User talk:Smartse

• Hi, welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message about anything you like. It's easier if conversations stay on one page though so if I've left you a message reply on your talk page and I should be watching it.

• If you want to know why your article was deleted, please read "Why was my article deleted?" before leaving me a note.

• If it's been a while and I haven't got back to you about something, then by all means drop me a note to remind me.

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

On reputation management sock

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

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

Deleted evidence from a review article targeted to the page scope

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

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

ProQuest

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

Threatening language and removing sourced information

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

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

Redirect

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

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

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

Partygate page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mercola

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

Disruptive editing warning: Savile Town

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

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

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

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

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

Unjustified removal

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

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

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

The mailman cometh

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

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

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)