene and correct it, is downright bizarre. Details regarding dual citizenship and personal beliefs are often deemed relevant and of interest, which is why I routinely see them on other pages. Massimods (talk 21:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Jucero
Thanks for your work on this--I do indeed find it odd that anyone would have invested-- or knowingly spent-- money on this. I'm intrigued enough that I am going to some looking around myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem and indeed it's an interesting topic! Not sure if this an RS, but this somehow links it to the plight of academic librarians which seems like quite the coincidence! I only had a brief look for sources yesterday, but I am sure there are more out there since the company shutdown in 2017. SmartSE (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Though not aa RS for notability, it does indicate general awareness of the device, and a realization of its (unintended) significance. My own career, tho, was spent in a library with a well-deserved international reputation for old-fashioned stodginess.  But it also gave the individual unit heads great autonomy., so I had an excellent opportunity to experiment.   DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Crayon Data
Thank you for leaving a message for the Crayon Data Page that was created by me. To answer your question, no i'm not being compensated by anyone. I've always been wanting to be a contributor on Wikipedia page and found that Crayon Data was an up and coming organization. I was inspired to create a page because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvindl1989 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Advice on topic ban
Hello, as someone who took part in the original discussion, could you advise, please? Nemo 09:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey sorry for not replying til now... I don't remember opining to begin with and it's not clear from your link what you're asking me to do. Are you still topic banned? SmartSE (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet
You have addressed a question to me: Latest revision as of 12:13, 24 September 2019 (edit) (undo) (thank) Smartse (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 917306957 by Rschen7754 (talk): This is not a place to make requests, and how come you can't edit Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet directly? (TW)) Tag: Undo: My answer falls into two parts. Firstly because of the conflict of interest where I am not encouraged to edit and Secondly because I am a 75 year old computer illiterate woman whose two attempts at editing were instantly reverted. This is a shame because I am currently in the process of having a publication come out in America in December this year which will change history and I had hoped Wikipedia might like to be part of that process, and involved in changing history, but it isn't looking hopeful at this time. Arbil44 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. The only reason I reverted is because as I said, your request was not in the correct place - you had editing WP:COI which is a guideline discussing how editors need to behave. Your request belongs at Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet where it seems you have already been discussing with other editors and you now seem to have posted there again. I am afraid though that you are mistaken if you think that Wikipedia is the place to change history and would point you towards WP:OR to discover why. Put simply, we report history, but we do not make it. SmartSE (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I must make sure I understand. Are you saying that, when this publication comes out in December, which will publish history as being changed for the first time in 233 years, it will not be welcome for this publication to be linked to Wikipedia? Arbil44 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify - a letter which has been deliberately hidden for 233 years will be published in December, together with a great deal of other research done by professionals. This letter changes recorded history, but must not be linked to Wikipedia even after it has been published?  Do I understand correctly? Arbil44 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Without reading the source and knowing where it is published it is difficult to say, but it should be left to other editors to decide if the source is used or not. At the moment it is only hypothetical. SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Boomtown Fair
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Boomtown Fair. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

David Nutt
The edits were made at the request Dr Nutt. He felt the alcosynth paragraph didn't reflect current situation and that material on it is irrelevant to his personal biography.

FYI, I'm new to this apart from reading the guidelines on biographies, so not sure how this "talk" proceeds...

Assistance editing Mark Lanier page
Hello,. I see that you have edited the Mark Lanier Wikipedia page in the past. Mark is a client of mine and I'd like to improve his article according to the suggestions in the banner at the top of his page. I've left a more detailed message explaining what I'd like to do on his talk page. Can you assist me? Thanks in advance for any help.

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft
Hello Smartse, I have addressed all the issues you brought up on my draft. Awaiting your approval before I post it. Thank you. Philipm1 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious account
FYI for an extra set of eyes. This editor is brand new and started making random non-essential edits including template tagging that only slightly more experienced editors would know to do. Possible sock building up an edit count to get confirmed? [] TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  03:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The Knowledge Academy
Can you please guide me which information can I update because i am new in wikipedia. So it will help me to update other educational institution article also. Can I update the company latest revenue as it seem it's shown 2017 data. I have valid source beta.companieshouse.gov.uk. Please let me know which type of information I will update. It really help me a lot to update other article. recently I have added the awards section with valid source. but someone undo my changes and say it's look promotional. i had choose that section because other article related to that article also have that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S9urav (talk • contribs) 11:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steeda


A tag has been placed on Steeda, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Largoplazo (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)