Jump to content

User talk:Mean as custard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 178.232.128.144 (talk) at 09:06, 22 April 2016 (→Possible hoax: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is my talk page. Please append all accolades, brickbats and threats to the bottom of the page.

Self-Directed IRA Page

The references on this page were removed and then someone claimed vandalism and the references were added back. The references should be removed as they are there entirely for the promotional purpose of driving traffic to their websites. If you look up their Linked-In pages, you will clearly see the following relationships:

Adam Bergman: Associated with IRA Financial Group Bill Humphrey: Associated with New Direction Catherine Wynne: Associated with New Direction

Why else would they have references for things like IRS Code 4795 linking to their website instead of the original content on the IRS website? You'll find all links are promotional in nature and need removal. Otherwise, others will submit like references and in 'fairness to all' their references will 'have to stand' if these are not removed.

Thanks in advance for taking care of this. Fairness Team137 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ad tag on PatientsLikeMe

Hi there MaC, I've been on wikibreak for a while but been asked to come back and update the PatientsLikeMe page. I'm a long time editor and also serve as the institutional memory of our company having been here for nearly a decade and being highly involved with all our work. I'm keen to work with other editors to improve the quality and neutrality of the article while also making it detailed and informative. I note that you (quite rightly) added an ad tag last year. I've decreased the ELs to PLM's own domains (although with linkrot of older news articles and releases sometimes only our blog still has the content) and increased the number of references to scientific articles and media references from reputable sources. I've fallen out of habit of writing long citations and hope someone's got a bot or something that can improve them easily as for now most of them are URLs but I don't have time to go through each one in detail. I'd been using the articles on Facebook and Google as templates for how to describe an online company / social network. I'd be grateful for your feedback on my latest edits and once I've got a bit more comfortable with the content I'd like to take a crack at a "criticisms" section, given that I've been monitoring them all these years! Best wishes --PaulWicks (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely an improvement. If the "Core values" section was removed then the advert tag would probably no longer be justified. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, done. --PaulWicks (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence D Marbury

FYI:

Have a good one, Guy (Help!) 10:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Citibank Malaysia Wikipage

Hi Mean as custard, We, too, share your concern! We want this page to be informational and not promotional in tone. Could you please highlight a few instances (sentences / phrases / sections) that you found promotional in tone? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.116.130 (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Citi credit card customers are rewarded with privileges earned in Cash Back, Rewards Points or Miles that never expires; which are like currencies that can be redeemed anytime of their life. Campaigns like #CitiMakeMyDay are also run to constantly remind customers that when they pay with a Citi credit card, they can collect these privileges and turn them into things they love." . . etc. . etc. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master Coordinator Shaklee Malaysia (talk) Hi there, i noticed that u reverted all my edits which i have just made recently. Please note that the links that i added are neither for promotional nor link collection purpose. I added quality links from a reputable website by a trusted person for reference for manyyears since 1997.

Reference errors on 9 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Curtis Australia

Hi - you've made some comments about our page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Australia - We have made changes - can you let me if any sections are causing a problem so we can learn more about what is acceptable? many thanks, TrevorCurtisaustralia (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not your page. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mean as Custard - Thanks for your help, much appreciated. We're relatively new to Wikipedia so are feeling our way a little.203.129.20.14 (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Curtisaustralia[reply]

Reference errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TnA Cloud Time and Attendance

Sorry, fat-fingered that one at TnA Cloud Time and Attendance. I wanted to change the CSD tag to a more appropriate advertising one, which I shall be doing. Optakeover(Talk) 12:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. . .Mean as custard (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threat/Brickbat

The next time you redact most of Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, you'll be flayed with overcooked pasta. Actually, I just had to replicate your effort. Someone, likely the same editor, but now equipped with a handle, replaced the old boilerplate with more of the same. I'm going to drop a strong admonition on the editor's talk page. Ya gotta stay with PR types to make them understand the concept of Wikipedia. Regards Tapered (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the same user has plied his trade on several more similar articles. A huge pile of spam now resides on the cutting-room floor. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. Have some pasta. Tapered (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Safe-In-Sound

Hi could you give me some hints as to how to make the Safe-in-Sound page less promotional/more notable? I'm just not sure how to word this. Pspears35 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add references to independent third-party coverage of the topic. If you can't find any, then the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RtDAcademy

Hi, I just saw you tagged this page as promotional. Can you point out the promotional content so I edit it, and make it less like an ad like you put it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeley Commodore-Mensah (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have seen fit to remove the tag yourself without amending any promotional content, so clearly you have a conflict of interest with the subject. I have tagged the article accordingly. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately, I did not know that was put there by you. I can revert it if you want, but I think it would be very nice if you could tell me what the problem is, and where exactly the promotional content is so I edit it. And there is certainly no conflict of interest. I just happen to know a lot about the subject.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imsess

Hey, just curious how you found the accounts now listed at the SPI. I'm going to look into creating an edit filter to detect future spammers, but wanted to know how you'd found them. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to notice a few users posting spam links had very similar content on their user talk pages, and on looking further found a whole can of worms. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer rights granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Why are you adding problems to my page?

I do not have a conflict of interest with "Robert Klein (District Attorney)" yet you keep putting that issue back in my page. Also it is not an orphan page because i have many pages linked to and from it. I am simply writing about the next district attorney of Susquehanna County and all of my facts are without bias and are totally factual. Please respond to this so i can have some idea of what I am doing wrong. Thank you. -Sincerely Nicholas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2000baby (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is not "your" page - see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
(2) It is an orphan page because no other Wikipedia articles link to it
(3) The next district attorney of Susquehanna County is unlikely to be a notable topic unless the subject has been covered by multiple independent sources
(4) The page was created by User:Kleinsauce2000 who has edited no other articles (and neither have you), so a conflict of interest appears very likely. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rozsateka

I noticed you reverted a few of their edits. There have been a few accounts recently with exactly the same editing patterns, such as User:Vincemio9 and User:Antontimo2. They aren't exactly disruptive but I'm not sure what their edits are in aid of. Sleeper accounts maybe? —Xezbeth (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out what the intention is here. None of their edits so far have been of much use; most are pointless. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Filipino hoax guy

Did the sock merely vandalize Kuratong Baleleng with his own text, or is it one of his pages? I tagged it with G5 because it looked like one of his pages, but it seems it may have a legitimate history. Feel free to chuck the tag out the window if it doesn't belong. dalahäst (let's talk!) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have a long history as a legitimate article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stoichiometry may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • if the combustion is incomplete due to lack of sufficient oxygen, fuel remains unreacted. (Unreacted fuel may also remain because of slow combustion or insufficient mixing of fuel and oxygen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Hi Abintjose007 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of Questions

Hiya!

This is about the warning that you placed on: User_talk:Arogers83.

1. The person who removed the edit that he made on the construction article stated in his edit summary that it was a good faith edit. Have you seen any evidence to the contrary?

2. Why did you give him the highest possible warning for spam on his talk page for what seemed to be his first offence (if it was not a good faith edit after-all)? Is he a sock? If so, then the warning was unnecessary anyway and a report should be made to possibly start an investigation into whether he's a sock or not.

FYI, when I gave him the standard welcome on his talk page, I had already assessed his edits and determined that he had made a genuine attempt at editing the wiki. I also looked up the website on Google and even though it links to a commercial company, information about why construction companies are 'secretive' was likely to be found there. The person who reverted the edit was right to do so whether malicious or misguided.

Thank you in advance for your response. -=Troop=- (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has the same hallmarks of a sockpuppet in a case of multiple spamming; investigation under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imsess. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red gold

This is about the red gold article that you reverted to the original content. Your comment in the summary section says (remove "fun facts") which i did. I removed the Fun Facts section and resubmitted but it was reverted again. Could you please let me know what information you want removed from the article. The information about red gold is solid because, Red gold is a registerd trade mark which can be verified.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisaire (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is a registered trade mark does not make it notable. You have been using Wikipedia to promote your business, so any edits you make must be treated with suspicion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I am not using Wikipedia to promote my business. I am only trying to get the truth about Red gold out. Please let me know what you see as promotional in the article and i will gladly remove it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisaire (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisaire (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded as above. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added link of the marketing website www.liveinstyle.com/mcdowellsno1 which is a official marketing website of United spirits limited which is the manufacturer of McDowell's No.1.it could be relevent for users to know more about companies official marketing sites. its not any 3rd party site trying to promote their site. can you suggest how to go about this? i feel this link doesn't count as spam. let me know your views on this. Thank you.

It doesn't look like an official site; it's just another pointless lifestyle website full of marketing crap. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That website is maintained by United spirits limited. which is marketing their brand in their own maintained website. if you can see its only related to brands. nothing is pointless there.you need to re consider your thoughts about this. Let me make the changes. Thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi4k (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it still fails WP:ELNO. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read those rules. what if company itself wants to add these links? u shouldn't delete a link when the brand wants that to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi4k (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:Spam and WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. i will consider these rules on my next edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi4k (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is there any way that i can live a link to liveinstyle form any other sections.? or from marketing section of page. as i'm from that company their asking if it is possible. Sachi4k (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can request on the article talk page that another editor considers adding the link, while disclosing your connection to the company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. 202.83.19.187 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I added link of the information page ..giftblooms.com/content/growing-info-about-tulips-flower-bulbs/ which is not for promotional or Spam. can you suggest why my links are deleted? i feel this link doesn't count as spam. let me know your views on this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celinewilson (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is designed to attract business to a commercial website. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Why did you remove the manufacturers section from the microscope page?"

Because all your edits had the objective of promoting an unnotable company called LABOVISION. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"License Manager"

Asking out of curiosity: I've added on the Software Licensing page, under “License Managers”, but it looks like you've removed it. Any specific reason why? Other companies are mentioned, so I'm trying to understand... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITibz (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added a link to an external website, whereas entries under "See also" should point to other Wikipedia articles. See WP:EL. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Material

I am curious as to why the information that was added to the Intertech page was considered promotional. There were no opinionated parts, only facts. None of the text seemed biased either; it was kept at a generally neutral stance. All sources were also cited. There's a lot of information that needed updating and now it's gone. Thanks, APLubovich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APLubovich (talk • contribs) 13:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the changes were copied wholesale from the company website, and could be removed on copyright grounds even if their purpose was not to promote the company. Information on awards, charity work etc needs references to unbiased sources. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. What if permission is given by the company to use text from the site? Or would it just be better if I reword everything? I am an employee of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APLubovich (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the company gives permission to use copyright content then that aspect is fine, but material from company sources will still be considered promotional unless it is indisputable factual information. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that into consideration on my next edits. Thank you for the timely responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APLubovich (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Cash Advance Removed

Good afternoon, I was hoping to get a bit more perspective on why the section of the article I added was considered spam. You removed the citation linking to a page that is informational, and which itself includes information directly relating to the topic. But even if you had simply removed the link to the site, it seems the information added to the page about merchant cash advance was both pertinent and well written. The paragraph before the one you deleted even includes a direct, branded link to one of the smallest, least well known crowdlending websites, in a sentence that adds very little value to the section it's in, let alone the article as a whole. I understand your hesitance to include spam content on the site, but I would kindly ask that you reconsider in this instance, or offer a way that I can improve the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverNotLearning (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-it would probably help if I linked to the article in question, sorry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_business_financing

And the paragraph deleted: This downturn in small business lending means only about half of all small businesses who applied for a loan in the first half of 2014 actually secured any funding. Merchant cash advances are an alternate source of funding, and provide financing for small businesses in a much shorter timeframe than traditional lenders (the cash advance is generally available within days), but also work with smaller funding amounts (usually between $50,000 and $250,000). The line of credit available to the business is a tied to their average daily sales revenues, and is repaid directly to the lender in the form of a small fee taken out of each credit/debit card transaction until the cash advance has been repaid.

NeverNotLearning (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)NeverNotLearning[reply]

Although the text you added appeared relevant, I removed it because the reference pointed to "Bad Credit Business Loans", a site whose purpose is purely commercial. The problem would be solved if you amended the reference to point to the original source quoted on that site - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland 2014 Small Business Credit Survey. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why cannot add project to projects comparisons?

I do not understand what is the problem with adding a project to project comparison pages? Already for a week I am trying to add iPushPull to online excel sheets pages and you keep deleting it. Not only iPushPull is 100% viable prouct for that but also it is after google sheets one of the most advanced out there. Care to explain please? Ref User_talk:Tomino2112 Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.220.82 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First someone needs to write an article about the product with inependent references to show that it is notable. Otherwise you will be considered to be trying to promote something for your own benefit. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough there are products that are long dead or nobody ever even heard of them... I am starting to doubt what is the purpose of wikipedia information if not the collection of good - recent information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomino2112 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite entitled to nominate Wikiedia articles for deletion if they are about unnotable products. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm very new to this. You removed an external link to a new mobile application called Tandem. I think this is especially relevant to the topic as it helps readers actually access information on tandem language learning. Also there's already links to external sites there, I'm unsure as to why they're more relevant than the one I tried to add. The link I mentioned was to www.tandemapp.me — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryAinsworth (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on this can be found in Wikipedia:External links: Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. - This particularly applies to links to commercial sites, as it may be thought that the person adding the links is purely trying to promote their own interests rather than constructively contributing to an encyclopedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too commercial/promotional

I think the article Veganism is too promotional of veganism and contains too many trade names. Do you agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more balanced if it included a criticism/controversy section. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will suggest that. What about the number of brand names in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for long lists of brand names; only keep those which are particularly notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your comments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Law Society of Ireland page

Hi - I see that you've undone the edit to remove the Recent Developments section. Any assistance you can give to help edit this section and page would be appreciated. We have tried to contact a few editors to review this page but without much luck, thus our removal of Recent Developments. Items under Recent Developments are mostly out of date and largely negative - we removed it as we thought it contravened wikipedia's NPOV? We would really appreciate your advice, edits, assistance in improving this page so it's more consistent with other peer pages. We're not interested in showing only neutral or positive stories - just a balanced view. Thanks. Web-lawsoc (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

:Hi - please see the Law Society of Ireland's talk page and the section I added called request for discussion - your feedback on how to improve the balance of this article specifically regarding 'Recent Developments' would be helpful. Web-lawsoc (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Getting it removed. Thanks Taxexpert01 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prasanjith et al.

Hi Mean as custard,
Per your edit on 8 January, at Prasanjith (talk · contribs). I though you might also be interested in the more recent:

All seem to be the same editor, promoting themselves. Just FYI. - 220 of Borg 21:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting me?

I'm reverting vandalism from an anonymous IP who deleted all the names under the category "People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" And "people with autism spectrum" without any reason. Could you please explain me why you are undoing these reverts?

Good-faith reverting is not the same as vandalism. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I'll call it good faith reverting if you want, then, although I'm not sure it is good faith. Please stop reverting me. Thanks.

Undone Edits As Spam?

I noticed you removed our addition to the limescale section the water softening page. Why have you marked this as spam when it clearly wasn't making reference to any products or brands? I work for a manufacturer of water softeners and am fully aware of what they are capable of.

The edit was calculated to attract visitors to your commercial website. This is disapproved of in Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is informative, the link is a reference as to where the information was obtained, and that is a credible source, such as a manufacturer of water softeners. The linked page was designed to be informative and not for commercial use. The page does not show any bias, just cold hard facts. The same as the external links section on the water softener page entitled "Consumer's Guide to Water Softening"
You are right about the "Consumer's Guide to Water Softening". That was also spam, so I have removed it too. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Content

Dear Sir, I have added a few more reliable sources to THE SHOP BIZ. I hope its no longer promotional. ChauhanGoro (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new as an editor at Wikipedia. Thanks for removing external link. It was my second edit and I were unsure. Thought it were related to the top. I have a similar first which you might remove at the page organ transplantation. External links at top SOS. Can you tell my why not I could put a link when the topic were related?

First, the links were to commercial sites and your intention was to promote the sites, not to improve the Wikipedia article. Second, adding your links right at the top of the existing list of links is bad form, old boy. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actors Studio India

Hello sir, we have stated the facts with references stating each and every fact .We have tried to put the facts with a neutral point of view . Incase you find any statement to be an act of promotion kindly let us know the areas we will remove it or kindly correct it with proper wikipedia guidelines.We respect the guidelines of wikipedia and would be great if you can correct this article than to simply delete it .

Services for disabled people

You took this out. Can you suggest an article where it would fit better? I feel it's important and should be in Wikipedia somewhere. Fighting Poverty (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a valid point which could be discussed in National Minimum Wage Act 1998. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GP Strategies Corporation

I have made edits to GP Strategies Corporation's page that you have flagged and I am not sure what the problem is with the content. If you can cite specific areas, then I can better attempt to make the necessary changes to ensure the page doesn’t get flagged again. Thank you.

The best example is the whole of the introductory paragraph: "GP Strategies ... helps organizations with customized learning solutions that differentiate their workforce, leaders and salespeople. GP Strategies’ managed learning strategies include repeatable processes to make knowledge transfer more efficient and cost-effective. Their sales solutions emphasize rich experiences to foster sales and loyalty. And their leadership development strategies stress corporate alignment and employee engagement. Everything they do, from technical and compliance training to process improvement and learning technology integration, is focused on helping organizations achieve corporate goals, deliver superior business results and create maximum impact. Their sole focus is performance improvement"
- Is this the sort of language you would expect to find in an encyclopedia? . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed on Worldox Page

Hi I don't understand how a statement of fact by the owner of the World Software Corporation/ Worldox can be cited. How should I go about that? Should I be pointing to awards that have been won for support in the past (but may not be relevant now?) I am new to this page editing but would appreciate your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom-R-Price (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards may be included if there are references to unbiased sources to show they are notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have read some of the help pages and guidelines and think I understand better now. However with the web being a volatile place it is the case that some of the material I am preparing for the Worldox page would want to refer to the historical fact of, for example, the winning of a meaningful legal Technology Award. However the links on the websites of the awarding organisations have gone away or have been archived and ar so no longer available...

Is it acceptable then to refer to the original paper magazines etc that published the events some years ago even though they are not generally available? Tom-R-Price (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References to reputable paper publications are fine. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please can you explain why you removed a link to a completely free information guide on the UKCAT (http://www.themedicportal.com/application-guide/ukcat/) but are happy to leave the other external links there which openly promote commercial courses?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themedicportal (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backup and Restore

Thanks for rving spam on Backup and Restore. Just to let you know that Lorinaxie appears to be a sock of 118.112.143.239, as after you removed the spam, the IP added some more for the same thing. —George8211 / T 09:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello
Hello I am Caleb Lott and I asked a Questio n about why Quakers cant marry non quakers and you deleted it why? Caleb William Lott (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not research the question yourself and put the answer in the article if it is relevant? . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SEO ref spammers

Hello, just wondered if you'd noticed any accounts refspamming recently that match the pattern of the links given at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#gotwikipedia.com e.g. [1]? It would be good to find some non-stale accounts to CU. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... already kind of answered that myself looking at #Undone_Edits_As_Spam.3F but if you remember any others that would be helpful. SmartSE (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some recent examples of spam references being sneaked in under cover of apparently-legitimate edits, which appear to fulfil the claims made by the spamming websites mentioned above: *[[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. In some cases the edit includes several academic references and the single spam link is hard to spot. . Mean as custard (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! While using throwaways is obviously effective, hopefully this is enough to justify CU attention. SmartSE (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material?

Would you please explain how List of ministries of Sri Lanka is promotional material? You have given no reason nor have you made any constructive edits to the page. Other than fixing what you deem is promotional material you have completely downgraded the quality of the article.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"To facilitate harmony and the prosperity and dignity of human life through effective prevention and mitigation of natural and man-made disasters in Sri Lanka." - is this promotional or not? . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the role that the ministry has within the government. What is it promoting? The function of that organisation? I dont think that is promotion. If you wish to change the wording go ahead. But I am reverting your edit as unconstructive, if you wish to make constructive edits to specific things, be my guest, but don't remove the majority of its content in doing so.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you added the blatantly promotional material yourself, I have removed it rather than just tagging it for cleanup. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lapoubelle1969

Received these messages from you, cannot understand why adding factual information about the work of a not-for-profit results in either of the messages. We're not selling anything, other than the principle of sustainable water management. Why would adding a link to an internationally recognised media outlet fall foul of these rules? Consequently, you've reverted to a version that is out of date yet carries similar information.

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Mean as custard (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapoubelle1969 (talk • contribs)

This is the sort of stufff you have been adding: "Today, the IWA is a strong and thriving global organisation that continues to deliver on its original vision. The IWA membership is growing and vibrant. It engages well beyond its membership with professionals and partner organisations from across sectors. It delivers innovative programmes, a series of highly respected worldwide events and world-class scientific publications. Professionals trust the IWA to keep them informed about effective, sustainable urban and basin-related water solutions and connect them to other professionals focused on water challenges and solutions." - For guidance, try reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed by editor on Atomic Game Engine

Hi, I saw that a speedy deletion tag(placed by you) has been removed by the author of the article Atomic Game Engine. The editor placed it to the bottom of the page..I don't know why...I removed that part. You can have a look and place the speedy again. Since you placed it at the first place, so not interfering in between...just notifying...I hope you won't mind. Cheers! Peppy Paneer (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways..its deleted! Thanks!Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss your proposed changes first, please

When you make a proposed change to an article, please explain your reasons in the associated Talk: page, otherwise your updates may be reverted by other editors. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, before you reverted my revert yet again. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you learn a lesson from your edit waring? Next time, explain yourself so that we don't have other editors having to explain the basics to you. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you always revert every edit which is not fully justified by a long explanation in the article talk page? If you reviewed some of my other edits before pouncing on your revert button you might get an idea of whether I know the basics. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Disagree

Mean as custard: If you're referring to the page, The History Of Vehicle Wrapping, this page is one of the best sources on the internet for the history of advertising wraps and it deserves to be included in the wiki page. If you can find a better link to better information on the subject, please feel free to fill in the blanks. If the goal is to provide the most accurate and credible information, then my edits were all valid and needed to improve this wiki link. Instead of removing credible links, help me improve the page so it becomes a better source for thousands of young kids that want to learn about an influential form of advertising that's essential in todays world. In no way were my edits intended for promotion, but for an improvement in the internets best source for information--Wikipedia. Pdmead0 (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)pdmead0Pdmead0 (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have (slightly reluctantly) replaced the History section with its reference link, though the other links to commercial websites remain deleted. Recently there has been a spate of incidents where references have been added to articles by paid editors with the sole aim of attracting traffic to commercial websites, but I accept you have been acting in good faith in this case. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
. . . Oh well. . I did replace the section but another editor has removed it again, so perhaps it wasn't such a good idea. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand the concern for promotional links and try to remove them when I see them, but my edits are valid and are strictly used to improve wiki pages. Thanks for understanding and if you can help me find legitimate links to third party sources (if at all possible as there aren't too many for this page) that would be greatly appreciated. I want to avoid the practice of false information being spread around the internet because it's said in a Wikipedia page. Many times you see entire sentences copy and pasted from Wikipedia pages into Dealer websites that don't have an original source, meaning that information was either made up or lacks legitimacy.Pdmead0 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)pdmead0Pdmead0 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why have the links to Eye on Vision Foundation, Go fund me Visual Snow, the Facebook groups, and Facebook pages been removed? VisualSnowInfo (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE ADVISE

To whom it may concern,

I am part of the Legal and Business Development Team at Spinlet Limited, a digital media company.

Recently, we have made several attempts to update our Wikipedia page, to no avail. On more than one occasion, we received messages from you, stating that our page contained advertorial content and was thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. You deleted our text, upon which we repeatedly tried to upload corrected versions. Without any further feedback on the specific portions of the text that were problematic, the content was deleted again and we were informed that we had been locked out of our page for 31 hours.

Till date, we have received no feedback in terms of the problematic portions of our text. Kindly advise on this, to expedite the successful upload of our updated Wikipedia page. Thank you.

Below is a link to our current Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legal.spinlet (talk • contribs) 13:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as Promotional

Hi Mean as custard, to share my concern! I wanted this page to be informational and not promotional in tone. Could you please highlight a few instances (sentences / phrases / sections) that you found promotional in tone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectranet employee (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every single phrase in your content was unacceptably promotional. Your account will be blocked if you touch the article again. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit War

Thank you very much for your message, I honestly appreciate it.

Please take 10 seconds to read mine to understand my position.

The "edit war" deals with an author's ethnicity. This author, Mehmed Selimovic, explicitly stated his ethnicity in his autobiography: "By ethnicity I am a Serb. I belong to Serbian literature." Volunteer Marek keeps deleting the citation to his autobiography that says this in order to obscure his ethnicity, calling him a "Yugoslav" instead, because his edits tend to follow an anti-Serb agenda. It should be noted that this author's works primarily deal with ethnic questions in the Balkans, and his ethnicity is hence a major factor when considering his work. Slavojm (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about Balkan politics to comment specifically, but your edits suggest that although your account is new, you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, quite likely a reincarnation of a previously blocked editor. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to have any knowledge of balkan politics to understand my viewpoint.

I feel as though this Volunteer Marek has plentiful connections with administrators on this site and uses these connections and his abundant knowledge relating to wikipedia rules to snuff out any contributions to the site that go against his agenda; because you left an edit war warning for me and not for him, and because you attacking me with his unfounded slander that I am a sockpuppet. Are you a part of a conspiracy that he controls? I already addressed his accusation here btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dukisuzuki Slavojm (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to Smith5545

Hi, firstly I would like to thank you for your message. I would however like to understand what exactly I did that was wrong. I fail to see how having a law/legal citation request answered by a lawyer constitutes spam/vandalism! Is a lawyer not an authority?

I am not being critical, just seeking guidance. Thank you in advance. Smith5545 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on commercial websites which have been created solely so they can be referenced by Wikipedia and so attempt to boost traffic to that website are just not acceptable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to violate rules and will take your advice. But, your above response brings the 'chicken or egg' argument to mind. In my mind an authority is an authority, and if the authority answers a citation request then doesn't Wikipedia get what it was asking for? Smith5545 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia needs to have a reputation for reliability and impartiality, and these sorts of sources jeopardize that reputation. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, trust me I do. I have been and always will be a long time, and avid consumer of Wikipedia. It represents what the web should be. It is for this reason I take the labeling of 'Vandalism' seriously and would therefore like to avoid such labeling in the future.

So with the above in mind, and context, let me argue a case for one of my citations as an example.

Mr. Yusufov is recognized by the State of Arizona's Bar Association as an authority, and as a bankruptcy attorney he knows bankruptcy law. He has http://www.bankruptcyattorneytucson.com/blog/difference-u-s-trustee-bankruptcy-trustee content that addresses a citation request. His article cites statutes, and is informative to a potential reader. The page is also devoid of conversion mechanisms. Compare it to say the average page on Cornell's website, which is full of advertising and conversion mechanisms. Clearly Cornell is a for profit organization. Yet you'd probably let an in context citation from Cornell pass, right?

So at what point if any can Mr. Yusufov be deemed an authority? Smith5545 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC):[reply]

The page you reference begins with the phrase "Call Us Today for a Free Consultation". Therefore the lawyer in question is not a reliable authority. He is simply touting for business. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But can't the same be said for Cornell? This is one of the citations from [[6]] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/586(a)(1) (dead link btw)

Notice all the ads on the right. Also if you refresh the page you my be presented with an opt in form, I was!

And if you go to the parent page; https://www.law.cornell.edu/ it's also full of ads and conversion mechanisms!

I am just trying to understand where the line is drawn. Clearly it should be 1 rule for all, no? Smith5545 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are rather a lot of adverts on the Cornell site, but it appears to be a non-profit education organization and so more compatible with Wikipedia's objectives:

Mission: We are a not-for-profit group that believes everyone should be able to read and understand the laws that govern them, without cost. We carry out this vision by:

  • Publishing law online, for free.
  • Creating materials that help people understand law.
  • Exploring new technologies that make it easier for people to find the law.
The purpose of the Cornell website is to provide free unbiased information. The purpose of the Yusufov website is to promote an individual lawyer's business.
Mean as custard (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Cornell is VERY much a for profit organization. Further, Mr. Yusufov's article was encyclopedic in nature and is 'free unbiased information'.

Clearly we have hit a grey area. Given the commercial nature of the web I find it hard to imagine how Wikipedia gets any citations at all using the cookie cutter approach that has been applied here.

I am very discouraged Thank you for your input Smith5545 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an after thought re:Cornell. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/admissions/tuition/tuition_expenses.cfm

At 2015 tuition prices one would incur over $350,000 in debt to attend Cornell law for 4 years. Also, the mere presence of ads and conversion mechanisms all over their website indicates they are a commercial entity. They profit when someone clicks! How can you deem them to be a non-profit? You can be assured, the 'Dean' is a multi-millionaire. He probably acts more like a CEO than an academic. Smith5545 (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Cornell. I never mentioned it in the first place. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't. I mentioned Cornell because it is used as a citation on the very same article I used Mr. Yusufov's article to cite. But you condemn his site because it has commercial undertones. My argument is if you condemn his site, then you must condemn Cornell's too because it is clearly a commercial entity despite their 'non-profit...' verbiage. Therefore the cookie cutter approach clearly fails if the rule I was flagged for is not applied to ALL. Smith5545 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists might be argued at this point. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The precedential value point in 'Other Stuff Exists' has merit if that was your intent. But it wasn't. Your motive for removal was at best judgmental. Mr. Yusufov is in the law business, I get it. He is a commercial entity in your eyes and therefore has 'motive'. But at least his site is devoid of ads and conversion mechanisms. Can the same be said of Cornell? You leave a dead link that is plastered in advertisements, and if you refresh may even get an opt in form, from an overtly commercial entity. Yet you remove a link that added value to the wiki article and community. Once again, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/586(a)(1) is a DEAD LINK.

If you are going to use the position you have to sit in judgement, please paint everyone evenly. Smith5545 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless, We are going round in circles. Please refer to all my previous replies. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you to mine. I still do not understand why you cannot see my position. You are biased against some commercial entities, but not all. I guess we're done!

Smith5545 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work keeping Wikipedia spam free (or at least as much as we can) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Napkin

The recent surge in IP vandalism is due to a subtle viral marketing campaign by two Australian radio talkshow presenters. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of SIP Software

In reply to your message on my talk page:

In what way do you conclude adding relevant and accurate information as "disruptive editing"? This individual keeps deleting it, pointing to an essay(not guideline or policy) that the software should have an article. There is no article because there was a recent discussion as to why the 2600hz project article was not "noteworthy". Regardless, nether he nor you offered any consensus building or input into how that particular information can be added "appropriately" If anything he is removing accurate information. Please accurately explain how this is against policy and how one would go about adding that accurate information; rather than issue threats. Again, I would bet that this is against the very spirit and intention of Wikipedia. neurosys_zero (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 332 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 17:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hammock spam

Now I really have seen it all. (Thanks for fixing it). Pinkbeast (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
OK pal Widmerronald68 (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a Jabronee and leave the edits in. I fixed a 404 page that is not linked correctly and updated our company structure. Go level up on your clash of nads game or whatever else you do to pump your ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamruizLT (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reversing the YFU page?

Hi Mean as custard, We want this page to be informational and not promotional in tone. Could you please highlight a few instances (sentences / phrases / sections) that you found promotional in tone? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kattisastrom (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"..a trusted leader of intercultural exchange programs for more than 60 years because of its commitment to safety, reputation for quality, and exceptional.." . . "we treat everyone with kindness, respect and dignity"; "The YFU global network is united by the belief. . "; "Our volunteers and staff are focused". etc. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you object to our Boiler plate, but take off the entire page and take it back to an older version that is incorrect and actually not about YFU, but about YFU USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kattisastrom (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what a boiler plate is (something to do with heavy engineering?), but the whole article was riddled with promotional language. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In US Government documentation, the phrase "boiler plate" is used colloquially to refer to standard language that is always included in a document (typically in a contract). If the editor in question objected to your removal of promotional language as removing the boilerplate, they meant that you were removing standard language. (It is true that if their own standard language violates Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia policy prevails in Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the recent edits of Patents removed from my article?

Hello MaC,

Quick question for you, could you tell me why the recent edits were removed on the TAM International article?

After looking at the history of edits, it seems like a trivia sentence and several patents were removed. After searching for the reason behind this, I thought I'd ask the admin myself, so I can clear up any issues.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaylorAtAxiom (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I just felt the material on patents was badly formatted, unreferenced and trivial. . . 18:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Four Dots page redirected to an unrelated page, help?

Hi there, I noticed that the Four Dots page is now a redirect to a seemingly unrelated page the Tams: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Dots&action=history

Can you please explain what happened? Can the Revert tag just be undone or should I create the new page? Thanks.Jennifer co (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was associated with a serious case of abuse of multiple accounts for promotional purposes, and most of the articles created by those accounts have been removed - see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts. By expressing an interest in recreating it you risk being accused of being associated with these accounts, unless you rewrite it from scratch and do not use the same references. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, looking at your past history, you clearly know what I am talking about. Any further editing by you and your account will be blocked. It will probably be blocked anyway once an admin has reviewed your efforts. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Jennifer co (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Waterloo Stratford Campus page

Hi Mean as C. Just visited the page and noticed your tag. I have made changes that I believe address your concerns about it sounding too promotional. Could you please review the page and remove the tag if you agree? Thank you. Stuartzs (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mean as Custard. I noticed that you have not reviewed the page? Is there a reason why? Is there anything more I can do? Stuartzs
I have reviewed it, but it still contains a lot of promotional language, e.g. "bright open collaboration spaces and cutting-edge software"; "a glimpse of the post-secondary experience that awaits them"; "aspire to be leaders in Canada's growing digital economy"; "inspire new ways to enrich audience and user engagement". . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mean as C. I have followed your direction implicitly and believe the page now deserves to have your tag removed. Would you mind having a look? Many thanks.Stuartzs —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It still reads more like a prospectus than an encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mean as custard, I have no idea what more to do. I thought I did what you asked and made significant changes. I have just made quite a few additional changes and could you please review. If these are not enough, could you provide me with other suggestions on what it would take to have the tag lifted? I am really at a quandary here. Stuartzs —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry: sooner or later another editor will come along who knows the difference between a prospectus and an encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mean as custard. I was hoping to get more direction than this. I am trying to learn. Did you review my last contributions because they were quite significant and I thought, addressed your tone issues and used the University of Waterloo page as reference? Any further advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Stuartzs —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note. I did give it one final attempt. I have changed quite a bit since your comments. Trying my best here. Thank you.
Hello Mean as custard. I made the requested changes to the page a month ago. Just went back and noticed that you have not reviewed it. Would you mind doing so because I believe your concerns have been addressed. Stuartzs(talk)

"Removed promotional content"

With regards to the page FundsIndia - the only promotional content I can see changed between your edit and mine (the one on the 9th of September) was the removal of the two images of the COO receiving awards under the section "Recognition". Just wanted to know whether it was the formatting (centre and large sized images) that made these images look promotional in your eyes, and if it was, then would it be okay if I added them, but in smaller sizes?

I ask because the first image (the one on the right) had been on the page for long before my edit and no one objected to that (see the version just before my edit). Thanks in advance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyKaps (talk • contribs) 09:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel that pictures of award ceremonies (of any size) are inappropriate and promotional in business-related articles. If you want to try adding similar pictures to half a dozen articles about other unrelated companies, then if you receive no complaints it might be ok to replace them in the FundsIndia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll try it out and see. Thanks. CrazyKaps (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit

LINKS help articles Everyandous (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not when used excessively. See WP:OVERLINKING. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITS Dublin Airport Yimo32 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry about that my little brother was fooling around I'm so sorry please don't ban me. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by XboxPlayz (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help!

Recently, Tking 1974 added an "other uses" page to the "expense ratio" page that is very clearly for a term with an entirely different meaning, "operating expense ratio". Rather than just delete that particular edit, I added information that provided a very clear distinction between the terms "expense ratio" and "operating expense ratio".

Very clearly, at the very least, the additions I had provided should be included with the other uses section that was added....and possibly a new page with "operating expense ratio" as a title should be added.

Thank You, pokermatters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokermatters (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made were probably valid, but you need to find more reliable references than links to commercial websites. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Car wash

Hi, what is wrong with links I added ?

Arqadius (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but ..... it's about car washing .... are you sure ? Arqadius (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A newbie's ask

Steven A. Volkman: Hi,I recently added a link to Stakeholder analysis.The toolkit I linked to was a detailed and well-organized guide for Stakeholder analysis. I have spent much time on the link to Stakeholder analysis.You can find that I am a new user. I like and hope to contribute to Wikipedia. The first link means a lot to me. Please think carefully and talk to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven A. Volkman (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links are generally discouraged in Wikipedia. There are numerous guidelines as to what is acceptable. See WP:EL and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Good luck with your future contributions. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see.Thank u. I will pay attention to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven A. Volkman (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to previous version

Hi, I'm wondering if you could let me know what you are flagging as promotional material on the edits I made to the Convention Centre Dublin page. I honestly believe my edits are factual. Some of the current information is factually incorrect and I work for this company and am trying to ensure the information is now up to date. The information for the edits I made to the history and construction of the building can be found on the company website http://www.theccd.ie/about-us/our-history and http://www.theccd.ie/about-us/construction. The events section is also extremely out of date. Please note that I have also requested to change my username so as not to breach the username policy. Thanks. The CCD (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Removing Edits

Hi

My i just ask why you removed my edits on the RAF Page you may of not found it " Constructive " but other people might please may i remind you this is a site that anybody can edit so i think by removing my edits you are defining my the right to edit the site

kind regrades hazzer1998

- Removing Edits

Hi

My i just ask why you removed my edits on the RAF Page you may of not found it " Constructive " but other people might please may i remind you this is a site that anybody can edit so i think by removing my edits you are defining my the right to edit the site

kind regrades hazzer1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazzer1998 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have the right to introduce incorrect information. Labelling a Spitfire Mk.IX as a Mk.1 is incorrect so I have reverted your latest change. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


- Removing Edits

Dear Sir, in Digital Art worldwide nobody works with vector graphics like i do. Because of this reason, the Essay is published at the Library of the University of Heidelberg. The aim of my essay is firstly to introduce the reader to the type of contemporary artistic image development that I have been using since 1992. Secondly, I will provide the reader with a paradigmatic, precise and detailed description of an experimental setup to determine form volumes in relationship to surrounding surfaces (volume stencils©). Both higher education teaching personnel and students will find this of use. As a consequence of the foregoing, the third and final part is dedicated to providing the reader with details of the eight separate steps involved from the screen display to the original graphic print. I am not willing to accept, that you remove this essential link. The german version of this essay you find under "Vektorgrafik" "Literatur" since two years: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vektorgrafik: I do not believe, that wikipedia rules are in germany other than un UK or USA. Please restore my inserted link under "Digital Art" immediately. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Stefan Skiba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Skiba Germany (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to your own work is discouraged in English Wikipedia. I don't know what those wacky German Wikipedians do but it has nothing to do with us. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, i do not accept your discriminatory answer. Sincerely, Stefan Skiba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.58.239.229 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, "an encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences)[1] is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." (wikipedia) The methods I developed, and published are new inventions in digital art and useful tools for artists. To understand digital art aided by vector graphics this knowledge is imperative. Please restore the reference. Sincerely, Stefan Skiba

- STOP UNDOING MY CONTRIBUTIONS

- FOR THE SECOND TIME NOW YOU,VE UNDONE MY CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE RAF PAGE I HAVE YOU KNOW MY CONTRIBUTIONS WERE VERY CONSTRUCTIVE AS IM CHANGING THE NAME OF AIRCRAFT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazzer1998 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello

hey

do you know what an edit war is? or what the 3rr is? Huritisho (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...I like the way you edit. I wonder how you are so able to find promotional content. You do a great job, I gotta say. Huritisho (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

haris khan

I am new to using wikipedia i have not exprience to do some particular thing on wikipedia now have no understand how we can edit my life history or anyother things on wiki world haris khan wazir 02:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris khan wazir6 (talk • contribs)

Good day Mr MAC

Thanks for the email.

Victoria is a small town, how can I NOT put a external link to the WEBSITE

Regards Matt Office Tel: +27-87-121-0402 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cape Web Solutions (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I follow the link, all I get is a message saying "Sorry but this website has been block in your country. Please make sure you have a valid South African IP to gain access - CAPE WEB SOLUTION". This is highly suspicious in a website aiming to attract tourists. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing for me. I don't know where Mean as custard is; I'm in the United States. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed that you reverted the change I made earlier about Interior design. Is there something wrong about it? Please advise so I can do what's necessary. Thanks. Rounder (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claims like "NAI magazine is well-known for its expertise and depth" need a lot more evidence than a single 9-year-old reference. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audley Retirement

Hi Mean, I hope you are well. You recently left an {{ad}} tag on Audley Retirement. I was asked how these tags get removed and replied with a pointer to WP:COI but said that I would contact you, given that some editing has taken place since the tag. I did point out that you were under no obligation to respond. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Marton

Hi, Mean as custard. I reverted your changes to the Dana Marton article, but only because I thought the edit summary was inadequate. It wasn't clear to me if it was an actual revert or just removal of material. If it's a revert, could you please state to which version? You can edit your old version and save it with a better edit summary. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Column removed from "Educational robotics"

Dear Mean as custard, Greetings!
I recently edited the page of "Educational Robotics" to add the section of Manav, which is the first ever 3D printed Humanoid robot of indigenous development from India. The robot was developed on a 3D printed platform because of the ease of modifications as the parts can be easily designed using 3D designing software and printed in-house.The robot is made on a multi micro-controller compatible platform to enhance training and hands on research of students on the robot (A-SET Training & Research Institutes, the firm that was responsible for creating the robot) I really understand that this all would be tough to understand for a general person like you, unless you have expertise in robotics. Hence, I would be glad if you would tell me what information the section lacked which made you mark it as "unnotable" and remove? Because honestly, MANAV is the 'ONLY' 3D printed Humanoid robot on the list, It's really a remarkable feat in educational robots because it gives the students a chance to build-break then build the entire chassis of the robot in the cost of a few bucks "THAT TOO' their own designs and their own experimental chassis. I would be glad if you would check out the 3D printing mechanism first, as that will help you understand what importance does this new achievement hold. CHEERS! Jasonprost (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that a place at the top of the list of Educational robot manufacturers and projects should mean it was more notable than the existing entries, which has not been proved, as the other entries are in production and Manav appears at this stage to be purely experimental and not in general educational use. As it is, putting your entry at the top of the list is simply bad etiquette. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats your opinion i respect it, sorry for my bad etiquette but it's actually just sheer laziness of me to put it at the top slot, So you mean to say,"Put it back, this time not on top, and it's okay." Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonprost (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it still doesn't qualify, and the sole purpose of your edits so far appears to be to promote this pathetic robot. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAMCO Securities

Hi Mean As Custard, I am a new user and my page, SAMCO securities is one of India's best and fastest discount broker and the organizer of the Indian Trading League. We are registered with all applicable authorities and our competitors too have their pages on Wikipedia. We are in the process of adding more information online. You can check our websites at www.indiantradingleague.com and samco.in

Harshilbs91 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Harshil ShahHarshilbs91 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wilkesboro

i think you should add back Carolina in the fall in wilkesboro because it was ion september 27th and 28th. nms642 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sperry Marine

With [this edit] you altered the link to Sperry Marine's official site to point to Southern Technical College, a completely unrelated technical college. Why did you do that? 81.174.184.80 (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very strange; I have no idea how the unrelated link got in there. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Ties

So you're mean as custard?

Looks like you removed my edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cable_tie. I'm trying to make this page more useful to visitors. I started with adding several more specialty cable ties since the 5 which are on there doesn't nearly cover them all. I also had other independent 3rd party site links ready to include in 3 of the sections which needed citations but I can't figure out how to include those links. I can see if you thought it was "de-spam" by only seeing the one link but I could only see how to create new content but not how to add a citation where it says "citation needed" for the other 3rd party sites.

If you point me in the right direction I'll include those as well as the specialty cable ties I tried to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriahonkanen (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection was the link to a page saying "buy our cable ties". Non-commercial references are needed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I search for specialty cable ties, they are one of the first sites on Google. (along with every other site being a commercial site as well) If this wiki page is showing the visitors what kind of specialty cable ties are out there, why can't I add more types to the list and show them where I found them? I can always toss a couple different cable tie sites in there if that's what you want. It was easier to just get them all from the one site though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriahonkanen (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock investigation

Hope I did it right. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharifsadik Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C

Hi Saaimshafi (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Park, shaping up

I see you tackled the gooey marketing mess that was the Ocean Park article, back in April. I've taken it further, though still far from complete, especially the structure. Care to help things along a bit (or spot errors I've made)? I also put a note on the talk page. Onanoff (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Tag

Hi. You marked the article TotoGaming as Advertising. Please highlight text parts containing advertising content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznauryanmikayel (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is written in upbeat promotional language, rather than dispassionate encyclopedic language. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mean. The article is written in encyclopedic language, and has been checked several times by independent persons. And, your answer is not proper. So please highlight text parts, otherwise please remove the tag.

Don't worry, I have removed some of the worst promotional language, though the advert tag stays. Incidentally, who are the "independent persons" you say have checked the article? . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks for editing user:Mean as custard. But the Ad tag is still existing? Can you remove it? The independent persons are linguists philologists and economists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznauryanmikayel (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mean as custard, please answere about advert tag. If there is no advertising content, why the tag is active now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznauryanmikayel (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You had your chance. I have moved on to new topics. Suggest you do too. . .Mean as custard (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed edits

Hi 'Mean as custard', I would appreciate if you could refrain from continuously reverting my edits on foot odor and athlete's foot: The foot odor article refers to 'activated charcoal foot inserts' and I have added an alternative insert which are cedar wood insoles (section 'Extinguishments') - there is absolutely no promotional content, it's a fact and readers should know about as many alternatives as possible in an encyclopedia. If anything, you should delete the reference to 'odor eaters' in the section 'Prevention' as this is a brand and therefore this is completely promotional. Similarly for athlete's foot. Thank you!NaturalFootcare (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your conscience is clear and you have nothing to gain from the edit, then that is fine. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Edits

Sir/Madam (not sure which), you instructed me that posting a link to a business/personal website was not appropriate on Wikipedia. I was not as aware as I should have been of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules but realize after your instruction that this is inappropriate. However, I tried several times to reedit information on the "Enterprise Legal Management" Wikipedia page and it continues to disappear. As you instructed, I did not re-add the link, but simply added an additional vendor in proper alphabetical order to the "Vendor Landscape" section that wasn't already included. Can you please advise if you know why the edit I made continues to disappear? Thanks Much Ldub1702 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)ldub17[reply]

There is no indication that the vendor is notable, though admittedly the same could be said for most of those listed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with you. They are just one of the Vendors in the "Vendor Landscape", similar to the others. I will review the editing guidelines and take a tutorial to understand how to improve my editing. Thank you for understanding and taking the time to respond. Ldub1702 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Reminder to always mark your CSD pages as patrolled :P JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the new articles page so there is no option for marking pages as patrolled. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Big Strategy is my part of assignment. Could you please do not edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elainedy39 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way Wikipedia works. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Strategy

Hi there,

Noticed you and a student were involved in an edit war over at Big Strategy. I left a message at the campus volunteer's talk page, but noticed it doesn't look like you either provided an edit summary or made an attempt to contact the student to explain why you were reverting (and perhaps more importantly, why he/she should not engage in edit wars, where to find more information about that, and so on). This place is, of course, kind of confusing to a newbie editor, and perhaps more so to a student who might worry that their grade depends on content "sticking" (hopefully their teacher will correct them on that matter). That doesn't excuse edit warring, etc. -- just a reminder that explanations can go a long way sometimes :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar xe wiki page

Hi there, i noticed that u reverted all my edits which i have just made recently. The links i added are for providing sources and unique information on wiki page and they are neither for promotional nor spamming activity. I added quality links from a reputable website. Please have a look into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuragsharma 8749 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links were intended to attract visitors to a commercial website. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dropdeadpaper

hi

Just wondering why you think that my link that I suggested is inappropriate?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddpaper (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other entries in the list all have links to Wikipedia articles, not links to external websites. See WP:EL and Wikipedia:Write the article first. . .Mean as custard (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Simulation

Hi there,

I noticed that you undid my edits on the article Traffic simulation in which I added links to the article. The undo has no edit summary, so I was curious to the reason you undid it. I did see your summary on the first edit that added the links, which said "prune link farm" but it seems to me as if the information presented is important to the article. If you want to remove the "promotional links," the products can either be linked to internally or the links can be removed and the program names kept.

DCTransit (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of external links was excessive - see WP:EL. program names could be kept if they are linked to corresponding Wikipedia articles to show they are notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Golding

Please work some of your AIV magic, as I am overwhelmed. 50.174.200.16 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mean as custard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solé Bicycle Co..
Message added 10:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to revisit the discussion. North America1000 10:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Transport

Hi, it would be useful for all users if the reasons for reverting edits were stated from the first edit. It is a historical fact that, because of the First World War, 100,000 women entered the transport industry to take on the responsibilities held by men who enlisted for military service. There is a campaign that celebrates the 100 years of women in this industry. How does this two topics not relate to transport? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaFerreira (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transport is a very general, wide-ranging subject and the edit is too specific and appears to be mainly designed to promote a campaign. If there was an article entitled "Women in transport", it might be appropriate to add it there. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

Issue
If You have any issue with specific content which you think is promotional. and let me clear there is no intention of promotion in this article 
Mohitmmpl (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Go through and find out how it can benefit you" - is this not promotional? And references to reliable sources are needed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mean as custard. I note you deleted a lot of the external links from the SC Group page. I am reasonably new to Wiki but am learning all the time. One of the first things I learned was it is always good to Talk, and where I can, or believe I should, I will also Talk before jumping in with both feet. Since your deletes of those links I have read up on the policy for including (or not) such things. From those readings I agree that some, but not all, of the links I originally added and you deleted should be removed, as in some cases they arguably do not comply with Wiki policy, and in others they clearly do not comply. However, I would propose that a small number of them do not breach guidelines and in fact include valuable useful 'encyclopedic content' and the type of material that either cannot be included as words, or would be very difficult to include as words. I doubt you viewed each and every one of these links before deleting, and far be it from me to suggest that maybe you should have, nor can each and every person who 'patrols' Wikipedia be a subject matter expert for every page they may patrol. In summation, and with all preceding facts/comments considered, I would propose reverting a handful of them, but only those that I firmly believe are useful and do not breach Wikipedia rules. I await your comments before doing this.UndateableOne (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would object to a few links which can be shown to be relevant and useful; my main concern was with the vast number of Youtube videos linked. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand (now I've researched the topic), and when I have the free time I'll carefully select and add a few that are relevant (in the true sense) and useful. UndateableOne (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Obsessive love for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Obsessive love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obsessive love until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Anome (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Remember to mark your CSD pages as patrolled. :p JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I remember you said you don't use the new articles page. JTtheOG (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Hi. Do you Twitter? Allygggggg (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emsisoft edits throughout 4 articles +1 Lavasoft

I was providing internal links to the article from other pages to Emsisoft. Wikipedia instructs to attempt to identify other articles that contain the title of the new article referring to that exact topic, or some description in other words referring to the same topic. (see WikiProject Orphanage)

With Lavasoft I added their competitors they ranked against in the latest tests.

I reverted one of your edits and I would propose reverting all of them.

What was your main concern about your discarding my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana-4-fun (talk • contribs) 07:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your apparent single-minded intention of promoting one particular company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY Emsisoft should be on those pages among Anti-Virus and Firewall companies. With Lavasoft this paragraph also makes sense. May I revert your changes? Ana-4-fun (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please make suggestions on how to modify the article so that it fits your image of the right material? Ana-4-fun (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have not worked here on any other article except for trying to add this software elsewhere in Wikipedia; I and others have deleted those also. Perhaps you may have a WP:Conflict of interest. If so, you need to use the WP:AFC method for making an article, and you need to be aware of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Dalmia

Hi, I've temporarily removed the speedy tag from Arun Dalmia, just to prevent further difficulty in sorting out Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk_page_move_mess. It's his talk page, moved to mainspace twice. :/ Hope this gets fixed soon. Thanks, Norvoid (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now - talk pages merged, article deleted, user blocked for spamming. Norvoid (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animal ethics

Hi, I saw you cancelled my edit to the animal ethics page, could you explain why? FineInTime (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted it accordingly. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf?

Stop reverting my chances! DEATH TO ISRAEL!! I DONT WANT TO SEE ANYTHING ABOUT ISRAEL!!!! I will re do all my changes that you reverted!! PALESTINE WILL LIVE ON!! This is called RESISTANCE!!! Flabsterpal (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please note that no one owns articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. It doesn't matter what you want or don't want to see. Note that continued vandalism will result in your account being blocked. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Well, I think it's time right now, allthefoxes; the post above says it all. Blocked indefinitely as not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you think it's spam link?

Why do you remove link on 'Beta (finance)' page to Beta calculator, it's article related link with useful service with beta calculations. So I don't understand why it is considered as spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deios (talk • contribs) 11:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is on a website that says "Unicorn Bay: Building a Perfect Portfolio the Easy Way. Join our beta program and get 50% discount". Spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just our beta program. Will it be spam when we'll remove the text about beta program and 50% discount? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deios (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will still be spam because you have just admitted that you have a connection with the website. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When reverting, please leave comment

If you would, when reverting updates please leave a comment as to why you're doing that. The editor that you reverted for the Canadian National Railroad edit who added tabs or something might not know why his update was reverted. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it should be obvious. The Canadian National Railroad is not the Chinese National Railroad. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of Official Government report "The Jay report"

Hello,

I have left some questions and comments regarding your recent undo on the Jack Straw page regarding the new report.

Historically this will be a very important issue.

Please comment on the Jack Straw talk page as I have set up a heading.

Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Straw#Official_Government_report_.22The_Jay_report.22

Hi, Why did you remove the related link to Tufin? It's a company that specializes in network security policy solutions? Thx

Because if it was left in, it would only be fair to add links to all the other companies flogging similar "solutions". . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted for no indication of notability?

Hi, Page created has scheduled for deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event2mobile I have added a notable link from a website. Will this help? Thx

Need verification on my deleted page

Hi Mean as custard,

I understand what you're doing is making Wikipedia better by choosing the most appropriate articles and pages. I got my page deleted because you placed a speedy deletion nomination on my page Holiday Beach Danang Hotel & Resort

Can you please spot the promotional/advertising words/phrases on my delete page please ? I still have no idea why I got my page deleted because I have got rid of every promotional words in the page.

Regards

As it is now deleted I don't recall exactly, but listing how close the hotel is to various tourist sites was irrelevant and promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Im not commmiting vandalism. Watch your edits. Melissa fire brasileirinhas681 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Medical Content Creator Barnstar
Congratulations and a huge Thank you. You were one of the top medical editors on Wikipedia in 2015! Your work is admired and appreciated.
  Bfpage |leave a message  02:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I see that you have removed my edit to Condominium. For my error i have cancelled the part of the Norway. But for you there is a problem with my version of the Italy's condominium?

Thanks! SandroDaste (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is badly translated and links to a site full of advertisements. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check again

Hi dear Mean as custard, I have just found my edition on Investment advisory has been removed. I think the information about investment in Iran Could be helpful for whom looking for investment solutions in Iran in post-sanctions era. Therefore, it would be highly appreciated to revise your decision on the issue. Regards, Ashkan

Only if you are prepared to expand the list to include every other country in the world. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing my talk page!

I see no proof you can have permission to put random tags on my talk page

--RachmanZ19 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Altimetrik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Platform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows over innistrad

This is the NEW Innistrad set, so a new page should be created for it.MTGNERDIOUS (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undo of the content on the page

Hi you undid the content on the page that I had edited today, and had suggested that the content is promotional, please can you say which aspect of the page is promotional so I can revise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geethac (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of it: promotional language like "proud to be part of a 100 year old brand heritage", long lists of awards with self-congratulatory comment; multiple external links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Observer

Hi. I did National Observer's Wikipedia page as an exercise in Encyclopedia editing. As a journalist, I find hard to believe that any piece I write is promotional. However, I am more than willing to talk about the points and links that you think as so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naldox (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple external links - see WP:EL. Also flowery language like "With more than six years of experience in sales and account management, Johnson turned The Vancouver Observer into a powerful advertising platform for clients, boosting brands and creating conversations with targeted audiences". . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One piece of example barely qualifies thw whole piece as "promotional". It was removed, as I think you were right. Will work on external links tonight, Would appreciate for you to remove the banner if you are satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naldox (talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phreesia

How can I request the deletion of this article? --176.239.79.28 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Puzzles

Additional reliable secondary sources have been added to page Latin Puzzles: The Royal Spanish Mathematical Society's Bulletin and the paper Latin Puzzles from arxiv.org at Cornell University. Is this enough to remove the notice you included regarding General Notability Guidelines? Thanks. Didoku (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your responsiveness. Now, in order to comply with the Neutral Point of View policy, interested readers should engage in talks first. I guess this would be easier if the page were in the article namespace, but am unsure if it is ready for that. Any advice? Thanks. Didoku (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. It may just be your username that implies a conflict of interest with the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Then what to do to remove the notice regarding conflict of interest you included? Thanks. Didoku (talk) 06:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffs awards incentives

Hello Mean. I'm a bit of newbie on adding content, but I did consider the COI guidelines. Please take a look at the quality of the content added and consider it's value-add to the topic. It's encyclopedia-quality information on the spiff-program page and the award matrix comparison. The 12.5 steps e-book has even better information, but because it's a gated resource, that's probably an appropriate deletion. The other two add insights to the topics.Mikemay1409 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Newsmart

Hi Mean as Custard - thanks for your edits to our Wiki page! We thought we had made the necessary changes you suggested in terms of removing the promotional material. Could you possibly highlight some areas of the sections you have removed that need editing further?

Many thanks in advance.

Paul.PaulJ Pivot (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that although you created the article, it is not yours - see Wikipedia:Ownership of content. There was far too much background material not directly related to the subject. Mean as custard (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. So, in terms of reaching a consensus, is it fair to say that it was the length/extent of each section that needed to be reduced? I believe some reference to the pedagogical approach and the context of 'Business English as lingua franca' are relevant to Newsmart and worthy of reference. Would it be better to create separate Wiki page for them and then link to them from within this Wiki?

Thanks in advance.

I expect some of the material could be added to the Business English article, which could then be linked to from the Newsmart article; whether a standalone BELF article could exist depends on the subject being shown to be notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, OK, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulJ Pivot (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citibank Malaysia 2

Hi,

Please share instances of promotional content and inappropriate external links and instances where the tone does not have a neutral point of view?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiangyeewong (talk • contribs) 12:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language like "These centers seek to enable Citi to leverage its extensive branch network at the front end, capturing the full gamut of end-to-end trade flows involving both buyers and sellers while providing consistent, high quality service delivery at the back-end "; also the huge list under "Awards & Accolades". . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaC,

  • Paragraph with non-compliant content removed.
  • As far as the Awards & Accolades" list is concerned, can we retain a summary on this page while moving the complete content block to a separate subsidiary page? All these awards are substantiated by credible links/references.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiangyeewong (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you also set up a separate subsidiary page entitled "Criticism and Controversy". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mac,

We've substantially trimmed the "Awards & Accolades" section.

Please let us know if there is anything else that we should do.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiangyeewong (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mac,

Hope we've removed all Wiki non-conformities. Please let us know if there is anything else that we need to do.

Also, request you to have the "issues" panel on top of the page removed.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiangyeewong (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The overall tone of the article is still promotional. And encyclopedias do not contain content like "CitiPhone can be contacted through the following numbers. . . ". Mean as custard (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:TheFDSAMan and user:Wild man651

FYI: I have a suspicion that these may be the same. I've raised the issue on my talk page and requested help from an administrator. Possibly best to keep any feedback there so that it is visible to an admin if that's OK with you. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD and WP:3RR

Your name came up at Robert Bosch. Please see the talk page. Don't bite the newcomers. WP:Newbie. WP:Bully. Wikipedia:Light one candle. It is better to guide them than it is to crush them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. W. O. Bentley. WP:Wikihounding. Stop it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Automotive Hall of Fame anyway? The article has nothing to show it is notable, just a single dead reference link and a link to the organisation itself. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your following around User:Autoenthusiast123 is not appropriate. To be sure, the WP:EL should be references. But please stop your present course of action. I don't know where you are from, but round these parts the Automotive Hall of Fame is a big deal. It is elite. Like lifetime achievement awards for the Academy Awards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence to support your assertion? How is it relevant that an Italian and a British designer have received posthumous recognition in the USA? . .
They were honored for their contribution to the automotive industry. Most of the voters are members of the industry. That they were chosen by their peers is in fact of independent significance. That you choose not to see that is irrelevant. This is a museum that is associated with The Henry Ford. If you go to their website you will see the lists of honorees, speakers and attendees, which reads like a who's who in auto. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now well sourced and growing. Leave User:Autoenthusiast123 unhampered. Fair warning. WP:Dead horse applies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??

Why did you delete my edit? Thebandit81 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It provided no references to show it was notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywell

Thanks for catching that edit from HoneywellPR. My firm has been contracted by Honeywell for a while now, and we've talked with them about not directly editing pages, but unfortunately it seems that not everyone got the memo. I'll be speaking with them shortly to try to prevent this type of thing happening again in the future.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted content

Hi Mean as custard,

Earlier today, you reverted back content that i had added to the comparison of survey software. i am new, so there might be some guidelines that I am unaware off. Yet i fail to see how my input was any different than what all other contributors have added. Could you please help clarify?

Sincerely,

HenrikVD

The entry you added is currently tagged for speedy deletion. If the administrators decide not to delete it, then it can be added back to the comparison of survey software. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the reply :)

Online advertising

Hi @Mean as custard: I refer to your reversion on my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_advertising&oldid=709850029.

There is no reason why. Can you explain please. Regards. Eno Lirpa (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason for your edit seems to have been to de-orphan another article about an unnotable company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article subject is certainly no MicroSoft! However, it is an article and until it has been deemed not notable by the wikicommunity it needs to stay, and hence should be linked in to the rest of wikipedia. Having it linked in better will attract more readers and editors, and it will either be improved or got rid of in due course. Your delinking reorphaned it but you did not retag it as an orphan. I personally do not have any desire to see the Revcube article stay or go, but as long as it is there it must be linked if it reasonably can be.
I have reversed your revert of my edit. If you do not think the Revcube article is notable then please put if up for WP:AFD, but please do not just orphan the article again.
Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of whether it qualifies for WP:AFD; it does not belong in the Online advertising article because that would open the floodgates for links to vast numbers of other mostly-unnotable companies. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPX Corporation

Please stop reverting back changes for SPX Corporation. You have reverted to incorrect information. There is no advertising on this page.Cjpooka (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more: I have removed content such as "they offer a wide array of highly engineered infrastructure products with strong brands"; "quickly earned a reputation for quality products". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editing reflects new information regarding stock symbol, current business offerings and information regarding corporate spin-off. Verbiage that was pointed out has been removed. If you need to revert any further changes, please do not revert the business listing, revenue, stock symbol, number of employees, operating income, headquarters, founded and industry. We must report up-to-date and accurate information on the corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpooka (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kegerator Page

I see that you removed all but one reference link on the Kegerator page and marked them as SPAM. After having gone through the process of selecting and buying a kegerator, I added those links because I thought they were all valuable to the content for anyone trying to build or buy a kegerator. The only one I thought that was questionable was the one that linked to the Kegerator Conversion Kits page on the Beverage Factory site, but I couldn't find any pages that gave a good description of a conversion kit without selling one. I had links to.. in there, so I'm not sure why they were considered SPAM or why the kegerator.com page was left in there when it seemed to have the most product pitches out of the links that were removed. I think it's valuable to users to have the references in there so I'd like to know your reasoning for taking them out.

J.colton.g (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just wanted to say I'm not actively trying to sabotage Wikipedia, and I appreciate the work people like you are doing. The reason I want to add Load Impact is of course mostly because it is the company I founded, and the product I built, but I would not try to add it if I didn't believe it had a legitimate reason to be mentioned here. Sorry for not reading up on guidelines etc more before posting. There is a new article now, with some hopefully more "RS" in it. cheers /Ragnar

Ragnarlonn (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a promotional material?

Hi, Mean, you have deleted all the material that I have added recently with the mark "promotional material". Could you specify, please, what material you consider promotional: image of the office? our awards? or reference links? video about the company?

I'm trying to make our page more attractive to the visitors and information updated. I looked through the pages of our competitors and almost all of them post office images and speak about their industry awards, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_Dow_Jones_Indices#Awards, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlumberger. What's wrong with our page??? Is this a kind of discrimination on Wikipedia? I hope it isn't.

By the way, you deleted "Sponsorship" category, which was there for ages! Please, get it back on the page, or you can send it to me and I'll place it back by myself. Thank you. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TeleTrade Cyprus (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about organisations should (in theory) not be created or edited by their representatives, because they have a conflict of interest and are more concerned with self-promotion than in putting forward a balanced authoritative article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankajpiyush (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to Old Version?

Hi Mean as Custard

This is with regards to edit which I had done for Ellas Kitchen Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella%27s_Kitchen, You have marked those content as Promotional content, the stuff which I had added on the page were around what are the brand promises of this page. So please could you revert it back to to changes I had done, these were picked up the organisation website and i had reworded the content See more here http://www.ellaskitchen.co.uk/our-story/what-drives-us/

Also noticed that you have removed the website URL as well, could you please get the same added back again

My edit summary said "Revert to less blatantly promotional version". See also my reply to TeleTrade Cyprus immediately above. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a promotional material?

Could you send me all the deleted material to the registered email tatiana4teletrade@gmail.com, please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.53.181.23 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Hi Mean as custard

Could you please explain why you removed my addition to Music OCR -> Proprietary software today My intention was to add a factual addition to what is a ready a list of proprietary software. Many thanks hemiarnum PS I seem to have made unintentional edits to previous post. Apologies Hemiarnum (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to show it was notable (though admittedly that also applies to most of the other entries on the list. . . ) Mean as custard (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm still upset at your approach of just removing everything added to a page... I'll attempt to justify the changes I made to your *%^* page that requested additional citations. I had added the only known united states directory(via Hostsearch) for web hosting providers and I had added another page that referenced the top hosting providers. I will agree that the last one may not have been needed for clarifications. However, I did contribute to your page by adding the only source available on the internet that can verify the statement requesting a citation. If justification is what you call collaboration then there you go. /ragequit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.82.14 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to this edit you made. Not only is it uncivil, but it appears to be vandalism to a portal page. This is why I removed it and warned you for civility. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC) and I'm "referring to" the edits that were made to this page(03-12-16): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_web_hosting_service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.82.14 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC) I did not make the reversion to that page. If you have a dispute, please speak with KH-1, or discuss it on the article's talk page and ping KH-1 so that he can explain. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 70.119.82.14 (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi please help in stopping vandalism here Jo Harman. Doomclause (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Shuab's as page has I THINK a miastake

On the Prophet Shuaib's (as) page Mean as custard has written that 4 generations away from Ibrahim as he prophised and have written that Isaachar which I think is a mistype for Isaac was the son of Midian son of Ibrahim WHEREAS ISSAC WAS THE SOm of IBRAHIM Editor cd (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit to Spongebob

Why did you revert it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryOne (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About your recommendation to delete OneDirect page

That page was not meant for promotional purposes, I realize now that parts of the page seemed promotional, even though I was directly quoting a newspaper; I wish to say that, as soon as you pointed out that the page seemed promotional, in fact even before that I was in the process of making major edits to the page so that it seems neutral & encyclopedic. I implore you to withdraw your recommendation and actually help me make the article truly neutral and informational. This was my first attempt to make a page on Wikipedia & I was bound to make mistakes like these. I ask you to assisst me and point out the material that seems promotional so that I can remove it & make the page truly encyclopedic.Aayush2003 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About my product page page of XenPlus

My XgenPlus page is just an infopool for the user about the product. It's made keeping wikipedia guidelines in mind. You can check as most of the link given in the page are of wikipedia and also the internal links given in the content are genuine and information related. So please delete my request for speedy deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XgenPlus (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't request speedy deletion, but I agree with the request as it reads like an advert. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Limited page

Hi Mean as Custard,

I understand that the edits that were done by me on 29-March-2016 have been reversed by you as they were deemed as promotional. There have been many changes in the courses offered and the edits were made to reflect the same. This has been my first attempt to make a major edit and hence, I request you to help me fix the content that seems promotional in nature.Amitthokal1 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Extraterrestrial real estate

Hi I added one paragraph to update info about notable claims. I added references to be specific that it is not a joke. Could you please explain me what what should i edit to make it acceptable?Godosz (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi, I saw you removed the link I replaced to the Rolex page. I think the page is missing some reference to the characteristics of a true Rolex as I believe that users can benefit from this particular article. I'm also new to Wikipedia and still learning the correct way to post new information.

Thank you, Doron Thanks you Doronwolffberg (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 3 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)

Thanks for removing all of that stuff from Emotiv Systems. It looks like we have an SPA on our hands! Check out the message that he left on an IP's talk page; definitely an SPA if I've seen one before ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User talk:Marcel.stryk

I noticed that you have deleted my contribution which I think is unjustified. Please re-check the source reference. It contains no commercial purpose in any way. Rather than the source title and url might imply, it is only a guide to buying medication with proper information. There is no advertisement, affiliation, or any other sort of commercial aspect in it.

Although the website is not obviously promotional, its bonafides are questionable, as are yours, as you have made no edits to any other articles. .Mean as custard (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to build up a simple low-cost website with authority within a niche market. As I'm a contributor to many online forums related to hair loss and how to treat it, and having solid experience and success with finasteride, I thought it would be appropriate to have my own platform (with forum later on) about male pattern hair loss on a specific topic. All facts on the website are well documented with scientific articles and there is new and unique content on it due to how it is put together from all these sources. Can my Wiki contribution be approved? Under the condition it can be removed any time if there is reason for believing that it becomes bonafide. --Marcel.stryk (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

criteria for speedy deletion - Ecotest

Hi Mean as custard! Could you please let me know why you think that the article Ecotest is too promotional? What should I change in it? I've already rewrite it and made it encyclopedic. What else should I do to make it alive?

Thanks, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulSummers12 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes claims like "The brand is deemed trustworthy and has gained the confidence of many dealers and customers around the world" without any evidence to back it up. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over-hasty requesting of speedy deletion

In this edit, you requested speedy deletion for a major regional company listed on a stock exchange. Interestingly, this company is located in the Global South. I certainly can't imagine you placing a speedy deletion tag on a company listed on the London Stock Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange. Placing a tag on this article (for a second time, a tag had already been removed) is clearly a violation of the spirit of undiscussed deletion set out at WP:SPEEDY. According to WP:SPEEDY "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. This article has been taken to AfD. Not a single editor has recommended deletion. What's your rush? AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how important the company is: if the article reads like an advertisement it can be speedily deleted. It has now been improved somewhat so there is no longer a need to consider speedy deletion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:G11 also states "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion" AusLondonder (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion tags can only be legitimately removed by an admin. Are you one? . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true. WP:SPEEDY states "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so" Nothing about admins. AusLondonder (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right; I have reread WP:SPEEDY. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit to Baggage Handling system

Good morning Mean as custard. I have seen that you have delete the changes I made in the page of Baggage handling system because you detect it as promotional information. The photos I introduced in the page were not promotional because, as you can see, there is not any brand or nothing similar in the photos. I think that they are very good photos to describe a "Baggage Handling system". Are you agree? On the other hand, I have introduce the link because they are expert on this materia and it can add more information to the users. Furthermore, nowadays there is a link, similar to my contribution and it is OK, nobody has delete it. I am a new in Wikipedia and I do not understand this type of differences. Many thanks for your explanation. Ingenieria-logistica (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Ingenieria-logistica[reply]

The link you added was much more promotional than informational. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mean as custard, the photos are not promotional and we are giving better images to the users of wikipedia... Ingenieria-logistica (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Ingenieria-logistica[reply]

University of Northern Colorado Promotional Material

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in improving the article for the University of Northern Colorado. Unfortunately, the promotional tag you have added to the page has been removed. Please remember that tags are added in an effort to indicate problems with an article, of which you did not elaborated on in the article's talk page or yours. Tagging this article has neither been constructive nor accurate. I encourage you to carefully review articles pertaining to other major universities and compare the contents of these articles before making judgements on what might be considered promotional content. Furthermore, please consider contributing to the article's content by correcting problems you find or by explaining your intentions on the article's talk page should you feel the removal of this tag unjust before further tagging this article.

Breezethrough (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still promotional. Tag replaced. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at article. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Breezethrough (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to append an official link to the External Link page. Currently two other links in the page I edited are redundant. Could you please let me know the criteria on which an edit is reverted or maintained on External Links. Do I need to create a email id from the official domain? NaveenPaul (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the guidelines on external links: WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I have looked at the at External Links Doc. The link I have pasted is indeed an official source or as the Guidelines quotes - an link to an official page of the article's subject and also falls under the category of "Links to be considered". Therefore, I kindly request your good self to look into my edits and confirm if the links I appended, meet the criteria for external link. NaveenPaul (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my input been reverted without explanation

As a new user I am...well, new to all this and at the very least struggling with the interface. However now that I'm here, I am wondering why my effort has been reverted and without any explanation from what I can see - thanks.

External links are generally discouraged in Wikipedia. There are numerous guidelines as to what is acceptable. See WP:EL. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback - I recognise that the rest of the site is indeed commercial in principle. However, having read the External Links guide I still feel that there are several reasons this would be good for the page:

1. The link was to a highly topic-appropriate page. 2. If the reader only wanted the calculator, the page would never take him anywhere else except to the results page ad infinitum. 3. The calculator uses sever side code and doesn't rely on Javascript etc. 4. It was written because I love writing and helping solve the problem for anyone interested in a ready made calculator, free of charge.

If the preferred presentation of the link were without a company name, I would have no reservations whatsoever.

I Hope you can reconsider - thanks Trickyhere2 (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax

Has this edit [7] been overlooked? 178.232.128.144 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mean_as_custard&oldid=716544701"