Archives

Before July 2009 August - December 2009 January - July 2010 August - October 2010 November - December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March - October 2011 November 2011 - January 2012 February - March 2012 April - July 2012 August - October 2012 November 2012 - May 2013 June - December 2013 January - May 2014 June - December 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

• Hi, welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message about anything you like. It's easier if conversations stay on one page though so if I've left you a message reply on your talk page and I should be watching it.

• If you want to know why your article was deleted, please read "Why was my article deleted?" before leaving me a note.

• If it's been a while and I haven't got back to you about something, then by all means drop me a note to remind me.

Hi @Smartse: Howdy. I sent this article to draft because it had two references which looked like spam links, basically linking to yoga site which is selling product. The editor states that Siddhasana and Virabhadrasana which are GA articles, and both use "yoga journal", which is a commercial site, journal. Its looks and reads like a spam link, and is seemingly selling product. It looks like a spam but he says its a reliable source. In the conversation the editor states they has been using the sites for a while. The GA reviewer on Siddhasana was blocked. [Yogapedia] is another commericial link to a shopping site. I think there is something dodgy here. scope_creep 19:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda odd input here but I just wanted to express appreciation for all of your hard work on wikipeida. People like you are what make this phenomenon function appropriately.

Good luck on that relentless quest for effectively navigating this overwhelming mass of ever-increasing misinformation within our beloved interconnected global consciousness. But I digress, thanks again.

I hope the future continues to find you well. Taktixal (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this was not the most scintillating detail, but it's a short article on, frankly, a mostly trivial person. In the source, he discusses the curriculum, and while it is not clear whether he had a hand in designing that, he appears to be more involved than just showing up for the announcement. I have no strong feelings about this, but I don't see how it is a negative. BD2412 T 18:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: This would be better discussed on the talk page wouldn't it? Now that we've started though, my reading of the fairly low-quality source (essentially a mouthpiece for the Indonesian government) is that the article is about GISAIDs activities, rather than Bogner and he was representing them. It's already included in the GISAID article, so I don't see why such a run-of-the-mill activity merits inclusion in his biography too. And yes, I agree that he's not super notable, but that isn't a reason to try to plump up the article with trivial details. SmartSE (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about the reliability of the source, I would suggest taking that up at WP:RSN. It is used as a source in hundreds of articles. If you want to remove all of the trivial details from this subject's article, there will be no article left. BD2412 T 18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smartse, I understand your reasons for removing the ANI post. Where should I forward the evidence privately? Vickyfoxx (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vickyfoxx: I am forwarding it to WP:ARBCOM who are best placed to deal with it. SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I apologize if I posted in the wrong place and used a new account, but it's because I fear retaliation and harassment from these kinds of users. I myself don't want to out or harass anyone. I hope the Wikipedia community can look into this matter. Vickyfoxx (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please no one answers me I ask you how it is possible to be unblocked for Blocked Sochkpuppet Gaetano Minale ...... it's been seven years now, Thank you Gaetano Minale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.180.196 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://it.wikipedia.org/key/Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni_sospetti_di_GAETANO_MINALE?fbclid=IwAR2m-zLK-9tRw7uUrLSTxYW4Bh2Lj1dK2IOEYUUOHwXToXkiB26KCtgrXcM 79.12.180.196 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gaetano Minale

https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2Z1Vtbyj8PMLl1DvZY3qe6171Ip6gmg4yq01CoHyqyPF7khDzAsbqX3K8_aem_AcUwDQKUwi9Pp013CvPEbvWvHXy8TTBAZTtjVmdElZRpeSE8EJnxLYszk7rAPzMzf1GRcADYfZ4hVT7_3mx0i7RB 79.12.180.196 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bestandlastalbum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smartse. I'm trying to clean up the Geoffrey von Maltzahn article, as he's a partner at the firm I work for, Flagship Pioneering. Given my COI, I won't be editing the article directly and will instead make requests for editors to review.

I see that you added the flag to the article (alerting readers that it "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies") back in June 2023. As such, I'm hoping you can help me with my first request, which I've posted on the article's Talk page. I'm proposing that the Awards and recognitions section be removed entirely. To me, this feels like the most potentially promotional part of the page and a good place to start.

I would be grateful if you could review the request and let me know what you think. Many thanks. Lindy D at Flagship (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Smartse. I've posted another request on the article's Talk page that I'm hoping you can look at. I took a stab at trimming down the Career section by removing superfluous details and focusing only on the most notable moments in his career, particularly those that have received ample media coverage. Please let me know what you think. Lindy D at Flagship (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse, nice work on Rotmans. If you still remember you blocked Blmmta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they were accepting paid jobs on Upwork but were not disclosing them on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, they were wrongly tagged as a sock of User:Amansharma111. It is very clear now that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjutt and User:Blmmta were operated by the same person - could you please revisit their Upwork profile (or I can provide again) so you can easily verify this? It is important to rename Sjutt SPI as Blmmta, so we can have 30 October 2023 as the cutt-off date for speedy deletion. There is a lot of spam to clean up. Thanks for your efforts. 87.200.126.222 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@87.200.126.222: Sure email me at <username>wiki@gmail.com and I will take a look. SmartSE (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some years ago, you added a COI tag to Bloomberg Philanthropies, which remains there to this day, with the edit summary, "coi - written entirely by single purpose accounts". I assume you refer there to User:MartinVanBurenNo8, User:Home3879, and perhaps the still-active User:Draper765. I am contemplating pursuing the COI issue, and wanted to know your thoughts, and specifically if these edits were the ones you had in mind. While I don't know that it is fair to say that it was entirely written by SPAs, I would agree that the initial formation of this article raises questions. BD2412 T 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: That was perhaps a little over exaggerated of me, but the stats confirm that the majority of the content was written by close-to-SPAs. JoMarch868 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another account and Katherine Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is also in a horrendously promotional state and another SPA did initially disclose a COI: [1]. Blackbird68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another account with a singular interest in Bloomberg-related articles but who denied a COI. SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty blatant. I'm surprised the Philanthropies article is so choppily written, for all of that effort. BD2412 T 15:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Request for Reinstatement of Removed Content with Clarifications

Dear Editor,

Regarding to your recent edits on the vizhinjam port page, where you removed certain details related to nearby road and rail information, as well as the shipping distance details.

Firstly, I'd like to clarify that the nearby road and rail information that was provided is factual and verifiable. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, not every statement requires a direct citation, especially when the information pertains to basic, non-controversial facts, such as geographic data that can be easily verified through common knowledge or public resources. Therefore, the removal of this information may not have been necessary.

Secondly, regarding the shipping distance details that were also removed, this information was based on calculations provided by the Marine Traffic calculator, a widely used tool in the maritime industry. While I understand the need for reliable sourcing, I believe a more appropriate approach would have been to request a source for this information rather than removing it entirely. Wikipedia encourages editors to improve content rather than delete it when the information is potentially useful and verifiable.

I would appreciate it if you put tags for giving editors time to provide the necessary information rather than just removing the whole contented. :If you have any question let me know.

Thank you for your time

Best regards,

Hobby Writerae Hobbywriterae (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbywriterae: I am afraid you are mistaken if you think that information does not require a citation - everything has to be verifiable from published sources. Unless sources have made a comparison about this and other ports, then our article should not either. The onus is on editors adding information to provide reliable sources and if they are absent anyone else is free to remove content. Please do not revert edits without providing a policy-based reason for doing so. The article is still a complete mess and needs substantial clean up to make it compliant with core principles of Wikipedia. SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smartse, you deleted a page (Osagie Elliot) almost a year and some months, however overtime the subject has done so much more that is enough to establish notability, he was nominated for Emmy award for his role in developing and executive producing a revolutionary Metaverse concert experience, so I wanted to inform you, though there are more sources established since the last deletion, Thank you Vector diehard (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PLCPlayback.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose my view of the prospects of Draft:Gaetano Minale becoming a tolerable article is greatly different from yours; but I don't think that "Having been promoted so persistently at it:WP as to have been deleted and salted there" (or similar) is a valid deletion rationale here at en:WP. However, if you have evidence for UPE toward this draft, that's a different matter. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmartSE,

I acknowledge that Andrew Osei-Karmen and CouponBirds was deleted under G11 (unambiguous promotion or advertising). I would like to request that the article be restored so I can rewrite it in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines and remove any promotional content.

This would allow me to improve the content without it being promotional and to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and notability.

Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdatpal (talk • contribs) 05:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Smartse, please block this editor who is obviously a WP:COI, all the articles he has worked on have a promotional purpose, the same has been indetified in the Spanish version where he repeatedly tries to remove the deletion tag and keep an article he was paid for. Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smartse,

Do you have any familiarity with this editor, Dmitry Bobriakov? They are a new editor, having made only 40 edits, but they state they are part of a COI patrol which I've never heard of. I see they quickly responded here and wondered what your opinion might be. Liz 01:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Sorry about the delay. I don't have much familiarity with them other than seeing their various posts. From what they've said, I think they were finding the jobs on Upwork. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it is most likely they are a rival UPE which is how they know which articles are affected. with the cat and mouse of UPE, now most adverts there for articles are private, so only those who bid for them would know which articles are affected. That said I haven't looked into these articles on there, so they could also be public. SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you reverted some of my edits, because they were a "BLP vio". I apologise for the inconvenience. I reverted my incorrect edits. But there's plenty of times when I edit Wikipedia, that I just have no idea what I'm doing. It's really important when you're editing Wikipedia, make sure what you're doing. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for edit warring. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mephedrone has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've recently been active at the article for Mark Kotter.

I wonder if there's any chance of you taking any admin action against the promo-only/COI/UPE/SPA user who created that article and the one for Kotter's company Bit.bio?

The user's history of disruptive editing and UPE is clear from their userpage and the connected thread at COIN, here [2].

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the present situation.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12: I'd seen the COIN thread but hadn't seen the offwiki evidence until I did a little research of my own. I see what you mean now and the various explanations they've provided appear to be lies. I'll block the account and keep an eye on the articles. The IPs should be autoblocked. SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, much appreciated.

It's sad that someone would repeatedly attempt to gaslight others when the promotion was so obvious and the nature of their UPE so easily established.

Best wishes and thanks again for your swift action, Axad12 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following recent goings on at the user's talk page, can I suggest that talk page action be revoked?

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the very uncivil post-block behaviour from the user (involving many aspersions against myself), the talk page access has also been used post-block in an attempt to collaborate with an unblocked user, here [3].

Just a sample of the barrage of uncivil comments:

Your message reeks of arrogance, ignorance [etc]

your "evidence" is laughable

you're just flinging baseless accusations

It's easy to make vague allegations, but hard to stand up to scrutiny when you're put on the spot, isn't it?

Wikipedia's policies aren't designed to be weaponized by people like you who clearly have an agenda

it's incredible how quickly people like you jump to conclusions

you clearly don't understand Wikipedia’s principles of fairness and due process. Do better.

It's ironic how you claim to be fighting against promotional abuse

Etc., etc. Clearly this is a user who is primarily using their talk page access to attack me rather than making a serious attempt to remove a block. Axad12 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12: I don't think that's bad enough to revoke talk page access. I'd suggest that you just ignore it but I will keep an eye on it. SmartSE (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've been called far worse on Wikipedia. Far, far worse and it is all like water off a duck's back.

Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The COI template's documentation includes (highlighting per original):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning...

Simply positing a link to a COIN entry on the talk page does not meet that requirement.

In any case, the template on Mark Kotter is redundant to the more specific UPE template,Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]