Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SmartSE! ScepticalChymist has been on my UPE watchlist for some time, but I didn't find a smoking gun until you posted on COIN. Do you have any idea what's the reputation management firm here? Feel free to email if it involves off-wiki info (and assuming I'm allowed to see it). Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Got various bits I can share via email - it'd be easiest if you drop me one first. I'm hoping to be able to disclose who they are publicly but want to get some more opinions to make sure I don't violate OUTING. SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smartse, can you explain why you deleted my modifications to the Digital agriculture page's lead section with reference to a review article targeted to the page scope? Can you elaborate on why my modifications worsen the page quality rather than improve it? The change improves the quality of the lead section by introducing evidence from an in-depth literature review article (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9547306) published in a relevant journal (IEEE Access; H-index: 127; Five-year Journal Impact Factor: 3.671). The previous lead section was reporting website articles as primary references. The review article exploits bibliometric tools (statistics analysis) to remove researchers' biases that can afflict traditional literature reviews. The main purpose of the article is to give a definition and context to the concept of Digital Agriculture. Being based on bibliometric tools, the article is structured to take into account and summarize the main research streams in the field of Digital Agriculture. The review article's aim is to answer to three specific research questions: i) what is the spectrum of the digital agricultural revolution (DAR)-related terminology?; ii) what are the key articles and the most influential journals, institutions, and countries?; iii) what are the main research streams and the emerging topics? The review article contains 88 high-impact articles based on citation counts. Could you please objectively re-evaluate my proposed modifications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricber1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Digital agriculture SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for advising me of the existence of ProQuest via WikiLibrary for accessing sources. I have now used it on a number of articles. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to remove "primary sources" (which were simply used to back up an article that was already there), and it's another thing to threaten editors on what they can or cannot do. You also removed sourced information, like the fact that Ora's mother studied medicine in Russia and that she works for the NHS. In the same section, there's an article which details how Ora's mother and aunt both studied medicine at the same time, in Russia. There are multitude of sources that say that the mother works for the NHS, like this. --Helptottt (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Helptottt: BLP isn't negotiable and I haven't threatened you with anything, just told you not to replace it for the third time. The version I reverted to is the one that existed before you replaced the primary sources. If there are a multitude of secondary sources available, why don't you cite them and if the content was supported by secondary sources, why add unneccessary primary sources? SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too had my reservations about that page, but held off from redirecting it (as did another page reviewer) as there are precedents such as Reagan administration scandals, and I think there's a potential case for it being a notable stand-alone topic given the amount of media coverage. I won't revert your edit as I don't feel particularly strongly about this, I just wanted to let you know my original thought process. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 09:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, I'm going to take the liberty of explaining to the page creator what has happened (as they're a new editor), and linking your talk page so they can direct questions to you. I hope this is OK with you. Jr8825 • Talk 10:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: I see that these as the third tier down from the main biographies i.e. biography has a summary of their administration and administration has a summary of scandals. Given that Premiership of Boris Johnson is relatively undeveloped, it seems to me that it would be better to develop summaries of the scandals there first of all. If that page becomes too long, then that would be the time to spin it out. Not all of the things included in that article are scandals either. Cheers for dropping them a note - I will too. SmartSE (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmartSE, I have a couple of concerns about the page move to Partygate made earlier.

First, the RM was only open for ~4 hours (from 15:55 to 19:07 when you declared it snowing, and then another ~hour before the actual close). I appreciate that a SNOW close implies that there probably isn't going to be enough opposition to a closure, but it's still kind of a small snowball if it's only been 4 hours in the making. To be fair, I would have put down a weak support as a !vote had I seen the RM in time, so I'm not unhappy with the move itself.

Secondly, and I think more importantly, RMs should only be closed by uninvolved editors - you had previously commented in support of the page move and therefore you had a conflict of interest and should have left the closure to somebody else.

Anyway, like I said, I (weakly) supported the move and I'm not going to file at WP:MRV but I thought I should provide my £0.02 on the situation anyway. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M2Ys4U: It might have only been 4 hours, but the top 7 active editors, including previous objectors, had all supported the move, hence SNOW. There's no need to draw out a process unnecessarily and waste people's time. It probably didn't need to go to RM in the first place and WP:RMCLOSE is only a "explanatory supplement" rather than a guideline or policy. The more general WP:INVOLVED policy supports taking actions that anyone else would reasonably have done so which applies here, but it's important to note, that I wasn't wearing my admin-hat to make the move and that anyone could have done it, just like previously at the same article. If there are any objections then I'm obviously happy to revert. SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse, I would like to support M2Ys4U's statement and request you revert your close and relist the move, due to you being involved, and due to four hours being too short in my opinion even for a WP:SNOW close - I note that closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: It's been over a week since I closed that, so I don't think reopening makes much sense and it would be better to start a new discussion if you think that a different title would be better. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to reopen the previous one, because a week is typically too short a period of time for a new move discussion to be opened, while not being too long for a close discussion to be timely. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. There was a very clear consensus when I closed it and my first reply above was not "if there are ever any objections in the future". If I hadn't closed it, it would have already been closed by now. It is you that are challenging the existing consensus, so you should create a new discussion and explain your reasoning for not using the existing title. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus four hours in. That consensus could have changed as editors who weren't involved in the article, such as myself, saw the RM listing. However, if you're not willing to revert your change I'll consider whether a new RM or a move review is more suitable as the next location to take this. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just stepping out for awhile (and trying to keep reverts to a minimum), but just an FYI in case you missed it on this edit that this is already being discussed on the talk page as a WP:BLPPRIMARY use and would be appropriate in this case. KoA (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Savile Town, you may be blocked from editing. MrEarlGray (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrEarlGray: It is you that are not responding and adding content that is not supported by the sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Startse, sometimes it's important to observe the wider picture and accept you may be wrong. Take a break, go offline and go outside - it'll do you some good. MrEarlGray (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Right. Will that mean that my eyes somehow start seeing text in sources that is not actually there? SmartSE (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fixation you have on Rita Ora's personal life section is a bit strange. I abundantly referenced a sentence which is relevant to the whole case, considering the amount of coverage and vitriol that Ora got.

Metro.co.uk is actually still cited on thousands of articles on Wikipedia. The Metro article I referenced wasn't claiming any new, potentially unreliable information; it made a connection based on facts. A connection that others made too.

I'm going to be forced to call upon unbiased administrators because this is senseless. --Helptottt (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that the videos were too promotional and needed to be removed. However, I would appreciate you reconsider removing the list of countries where AAR works.

Their main competitor, Lufthansa Tecknik, has a list of operating locations on their Wiki page. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Technik

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgbwashdc (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So can you please undo your deletion of the AAR Corp countries of operation? Fgbwashdc talk — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgbwashdc: Sorry for not replying til now. Information here should generally be sourced to independent sources - are there any which discuss the locations that the company operates in? The comparison to Lufthansa Technik isn't relevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. SmartSE (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, re your undoing my reversion of the edit. I had left a message on the original editor's talk page to inform of the reversion, anticipating that they would then re-add the edit but without the inappropriate 'minor edit' flag. It's clearly not a minor edit going by WP:MINOR, neither could I find any guidance as to how to deal with a such a situation. So for those reasons, my reversion was perhaps an imperfect solution, but ludicrous is quite an over reaction. As you are an admin, what would you suggest as a course of action on seeing substantive changes being marked as minor? Thanks Stroness (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know here on your talk page, as I had pinged you but messed up the capitalization in your username - discussion is still ongoing at Talk:AlphaBay and your input would be appreciated. I was unsure if the ping worked after correcting my error. Waxworker (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this. I forgot to ping you but you were previously involved with extensive discussion with this user and they don't appear to be getting it. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Thanks for the headsup, I had been keeping half an eye on them but hadn't summoned the enegy to do anything about it! SmartSE (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"please read WP:NPOV as you seem to misunderstand what it means"

Smartse, please grow up - this sort of language isn't conducive to a pleasant editing environment, and you know it. The extent to which the person at the top of the tree is responsible for everything that goes on within the organization is debatable, as you know, even if he wasn't personally involved. See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/02/03/prime-minister-did-not-smear-keir-starmer/ if you want a view from a reliable source saying this. Wereon (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Munira_Mirza#"False"_claims. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I edited before I got your message. All the updates have been factual, not embellished and with citations. It's seems strange that negative comments and experiences of what3words are being prioritised with limited positive balance. Similarly customers and users of the system are being selectively listed. Documented detractors of what3words are editorialising their posts to suit their own world view. Previous admins have suggested that having a specific criticism section is unbalanced and should be incorporated into other sections but I see that this has now reappeared. 80.87.27.34 (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the updates have not been factual - this was the reason that others started looking. "In 2022 Tierney admitted that three words are easier to remember and communicate than the alternatives - GPS coordinates or OS grid references" != "Three words may be easier to remember for 5-10 minutes than TQ83737173" Cybergibbons (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you up the edit and move protections for both the user and talkpage to ECP since the latest troll (User: Σ69) was already confirmed and others are likely to crop up. Sheesh. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Done - haven't used all my mopping functions so much in ages. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the same boat :) Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed by your removal of my wording for Mike Van Erp and re-write from your own POV. Mikey is a controversial figure, all sides acknowledge that including The Guardian and Van Erp himself. Also, the BBC article you've cited (I note you have removed the Metro, yet left poorly sourced Road.cc articles untouched) clearly has a headline "Film agent cleared of dangerous driving after activist jumped on car". The jury clearly agreed with that assessment too. Yet you've edited the article with your own personal opinion that there is a dispute in this and that Mikey might have been thrown onto the bonnet. The clip is even captured on Twitter where you can clearly see Van Erp jumping on the car (https://twitter.com/regentsvelodrom/status/1580533544065314816). You need to take your personal bias out of your writing, it's editors like you who make Wikipedia an unreliable source.

I don't even understand why Van Erp even has a Wikipedia page given his low YouTube count. There are thousands of YouTubers with many more subscribers and views who don't have a Wikipedia page - is it just because you agree with his "mission"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOOBOOBEAKER (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BOOBOOBEAKER: I've done my best to represent what the sources have stated - this is what writing from a neutral point of view means here. Per WP:HEADLINE we shouldn't use headlines as sources of information as they are often over-egged. The main text of the source says "jumped" i.e. clearly not making any judgement of whether this was the case or not. What isn't in dispute is that he was on the bonnet - the dispute was whether he was run over and forced onto it or purposefully jumped. The jury found Lyon-Maris not guilty, but they did not make any judgement about what Van Erp did or did not do (at least there's nothing about that in either of the sources I cited). You had originally written that Van Erp had made "aggressive actions" but there is nothing to support that conclusion and it therefore violates our policy on writing biographies. I have not watched any videos of the incident and nor do I need to in order to write a neutral article. You are clearly making your own judgements about him whilst erroneously accusing me of doing so. If you have an issue with the reliability of road.cc, please take that up at the reliable sources noticeboard. As to why we have an article about him - see WP:BIO which describes criteria for whether people are worthy of having an article here. Coverage like this in The Guardian means that the criteria are clearly met. SmartSE (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, I wonder what "Van Erp became positioned on the bonnet of celebrity talent agent Paul Lyon-Maris's Range Rover" means. And now I am going to block that edit(warri)or. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: English isn't my second language ;) looks like you figured it out. I was trying to convey he was on the bonnet without saying he jumped or was driven into but not doing it very well! Dank je wel. SmartSE (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at Cris Thomas? Especially note the article creator, the upload of the professional headshot and tell me what you think? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: The image comes from here but it's definitely unlikely to be the uploader's own work as they claim it to be. I don't see any particular red flags in the original creation, but other articles Laatu created like INOLEX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (especially edits like this) certainly smell rather fishy. It is also a bit concerning that Eatoz is an SPA. Looking at INOLEX, I realised that I had already been slightly suspicious of Laatu before as I'd checked their creations but I can't remember why. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is enough to make a person gag. "Efficient results reporting through proprietary software" bla bla bla. Maybe there should be an edit filter for multiple uses of the word "pivot" in a business article (half kidding [it also appears in reference #41 surely company-provided copy]). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MSP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good info. I'll keep my eye tuned... UtherSRG (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To The Point was added to the paidlist as "blocked" but I'm not seeing where. Just checking up on whether that was a mistake ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Woops - yes it does seem to have been. Thanks for spotting. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]