Hi Smartse, I've improved the page for FNDC5 few hours ago. I edited the paragraph "function" since it has been recently published a scientific work that shows new function for Irisin/FNDC5 in bone. My new add was working on that page for 2 hours but when I finally found the way to insert the correct link to the journal by a reference, it appears that was modified by you and all the new add was removed. Could you please let me know if I can do something to restore my entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.133.31.143 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. I've been working the COIN board for a while and looking at sockpuppeting/paid editing issues. In the course of that, I came across this but I don't see that you followed up at SPI or COIN. Did I miss something, or did you change your mind, or just get distracted? thx Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog. The case I was working on at time was spun out from Sibtain_007 to here. Neither the article or the user who created the article are listed there and six months on the only thing I can see that made me think it was written by them was that it was started in a sandbox and moved to mainspace to avoid NPP which was a common tactic of those socks. Oh actually - these edits were what lead me to the article in the first place - check that (blocked) users' contribs to the Adobe suite of articles which were listed in this bizarre page. Happy hunting! SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that group is still around somewhere btw - check Special:Contributions/Geogiaboy. If I wasn't already trying to do two jobs at once I'd try to help out. SmartSE (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for replying! i thought your call, that the account was a sock, looked accurate, and was surprised not to see it followed up on. i figured it was distraction.. and it sounds like it was. i actually came across that in a three-hour binge of looking a different set of socks/conflicted editors, so i totally understand. hang in there - it is always great to cross paths with you. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll hope be around more again at some point. How come you don't have a mop yet? Hunting socks is a lot easier when you can view deleted contribs as you can find the really crappy articles that get G11ed and it often leads to more that didn't get noticed. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have thought about it, but i have a lot of haters. would be contentious. and just recently, have been through too much drama at ANI - some of it self inflicted :( . maybe later this year or next though! i just noticed that you got the tools - congrats! Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC

Regarding this, the link given in the citation is a broken link, but I found a working one here. The article does not appear to even mention Richard Edelman or support the article-text; as far as I can tell, this is unsourced content about a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

i added an archive link to the right article. Yours is a completely different one! Can you revert? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the archive link, which was to a different source and for different text than what I was referring to. I reverted myself, then removed the part I was referring to, restoring the part you are referring to. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being rather blunt before - I was on mobile and with only one hand. I see why we got ourselves confused here as we were evidently mixed up over which source and which content we were discussing. I was also a little hasty to revert and wrongly assumed that I had added the content, when it was actually there before I started. I've had another look, and found that the quote in the removed content can be found here [1] and for some reason the wrong link was added, based on the hit piece at Source Watch. It's probably undue to include in the grand scheme of thing though. Sorry for not looking at it more closely before! SmartSE (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartse,

There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently nominated for deletion. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.

Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the top 10 contributors to the COI Noticeboard, expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.

Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 22:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing some of my errors. Would you be able to find out when it was invented/patented and start a page about the breeder? They own the rights to quite a few potatoes apparently... I don't know if they are a subsidiary of Meijer--I have found no evidence.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi no probs. It's a topic I have a special interest in. Plant breeders' rights last for 30 years for potatoes, so it would have been listed_{wow this shouldn't be red} in c. 2000, but the original cross would have been earlier in around 1993 as it takes a long time to develop a variety. Unfortunately there are few good sources for potato varieties, normally this site has more info, but it doesn't for this one and what I've written is original research. I'm growing some of these this year, so will try to remember to take some photos and add them to the article. What drew your attention to it? SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I very much doubt that the breeder is a subsidiary of Meijer. According to their website they're a small family-owned company and that's pretty typical of potato breeders. SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Source for introduction in 2000. SmartSE (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I bought them at Tesco for my dinner...Do you grow them in the UK, if you don't mind me asking? Yes, pictures of the plant would be good. I created a category on Wikimedia Commons. Do you grow anything else?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah ha. Yep, they're quite a popular variety here. I've also got Estima (potato), King Edward potato, Jelly (potato), Maris Piper, Markies (potato) and Marfona. How Maris Piper still doesn't have an article is beyond me. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

They come from a farm in Colwall, Worcestershire, owned by this man Phillip. Certified by the Organic Food Federation. Enough details for now; have a nice evening.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't been on much for a while; I actually thought you may have retired. I just spotted you at COIN here, glanced at your contribs and went, hey, he's back! You didn't seem that interested in working with me on pages where I have a COI, so I won't bother you with them. However, your devotion to following the sources and upholding high sourcing expectations is an example we should all aspire to follow, so I was happy to see you editing again. Lets pretend I gave you a teacup, or a hot cocoa or whatever it is someone should offer to welcome an editor that hasn't been on much in a while. CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers CM. I'm only back temporarily for now as I'm off work with a Colles' fracture from snowboarding (this guy makes it look easy) so I'm left-handed for now. Fortunately that doesn't interfere with removing crappy content, but additions will have to wait for the winter. And sorry about ignoring your COI requests - had a very full-on schedule for the last year. Now I'm remembering the addictive nature of watchlist refreshing! Hope all's well with you. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm always trying to subtly get a read on whether a particular editor enjoys collaborating with me even where I have a COI, or if I am dragging them to articles they don't really have an interest in, but never seem able to get a straight answer ;-)

If it's more of the former than the latter, I think the the Heather Bresch page could use some fresh discussion strings to hammer out stuff like primary sources, the dedicated Recognition section (promotional), and the lack of any substantial information about her primary claims to notability (lobbying for legislation, female CEO, CEO of a Fortune 500) and I was wondering if you have an interest in hammering out some edits with me.

It's been a very slow-moving article, due primarily to strong opinions about paid editing and the MBA controversy and could use the help of a disinterested editor that insists on following the sources. Perhaps I am canvassing a bit, since we share - I think - a similar POV of insisting on high-quality sources, something I have probably picked up in part from you, but have increasingly learned to value while you were out, as the absolute best method to respond to POV pushers of all kinds, who typically rely on mediocre sourcing to achieve their editorial agenda. CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 17:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help regarding page asap. Please! <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Hello, Please contact me asap regarding deletion of page Kate-Margret, we are ready to correct what ever is needed and all the info is related to the singer and we own all rights. How can we get help with this , and restore the page. Thanks, Kate.M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.35.254 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted because our notability standards for musicians are not met and consequently, there is nothing that can be done to restore the page at the moment (see WP:TOOSOON). Not that if affected the decision to delete the article, please note that paying people to create an article about yourself is very frowned upon here, especially as in this case where the editor did not disclose that they were being paid. Regards SmartSE (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Smartse, just a note to let you know that I concluded that BiH has not been socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH). BiH left a note on my Talk page (before my findings) complaining about your removing his autopatrolled right. Actually, I think he should have talked to you, not me, but putting that aside, I know that the logged basis for the removal was because of concerns about paid editing, but I wanted to make sure that possible socking wasn't part of your reason. Also, he complained that you did not discuss this with him. Even if your determination is that he's not entitled to the right, it might be constructive to reach out to him and give him more information. All up to you, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for the heads up, I should have explained myself at the time. Socking wasn't really the issue, although it's abundantly clear from my perspective that they are doing something dodgy and I hope you think I made the right decision. SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you made yourself clear in the log. I just think it would be fairer to make yourself clear(er) to BiH. I confess I'm on the fence about the paid editing issue, which, as you know, is a tricky thing from a policy perspective. In any event, you're not alone in your reaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed that you left a long message on BiH's Talk page. Nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask why you undeleted Sam Jane Brown? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A good question! I didn't mean to at all and I must have misclicked while checking the deleted contribs. I've just redeleted it. Thanks for letting me know. SmartSE (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

• On the Microorganism page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I am in contact with them about Hollywood Reporter, Janice Min and other pages. I saw your name pop up in a few places, cleaning up after their PR agency or blocking their agency's accounts[2] for advertising. I noticed their agency edited quite a few other un-related pages and I got the feeling there was probably a larger investigation and cleanup going on, but I didn't find anything searching COIN or SPI.

I was wondering if there was some context/history you might be able to give me, or a link to a central discussion where I could get more background? Do you suspect this agency has other accounts not yet discovered? I was considering seeing if I could get an introduction to the agency, where I can make a best effort to persuade them to disclose all their accounts if there are more. CorporateM (Talk) 22:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kip_78. I recognised the username from before (not exactly sure where) and had presumed that it was inactive which is why I let it be. That group of articles have had other PEs though e.g. Special:Contributions/Adotrde. It's difficult to know whether they are linked to this group of socks or whether Troy Fodemski has just hired someone else. I'm not aware of any other users, but as usual it's impossible to tell who are socks and who are meats and there is a whole lot of dodginess going on! SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The PR agency world is notorious for being a revolving door both for clients and for employees; even when an employee and client both stay at the same firm, the staff is often re-assigned to different client accounts, so you would see a new account by whoever was shuffled to that client. However, since they are all puppets of the same paymaster, they will make similar edits. Sometimes one employee will make the same exact edit as a prior employee or a prior PR firm, without even knowing the edit was already made previously.

In my opinion, they are more like meats of a group account(the corporation), though technically the group account was never registered on Wikipedia. I'm not sure of what our Meat rules say exactly, but in my opinion paid editors that do not have editorial control over their contributions, because they are following instructions by their paymasters, are some kind of meat or group account.

CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, I will see what I can find out. As it is in most cases, it's unlikely there is intentional "dodginess" going on, as oppose to ignorance. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't really matter - it's the content that's important, but when people use throwaways it's a lot harder to track down the crap. I'm afraid that I have become rather cynical again about the majority of PE (at least the recent ones at COIN) since the problems (copyvio, fake refs etc.) must have been intentional and presumably is intended to pass of PR copy as referenced material. SmartSE (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In my experience and based on data I've collected (100+ assessments I provided over 1 year), there are very few cases (less than 10%) where it is an ABF situation. However, there are also very few cases (30%) where the article-subject's objectives are reasonably aligned with Wikipedia's content policies and even fewer (10-15%) where they make useful edits. Most editors contribute in a manner that makes Wikipedia reflect their own views; they only become POV pushers when their views conflict drastically with the source material, as is the case in most COI situations. So my perspective is that we should continue to AGF and be civil (except in the most extreme cases) even as we're blocking accounts and deleting articles and never assume a COI isn't in that 10-15% exception.

PS - When I saw that you patrolled User:CorporateM/Public Storage, I realized I should have pinged you here, since we were both involved in the Public Storage page previously, before I had a COI. I got the sense that you preferred investigating covert practices more than this line of work, but figured I should at least have pinged you, given you an FYI, etc. so you're in the loop. CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Please could you have a word with User:80.168.218.99? I've given him a {{uw-coi}} with no response. I don't want to pursue matters any more as I may lose my rag at him. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up. SmartSE (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

About your undoing my changes on the page: GW501516

You said: "Not in agreement with the majority of sources and this is inappopriate citing of a primary source."

I don't want anymore wiki fights; however, in the opening paragraph, there are things that are just plain wrong.

To my knowledge, there is no study that shows that GW501516 causes cancer by itself: ONLY one study mentions cancer, and ONLY when it is combined with the intentional carcinogen DMBA. There aren't any sources that say that GW501516 causes cancer, and only one other mentions polyps (which aren't cancer). This stuff is uncommon enough, that the sources will be mostly primary ones. This can't be helped.

In fact, mentioning cancer should probably be left out. It DOESN'T cause cancer by itself.

One of the previous writers said "rats". The referenced studies were of mice, NOT rats.

The most common name for this stuff is Cardarine, and should be included in with the other names.

I would really appreciate it, if you would let my next edit remain. Karl 71.218.216.109 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it, if you check out my in depth comments to your reply, on the GW501516 talk page. Thank you. Karl 71.218.216.109 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello SmatSE,

Thanks for your attention on the above article but you probably should not have deleted the article per A7. A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability. In fact, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as our general notability guideline and organization notability in this case. In the same vein, inclusion of reliable secondary sources in an article may itself be an indication of significance. The inclusion of the Economic Times and Indian Times in the article are enough to pass A7. I will be glad if you can restore the page now and allow the WP:AfD to run its course. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Don't border to restore the page, I recreated the article as a stub. I respectfully suggest you should always allow an WP:AfD to run its course before you close debates in the future. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wikicology. Apologies for the delay in responding. The content in The_wadhwa_group consisted of a very brief description that did not explain why the company was significant, a section copied and pasted directly from their website and a list of properties. There must be many Indian property companies and with no explanation of why this one was important it qualified for A7. This is distinct from the organisation being notable and an article being listed at AFD doesn't protect it from speedy deletion. I'm sorry if you think I made the wrong choice, but I've checked again and stand by my decision since there was nothing worth salvaging and there was no claim of significance (this needs to be written in prose rather than derived from linked sources). SmartSE (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd the editor who originally speedied this article: and i'm not sure that any mustard is cut by the present very slender claim to notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Halpin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Halpin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ncox ? Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's certainly better than it was, but it still seems to be a long list about what he does IRL rather than what he does here which isn't what the userpage is for. I'd prefer it to be dramatically pruned and for him to link to the article about himself instead to create a clearer difference between article and user space. SmartSE (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think so too - it is basically an article about himself. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any interest in writing two paragraphs about paid editing for the SignPost?

I offered to help put something together that's a collection of short viewpoints that answer two questions: What is the overall effect of paid editing on the project and what can be done to handle it better.

The idea is that a lot of the Signpost stories on paid editing are written by editors with strong opinions, extreme views, or financial interests, and I wanted something a little more balanced and reasonable. Editors with strong views are never ideal in article-space either!

What I've started on is located here if you have the time/interest. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up. Left my two cents there. Ping me if they're too long and I'll try to trim them. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. I just added some missing commas if you don't mind. So far the page gives me the impression that most people have an "it depends" mantra, which seems very sound and reasonable. I'm glad I'm not the only one to point out that most paid edits are bad. I'll stop pinging you to review my work, since you obviously don't like it. You should take it as a compliment though! It's very difficult to find good-quality editors that are not biased by a COI disclosure and won't start making edits based on whatever their opinion of COI is, rather than sources and content. CorporateM (Talk) 19:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was on mobile and my writing skills were never the best ;) It's not that I don't like reviewing PE but all too often I find something which seems more urgent. I do normally take a look at any articles you post about but if I don't see any immediate problems I don't tend to edit. I'm hesitant of saying that everything is fine without checking the sources and then I forget... The public storage article was still on my watchlist and your draft looks good - most certainly an improvement on the current version! I've tweaked the signpost thing to hopefully make it clearer. SmartSE (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to comment that the draft "looks" good, but you haven't checked the sources, this is also useful. Un-involved editors generally want to see input from previously involved editors before participating and someone else may choose to check some of the sources after you comment. Also, I am comfortable with the Request Edit G ("go ahead") template if you'd like me to make the edit, so that you are not taking credit for something that you didn't research yourself. What I usually do is just check a couple/few sources and if they check out, I presume most of the others do as well. If you check each source individually and extensively, at that point you might as well have written the article yourself - defeats the purpose. CorporateM (Talk) 21:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

—SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

i would kindly ask for the recovery of this page for further reasons . as previously noticed, the page had been deleted due to its performance of advertisement for a certain company . i apologize for that , it was indeed a mistake that should be corrected . i would like to either edit the page here on wikipedia or either receive it from you on my email . as you can see this was a page intended to serve a huge purpose in delivering information on the bedwans and how people support them and belong to them through their creations , whether it was in a business or through creativity. i would kindly politely ask for the recovery of the page or for it to be send to me on my email for future editing and revising .the page was made with a lot of effort and i am willing to double that effort with great dedication and hard work, thank you very much }}

ill explain clearly why the subject of the article is notable, and please have reputable, independent references that support it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to inform people about the marketplace so ill try to improve that aswell. since it was deleted twice for being an advertisement, I am guessing that it seemed to much to be trying to publicize its subject, and too little to be trying to document something that had already achieved notability. independent sources (such as newspapers and journals) providing coverage of theorganization, it is probably not notable by Wikipedia standards.

i just need it to be send to me on my email please if you would be so kind :) i am sorry for the horrible mistake i will try my best in my next article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarakhalaf (talk • contribs)

Hi. I just want to be sure I understand this edit correctly. So that means article creator User:Moonlight78644 should be added to the open SPI for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure at the moment who's sock they are... The Dawnn Karen article was started before by User:Happydit who I blocked as a spam-only account but I can't find them actually listed in an SPI. Ah now I see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ali_cruse/Archive which was spun off TimeQueen32 but that was inconclusive, although blatantly dodgy! They'll all be stale by now so SPI isn't much use. Personally, I wish that we could CU them to find out the other accounts that they're likely using but that's a slippery slope. SmartSE (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello dear, I have a question why you don't want any one to add more information to this page? as i added some info and you revert it. There was noting promotional or advert in my contribution. Regards IAmFiona (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

and also i added more enough information to the page why didn't you just fix it or remove the particular lines you think not necessary rather then revert all the information. As you are the admin its your right and you also have to improve the articles so people can get more info about the subject. IAmFiona (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Mr Bhangal has a long history of trying to use this article to promote himself, including most recently in June, but stretching back to when he created the article in 2007. Your edits were extremely similar to those he has made and this combined with your knowledge of wiki-syntax makes it unlikely that this was really your first edit and suggests you also have a conflict of interest. If you want to add neutral content sourced to reliable sources that actually discuss the subject, rather than letters he wrote, unverifiable information and listing his TV appearances then please go ahead, but I won't let the article be used to promote him. To be frank, I'm not even sure that the notability requirements are met. If removing the tags is your main concern then I can probably trim more content to make it compliant. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartse You recently deleted a large section of text I added to the JFrog page. I have gone through it and edited it to better comply with NPOV. I'm a newbie on Wikipedia, so if you have more reservations about text on that page, I'd be happy to get specific comments on its Talk page (or my Talk page). Thanks Rhws (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. NPOV mean much more than neutral wording and the content that I removed was in fact more problematic for being unreferenced and therefore unverifiable. The information you've added suffers from the same problem and I will therefore be reverting it. Please find references in reputable sources if you are to add a section on their products. Given that this was obviously written by someone paid by the company (User:Arnab Goshwami), please note that if you are also paid, per the conflict of interest guideline you must disclose whether you have a COI. I will try to look at it again and either fix or point out any problems. If I forget, feel free to pester me! Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hiya, I just deleted Tarun chauhan (was deleted before under Tarun Singh Chauhan) and that led me to Wonder Cement, which then took me to Ameera Shah that took me to Health Care at Home India Pvt Ltd. The last of this is quite familiar as I think I've seen a discussion or deletion of it somewhere, possibly a different title. There seems to be the usual odd behavior here with a new account removing speedies on another account's creation and so on. Could you take a look and see if a deeper check should be done? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed the first link to go to the right article (no capital C). Looking through those articles and others it's pretty obvious that there is some socking going on. There are still plenty of edits within the last 3 months so it's certainly worth an SPI. I'm unlikely to have time to sort all the diffs it would need over the next couple of days though. You could start one off with the obvious link between Special:DeletedContributions/Parthtaylor and Rahuldigital based on the Chauhan articles though and see if the CUs bring up anything else. SmartSE (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Quack quack: Special:Contributions/Manveermalhi and Special:Contributions/Manveermal. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok now I'm distracted! I'm going to put a few links in User:Smartse/sandbox as I've come across more accounts and articles. SmartSE (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, can't get much more blatant than an edit summary of "To help with SEO"_{admins only}! SmartSE (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manveermalhi. Regardless of the outcome they all need blocking as advertising only accounts. SmartSE (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord! I thought there was some paid COI, but I didn't expect something so broad. Watchlisting the SPI, let's see where that takes us. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing that accounts go stale after 3 months or they'd be way more accounts listed there. Unfortunately they've made quite a mess to tidy up. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhikhurana‎ might be linked to the above group. —SpacemanSpiff 13:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on some further investigations, it appears Vikram Gandhi has a bit of linkage to this and it'd seem that the group around Satyananda Saraswati also is.—SpacemanSpiff 17:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything other than the page move? That seems fairly innocuous and it's not unheard of for PEs to interfere with each other either. SmartSE (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is based on the email I'd sent you, if you click through the Google Hangouts links you'll see what I mean based on the SEO activity. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok. Will have a look later on. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The page was created again and I deleted it, but this is the SEO/digital marketing firm in question per the new article. —SpacemanSpiff 08:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you have any other concerns about this section's neutrality? CorporateM (Talk) 21:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for that. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool - wasn't missing on purpose or for any specific reason btw - I just don't always catch everything. That's the primary benefit of GA reviews for me is to have someone keeping me honest and to re-assure the community I'm doing good work. Maybe not perfect, but "good" as the name implies ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the page "Jeremy Yablan":

This page had correct information regardless of the authors actions with sockpuppets. Is there any way to re-activate it? Now when people click the link (which is the main result) it goes to a broken page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyyablan (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that no there isn't a way to reactivate it. You hired someone to write it who has been editing deceptively by not disclosing that they were paid to write which is contravention of the terms of use and our conflict of interest guideline. I guess that you weren't aware of this and I'm sorry if you've been mislead by them but restoring the article would only encourage them. I've reviewed whether you are notable as an actor but unfortunately at this time it doesn't appear as if you are and so it would not make sense to start a new article. If I were you I'd be trying to get my money back. SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Smartse, I noticed you removed my edits to the Wrap advertising page because of promotional sources. I would like to inform you that my edits were only intended to improve the page to be a better source of information on the topic. I noticed there were no third party sources that covered the information I was looking for, so I created it myself. I understand the source I linked is a "dealer page" but it is only used to provide a credible source. Please let me know if you have a better source for information by a third party or feel free to fill in sources where needed. This page desperately needs legitimate sources for claims and facts that don't have any supporting data. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! Pdmead0 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)pdmead0Pdmead0 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pdmead0. Thanks for your note. As I said in the edit summary there were two problems with the content - the source and that you'd copied and pasted from it. The problem with the source is that it is a company website and that makes it an non-reliable source of information (that's distinct from it being wrong, but rather means that there was unlikely any editorial control of the content and the facts were not checked. This is only of a minor concern though in comparison to you copying and pasting from the source which violated copyright laws which we must follow. Most succinctly, use sources as a source of information, not sentences. We have to take this very seriously and I noticed that you've done the same at Roxy (clothing) today, copying from here. I agree though the wrap advertising article needs better sources - I'd suggest you search in google books and use quotes marks around "wrap advertising" and then include terms such as 'history' or one of the years mentioned on the link you cited before. Unfortunately finding good sources and writing good content takes considerable time and effort, but (at least in my opinion) it is better to have less good content than lots of poor content. I hope that all makes sense and good luck! SmartSE (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmartSE, I appreciate your input. I admit I got a little lazy with copy and pasting (something I frown upon myself). I can understand how the source lacks legitimate facts; Wikipedia is hard. Haha and I enjoy reading the conversation below! Keep up the good work... Pdmead0 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)pdmead0Pdmead0 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that you have followed me to the Magnetoception article and given our discussions earlier today at Colony collapse disorder, I feel the only reason you followed me was to continue to disrupt my editing and intimidate me. This is harassment - please desist.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I have only just realised you are an admin! This is conduct very unbecoming of someone with that status.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Questioning sourcing does not constitute harassment. I've specifically refrained from making any comment about you and stuck to the content. Please do the same. SmartSE (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your behaviour is clearly WP:Hounding. Please desist immediately.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? We hadn't even crossed paths before today! SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Can this argument end please? :( Tropicalkitty (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just sent you an email. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would be more specific with the comments about inappropriate links and verbiage about advertising talk. I worked with several unknown but kind wikipedians when I wrote this entry many years ago and they told me that I had cleaned it up and documented things properly. The bots and other wikipedians all seemed to agree after that. Now, after all this time you've flagged it with no feedback. I can take some constructive criticism. Help me be a better wikipedian. Please bring it on or stop tagging my article. ThanksMinervaone (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Minervaone: Hi. Sorry for the delay in responding. First of all I've assumed that you have a conflict of interest since you are a single purpose account per the terms of use if you have a COI you must declare it. The main problem with the article is the extremely long list of awards which I don't think is appropriate with only primary sources or even no sources. A rule of thumb at WP:ORGAWARDS is to only mention an award in an article if someone other than the company or the awarder has discussed it which is covered by the WP:WEIGHT part of the verifiability policy. Normally I just delete lists like this but in this instance there are so many that I haven't found the time to check whether any secondary sources do discuss them. The best possible source would discuss how they're known for winning awards and mention the few that were most significant. If secondary sources doesn't exist (and I suspect they don't) then the article shouldn't include them. The same applies to the other content which is also poorly sourced. Skimming some of the policies, guidelines and essays I've linked to should help you understand why we apply these 'rules'. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

While I am not a single purpose account (I've written or edited other articles), I am in the design field and definitely have some interest in it. Thank you for the feedback it is very helpful.Minervaone (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to retrieve the deleted article Rocket (film). I want to some info to the article. What was the problem of that article? = Variation 25.2 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you the undeletion.- Variation 25.2 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on paid editor cleanup :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hiya Smartse, weldone for your good job here! I've come here to request your honourable office to consider undeleting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Laurent I would like to add more notable sources from vogue and Metro paper for this designer's page. I welcome all your suggestions and advice. Reputations don't lie and your effort here already speaks volume, the more reason I've contacted you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halle178 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not going to undelete an article repeatedly recreated by sockpuppets which was also promotional. If you'd like to start again yourself see WP:MFA. SmartSE (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

okay Smartse, I appreciate this suggestion, I will create another article for the designer and get you to look at it for approval. Thanks, you're brilliant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halle178 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE, would you mind taking a look at some proposed edits here on the Trafigura talk page? CorporateM did some work on the page a while back but he's stepped back from voluntary editing. The company's made quite a few investments in the last couple of years and there are one or two figures that are out of date. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You recently commented on a brainstorm that discussed banning administrators from paid editing. A concrete proposal to amend the administrator policy to this effect has been made at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change - 'No paid editing" for admins. Your comments would be appreciated. MER-C 08:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am reverting some vandals and I would like to have rollback. I even made a friend today [3] [4]. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: Your reverts today look fine but I can't see any other vandalism reverts in your contribs through all the AWB edits. I'd prefer to see a few more edits to be sure you understand the line between vandalism and good-faith edits. WP:TWINKLE will speed things up for you though and is similar to rollback. Ask me again or post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback if you want it reviewed again. SmartSE (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, how many would you like? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no fixed quota - but certainly more than one day! SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, ok, I will ask again tomorrow ;-) I am using Firefox and Twinkle runs very slow in my browser. Maybe it runs quicker in Chrome. It's actually not very difficult to prove that I understand the difference between vandalism and good-faith edits.

• Firstly, we have a large group of people who try to make a constructive edit, but fail because they do not read the talkpage and sometimes they break the layout, like here. I revert them, but I leave a message on their talkpage.
• Then we have another large group of people who make nonconstructive edits, but have no bad intentions. For example this guy was so impressed by Jessica's beauty that he wrote "Oo". I think I understand him.
• Then there is a group of people who do not understand that Wikipedia isn't a good place to promote their website. They do not wish to harm Wikipedia, they simply want to promote their site, which makes them a bit stubborn sometimes, but they are not vandals.
• Then there is a group of "conventional" vandals, usually children. The stuff they write isn't very harmful to anyone, but they know that they are doing something wrong. For example this guy.
• Then there is a group of people who vandalise to "punish" Wikipedia for blocking them.
• Then we have some vandals & trolls & crazy extremists who use Wikipedia to accuse, troll and insult people. These guys are crazy, and should be reverted ASAP. They do not get the benefit of the doubt, and their actions harm the encyclopaedia. If they continue after receiving my message(s) I will ensure that they get blocked.
• As a last category we have people who are actively trying to evade detection by using incorrect editsummaries. They understand how to avoid ClueBot, and they are trying to harm Wikipedia.

When I revert someone I usually add their userpage to my watchlist, and after a while I check them again. If they've stopped their behaviour (without replying to my messages) then I remove them from my watchlist. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I zapped it. They sent me an email claiming that they wrote the new version themselves, and I didn't check when I should have. T. Canens (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a shame your good-faith was abused. SmartSE (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Smartse, The wiki page for M-GO (Digital Streaming Services) was deleted because the initial attempt was incorrectly posted and the second editor was in fact a banned user. Previous attempts to have the page reestablished through proper channels were also rejected however, I am unable to find the reason why. As one of the first to delete the page, I was hoping you could help clarify the best way to properly request a page for the organization.

76.79.65.220 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)M-GO Communications

Hi. Your company seemingly paid someone to create the article but they acted deceptively by not disclosing that they were paid (as is required by our terms of use) and by using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny (see the investigation here). Because of this I prevented anyone but administrators from recreating the article. I can't see any discussions about the article since 2014 though. From a cursory glance, the company may be notable meaning that we could have an article on it, but it's advised that because you work for the company you shouldn't write about it. If you really want the page creating then please read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations, create an account with a name like 'Bob at M-GO' and then write a short draft in Draft:M-GO. If you describe what the company does in simple terms and cite media reports so that the information is verifiable then I will be happy to move the draft live. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear smartSE: As per your suggestion last week, I made the simple edit on the Keynesian economics page requesting a discussion of the bias (and just plain errors) in the article. No other changes were made. The keynesian clique would not tolerate any discussion, they arrogantly rolled back even that request.

That is the real reason your website is not accepted for scholarly use; of course there is "universal consensus" when you ban all other opinions. Ogreggy (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your unblock query, see Ogreggy's last posts. WP:ROPE instantly comes to mind, which they seemed to have used up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is very difficult to create the new articles as experienced editors are merging, so I am going to keep IEEE conferences in main page, as parent article is available. It may not be informative to scientific /academic community. Dentking07 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Currently the article doesn't explain why the organisation is significant which is why I tagged it with {{db-a7}}. SmartSE (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please keep it for Afd than speedy deletion, i will add some sources. Dentking07 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for your support with the 2 COI issues I raised recently. I would just like to inform you of a development and seek your guidance. As you know, the subject of the first COI issue is a very determined defender of their status here. A new account (User:Johnhanes) registered specifically to contribute to the debate. This is clearly a shill account associated with the subject. I did highlight this because there is no way someone would register an account and become involved in an AfD/COI debate immediately. Anyway, since then, things have taken a slightly sinister turn. They've just reverted 3 edits I made to different articles (musicians with COI issues and poorly written articles). Now to me, this can only be for two reasons - either they are paid stooges of all of these subjects (e.g. an agency), or they are deliberately following my edits and being disruptive. To be honest, I expected some resistance with this entire COI case (which was the main reason I waited so long, as I really do not want to engage with confrontational non-contributors) but this behaviour seems to me to be more abusive and deliberately intimidating. I know wiki has philosophies on being nice to new editors, however I do not feel what we are dealing with here is a conventional new editor with genuine intentions. I'm really not up for getting into a slanging match, back and forth edit warring etc but at the same time I will not roll over and allow them to steamroll genuine editors so they can forward their agenda here. Please advise.Rayman60 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

incidentally, someone with the name John Hanes is subject's 'right hand man' as per this interview http://www2.digidesign.com/digizine/archive/digizine_march03/protechniques/ghenea/ and as an example, this shared credit http://www.discogs.com/La-Roux-La-Roux/release/1847330 Rayman60 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rayman. No problem - thanks for bringing it to COIN. I've left Cavalino a note and tried to explain the AFD process to both of them as well. Johnhanes did mention that they were canvassed at the AFD "You will see that I am also connected to the subject" and some credit should be given for him admitting that and using his real name so they're due some slack. The closing admin won't take much notice of the TLDR unless they come up with an argument beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE, so there's no need to worry. You didn't provide any edit summary when you removed content so is understandable for Johnhanes to have reverted, although they also reverted me even when I did so let's keep an eye on it. I think they are acting in reasonable good faith at the moment, even if they are mainly here for their own benefit rather than the wider project. I'm keeping an eye on things and hopefully once the AFD ends things will clear up. If they carry on trying to own articles then we can get more eyes from ANI. Regarding slanging matches - often it is best to stay quiet and ignore their comments about you rather than the content or notability - it doesn't do anyone any favours to end up with a 10,000 word AFD! SmartSE (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new and I'm busy right now reading all the regulations in order to make a right job in Wikipedia. As I was looking throughout the whole page I found some of this user articles which I find good. I just don't wanna get involved into any WP:COI or you thinking that I may be a puppet. Would that be a problem if I contribute? GORieal (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're a brand new user, who knows about WP:COI and wants to edit articles written by an undisclosed paid editor I just blocked, and I'm not supposed to be suspicious?! Feel free to edit, but I don't have much choice but to check whether you are a sockpuppet. SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, I've modified the page for Aerokids as per the Wikipedia guidelines and the article is ready for your review. Could you please check and let me know if you need any further modifications? And also kindly remove the deletion proposal tag once you are done with your review. I will be adding more sources at the earliest possible. Thanks & regards, Oviya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oviya344 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was half way through editing this article to reduce its promotional tone but ran out of time hence this has not yet been resubmitted and is not quite ready for review. To clarify, I am not being compensated by anyone for creating this article. Neilho (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Hi SmartSe. I just noticed your comments about Reference No.18. You were spot on because I had put the reference in the wrong place and mentioned the subject's speaking style which I had referenced with another now-deleted source. I have deleted all of these comments as there was no reliable evidence for them and have moved the reference as factual evidence for her local speaking engagements. I have not resubmitted yet as I am concerned that another reviewer is looking to consider deletion. I would prefer to work with reviewers on this as I do feel I have made significant improvements and am prepared to go further. Any advice is always appreciated as is your conscientious work. Thanks. Neil Neilho (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartse! News from Commons! File:Breeding transgenesis cisgenesis.svg, a file you created, has been mentioned in a Village Pump thread I've created, see here.

Long story short, your file is tagged with Kopimi, and I do not believe Kopimi is a free content license. A small number of files on Commons have been labeled with Kopimi, but not with anything else. Your file is one of them. Is there any other template you would like to use on it? CC0 perhaps? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Manifestation (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Smartse, Thanks for the copyedit on James Stunt's Wikipedia page. I appreciate your efforts. You and Jonesey95 copyedited the article of James Stunt. You'v summarized the whole article, did lot of checking. You did really great. I'm requesting you to remove COI from the article header if were were done with copyediting. Best :) ---Khocon (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Makeandtoss (talk) @Smartse: 22:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please give me some information about genetically modified foods ( fast） Niya suryabanshi (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you read genetically modified food? SmartSE (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought you may be interested in this due to your work on the Janice Min page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You speedily deleted the article The wadhwa group on July 21, 2015 and it was re-created that same day with a capitalized title. The stub had been added to and I've just gone through and fixed up the references, deleting unsupported text, and there's not much more to the article than what was there when it was created on July 21. I think that this article probably needs to be deleted since the company is receiving only passing mention in the references and it was a recreation of something that had been deleted but I don't know if I'm right. Hence my message to you. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.171.77 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)