Splendid edit! You are a clever, Wikipedian. Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I kind of surprised myself that I managed to work out how to do it! Smartse (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions on Template_talk:Did_you_know for the Otter (ship) on 31 July, I have edited and cut down to under the limit. Thanks for reviewing this for me. This is my first DYK. AWHS (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated.AWHS (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I've ticked it off. It should appear on the main page in the next week or so. Smartse (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the double hook etc. Can you please tick this off for me! Thanks. AWHS (talk)

Thanks again!AWHS (talk)

Thanks for your help and contributions recently. They are much appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for starting to sort out the mess of our GE articles, I'd been meaning to for ages but it seemed like too big a problem to get my head round! Smartse (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed my copyrighted work from your page as I do not wish to be associated with wiki on this subject. The treatment of the subject is and has been subject to extreme editing not found in other areas covered by wiki. and many scholars no longer recognize wiki except as a guide to other information. Steven D. Valdivia 14:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven D. Valdivia (talk • contribs)

You agreed to the terms of use when you submitted it. "To grow the commons of free knowledge and free culture, all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works. Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 (Unported)". You can't remove it now claiming it's copyrighted when you, as the copyright holder, are the one who submitted it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Niteshift, it explains it pretty well. The only other thing is that everytime you press edit it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Thanks for your opinion, but as a scholar myself I find wikipedia (only one wiki) a particularly useful source of information. Smartse (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The issues I have stem from my attempting to contribute but being blocked by one person. The issue of gangs is woefully inadequate compared to less important items that do not involve life and death and I have the cred to post valid info. If I may suggest another you and niteshift take a moment and Google "Steven Valdivia gang" so that I may help advance information on this important topic. Steven D. Valdivia 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven D. Valdivia (talk • contribs)

Hi Smartse. I've posted my review of Systemin. Great work, its a really nice article. There were only a few minor issues, most of which I addressed myself. There are two (also minor) things I didn't know enough about to address, but I'm sure you will. After that, I'd be happy to promote it to GA. Rockpocket 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I think I've addressed your points. Smartse (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, again. I hate commons. I told them so too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it worked out better in the end anyway. Don't worry if you can't understand commons licences, I agree that they are damn confusing!! As the saying goes, practice makes perfect, so eventually you should work it out. Smartse (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the requirements for the hook for Navachab Gold Mine to qualify. I've carried out a further expansion, it should pass the mark now. Thanks again, Calistemon (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about you moving Navachab Gold Mine to Navachab gold mine. What was your motivation for this? I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but almost all mining companies capitalise those two words, AngloGold Ashanti being one of them. We usually stick with the offical writing style of the name, as provided by the company in Wikiproject mining, this is why almost all mines articles have the Mine and the Type in capitals. For an example for Navachap, see here (Page 7, under Description). Calistemon (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't realise that that was the convention for mine names. I've fixed a couple of other places where I decapitalised Gold Mine before. I'll make sure I remember this in the future. Smartse (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for an appology at all. Its not so much a convention, trying to establish one actually failed to reach a consensus, as more of a common practice in the absence of one. I just prefer to stick to the name the company gives the mine as it seems the most reliable source for it for me. Have a good one, Calistemon (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. I wanted to thank you for your copy edit to HHV-7 earlier today. I nominated the article for DYK a few days ago. Since you have already looked through it, is there any chance that you could take a look at the nomination on that page? Best, NW (Talk) 22:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference is simple: it is the Italian Constitution:

• Italian Constitution, Articolo 27, Comma 2: L'imputato non è considerato colpevole sino alla condanna definitiva

TRANSLATION: the defendant is not considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable sentence of guiltiness.

Therefore David Mills was sentenced not guilty because the Italian Constitution incorporates the legal principle of not guiltiness. And the Italian Constitution is hyerarchically the primal source of right in the Italian legal system. insilvis Talk 2:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added another reference to the article. Different sources seem to srgue about what the actual ruling was, some saying he was aquitted, whereas others make it clear that he was guilty, but that because it was >10 years since it occurred he could not be convicted. The €250,000 of compensation must mean something too. There's no need to include the constitution as a reference, we can just use news sources instead. Smartse (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you precise contribution. You got right: maybe I am too "offensive" towards journalists but IMHO they are cialtroni (i.e. worse than ciarlatani), because usually they even do not "perform" the effort to take the Italian Constitution and read it! It is all a "political" game: there is a lot of problems with the judiciary system in Italy, but it is clear that the legal priciple of the presumption of "not guiltiness" is codified therein. I mean, Italy is not like Scotland where the judge can formulate a verdict of "not proven" meaning that the defendant cannot be considered neither "guilty" nor "not guilty"... In Italy there are only two defined possibilities: "guilty" or "not guilty". Tertium non datur. --insilvis Talk 14:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this page. I must admit I wasn't sure of the best way to phrase the bit about Tonibler so cheers for sorting it out for me. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Animations don't come up that much, so it's hard to judge how they will be received- additionally, that's a highly technical image; one on which I'm not really qualified to comment! Don't be scared to nominate it, or if you want some feedback before you take the plunge, there is picture peer review which could prove helpful. (I've dealt with your comments concerning the octopus on T:TDYK, thanks for the feedback.) J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It was dragged into the Queue recently, so I couldn't comment there. I just added the word "helps" to the hook as the pump doesn't facilitate the whole process. Thanks for the review. --NortyNort (Holla) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I reworded the article, and sourced the item in question. Can you take some time and look at it again for me? Thanks. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Pls check my nomination's entry again. Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oops! Wait a minute. My reply was not saved. I'll try again.CeeGee (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Check again please.CeeGee (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten advice to undue your edit, because you eliminated [ Wikipedia:Linking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking] which is desired. Your thoughts?Edstat (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit removed a reference which was linking to another article. Because of WP:CIRCULAR (WP:SELFCITE used to link here too but doesn't for some reason now) we can't use another article as a reference. By "undue" do you mean "undo"? If you want to link to another article you do it using [[square brackets like this]] rather than adding a reference which links to another article. I've undone the edit you made after mine as the source you cited makes no mention of Shlomo Sawilowsky so can't be used as a reference. Smartse (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the point was {Wikify}, which is linking off-subject topics to wiki links. For example, one might wikify Chicago if that was the subject's residence, even though it makes no mention of the subject. Sawilowsky graduated from RCA, and Lipskier was the "Mashpia" at that institution. And, there is a wiki link to Lipskier that you deleted. I have no problem with you deleting my substitute link (where I thought your point was to reference the off-subject to an external link). However, I'm proposing to undo the deletion of the wikify link to Lipskier, and if you want a reference that makes mention that Lipskier is (or was?) the "Mashpia" of Sawilowsky, I can cite the introduction to Sawilowsky (2007) reference.

I assume by WP:CIRCULAR (WP:SELFCITE, you meant WP:CIRCULAR (WP:SELFCITE). Edstat (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea I understand about wikifying... Once again, I removed a reference - by adding <ref> </ref> either side of a link it makes the text appear in the references section of the article, where there should be sources which verify the information in the article. Wikilinks are added using square brackets like [[ ]] these either side of the article to be linked to. I haven't removed a wikilink to Avraham Lipskier as you've suggested. I've just added a wikilink to mashpia where the reference used to be. If there is a reference which states that Sawilowsky was taught by Lipskier then this should be added. I'm going to remove another reference, because it makes no mention of Sawilowsky. To clarify, the point of a reference is to allow readers to check the facts written in an article. I.e. If I write "XXX is was born in 1973 in St Guy's Hospital" then the reference linked should mention that XXX was born in 1973 at St Guy's Hosptial, and not be a link to the website of St. Guy's Hospital. Does that make sense now? And I meant WP:CIRCULAR when I wrote WP:CIRCULAR?! Smartse (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see now you are differentiating between wikify and reference. I'm going to put "( )" around "Mashipa" because otherwise it appears as if that is Lipskier's last name. Also, I don't have Sawilowsky (2007), but I can get it at the local library, and get the actual page number in the introduction. Then I'll put it back in as a reference.Edstat (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I put Ostroff in [[ ]] as well, but not being a wiki link, it doesn't look as good. Maybe it should be an external link? I can provide a reference that he was a teacher. The full title of the book "Sawilowsky, Shlomo S. (2007). Making the Shabbos kitchen. (With editorial assistance by Yechiel Conway.) Lakewood, NJ: Pirchei Shoshanim. ISBN 978-0-9740236-7-0" is "Making the Shabbos Kitchen: based on Hilchos Shabbos Shiurim of HaRav Dovid Ostroff". I'm pretty sure Ostroff is acknowleged also in the introduction.Edstat (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on SpicyNodes, and also your review of two related file formats. I have posted some replies to your comments on Talk:SpicyNodes. I understand the ongoing tensions about notability, and I hope that SpicyNodes has met a minimal threshold for inclusion in wikipedia. Moreover, based on the current, exponential rate of increase of users and coverage of SpicyNodes in the blogosphere, I anticipate more third party and secondary sources. It is possible that I should have waited a few months for even more coverage, but my sense was that there was enough now. As for the NMF and MM file format pages, I defer to your judgement. If the two software projects are notable, then their file formats are too. It is better to merge the file formats into the main project pages than to completely remove them. Wikipedia does include many other file formats. If you think there should not be pages on the file formats, let me know, and I can merge that information into the two pages. I think that both NMF and MM file formats are notable because they seek to solve key problems when trying to describe acyclic graphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted on the article talk page, we need to wait until there are sources available, not when you anticipate them. Regarding the file formats, just because software is notable, does not mean its file format is, it could mention in the articles what the extension for each file format is, but it doesn't really need to say anymore. I know we have many other articles on file formats but I couldn't see how these ones aer notable enough - I think you can see the difference between those and mp3 and .doc etc. I think you mis-understand what wikipedia means by notable - it doesn't mean that it's interesting - it means that it has been discussed by multiple independent sources, and is independent of our own opinions. Thanks for leaving the PROD tags in place though, I've many editors before who would have removed them without any justification. Smartse (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Much as I'd love to, it's not really my place to remove the PROD tags. How about this: I can condense discussion of the 2 file formats, and add that to the two parent articles. (I can also change other incoming links). I strongly feel that the file formats are an important part of both SpicyNodes and FreeMind, and can allude to the specs, with a bit less detail. Moreover, in the case of FreeMind, their file format is used by multiple other mindmapping systems. A possible problem with this solution is that the reference will be primary sources, as there is no third party manual discussing the file formats. Wxidea (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you can if you like, but it just means that we go to articles for deletion instead, and I'm 99% certain they'll be deleted there, but it just takes up more time. If there aren't any third party references discussing the formats then the articles shouldn't go into any great detail about them. I think just noting the extension would be sufficient, and a first party reference would be ok to use for that. Smartse (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- I don't know if I was clear. I am suggesting that I move the content about the file format into the parent articles, and then support deletion. I think the file format articles are notable, but you have a better sense than I. And I would rather see the file formats discussed in the parent articles than not at all. Wxidea (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood that you are suggesting merging them, I'm just saying that you shouldn't simply copy+paste the format info into the program articles. There should be a couple of sentences at most. Smartse (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't discuss a file format in a few sentences, it's just not practical, but I can probably wrangle a relatively short paragraph, and maybe some bullets. Please advise. Wxidea (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't need the absolute full details though as in the separate articles. Have a go at something and I'll take a look. Smartse (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. How's this edited page on SpicyNodes? If it seems ok, I think the file format page I made can be safely deleted, and I am happy to faciliate that.Wxidea (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pages have been removed, and content put on main organization site. You successfully kept my two new pages out of Wikipedia based on your interpretation of notability and your careful monitoring. I will try to re-add them in the future when we have additional references to indicate notability. Wxidea (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been doing some mentoring/editing on this article and that the creator(also the artist's manager) is working to fix any issues with the article. FYI - There seems to be a possible copyvio between this article and the manager's website (http://janmatthies.com/blog/en/?page_id=92). I know there is a possible series of actions (deletion of the apparent copyvio text, notices placed on the article & on creator's Talkpage about the applicable copyright issues, etc.) but wasn't sure how to proceed since JanMatthiesMM seems to be trying to 'do the right thing'. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I'll leave them a note asking them to rewrite that section and point them towards the copyright policy. They could release it under GFDL but I think it's better if they rewrite it. Smartse (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for making me feel welcome, although I do those mistakes. I rewrote the Life and career part and thank for further editing, please watch the discussion for the article. Have a great night. --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that errant link, thanks for catching it. Shearonink (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only do I know him IRL [1], but he's only notable to about seven people. :P Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is always pleasant to be acknowledged as non-notable. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the three nominations already at T:TDYK be moved to WP:Did you know/Halloween 2010? Smartse (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, once they are approved by others. Approval is given when an editor (who is not the nominator) adds the "Very Evil" symbol and has indicated their approval. That has yet to happen with the three ones on the Template talk:Did you know#For 31 October, Hallowe'en page/section. There are still discussions going on over the wording of two, and the most recent one (Veratrum nigrum) has yet to be evaluated. If you want to evaluate any of the three, according to the usual DYK criteria, feel free to do so! - Tim1965 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, I hadn't realised that was the way it was organised and just wanted to check that the noms weren't being duplicated on different pages. I'll try to review some when I have the time and add them to the subpage once they're reviewed. Smartse (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Parachartergus apicalis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In text box #3 (lower left) of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_cycle.svg, atom is misspelled "arom". (I tried to fix it myself, but I couldn't find a modifiable-text version that also had the "(fix the arrows)" change.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops I'll try and sort that out this week. Thanks for letting me know and sorry you can't fix it - .svgs and text don't mix well for some reason. Smartse (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done

I have addressed the issue at Template_talk:Did_you_know#John_Greenhill. Shadygrove2007 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For your time and patience in clean up and editing of Kresimir Chris Kunej. Much obliged.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the article before I read your reply on the nomination page, what do you think about the ref? I've also found an article linking purity to odour but it's quote from a dealer and it's another tabloid. [2] Grim²³★ 21:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the Daily Mail is just about ok for that, but I don't think we can use a quote from a dealer in the NotW to describe why it is the case. There might be something in the europol report (ref 9), I need to go through and make sure everything in it is included soon so I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks for adding the reference though. Smartse (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted information to assist with your insight and request on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways advertisement. I hope you will consider it. --User:Melaniegravdal Talk

Hi again, Smartse, I just wanted you to know that I have again inserted the screenshot of a dead-linked source [3] into article Kresimir Chris Kunej as an additional source right next to the dead link. You removed it once and I placed it into "see also" section, then you stated that doesn't count. Now another editor (Drmies) actually advised on the talk page to re-insert the pic into references. I agree, because at a previous AfD, someone arguing "delete" questioned the validity of the source since link was dead. I hope you did not feel it absolutely necessary to delete this pic, and if so, why, or what are your thoughts. Do not wish to step on toes. Thanks. Turqoise127 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Turqoise, the reason I nominated the screenshot for deletion is because it is a copyright violation. In some circumstances it is ok to have copyrighted images on wikipedia (see WP:FAIRUSE) but because in this situation it isn't used - as in the actual picture is not being shown in an article - it must be deleted. As the fair use box on the image description states it can only qualify for fair use if used "for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question" which it clearly isn't. Regardless of what people said at AfD about dead links they shouldn't be a problem, particularly as other editors should assume good faith on your part. I'm therefore going to revert your removal of the speedy deletion tag once more. Please let me know if any of this is still unclear. Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I sure have a lot to learn about copyright. One would never think that a screenshot of a state university's (making it government) required reading list for a seminar that was offered for a certain year is copyrighted? Are you certain of this, and I guess how would you know? Be that as it may, I am just curious. I will not undo your change again. Thanks. Turqoise127 21:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The screenshot says "© 1997-2009 Slaviches Seminar" which is about as clear cut as it can be. Pretty much everything is copyrighted unless it has been released under a suitable licence, such as those of the Creative Commons licenses. Don't worry it does take a long time to get your head round all the complications of editing here. Smartse (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question as to why you added back the wording in the reference on Cairns Wildlife Safari Reserve? In doing so you created a dead link that I had only hours ago restored to a live link. ZooPro 02:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, I didn't notice. I see you've sorted it out now but thanks for letting me know. Smartse (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries I seemed to have missed the extra POV in there so thanks for fixing that up also. ZooPro 09:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The first link you provided in my talk page is from a reliable Romanian website which i often use myself. The second link does not say if mephedrone is illegal or not it just says that the Special Gold substance known as bath salt in Romania contains traces of mephedrone. I found an official response from the Ministry of Health that states that mephedrone and other substances are illegal but it's in Romanian. Is it good enough? BineMai 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Health Ministry (2010-02-10). "Press release:The Health Ministry has established the list of plants and other substances with psychoactive properties that will be banned, after it has been proved that they are dangerous for the health". Retrieved 2010-09-21.

No problem :). BineMai 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know less than nothing about Lithuanian. Italian I can muddle through, but I'm actually going to be away for a while starting in about two hours. I can try and tackle it upon my return, though. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, check the ec? After posting this, I will directly reopen this section for edit. Then I wait. In the mean time, asap, you add a reply here. When I see that you replied (in my 2nd screen), I'll try to add & save - which should trigger the ec.

• (you can start the same test on my Talkpage. If you reply here "not interested", I'll drop it). -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried this using another my laptop at the same time and it triggered an EC so I'm a tad confused! Smartse (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Test result: I got an ec warning. This message is typed regularly, editing completely after your 15:43 edit. Anything more to do? -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess not. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a problem that no one had noticed. I can understand why it might not give ECs when the same editor edits the same page, but I was certain I should have got them before for some of the diffs I posted at the VPT. Thanks for your help anyway. Smartse (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one is probably different, but it is out of my depth. Have a nice session. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cum shot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert IDONTLIKEIT vandalism, replace sourced content again, explain why. How could this have been done differently? Smartse (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You could have asked for help from the WikiProjects under whose aegis the page falls, WP:WikiProject Sexuality and WP:WikiProject Pornography. You also could have brought the matter to WP:RS/N when User:DMSBel continued to remove sourced material. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on, you can't be serious. It's an obvious hoax and you want this up for 7 days until the PROD expires? With a large probability that the hoaxter comes back and removes the PROD so that then we'll have to go through AfD? And all that time this ridiculous thing created by some schoolkid is up on WP? They must be laughing their heads off. --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G3 only applies to "blatant hoaxes" and "only remotely plausible" hoaxes can't be deleted via CSD per Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria. Obviously I think it should be deleted, but our speedy deletion process doesn't have a category that it fits in to. It is fairly obviously not a hoax - I'm sure they have played it - it's just completely non-notable. If they said they went to the moon or something then it could be speedied but not as it is at the moment. If the PROD is removed then it'll probably be snowballed at AfD and there won't be a problem. (I agree that this is a stupid way to do things but these are the guidelines the community has decided upon). Smartse (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:IAR. In my experience, any admin who sees this kind of stuff will speedy it, and justly so. --Crusio (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to tag it again if you want. Smartse (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Usually your edits are ironclad, but in this particular case you apparently overlooked that Brady defines "army ants" as only the members of the Ecitoninae; he excludes ants in the Ponerinae, Myrmicinae, Leptanilloidinae, and Leptanillinae from his analysis. Since the Army ant article covers all of these taxa, the claim of convergent evolution holds true, and only fails if you don't believe (as Brady does not) that these other ants are army ants. The bottom line is that WP is using the more "popular" application of the term, and Brady is using a much narrower set of technical criteria. Not quite apples and oranges, but the same basic idea: that he wasn't referring to what the WP article refers to. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Woops! Thanks for catching that - nomenclature is way too confusing sometimes. So do the three characteristics Brady talks about in the third paragraph of the abstract apply to the other species, or is it just that they hunt en masse that means they are classified as army ants? Smartse (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the hunting en masse is not the primary criterion - the other groups move the nest site routinely, with only one known exception, and that exception does have group hunting. His criteria for inclusion are restrictive enough that the other legionary ants are *not* army ants, as he defines them. Dyanega (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. No, I guess it wouldn't be, strictly speaking, original research. But the reasons for removing sourced material require a better justification than the one given, in my admittedly unscientific opinion. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, (and by the fact that I reinserted it after it was removed before) I don't think it is an April's fools joke, it's just a pretty poor paper. If you're not scientifically trained, then I can see why you might think it was reliably sourced and should therefore stay. Smartse (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and good idea RE the ref desk. That should sort it out hopefully. Smartse (talk)

I had a laugh reading your last edit comment on Louis Babel. As one of the authors of this one on fr:, I'll take care of the translation in a few days, as soon as the 1,000,000th thing settles a bit. Cheers. Bouchecl (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't thought that it could be the Canadians and not the French! Congratulations on making the millionth article (if it is) I had a go myself at making the 3 millionth here last year but missed by about 5 articles! Smartse (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Translation_of_article_on_NL_vs._COI, I have a draft of the article ready. It's up now, at User:BenTels/MT; I'd appreciate your taking a look. Regarding sources, I'm still citing the "Small TU/e encyclopedia" used on the Dutch version, but I've also referenced two epitaphs (one in the TU/e newspaper, one in a general newspaper); somewhat somber sources, but they do provide concise biographical data. Both in Dutch, but that is a matter of necessity I fear.

Again, regarding notability I am citing WP:ACADEMIC, point 6, in my father having been rector magnificus of the Eindhoven University of Technology. The university is a major academic institution in The Netherlands (also pretty well cited abroad) and rector magnificus is the top appointed academic post at a Dutch university.

Let me know what you think (I'll check back here for responses). Thanks in advance, -- BenTels (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ben, there are no problems regarding notability. There are a few things though where it looks as if your personal knowledge, rather than sources have been used, for example "Professor Tels continued advising the Van Gansewinkel Group until 1996, through a one-man company he founded (Swiwah B.V.; swiwah is hebrew for environment)" isn't in reference 3, I'm not sure about the sourcing for the bicycle repairman bit either, as nice as this is. The reference for the section about the war doesn't seem to mention him by name either, and most of the content isn't mentioned in the reference. It may be best to remove this section, unless a better reference exists. Apart from that it looks good to move to mainspace. I found this which might have something that could be added, but I can't tell as I don't understand Dutch. One last thing - can you upload a photograph to have in the article? Let me know if you want me to have another look at it, if you do some more work. Smartse (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Swiwah reference, I have to check whether the announcement in the Staatscourant is available online (1991 is a long time ago). I can't find it in a short browse, so I've got a "citation needed" there now. I've commented out the bicycle repairman; I know there was a reference in a document by Panta Rei, but I don't think I can access it online. I can prove the whole thing in the sense that I have the statuette and it has a plaque on it (and I can post a picture) -- but I don't know if that counts.

I've added a reference (IMDb entry) to a documentary that was made in 1998 about the Barneveldgroep; he was interviewed as one of the survivors, so it establishes he was part of the group. The other reference details in short what happened to the entire group (the internment locations); this is actually more to compensate for a lack in the Wikipedia article on the Plan Frederiks, which should be greatly improved. In any case, his presence in the concentration camps is established by the fact that he was in the Barneveldgroep (they were all deported together and kept together throughout the war — that was the point of the group).

The PDF you found is a graduating thesis by Cees van Gool. My father was his graduating professor, but not his supervisor (so the thesis only really establishes that my father was a professor). Nice find though. I did note that you added a reference to a paper my father wrote together with Thijs Senden; that's a nice one and brings back memories too. My father worked with Thijs for years, before Thijs left the TU/e to become a vice president at Shell. Thanks for that one!

A photograph will be tricky. I have a number of good pictures, but they are either very old, or family shots which involve other people, or shots made of him by the TU/e (which are not free). Other than that I have recent shots, but he was already visibly in bad health in those so I don't want to post those. I'll check with the people in the family shots to see if they object. Failing that I'll check with the TU/e for use of their photos.

I've also added some external links to the article to speeches he gave to open the academic year.

I'd appreciate your taking one last look (particularly regardind the citation needed part on Swiwah) to see if it will do for now. If you still agree with the current content, I'll move it to mainspace. Thanks! -- BenTels (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's best to leave the bike part out as if I was writing the article I wouldn't know anything about it. Otherwise every thing looks fine - remember that offline references are fine to use so long as they are reliable. That's fair enough about the photos, I hope you can find one somewhere which shows him in his best light. I think it's fine to move it to mainspace now, one thing though - maybe you should drop a note on the talk page, disclosing that you wrote the article just to be clear. Smartse (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is now in mainspace (Martinus Tels), with a declaration on the talk page; thanks again for all the help! -- BenTels (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Nicely done with the declaration. Smartse (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, i am trying to add a reference to an important bibbliography on secure telephony protocols (it's a pure technical research without any kind of reference/spam or whatever). Whenever i try to add it, it get deleted. What's up? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_telephone Please talk me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpietrosanti (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse: I disagree with your view of refspam to the above article, where you issued a 4IM caution to the contributor's talk page. I believe what the contributor should have done in the instance of his/her edit to Pragmatics was to open up a new section or sub-section within the article with a title such as: 'Non-linguistic examples', where new, but valid material is introduced into a topic-specific article. In this case the article was topic-specific to linguistics, and the pragmatic material inserted was biological -but that doesn't make it illegal within an article, only poorly framed. Please do not bite newcomers to our collective works. Thanks and best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harry, thanks for your note. If you disagree with me then feel free to revert my clean up, but I'd suggest you take a look at the paper first to make sure it backs up the content. I also think this needs to be considered in the context of their other edits - check my contributions for yesterday and you'll see the scale of the refspamming. We discourage editors from adding references to their own work because it is effectively original research, if they had been adding references to other's works as well then I might take a different view, but in my opinion their only aim here appears to be to promote themselves, which is clearly at odds with the project. I dropped User:Jebus989, who welcomed the user a few weeks ago, a note to check if they thought the 4im warning was appropriate and they agreed it was. I don't consider this to be bitey because after the persistance of this spamming, I'm afraid I no longer AGF. Smartse (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. According your way to work I may consider this to be an inherent mind police. This article on pragmatics is on top of research and if you are a pragmatist you would know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.215.123.233 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. Just thought I'd drop you a note to say thank you for the alternative DYK hook for Lucernaria janetae. You taking the time and effort to find an alternative was much appreciated. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. Have been away from wikipedia and the internet for a couple of weeks now so only just replied to your message. However, I won't be much help for another week at least. There is this link here which may help. AIRcorn (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. It took me a while to write that article and I tried to avoid any kind of advertising. The thing is that the only relation to EPiServer I have is that I use it. It's no different than the other Content Management System articles like Umbraco, Drupal, DotNetNuke, etc. These will all have been created by people affiliated to the same degree as myself with their respective Content Management Systems. I welcome any advice and will have to redraft the content in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Incidentally, this is my second account as I cannot remember my password to the other Apexprim8 account I used to use. Can you post me the original article again as I don't want to lose it - perhaps in my talk page? Looking forward to meeting you and the others in Cambridge! Thanks dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrisRandal (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to help recover the old article. I'll put it on my list of things to do. Also - cheers for the advice regarding my old account. It's good to see Wikipedia still has some bright and active individuals who contribute. Hopefully see you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrisRandal (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect you really meant that the kids aren't theirs [4]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for the note. Never did pay much attention in English lessons! Smartse (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

theirs not "their's". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Woops, seemingly don't pay much attention here either! Thanks again. Time to head back to school I think! Smartse (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I've replied about the DYK on Mutant Girls Squad and I've provided an alternative Halloween DYK. Thanks for taking time to review my post. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at T:TDYK Smartse (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've gotten back to you about the uhh..chainsaw location! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that a link is disqualified just because it appears under someone's personal Web page. Too bad, because I've been told by many folks on Lyme and bartonellosis forums that my information page is by far the best, most comprehensive source of information on these diseases that they have ever seen. I spent more than a year creating it, and all information is supported by reference notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbrew (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page. Smartse (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Davenport

Dear Smartse,

I disagree with you on removing the Telegraph link as copy related directly to Edward Davenport and his house, 33 Portland Place. The music video: it is on the music band's official page. You have accepted it and moved it down December 1, 2009. High profile events: it is obviously celebrity high profile parties - you have to look at the celebrities who have attended. Religion is on his personal Facebook page which is open to the public. Frieze Art: have a look at the video^[1] where Edward Davenport talks about the show.

I am not a press representative.

Best wishes,WikiRecontributer47 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the telegraph story because it is a copyright violation and these are taken very seriously on wikipedia. The entire section is copy + pasted (with some very slight editing) from the article and cannot stay. As I implied in the edit summary, just because the event took place at his house, does not mean it belongs in his biography which should focus on him. If you want to create an article on 33 Portland Place then feel free to do so. Facebook cannot be used to reference his religious beliefs as it is not a reliable source for such information, our guideline on the biographies of living people sets high standards as to what can and can't be used as sources in these articles to protect the subjects. If the fact he appears in a video was reported by a newspaper then we might include it in the article, but simply linking to a clip of the video is not acceptable. "high profile" sounds like weasel words to me - who says something is high profile because some celebrities attended? Regarding whether or not you are a press representative - you used to have a username that was the same as Davenport's press representative, it's an amazing coincidence for you to be so interested in the article if you aren't. We'll see what's during the sockpuppet investigation anyway. For the reasons I've explained above, I will be removing the content discussed again. Please explain on the talk page of the article, if you think it should be mentioned, quoting relevant guidelines or policies. Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the charity donation, the same goes as for the music video - it would need to be covered somewhere else, rather than being based on a primary source before being included. Smartse (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Smartse,

Thanks for helping me improve it - I am only learning.

Best Wishes x [[User:WikiRecontributer47 00:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRecontributer47 (talk • contribs)

Multiple Accounts

Hi Smartse,

I've been a silly monkey. Me & a friend of mine used 2 different accounts from this computer. I didn't know it is not acceptable. Will my main account be deleted too?

What shall I do!!! Help.

Sarah. [[User:WikiRecontributer47 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRecontributer47 (talk • contribs)

And also - I am not Mr King or Edward Davenport's press representative. U r crazy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRecontributer47 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that it is crazy to assume that, when you before your username was previously Alexking321 (talk · contribs), Alex King is/was Davenport's press representative and you were adding un neutral information to the article. But no, WikiRecontributer47 will not be blocked. Smartse (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you've added yourself to the list of adopters available in the adopt-a-user program. Thank you for helping out, your help is much needed and appreciated. If you're interested in jumping right in, you can find adoptees at Category:Wikipedians_seeking_to_be_adopted_in_Adopt-a-user. Thanks for helping out! Netalarm^talk 22:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I offered to adopt User:Go37go earlier, so thought I'd better add myself to the list! Smartse (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks so much for offering to help me! I am not too smooth with code, but this all seems well within my grasp. Each question I have had so far I was able to figure out on my own. If I do get stuck I am happy to know there is help! Thanks! Go37go (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, if you get stuck with any other code Wikipedia:Cheatsheet has most of the simple things and Wikipedia:Images#Using_images has stuff about images. If you're not already using it, I suggest you select to use WP:WIKIED under the "gadgets" and then "editing gadgets" sections of Special:Preferences. This makes it a lot easier to edit as different parts of the code are coloured differently so you can work out what's where. It also lets you go to linked webpages and wikilinks when you are editing by holding Ctrl (or the apple equivalent) + clicking on the link. Smartse (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You look interested in Hishmi Jamil Husain page. I appreciate, you again open page for discussion it will help in improving the page. This is coincident the page created by me is having similar spelling. Which force people like you to put tag of autobiography. If you clearly mention issues to me I will try to reply as I am new on wiki this will also help me to contribute more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hishmi (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as I've said at the deletion discussion I can't see how it meets our requirements for inclusion. I'll assume good faith that you aren't the subject, but I don't see how you could have written the article, if you have no conflict of interest since I am unable to verify any of the information in the article. This is more what makes people suspect it is an autobiography, rather than your username per se. Smartse (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

If you are good reader of books and interested to visit Libraries then you will know more about such people who are having limited familiarity with people like you. I know many good writers but their references are unfortunately limitedly available on internet which makes people like you to put tags. I think if you will read authors' book you will know more. If you want to put more suggestion please visit some good book store and library and get information and get confidence. Think and contribute. Best……….H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hishmi (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to tell me.... I've contributed ~15,000 times but can't to this article, because no reliable sources have written about him. Smartse (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Smartse

I think your contribution is very rich and it needs some recognition so you should tell your real name and credential with qualification details I will create a page for you. I told you to read books also which are not available on internet then your contribution number should reach to 15,0000000000000000000 level. You should write a book on wiki contribution. Why did you use Smartuse name? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hishmi (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm nowhere near notable. Smartse (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajeshking (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I have given my comments on discussion. Taging with justification is good idea.

Rajeshking (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Puting deletion tag is not appropriate. What justification you give for it? If you realy want to contribute please put contructive though and make page more informative. People are working for improvement. Best

I've explained on your talk page. Smartse (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajeshking (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC) What is your definition of academics and notable person? Administrator already approved this page. I think you missed that. This tag was flagged for three weeks first time. You put first tag on 24th September as responsible worker and more than month passed. HJ Mitchell cleared your tag and you are insisting for more discussion. Any time frame specifies or you want to add your contribution list with such tags to 1500000000000000000000000. Which will give you?

WP:ACADEMIC wasn't written by me, but by the community. Your agressive tone makes me think you aren't going to make a great member of the community and frankly I can't be bothered arguing with a blatant sock puppet any longer. Smartse (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajeshking (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) You are feeling offensive with your contribution I think you need not to bother by putting incorrect tag for a month. Correct information on discussion board. Dr Hishmi did BSc from Aligarh and you are searching name in MSc passed out list. This is healthy discussion nothing is aggressive. Give justification for PROD. I think work is important. Best. Rajeshking (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Rajeshking (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to put deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for approved pages, you may be blocked from editing. Give reason not tag. I think you are sock puppet which did not tell qualification for his consideration as qualified contributor.

Hi I think it is first interaction with you. There is no intension to touch your feeling in discussion board. I admire your formatting and learn rich template use. Kajalask (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of the template for pmid and others keys: I have a feeling that you have just showed me my new favourite template (after small caps for acronyms!). Thanks!! --Squidonius (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. In respect of the DYK for All Saints Church, Highbrook which you have verified (thanks), I have now expanded West Hoathly as well to make a double hook. The diff from which I began the expansion is here (893 bytes). Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've verified the expansion. Smartse (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The earlier and bigger version has the problem--as I have noted in its talk page--of being a copyright violation.--LittleHow (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for your comments regarding my recently started SFB wikipedia page. I know the article needs polishing, but I think it would be great if wiki had an article on SFB. Honestly, I am really surprised that wiki didn't have an article given how much interest there is in the scientific community regarding this bacteria. I'll keep contributing and hopefully we can get people out in the community to contribute too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vupadhyay85 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm sorry that you weren't exactly welcomed in a nice way, people should know better but unfortunately they don't always. The article's coming along nicely and I'm sure over time it will develop further. I'll help out where I can, but will probably only have the time to tweak things, rather than adding references. I hope you can keep on improving it. SmartSE (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you very much, and I will try to add a little bit each day. It looks better now and hopefully will be accepted as a real article at some point. I will try to link it to other pages as well.Vupadhyay85 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your note - I tried adding a picture, and I used from from an article I reference (Ivanov et al.) in Cell. Now, I know this article is available on pubmed, but I'm not sure if this can be put out there as I have. I've referenced it, but if its wrong, I will take it down or invite anyone to remove it. I am very new to wiki, and I don't want to do anything against the wiki rules.Vupadhyay85 (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I found the picture you uploaded. Unfortunately we can't include it as it is because the copyright is held by the journal and we can only use images that have been released under a free licence - like a creative commons licence. If you click "edit" on the file and then add {{db-g7}}, then an administrator will come along and delete the image shortly. I've had luck before emailing scientists who work in a field and asking them if they may be able to donate a photo to include in articles. There are some examples of letter templates at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission if you need one, if you do email someone, just be sure to point out that if they do donate a photo it can be used by anyone afterwards for free and not just on wikipedia. If you are successful, WP:IMAGE should explain how to place it in the article once you've uploaded it. Feel free to drop me a note though, I could never get it right at first! SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)