Smartse, you flagged several issues with a page I edited and you removed another page I have edited called "Ethics Olympiad". Firstly let me say I am a novice with Wikipedia so my apologies if I have misunderstood any processes here.

1. You indicated it is "written like an advertisement" You reflagged this concern from many years ago and yet the page was rewritten soon after that earlier flag to satisfy requirements such that it no longer looks like an advertisement. Since then someone called "Willisgm" has added additional edits based on the UK Philosothon which do sound at times like they are an advertisement. I would happily remove these parts of the article but I am wary of over-editing as this attracts unhelpful attention.

2. Secondly you reposted a flag indicating that "a major contributor to the site appears to have a close connection with the subject". You go on to say somewhat unkindly...

"You seem to have taken absolutely no notice of any warnings given to you about the major conflict of interest you have, in fact, you may be classified as an undisclosed paid editor, in contravention of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Please consider this your final warning about editing articles that you are related to."

In fact, I have taken a great deal of notice of such warnings...

It was for this reason; a. I have made minimal edits to this site in recent years....including ignoring edits which I deemed to be advertisements. b. I have also added the following declaration in the talk section, which you appear not to have read.

"I was, up until early this year employed as the co-ordinator of Philosothons in Australasia for the previous 2 1/2 years. I am also an advisor for the UK Philosothon Project run through Oxford University. Currently, I receive no financial benefit from Philosothon related projects. Nevertheless, I have written factual information here about the event which has been held annually for nearly 10 years throughout Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, there is a great deal of information about Philosothons in the public domain that has not been authored by me. I welcome others contributing to this page)"

So to be clear I am NOT a paid editor. I am a volunteer!!!!

Please remove the warnings that you have placed on the 'Philosothon' page.

You completely deleted the Ethics Olympiad page. Whereas with the Philosothon page you left it there which allows others to continue to edit it, with the Ethics Olympiad page you have removed the page with no warning or due process. Like the Philosothon page, this page is simply about an event I have been extensively involved in.. but again I placed the same declaration as above in the talk section. The event exists and deserves a place on Wikipedia.

I would appreciate it if you would reinstate the 'Ethics Olympiad' Wikipedia page, at least giving me and or others a chance to edit it. I have to say that the responses I have had to my postings over the years have bordered on harassment and the deletion of the Ethics Olympiad page without any warning and the comment accompanying your actions are examples of harassment....I have always contributed in good faith and edited any contribution when asked to in order to work within Wikipedia's terms and conditions. Again I apologize if I have misunderstood the processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sydney59

Hi! Like I said, my removal of what I saw as not-forum comments (on Talk:Parler) might have gone against consensus, so that's fine. When you reverted it, though, you removed my comment and another editor's. I don't know if that was your intent or not, but with the crazy stuff going on right now, I thought I'd mention it in case you didn't notice. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: Sorry I did not notice that you had added a section as well as removing two. Feel free to replace it if you like. Personally, as explained in my edit summary, I don't think those meet the definition of WP:NOTFORUM and I feel strongly that we should at least engage with readers if they take the time to post and say that they think an article is biased, even if their concerns are unfounded. The other editor's post made after yours was replaced though, but I could have made that clearer. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I don't have a problem with leaving it out; your reason for keeping the sections are valid (and this article is really mired in controversy right now). It wasn't my intent to stir up trouble, I've just had some success removing such things from other Talk pages. But, yeah, it's good to engage with the folks and explain how things work here. Take care! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was making a few small changes to some company pages over the past few days and noticed that Stadium Goods' page had 2 links to missing articles for their founders. I hate those red links, so I thought rather than removing the link, I'd go on a quest to create the page. I didn't check why it was missing before I did the research. I've got enough on John McPheters to create a little mini-bio, but when I clicked through saw you'd deleted it before. This is new territory for me, so I left a message on the talk page there, then saw the instructions on the main page to check in with you (duh, why don't I learn to check before I act?!?). Do you mind if I create an article on the dude? I'm not connected to the other (banned) author and am definitely starting from scratch. Happy to skip it too, I have no personal interest in it being there. I'd just as happily remove the red link. I just thought being as I've done my research, I might as well use it. Thank you! xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by TineWiki (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Why are you constantly rewriting and "correcting" things on the Rita Ora's article? I was wondering what's the sudden fixation with that article? Helptottt (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Helptottt: Hmm, why do you think I am editing a collaborative encyclopedia? My changes, unlike yours, are all accompanied by edit summaries explaining why I made them. If you disagree with them, then please start a discussion on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message yesterday. I'm not being paid or compensated in any way for the edits I made to Rita Ora's page earlier. I've also got some factual information to add to the page. Please could you re-instate my edits from yesterday morning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwpeacock (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tomwpeacock: I find that hard to believe but ok. Regardless, if information comes from reliable sources, you can't just remove it from the article. If you think there are valid reasons to remove anything, then please start a thread at Talk:Rita Ora. SmartSE (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, you mentioned the possibility (wrt Randall Miller) of someone else blocking an IP over at COIN. Can you educate me on this? I had always thought it was pointless as they could just jump to another IP. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Sorry for the delay. IP blocks are probably easier to evade but that doesn't change the fact if an IP is being disruptive, they should be blocked. If they appear on a different IP, then that would be blocked immediately and protection could also be considered. The only real difference between hoe IP blocks and user blocks are handled, is that IPs are not blocked indefinitely. SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. I was hoping you could provide a second opinion at Talk:Foxit_Software regarding whether the China Securities Regulatory Commission is a good source for the corporate history section. Alisafetic (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am asking as you are listed as a recently active admin. An IP editor had a dispute about the University of Oxford on 10 March and has been going through Oxford articles since then and tagging any unreferenced content they can find and also removing old unreferenced content. They have also PRODed and AfDed several Oxford articles. Many of the edits are fine in isolation but tagging content as a result of a dispute is disruptive.

• Template talk:University of Oxford#Deletion original dispute about what to include on a template
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford#Recent citation needed tags description of problem, list of IP accounts
• User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:2463:E460:6C60:88D9#Recent citation needed tags attempt to contact editor before I realised the context

I think that the editor should move away from Oxford articles (broadly construed). Do I need to take this to ANI or can you help with this? TSventon (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Now taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Citation needed tags by IPs in WikiProject University of Oxford. TSventon (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Patent Marketing 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/World Patent Marketing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I was about to list it for deletion when I noticed that you just did, and then withdrew it! Yes I a SNOW situation was developing but I wonder if there's really enough sourcing to support more than a stub. It's pretty bad. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Yeah I was pretty surprised but the outcome looked inevitable to me, so I thought I may as well not waste more time on it. I agree though that the available sourcing is very thin and there's not much else to be said other than she wrote that book. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

One interesting aspect of the article is a pertinent fact not included. She was the daughter of a well-known dance critic, a notable person far more eminent than her. The New York Times obituary appeared first in a google search. Yet it was never used as a source even though it contains pertinent biographical detail for the McDonagh article that would ordinarily included in a BLP. This is a peculiar omission, considering the scarcity of good sourcing. If indeed the subject controlled the article, this omission would indicate family strife of some kind. This is what happens when marginal people create articles on themselves. Sometimes I feel as if I am editing someone else's resume. Perhaps the notability criteria need to be stiffened, or at least the current ones enforced. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

TheColdPrince

Hey there, I want to let you know that I reverted back your contributions to Bangsamoro Republik. I reverted back the Speedy Deletion Nomination because it violates the Wikipedia Policies. I am not the one who put the "Hoax" tag , but I am the one who put that "Vandalism" notice. The article you presented came from an untrusted website, and not from a legitimate and verifiable news source. Please wait for the results to come. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheColdPrince (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

ChineseDox

@Smartse the news article you provided is not related to Bangsamoro Republik. Please be not confuse with Bangsamoro Republik (Hoax) with the legitimate Bangsamoro Autonomous Region or BAR or BARRM (Legitimate) Bangsamoro Republik is a self-proclaimed sovereign nation. Please don't remove the notice because Wikipedia Admins will review it. Again, the article you provided from the Strait Times is not RELATED to Bangsamoro Republik. Please do a research before reverting back an article. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChineseDox (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheColdPrince and ChineseDox: The tags you applied are for blatant hoaxes and vandalism which is clearly not applicable here. If the situation is more complicated, you should nominate it for deletion via Articles for Deletion. SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

sir i submitted read information please approve my page. Sheikh Swim (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sheikh Swim: Please do not write about yourself. Also, you are currently far from being sufficiently notable to have an article here. Wikipedia is not Linkedin or Facebook. SmartSE (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi I am sorry if my work on the Bloomberg Philanthropies Wiki gave the impression that I work for them. I am very interested in philanthropy and nonprofit organizations. I previously worked (for a policy program) at the Aspen Institute which is where I learned about the work of Bloomberg Philanthropies and thought it was an interesting model. I believe they are not quite a foundation but more like an operating company that spends nonprofit dollars. I sort of just became a semi-expert and liked updating the wiki about their work and some of their related entities. Whenever I hop on I like to do a few articles from the community portal as well just trying to contribute to the overall betterment of the wiki. Nevertheless, I can stand down from editing the Bloomberg Philanthropies entry, with apologies. --Blackbird68 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Was just wanting to get some information on why a page was deleted. It was for Patrick A. Salvi and I believe it was deleted on March 31st. I had been working on disambiguating a few things related to Benjamin Crump and the Salvi Law Firms work with Jacob Blake. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Zerocoolpasta (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zerocoolpasta: Hi. It was deleted because this deletion discussion in 2017 determined that he was not notable and the article was almost identical to the deleted version, meaning it qualified for deletion under WP:CSD#G4. Additionally, the user who recreated it (Sevalbury) was an undisclosed paid editor, which is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. SmartSE (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smartse: Thanks for letting me know. The deletion makes sense now. I don't think I will need the page for what I am doing, there are other references I can use but if needed for whatever reason would it be possible to have it restored and I could update it. The only reason I might need it is the name is a little ambiguous and the Wikipedia page could help....disambiguate it.

Hello Smartse there is a person who is known for requesting deletion of articles as soon as they are published and his attempting to delete my hard work on Aaron Duncan Please have a look and let me know what you think.--Akim Ernest (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed that sentence on Ora's article because the fee was never paid, and it hasn't been explicitly stated that they asked for the cctv to be turned off.

"The £5,000 fee for the use of the restaurant was never paid by Ora or any of her associates, Grant said at the hearing, adding that the restaurant’s director had no knowledge of the event."

"Bhattarai told officers that “security for the entourage” wanted no footage of them arriving, so he turned the CCTV off between 6pm and 6.30pm."

[theguardian.com/music/2021/jan/28/rita-ora-aides-offered-restaurant-5000-to-host-party-in-lockdown Source.] Helptottt (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Helptottt: This belongs on the article talk page, not here. Anyway, the police said in court that the offer was made to pay £5000. The person refuting that the payment was made was the restaurant's lawyer. I have tweaked the content to make it clearer that it was an offer. If you wish to add that the restaurant denied the payment was ever made, per the Guardian, then please do. SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm editing it right now. Took time for lunch!

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why was my sandbox page I created was deleted? Ltonneli (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ltonneli was deleted 8 years ago because it was promotional. Wikipedia user pages are for providing information about Wikipedia-related activities, not a place to put your CV. User:Ltonneli/sandbox which you created in 2018 still exists, but should probably also be deleted. Please be aware of WP:COI and WP:AUTO - in short, do not create articles about yourself. If you are sufficiently notable, as defined by WP:NBIO someone else will write an article about you. From a very quick search, it does not appear that this requirement is currently met. SmartSE (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Cognitive Digital Twin (CDT) is a new concept but per my citation from IBM (and I can cite IEEE sources as well), CDT can be traced back to at least 2018. Other citations in the rest of the paragraph (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_twin&oldid=1038100709) are also research papers with serious literature reviewing and contributions.

Considering the increasing influence of Artificial Intelligence, it is common sense for DT to have cognitive capabilities. The paragraph brings one crucial awareness to the table - that DT is more than just digital replicas of physical objects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchNinja (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheResearchNinja: Neither "Human Digital Twins" or "Cognitive Digital Twins" appear to be widely-used terms in the literature. This seems to be the most-cited work and it has a grand total of 12 citations. Wikipedia does not aim to be at the cutting edge of research and we should wait until these terms are more widely used, particularly in review articles or books, before they are included here. If the crucial part is to point out that digital twins can be of non-physical objects, surely there is a better reference for that? SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Celestina007 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Smartse. I'm Jessica, an employee of Cracker Barrel. Thanks for your recent work on the article's introduction. I've been working with volunteer editors to make some article updates, and don't edit the article myself since I have a COI. I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing my most recent request regarding Cracker Barrel's antiques warehouse. If so, you can find it here. Thanks! CB JessicaM (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello you recently reverted all the edits on this page. I am the COI who had requested these edits. You reverted it claiming that the editor was inexperienced and the content needs further review. I totally understand your concern, but this creates a big issue now. My client had been waiting 2 months for a review and if I post this again, she will be back in line. Is it possible that we simply UNDO the closed COI edit requests in the talk page so that it goes back in the same spot? BTW, I consider myself an experienced editor and all content provided was well referenced. Maybe you can state exactly where the issues are or maybe you can approve and post the ones with no issues? I am sure everything was not an issue and to revert everything and putting this person back in line, its just not fair. I hope you understand my frustration. Alice Jason (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alice Jason: Hopefully you can realise that the needs of your client are not my concern. It looks as if you have already reverted the review edits, so hopefully you are back in the queue. I'll leave some comments about the content on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout undoing others' edits at Boris Johnson. I've opened up a discussion at WP:BLP. Other editor is going around (without consensus) adding presidential & prime ministerial seals & flags 'beneath' the infoboxes of current world leader bios. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Your first edit removed that (along with my edits), but your later reverts were changing the place of birth and undoing my changes: [1] [2]. SmartSE (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. BTW - the fellow who was adding 'seals' & flags', has since stopped. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vionic 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/Vionic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to leave the comment on my edit on Ayako_Shirasaki. The news of her death was brought to her Facebook page by her husband. Is that considered as reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobumacsuzuki0526 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nobumacsuzuki0526: Ok thanks for the info. It's not ideal, but definitely better than nothing, so I have added that. Hopefully it will be picked up by a news organisation in the next few days and we can cite that instead. SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi Smartse! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)