User talk:Smartse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Gaetano Minale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Request for Reinstatement of Removed Content with Clarifications

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello SmartSE,

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

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

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

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

Hello, Smartse,

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

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

Sorry to read such comments when you don't really know the reality. Everything I label is publicly available, and I spend a lot of time analyzing everything to identify all these irregularities. Once what I'm doing is not useful, you can tell me directly, instead of blaming me for things that don't concern me. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dmitry Bobriakov: Like I said I was being cynical, but that is definitely a pattern that myself and others have noted when new users appear and jump straight into reporting paid editing. That wasn't meant to offend you and I apologise if it did. I don't care who anyone here is so long as spam is being removed! Happy hunting! SmartSE (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smartse It only remains for me to prove to you throughout my editing that you have got the wrong impression!

I'm a new editor at the number of edits, but as mentioned I used to send messages to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, but because the volunteers there are extremely busy I decided to do it directly (but before doing so I followed all the examples and familiarized myself with how to correctly do the whole process). Thank you, certainly no offended. I hope to connect us to other new joint works! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smartse Once you're available you can review this article Nava Mau, it has been updated by an editor who apparently hasn't disclosed that possible to be paid. And his talk page indicates that he has in the past edited articles for which he was paid. Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks for this, much appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

Just a sample of the barrage of uncivil comments:

Your message reeks of arrogance, ignorance [etc]

your "evidence" is laughable

you're just flinging baseless accusations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

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

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

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

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

I have added citations to high-yielding variety. (Just for your information; thanks for telling me!) 122.176.122.147 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you might be able to assist with the following thread at COIN . An IP user who has previously claimed to be the current Isle of Man Minister for Education, Sport and Culture (which includes tourism) has been regularly editing articles on museums and heritage railways on the Isle of Man, sometimes in a highly promotional way. They also seem to have a sideline in vandalism to (non Isle of Man related) articles. Under normal circumstances the user would, I think, be blocked - but given that it's an IP I wonder what you think would be an appropriate way forwards? Axad12 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: Commented there. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hallo, although you replied to a comment at Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal you didn't make an explicit comment for or against the merge. It would help clairfy the consensus if you could do so. I'm thinking of listing this at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Other types of closing requests to get it settled. PamD 09:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks for the reminder! SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

--Smokefoot (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Thanks! That looks great for Amine gas treating but is perhaps a little too complex for the carbon capture and storage article. I guess I didn't explain too well, but I was thinking of something showing how the Co2 is absorbed and the amine is then recycled, so co2 in at the top left, an amine cycle in the middle and co2 out the bottom right. Would it also be simpler if it used a generic amine? SmartSE (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{chem2|2 R2NH + CO2 <-> [RNH3+][RNHCO2-]}}

That eq is the CO2 capture chem for amines. Smokefoot (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You asked me about the reliability of using a two-hundred year source in an edit made in the article Botany. Yes, I can agree with you that it is usually best to find more up-to-date sources. With that said, general definitions of words can be taken from old and, sometimes, archaic sources. We do find on Wikipedia that there are more than 300 citations taken from the The Nuttall Encyclopædia, an encyclopedia written over 100 years ago. Moreover, on Wikipedia it is common to incorporate texts taken from old encyclopedias, such as in the entry Incense (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906), and that are now in the public domain and there is no concern about copyright issues. See, for example, Hedyot (rabbinic term)#References. In short, my view is that if it's good, why not use it, particularly if modern word descriptions are convoluted or lacking in scope. Anyway, I will leave the matter to your own discretion. If you feel that the edit does not improve the article, I am fine with that. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

One more thing: Encyclopaedia Britannica has been published for many, many years, and while we do not rely on old editions for information regarding medicine and modern scientific inventions, etc., I humbly submit that we can rely upon it for a definition of a word that has been in use for more than a thousand years.Davidbena (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Davidbena: This belongs at Talk:Botany really, but since you've started here lets continue for now, but if you disagree still, please post there. The problem isn't so much that the source is old, but that in the intervening time, the definition of botany has changed vastly. Back then it was indeed solely concerned with classification and utilisation. In the UK at least, nowadays, that form of science is restricted to botanical gardens and natural history museums, while plant sciences has replaced it in contemporary universities with a much wider scope - how plants function). There may be merit in defining botany and plant sciences separately, but I don't think there is a clear delineation between the two in the US, but regardless it's still not accurate to describe it as just "arranging, distinguishing, and naming all plants and vegetables". SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Your words have convinced me. You're right. Botany entails many more things, as the science has evolved into "specialized" sciences relating to plants, their physical characteristics, their functions, their medicinal properties, their benefits to human civilizations, their relationship to the environment, etc., etc. I will not pursue this matter any further, but I will post a link of this discussion in the Talk Page at Botany. Thank you for your patience.Davidbena (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, there's been an edit war involving this guy. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acmeism.Data/Archive. It's entirely possible there are paid editors on both sides, of course.

I don't see anything in the usual discussion forums about Sword1234 (talk · contribs) or Claytonxyz (talk · contribs). Am I missing something? Apocheir (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Apocheir: Yep I'm aware of that SPI - that was who requested it deleted as an attack page. There's no SPI for them because Claytonxyz is stale, but Sword1234 is a WP:DUCK of them and various editing patterns point towards UPE. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Apocheir What about 2-day old Joaquienstallfesh who recreates the article? Worthwhile seeing if they're part of Acmeism.Data or another ring? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I would think if they are a sock, they would be a sock of Sword1234. They're trying to add the information on Srivastava, while Acemism.Data and their socks were trying to remove it. And that's one reason that I asked about the SPI, because it would make it easier to keep the two sets of socks straight. Apocheir (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Apocheir: Thanks for creating the SPI and sorry for not replying til now - looks like they've shot themselves in the foot by creating the other account! SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Pet Supermarket has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 8 § Pet Supermarket until a consensus is reached. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I dont know if this is the right place but I noticed something, you blocked Lau737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I suspect to that user is back as user Réalgard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is a similar way of edits and content, adding a lot of things in see also sections, many of the same articles edited with adding the same content as it is the case for example Structural violence. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.227.159 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep that was pretty obvious and I have blocked them accordingly. I'll revert all their edits in a moment. SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed you reverted my recent edit on the Steven Bartlett article, citing "not a reliable source." I understand your concern, as the original source was a contributor article on Forbes. However, the same news has been published on other platforms such as **Yahoo News** and **Business Cloud**, which may meet reliability standards.

Would it be acceptable if I re-added the content using one of these more widely recognized sources? I'm happy to ensure everything aligns with WP:RS and WP:V.

Thanks for your time ThinkVault (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@ThinkVault: CityAM (the original source of the Yahoo News) looks okay to use. I doubt it merits a whole section of it's own though. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Two editors Alirana24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zahid131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) strange behaviour, possible WP:TAGTEAM, or something similar or the same user with two accounts. Some of their actions and edits seems as WP:NOTHERE 109.93.182.35 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Response by Alirana24:

Thank you for raising your concern. I would like to clarify that I am editing in good faith, and Zahid131 is a separate individual. We may have used the same internet connection or device at some point, which could explain the shared IP address.

Our interactions on Wikipedia have been minimal — he once corrected some Urdu on my userpage, and I once edited his essay but reverted it myself. We do not coordinate edits, and I use only this account.

I remain open to addressing any specific concerns and am here to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Alirana24 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@109.93.182.35 Thank you for raising concerns. I want to clarify that I am an independent editor who has occasionally interacted with Alirana24, mainly to help correct Urdu wording or suggest formatting. We have collaborated minimally, and I have no involvement in controlling or directing their contributions.

I made a few good-faith edits to help improve sourcing and structure, just as any editor would on public content. If there's any confusion due to IP address overlap, it may be due to geographic proximity or shared public Wi-Fi access — not any improper behavior.

Please assume good faith, as encouraged by WP:AGF. I fully support efforts to improve the article through discussion and consensus.

— Zahid131 Zahid131 (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

"We may have used the same internet connection or device at some point, which could explain the shared IP address." Lol... 109.93.182.35 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@109.93.182.35

@109.93.182.35: I don’t know much about how IP addresses work, but I can assure you I’ve only ever used this account (User:Alirana24) and have always edited in good faith.

If there's any overlap in IPs, it may be a coincidence — perhaps due to mobile networks or shared infrastructure. I’m happy to clarify anything, and I welcome transparency and fair review.

Thanks. — Alirana24 (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@109.93.182.35 I don't know the user Alirana24 personally. I'm based in Pakistan, and the IP address you mentioned doesn't appear to be from here. I do sometimes use a VPN, so that might explain any overlap. Also, I’ve been active on Wikipedia longer than Alirana24—you can compare our edit histories to confirm that. I do occasionally come across their edits, possibly because we're from the same country, but there is no other connection. Zahid131 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• The editor Zahid131 aka Alirana24 is blatantly lying. Presumably he doesn't realise that administrators can see this and compare it with User:Alirana24, quite apart from several other give-aways, such as forgetting which account they are logged into: . I have blocked both of his accounts. JBW (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I've created an RM at Talk:Mingge_Xu#Requested move 30 June 2025 to move that page (about a British tennis player who is also known as "Mimi") to Mimi Xu, an article title you have create protected. In case the RM is unsuccessful, could you create a redirect to Mingge Xu with {{R from nickname}} please? Iffy★Chat -- 20:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Iffy: That looks like a very uncontroversial move to make, so I've gone ahead and moved it. SmartSE (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I noticed that you've kindly provided support for the revision of MikeWorldWide's page for which I disclosed COI.

The page currently has some NPOV issues; some information is unbalanced and doesn’t show both sides of the reported issues. I made an edit request and would really appreciate your input.

Thank you in advance! TheBlueOwl (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Smartse - You issued the COI block to User:Arthistory333 for failing to disclose his COI. On his talk page, he has continued to vehemently deny any relationship with Venizelos G. Gavrilakis, the founder of VENIS studios. I believe I've found definitive evidence to the contrary. I've commented on this on talk page. Waiting for his response. After that, it seems appropriate to issue a global block. — ERcheck (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Smartse: Is it appropriate to provide details on the COI discussion board? — ERcheck (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@ERcheck: Yep I saw the same thing. If you've reviewed it and don't think there is any chance of resolving it, rejecting the unblock requests seems like a sensible course of action. Given their inability to communicate it may be time to pull talk page access too. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It's edits like these , which seem like UPE to me. You can also see early on in the edit history how they shaped the article to include what seems to me like a lot of puffery in a number of edits spanning several years . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thanks - I concur. Looking at this more closely, I think a CU is justified on three live accounts including PP, so that's probably a good place to start, rather than asking them again to disclose when they have already refused. SmartSE (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you cite which section I should be looking at? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Greenpark79 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Greenpark79: WP:BLPPRIMARY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_source - Companies House is a primary source and you most definitely cannot use it to cast doubt on the fact he is a businessmen or point out that some accounts have not been published. BLPs need to cite secondary sources. SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Greenpark79: FYI The Telegraph reported Bosh Beds is dissolved and so I have added it to the article: . SmartSE (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Cheers! Greenpark79 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

For this user needs to be revoked. Lynch44 12:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to send a thank you message for creating the File:Green party england and wales membership.svg image. I was about to get upity at removing the bar-chart when I looked and saw the graph you provided is genuinely a much better way of presenting it. As a (hopefuly minor!) request, is it possible to add the dashed-lines for the horizontal axis points like how it's done on the File:Labour Party membership graph.svg image? Many thanks either way Bejakyo (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo: No problem - it had been annoying me. I've uploaded a new version and copied a few other bits of design from that one. SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Smartse. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I really don't mind. What concerns me is that I think he is editing this page.[Special:Contributions/HERE991] Doug Weller talk 12:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm yeah I saw that but not sure there's enough to suggest it's autobiographical as opposed to more straightforward COI. Worth keeping an eye on though. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes,yes. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

so, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lighthouse_(British_organisation)#Request_for_Review:_Article_on_Lighthouse_(British_Organisation)_%E2%80%93_Conflict_of_Interest_Declaration_and_Concerns_About_Accuracy, ChronoEditor1 declared a COI, should a COI templated be added to their talk page? ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

They already seem aware of WP:COI and are abiding by it so I can't personally see the point. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

oh, i see, thank you. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 12:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I think one of your recent edits at Operation Raise the Colours broke the page's referencing. I'm not sure how to fix it but I thought you'd like to know and might be able to. Stirchley.resident (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed it. SmartSE (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Stirchley.resident (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Greetings SmartSE, obviously I'm new to editing this site—and I wanted to ask about an edit you made in V-coding. I added a paragraph in the history section of that article about the earliest scholarly work I could find that used the term V-coding; and you removed it for not complying with Wikipedia:OR. Obviously, you were correct to do that, and I thank you for helping me to better understand the OR rule on this site. However, I still think it would be useful for readers to know about it. So I wanted to as if it would still be considered OR if I put something like, "an early work that talked about v-coding" instead of "As of 2025, the oldest know recorded..." Normally, I'd want to cite something more reliable to tell me our earliest traces of the word, but to my knowledge there is no such reliable source. Of course we could just leave the issue of etymology uncommented upon—but I'd like to here what you think. Thank you for reading, Lerfound (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lerfound: I agree it would be good to know where the term originated, but in order for it not to fall afoul of WP:NOR we need an explicit statement in a source about where it came from. The important thing to bear in mind is that no new information should be on Wikipedia, so if no one has said where the term came from or who came up with it, neither should we. SmartSE (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know if this is the right place. But I have one problem. Couple of editors Obsidian emiel (talk · contribs), one yesterday registered who does the same type of edits Chavelines (talk · contribs), and now I see one more IP ~2025-40480-26 (talk · contribs), and one more ~2025-40840-62 (talk · contribs) (maybe all the same user, not making any accusation, just concerned about possible coordinated edditing or sockpuppetry) constantly add similar unsourced or poorly sourced content, removing sourced content and doing nonconstructive edits on the Conscription article. Do you have some advice what to do, where to report that users, how page can be protected, what can be done about if that is indeed some coordinated editing or sockpuppetry? I informed one more admin about this also, Ivanvector. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you still refuse to aprove my changes ? https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/military-law-at-benin Obsidian emiel (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Volodia.woldemar and Obsidian emiel: There's no need for me or any other admins to get involved at the moment - please just discuss amongst yourselves at Talk:Conscription explaining why you are making the changes. SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I was trying to work out how to update the chart, and was just trying to upload a new version of it produced by the code provided to find out that it wouldn't actually let me upload a new version which is frustraiting to say the least

Could you add this to the chart and keep it so the chart's in increments of 20k? Bejakyo (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo: Sure. It's got fewer grid lines but I think 20k would be too crowded now? I can fiddle further if needs be. Which bit were you struggling with? This link should let you upload it - it's accessible from every file, but admittedly not easy to spot - search for 'Upload a new version of this file'. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It was saying as I hadn't been the original uploader, that I could not update the image and stopping me accordingly. seems like an odd thing for a media wiki to have and I swear it's a newer thing but I'm not to sure. I figured out how to actually update the image myself and everything thinking I could just update it myself but seemingly not. Thank you for updating it never the less! Bejakyo (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh that is odd and definitely didn't use to be the case. I'll try to see if there's something I can change to fix it. SmartSE (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not something you've done but on Wikimedia. If I'm not mistaken I've gotten a "you may not update this file" notice a month or two ago trying to do something else, but I'll be damned if I can remember what. Very irritating but it is what it is

Is it possible by chance to remove the 0 line near but not along the bottom like you had on the previous version? Bejakyo (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo: Per C:COM:Overwriting_existing_files you need the autopatrol right, but C:COM:AP leaves me none the wiser about you obtain the right, apart from for asking for it. SmartSE (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah well. I find it a lot harder to find out the policy stuff on Wikipedia's sisterprojects, so thank you for pointing me to it even if the guidence is unclear. Bejakyo (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Smartse. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 18 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year @Smartse: I hope you had a good Christmas and New Year celebrations. scope_creep^Talk 01:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

If you were going to edit the criticism substantially, why did you leave it repeated under the heading Recognition and public image? It repeats the existing criticism within article. Greenpark79 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

As a compromise, I think there should be a subheading for criticism it doesn't read well and reads extremely disjointed. Greenpark79 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

In rolling out OWID further. We have thousands of these interactive graphs. Let me know if your interested in discussing further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Doc James: Not sure how much I can help, but here are some thoughts: It's unusual compared to typical files that the main image doesn't link to anywhere - not sure what would be best, but is there a reason why the whole image isn't a button to open the main window? It's not always apparent from the caption what happens when you click on it - I added a bit more to the potato ones for example: . From an editing-perspective, it is not easy to find the pages where the source files are kept - can this be linked from the main window once you click play? As I mentioned at C:Template talk:OWID/Potato yields when you have annual data for the recent images, but the gaps for older data are longer, you get a stuttering in the slider when you slide between the older images. You can see this in the earthquake one for example. Not sure what's happening there but is there something that generates a range from the first to last year? i.e. 1500:2023. It might be cool to add a play button inside to the slider so that you can cycle through all the data rather than manually moving the slider. I've seen this on other sliders so it might not be too difficult to implement. SmartSE (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestiones:

1) The pay button inside the gadget is something we will look at building

2) Yes we need it to be smoother when data is not continuous

3) We can likely set clicking on anypart of the image to go somewhere. Right now the image in image in the right lower corner goes to the starter image seen on Wikipedia. We have "Media credits" within the gadget that goes to the current image live in the gadget. Maybe add a (Commons) link after this?

4) We are discussing putting the template within its own page on Commons without all the individual files. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

can you please explain to me why you made false accusations, saying that I quote “just removed reliably sourced content.” That is false, not only did I add context to the tweet, which was from the original source about the tweet, I removed content that was irrelevant and used misleadingly to conflict, energy need and demand. saying that I just removed stuff is a false claim on your part because I made important additions regarding context, and I would appreciate if you refrain from making false claims in the future. Cannolorosa (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you help me better understand the issue with the TSW edits. Is the issue that I'm the one that made the edits? The citations are from reliable news outlets that covered the work in detail. So I'm not totally understanding why those would not be considered reliable sources (especially if the primary sources are not supposed to be cited). Would it be allowed if some other editor added the information? If so, should they cite the primary literature along with the news sources? You can tell I don't edit much, so trying to understand the correct approach here and appreciate guidance. Thanks LCDR IAM (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I tried again, removing primary sources and self-references. Hoping this allows the info to stay in a more apt way. Sorry for the error. Any further input is welcomed. LCDR IAM (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)