User talk:Mean as custard/Archive 8

Please can you let me know why? all the links are external and there is nothing subjective i am just stating facts.

Joyjabb (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles do not normally proudly display copies of their subject's awards and certificates. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PVBLC external link

Hey Mean as custard, No accolades, brickbats or threats here ;) First off, I do work for PVBLC and I can see why you'd think that linking to a MTB page on PVBLC is an inappropriate link, but honestly it isn't. In the guideline you sent me (yeah, I read it all) it says: "Some acceptable links include... meaningful, relevant content". Because PVBLC is like Wikipedia but for content (and it's also free) I think it definitely follows under the category of meaningful and relevant content. Since it isn't suitable for the article itself I added it as part of the external links.

Truthfully, I think PVBLC is like Wikipedia in its first days- it really will give an added value to people, teaching them more about the topics that interest them making content about it more accessible to them. It makes sense to me that PVBLC links will be allowed on Wiki.

Hope you think so too :) Contact me if you want to hear more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Friedman (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music

What is wrong with the external link to a comprehensive classical music website from the classical music wiki page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catpad2 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilti

I think we disagree on the idea of "blatantly promotional material". However, that said, I will revise the content, and add content in sections. Additionally I will ensure all content added are in NPOV, and have sources that are unassociated with the company. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvire (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't all promotional, but enough was to make it unacceptable and to necessitate reverting all the changes. See WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mean as custard, understood. I've made some changes again, not as much as last time, but in two smaller batches. All sources have been fixed, and I've changed the voicing to provide a neutral voice, removing subjective descriptive terms. If there's any problems you see, please let me know so I will fix it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvire (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Material

Hey Mean as custard, I updated our Wikipedia page Institute of Art and Ideas so that it featured the information from recent festivals and our new offerings, such as our podcast and free online courses. You flagged it as being too promotional - I've gone through and edited the language to remove some of this, so could you review or edit this amend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothansindisguise (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it still reads like an advertisement, e.g. "Crunch brings together the world's leading artists, curators and critics to debate the questions that lie at the core of contemporary art". . . Also an excessive number of promotional external links embedded in the text. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? I think you have found this content as promotional "Argan oil an organic product that is that much more valuable. So valuable is this product, that the Argan Forest is now a designated biosphere protected by UNESCO." I just need to know if this is not valuable why Unesco declare Argan oil as heritage. I have provided the link of Unesco offical web. Could you please reconsider this. I have put the useful info. --Mind9809 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit appeared reasonable at first glance but was calculated to conceal a spam link: "website=Buy Argan Oil At Wholesale Price From Morocco". . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What need I do?

Mean as custard, I did not want to put information about new kernel to Comparison of real-time operating systems article at the second time. Just, I really need your help what should I do for adding a row to the table of real-time operating systems? There are many rows, and I do not know why my row is worse then other.

The problem is that your user name matches the name of the company you are trying to promote, so your conflict of interest is obvious. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CookStove Edited

Removed external links within article and citations on cookstove page as advised by you. I am not promoting the product. I have seen it in operation and impressed with what it does and its enormous potential for the poor people and the environment. Hence wish to pass the important information through Wikipedia to all who are interested and can benefit from it. Please review the edit and advise. Thanks. Mohaneesh.honavar (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is too promotional and has no references to show notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

promotional material added?

I see you like to remove promotional material. You edited the article Automatic watch one day, and now a user created a section that sounds too promotional. Perhaps you'd like to do something about it? Holy Goo (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the edit. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit-Baltistan

Hello, I'm Harppen. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gilgit-Baltistan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.Harppen (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria based on which links are kept or removed

Hello, my name is Alex. I noticed you removed two ref links I have posted in relevant sections (white label and bookmakers) for related services - white label and sports betting software for bookmakers and gambling websites. I would be curious to learn more about the reasoning behind the deletion since both pages contain other ref links and cites to white label products and software, it appears they are still there. I see several other websites in similar niche markets are allowed to maintain their links. Also, any advice as to how one should proceed to add a relevant link and/or citation to a relevant, related section would be good, so that it doesn't get deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexc89 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links you added were purely promotional, they added nothing to the article. Agreed the articles already have plenty of similar links but that is no reason to add more. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding promotional material?

Hi, you've recently edited the Datamatics Global Services page while removing some vital information. I've reverted to the older version itself as all the content displayed earlier was promptly supported by proper links to genuine and valid citation. Why would you edit something that is publicly available on all platforms? Isn't it what Wikipedia stands for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talk • contribs) 11:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contains material like "a global IT and business process outsourcing company, which focuses on helping their clients transform into a truly digital, data-driven enterprise and empowers them to take advantage of the digital revolution to innovate, differentiate and grow". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've recently updated the unibind article with old information. I've corrected with more recent information, but you've put old information back again. Why? I would like to give an overview of what the Unibind company does these days and your information from 2010 is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naegelseva (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"What makes them the global leader in presentation systems of printed documents you wonder? Quality, user-friendliness and innovation" - spam, spam and spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CodeGround

CodeGround is an Online Testing Platform for Recruiters to screen candidates before the interview process. I am associated with CodeGround, although not as a paid employee. I created a wiki page for this website but it was removed. I would like to contest this because references were provided (i.e.) for every kind of online test that is supported by CodeGround, external links to sample tests were provided. Also, it was written in a neutral way (i.e.) I simply listed the kind of tests that were supported. I never said anything that cannot be substantiated like "CodeGround is the best" or "CodeGround is No 1" etc. I simply provided a laundry list of the kinds of tests supported with a link to a sample test as reference.

How can I go about creating this page? Perhaps you can look at the website: https://codeground.in and create the page yourself based on what you think is fair and neutral? Or perhaps I can mention the set of features that are not supported as well, to keep it balanced?

Thanks. I am new to wiki, so apologize for any mistakes I have made. ShankarSathiamurthi ShankarSathiamurthi (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)ShankarSathiamurthiShankarSathiamurthi (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the only references were to the codeground site. Independent references would be needed from other sources to show it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7th april.

Can isk you why you removed international Beaver Day from the 7 april wikipedia page? I have a Good source and it's true. Please answer soonly Bver4ever (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bver4ever: I am replying to you here and hope Mean as custard will not object. First, there is no such word as "soonly", which you should know. I assume you are not illiterate. Second, and far more important, all DOTY entries must have, as a minimal demonstration of notability, their own existing, standalone articles. Quis separabit? 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mean as custard. 2607:FB90:4420:CD1C:0:1:5180:1F01 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

southern research

hello, I updated sources on the southern research page and made edits. Wondering if it's possible to get rid of the maintenance box at the top and how this could be achieved? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigcommWiki (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Din?

Can we move Din (Arabic) to Din as it just redirected to Din (disambiguation) which has its own article? After that move we can place other uses template on top of Din article which will point to Din (disambiguation). We can do same for Iman (concept) to Iman. If you agree. 000meow (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Din is a common term in many contexts so should not be used for any single article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Mean as custard.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Streaming Media Systems Edits Question

Brah why you stop my edits for custard man? Hello Mean as custard,

I’m new to Wikipedia and made approximately 5 contributions to the List of Streaming Media Systems page and you removed them all. Could you help me understand why?

You left the note of (revert unnotable) so I researched “notable” and found this Wikipedia:Notability - Stand-alone lists

Per the link it looks like my contributions would be fine. I look forward to hearing from you. MrTimArthur (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The intro to the list stated "This is a list of streaming media systems with articles." The entries you added do not have their own articles, so I removed them. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply. Would it be acceptable to edit the intro to the list so it read "This is a list of streaming media systems." Which would allow the list to be more complete. I look forward to hearing from you. MrTimArthur (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of an article is evidence of WP:Notability. Otherwise the list would get cluttered up with any old rubbish. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of First World privilege for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First World privilege 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/First World privilege 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsrestoresanity (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mean as custard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boachsoft Finance

Hello,

On January 28th someone created an article for Boachsoft Finance. You proposed deletion that same day. Just an hour later, anon came along and deleted the AFD template. As far as I can tell the proposed deletion was never discussed. You may want to revisit it. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Mean as custard,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Kadey-Krogen Yachts

Kadey-Krogen Yachts and 69.250.20.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are both located in Annapolis, MD. Coincidence? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

May I discuss with you why you reverted my edit on the disam page Midge. If you have watched many episodes of The Simpsons as I have, you will notice that Moe Syzlak frequently uses this pet name for Marge Simpson. I think it should be included and I would rather ask you here before reverting your edit again because I would rather not start an edit war. Thanks NaturalAbundance (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned in the article on Marge Simpson. If it was mentioned, with references to show the term is notable, it could be added. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thank you very much :) :) NaturalAbundance (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits

Unfortunately, on the page Freedom_(disambiguation), you have reverted a constructive edit by me. " *In the game series of STALKER, there is a faction named "Freedom"." I will WP:AGF, and also assume you have made a mistake. Please don't count this as vandalism, as I only request help with the current situation I have been placed in. Facements (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Facements[reply]

- Your edit did not link to any article, so was unnecessary. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am bad at adding links, and as an example, from the article, "Freedom", a song from the 25th anniversary reissue of Fireball by Deep Purple contains no links, and is still on the page. I suggest either removing that or accepting my edit. Thanks, Facements (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Facements.[reply]

@Facements: actually, "Freedom" by Deep Purple is fine. Because some people (as I have done in the past), look for the song on here, and it comes to the disambiguation page, which then leads the user to the article for the album, thus serving it's purpose. However, someone search for a faction in a video game would be better suited using Wikia.com, as Wikipedia is not a video game guide for all small minute details of video games. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted to help out people who didn't know the name of the game. I am not attempting to start transforming this into Wikia.com. Also, on the disambiguation page for Sheen, I see the character Sheen Estevez, a character from Jimmy Neutron. What if I took every disambiguation page and added a reference to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Facements (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Facements[reply]

Looks like you removed some of my edits

I noticed that you removed the edits that I previously made. I have been doing research on product management and noticed that those pages didn't have inline citations or many resources. I was just adding resources as I found them, and maybe I'll get to an overhaul of the pages. But I was just wondering why you decided to remove my edits? I realize they are both from the same source, but that's where I was getting my information from, I am not affiliated with the company, and there was not previous information/citation there, so I don't see what the issue is. Amgisseman (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links promoting an organization: "We have an unparalleled team of Product Management and Product Marketing thought leaders who work as your long-term strategic partner to strengthen your organization and your skills.". . . Mean as custard (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, it isn't a "spam link." I can see how that quote, taken off of their "About" page would come across that way, but that statement wasn't taken from the articles themselves, which to me did provide sufficient information to be cited in the articles. The paragraph I added about salary statistics was new information and was useful. I could even find other sources if that would help solve the problem of "spamming." The other information about product owners wasn't cited to begin with, and the article provided information to support the definition. I'll admit I haven't had the time to flush out the pages yet, but it's on my to-do list. I think that those articles are still good references. Additionally, those pages currently also cite blogs. You might as well delete the link to this page and this page if you veto the links I added because those blogs technically aren't reliable sources. I just want to make sure the pages get the proper citations. Would you be opposed to me using an online book from 280 Group as a reference for those pages to help get them cited, or would it be better to add as an external link? Thanks for your hard work to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and to make sure pages become the best they can be. Amgisseman (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References pointing to commercial blogs are poor quality, especially as blog entries are often created purely so they can be cited on Wikipedia and so attract traffic to their host site. Much better would be a citation of a reputable printed book on the subject. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting External Links to a useful book synopsis site, why?

Can I ask, why do you keep removing links to useful summaries of books posted on a 3rd party site - http://www.wellread.eu ? They are specific to a particular book and it is unique content not found elsewhere on the internet and clearly non-promotional. I'm familiar with the External Links policy and I don't see where/how this would be in contravention to that policy?

e.g. a selection of useful summaries of 1984, found here; http://www.wellread.eu/?ASIN=014118776X - these are factual, non-opinionated, plot summaries of the book. Not book reviews, in case that is causing some confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B1e1n1 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links were all added over the space of a few hours by at least three users, suggesting a co-ordinated campaign to promote this marginally-useful commercial website. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was coordinated, yes, but that in itself shouldn't be a problem? I can confirm, as curator of the site in question, that it is not a commercial site - it's not revenue generating. It is a community site where content generators can author detailed summaries (not opinionated reviews) about a given book. I honestly think it's a useful resource and provides additional detail on a given book. Our content creators (the community) devote a lot of time and effort to producing neutral, professional summaries. What do you think? Ben Logan (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commendable I am sure, but If it is not a commercial site, why are there links on every review page to purchase the book at another site ? . . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience only, they can easily be removed in favour of providing useful links wikipedia. It's not a referral scheme, if that is what you are implying? Are you happy for me to proceed on that basis? Ben Logan (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You clearly have a major conflict of interest. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the additions you removed were edited directly on wikipedia by community members from my site themselves, after they had posted a new synopsis of a given book. I'm not referring to the one or two that I added personally - I understand that is technically a COI. Ben Logan (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question - is this the reason why you removed the citation of http://www.rsleducational.co.uk/blog/blog/how-to-become-a-private-tutor from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutor page? The linked article addresses the appropriate point and is a tutor's account of how work is found, so is directly relevant. Thanks.

The article was hosted by a commercial website, and similar edits are often aimed at attracting traffic to such sites. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Mean as custard,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Improve the tools: Vote here.
Reduce your review load: Vote here

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Private Security

Hi mean as custard,

we added an external source within the private security page which aligns with the external source, why would this be removed? I am new to wiki this was my first edit, feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Many Thanks, Peter Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAnderson1974 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SPAM. If you add the link again it will be placed on a blacklist so it cannot be added to any Wikipedia article or anywhere else that uses the Wikipedia spam blacklist. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Flying Chalks page

Hi mean as custard,

Referring to your tag on the Flying Chalks page, it will be great if you could identify which parts of the article sound promotional. thanks!

Best, garytgy

Regarding Meridian Gaming Ltd page

Hello, Could you be so kind to explain why this happened 22:23, 20 December 2016‎ Mean as custard (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Mean as custard moved page Meridian Gaming Ltd to Metioche (disambiguation): revert hijacking) (thank), since Meridian Gaming Ltd is a software company and has nothing to do with Metioche. Could you reconsider your Speedy Deletion process and help me to improve my original article? When you changed, moved Meridian Gaming Ltd to Metioche, I was only trying to revert your change, and I think that some how triggered Speedy Deletion. Please help. Best Regards, alexdjix89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdjix89 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article history has somehow disappeared, but when the Meridian Gaming Ltd was originally created it was based on the unrelated Metioche page and renamed. This bypassed the normal article review process. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoempresa - deleted page

Good morning Mean as Custard, Infoempresa page has been deleted without leaving me time to reply with the following arguments which back the fact that Infoempresa is not unambiguously promotional, because it´s content is purely informational, based solely on the company´s business purpose and services. In this sense, several information sources have been included which portray the existence, acknowledgement and use of this service, coming from independent, objective sources (the media). Moreover, the content is purely information based and avoids all sorts of vocabulary and adjectives which appeals to the quality of the service or that of Infoempresa - being a neutral, unintentional language. It´s also worth noting that the service´s social media profiles have been removed to avoid confussion concerning the intentionality of this service, which is purely informational. Lastly, its worth noting that other sector peers have their page which in terms of content is virtually the same as that of Infoempresa, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIX_Financial_Information. Many thanks I would be grateful if you could provide some advice in order for the content to be sufficiently suitable. Although it´s already framed through neutral language angle.(Clara de las Heras (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara de las Heras (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem was that the article had no references, just lots of embedded external links. A sure sign of a promotional piece. .Mean as custard (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a dead link with equivalent material

Good day, I have found a dead link and changed it to a working one with equivalent (I believe) one. The article linked is purely informational with proper links to source blog. What's the reason to remove it? Antongorlin (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commercial blog by a company that would love to get a mention on the Instagram Wikipedia article. . .Mean as custard (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frowned Upon If Improvements Are "Indiscriminate"?

Hi there. I'm doing an experiment to remove the word "that", which is frequently used unnecessarily. Removing it makes sentences more concise without changing their meaning. You said: "It may be that a few of your edits marginally improved the grammar, but your efforts are clearly indiscriminate and in most cases produced no improvement, so I have reverted them all."

Is concision not an improvement? And is it relevant if I edit indiscriminately? Removesthat (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the grammar worse more often than not. The word "that" is usually there for a good reason. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is "He was dismayed to discover that his granddaughter did not know what coal was." better than "He was dismayed to discover his granddaughter did not know what coal was."? These changes do not "make the grammar worse". You also didn't answer my question about whether making changes indiscriminately is a breach of policy. Removesthat (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

making changes indiscriminately is a breach of policy when most of the changes are pointless and disruptive. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find that marginally clearer with that “that”, that I think makes it marginally less likely for someone to misread that as “He was dismayed to discover his granddaughter. And did not know what coal was.”. I think that writing “which” instead of “that” is probably usually ok, though (I don't mean that it should be mass-changed everywhere). But that's just my opinion, not sure what everyone else thinks about that. Κσυπ Cyp 12:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source that? Also, why do we have 'minor edit' functionality if not for small changes? Feels like it was designed exactly for what I'm doing. I'd hardly call that "disruptive". Removesthat (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I felt it necessary to revert your edits should be a clue. Removing the word "that" is sometimes an improvement, but often makes the sentence less clear or changes its meaning. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now you're just trolling. You still haven't shown a single example where I made sentences less clear or changed their meaning. By your own admission it can "sometimes" be an improvement - so why did you 'indiscriminately' revert all of my edits? Isn't that exactly what you said was against policy? A policy you still haven't sourced by the way. Removesthat (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my edit?

Looking at previous comments on here, you obviously police promotional material. I feel all my content is relevant and I have made sure it is factual and useful. The headset mentioned in innovative headsets is unique and worthy of mention. Please get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.nuttall (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was unreferenced and appeared to promote one particular manufacturer. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for the edits and advice on SM&A's wikipedia page! We're working hard to optimize the page to better fit Wikipedia's format. You're awesome! Katecohee (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do?

I think you have found this content as promotional "Argan oil an organic product that is that much more valuable. So valuable is this product, that the Argan Forest is now a designated biosphere protected by UNESCO." I just need to know if this is not valuable why Unesco declare Argan Forest as heritage. I have provided the link of Unesco offical web. Could you please reconsider this. --Mind9809 (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit appeared reasonable at first glance but was calculated to conceal a spam link: "website=Buy Argan Oil At Wholesale Price From Morocco". . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What If I re edit it again without citation to the web said to be spam? later on it will be tagged with Citation needed. How could I able to manage that? --Mind9809 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal CorpTravel (company)

Sir, It is a big company as other company pages are here on wikipedia i.e. yatra.com Yatra (company), ixigo, MakeMyTrip and Thousand of persons are taking service from the company and as on wikipedia pages of inhabitants are welcomed this page may be kept as it provides bonafide information. I am thankful as the other mentioned pages survive. This may be allowed. Moreover, this is not a promotion of any company.HariSinghw (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is only a single reference, which merely shows that the company exists, not that it is notable. It is not a question of promotion. . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit of the Raid disambiguation page

Hello,

why did you remove my edit of the Raid disambiguation page? I discussed my edits with Wikipedia user Materialscientist (see my Talk page) and changed it according to his instructions. AndiJN (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mention of the term "Raid" on the Twitch.tv page it was directed to, so no point in including it in the disambiguation page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of {{Persondata}}

Hi Mean as custard,

I'm the bot who is deleting {{Persondata}}. I noticed your edit on Mahendra Mohan Gupta in which you added {{Persondata}}. This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding {{Persondata}}. In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Wikipedia:Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt in case you have any questions.

Thank you very much, -- KasparBot (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to add a new name , how do I do so?

The author I wish to add has books on both Amazon kindle and in book stores for sale. Also many of his plays have been performed on stage both in London and on the stage . Though a failed performer he makes a rather good living creating works for others to perform Mightyfine (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Advertising"

Namely, why do you suggest there is "advertisement" in the article explaining about Financial_risk_management? I would like some valid explanation as of the reason you believe it "reads" like an advertisement. *Xyaena~* (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of promotional language: "FRM® join a network of professionals in more than 190 countries and territories worldwide, giving them a way to expand your professional opportunities throughout your career. Employers know that FRMs have the knowledge needed to anticipate and respond to critical issues, providing them with an edge in their career and professional development.". . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could argue it could be vital (while being civil enough, though), if it was re-written instead of deleting the entire section. One part that may be advertisement doesn't mean the entire section is nothing but advertising... I noticed some parts of the section can be encyclopedic enough if re-written. *Xyaena~* (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xyaena. FRM is an objective statement. This is described in the official curriculum. Like the CFA, the description of most certificates is the same. Compared to CFA, the contents are rather scanty. You need to check the CFA wikipedia ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst. --AnnaAenny U.S.A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I modified the text in the same manner as CFA wiki. Goodnight, Mean as custard. --AnnaAenny U.S.A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. It still reads like an advertisement. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst --AnnaAenny U.S.A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst. Isn't this advertising? Explain properly. --AnnaAenny U.S.A (talk)

The abuse of authority can be disputed --AnnaAenny U.S.A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I think Mean as custard has a problem. He can be severely punished. His conduct will exasperate everyone. I took both FRM and CFA. These tests are mutually beneficial. They help each other and are the world's most widely publicized tests. I'm going to take action. Jose CFA FRM (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again. Some of the worst promotional material had been removed, but the references did not support the grandiose claims made for the organisation. Find some genuine independent sources to verify the notability of FRM and it can be reinstated. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links to journals and magazines not directly accessible via the web

Businessweek and Forbes did features on a subject I'm editing. The articles date from the late 1990's and are available as downloadable PDFs from the NYPL -- but only if you have a library card. This problem most have come up before -- what's the common practice of linking to them so they can be used as references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Perkins (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the page Datamatics Global Services are unacceptable

Dear Mean as custard, It is highly disappointing to see and note that you after so much experience would revert to such theatricals which are demeaning and quite unacceptable. The material edited by me has been done after checking all the sites and reviewing the material from 10 different sites just to verify the content. The content has been properly referenced and followed up on with the latest content as well. I dont see where the problem lies and why would you even stoop to such lows? If any of my referenced material is faulty then do let me know. The references are highly adequate and no where have I said or stated something that is not true so why cant my content stay as is? I do appraise your other edits wholeheartedly and agree with most of your edits but sincerely my request do read through and do not stick to your earlier view of the page maybe can help us both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanchak (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've blocked this user for advertising. Lalit Surajmal Kanodia also needs attention... SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Problem?

Why did you undo my edit without explanation? Do you know more about SP than I do? If so why not at least give a reason!

@Shogunofharlem: first, WP:DICK read it! Secondly, learn the guideline before editing so that you don't have these sorts of situations. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there to read. Makes no sense. Still no reason given. Why not be more helpful to new users?

Users typically are, that is when they are civil and don't come to someone's talk page and snap at them. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and as per our other chat I apologise for the way this was phrased. However, this user twice reverted my update (first time no reason, second time incorrectly claiming spam). The update is perfectly relevant and not spam in any way. I would like this user to justify why they think y update is not relevant before removing it again. Shogunofharlem (talk)

Actually Custard, I read the edit, it does seem to be valid. Care to chim in? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link was to a promotional commercial website, not a reliable source. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Mean as custard,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology

You have reverted me on this article... This university is government university and the content therein cannot be used for promotion or advertising purposes..cause the admission is always through government entrance exams....but the text can make article look pleasing... please comment..Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes consisted of very promotional language and no references. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding criterions for garlic press's quality

Hi, the article I referred to is not based on a particular product, but on general aspects about garlic presses. If needed I can remove the link at the bottom of the article sending to my product page. Will that be okay? Atproquality (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Atproquality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atproquality (talk • contribs)

My only problem with your edits was the links to the mitba kitchenware site. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a link to an article explains differences between garlic presses, without appraising a spesific brand. There is no link inside to any product, you can check: http://www.mitba-kitchenware.com/single-post/2017/02/07/5-things-to-consider-when-choosing-a-garlic-press. Please tell me if it's okay because I think it's important to share this information and I don't think it's right to write all this content in the Wikipedia page.

It's a link to the website of a company that sells kitchenware. See WP:SPAM. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be okay if the article will be in a non-branded blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.165.77 (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, please have a look on my additions to garlic press and garlic. Thank you. . . atproquality —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now suspect that you wrote the published blog yourself, which is makes it unacceptable as a reference. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article and sent it first to my friend who has a kitchenware blog in his company's website, and after you said it can't be placed in a branded website I created a new blog for it. It is an important content and if you prefer that I'll place it straight in the wikipedia page than I will but please give a solution. ... atproquality

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Edits

Just stop it now. I am only trying to help by adding the definitions of it.Robloxcraft999 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was superfluous and inaccurate and messed up the formatting. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content that is written like an advertisement

Hi, you've recently flagged the Louis_XIII_(cognac) as being too promotional - Could you please indicate me the quotes from the article that are too commercial? Balistikart (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The overall tone of the article is more what you would expect from a promotional piece than an encyclopaedia article: "Today, Baptiste Loiseau is setting aside the finest eaux-de-vie". . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, when I wrote this article, I paid extra attention to the overall tone in order to stay neutral. Could you please indicate to me if replacing the sentence you highlighted by "Today, Baptiste Loiseau is setting aside the finest eaux-de-vie of the House." would make this article OK from your point of view? I want to ensure that we can find a solution in order to remove this flag. Please don't hesitate to provide me with all the quotes you consider as too promotional, this way I can rework them. Thanks for your help. Balistikart (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mean as custard could you please do me a feedback? Balistikart (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited in order to be less promotional, can you please provide me with a feedback? Can you delete the flag? Balistikart (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard regarding inquiry about the deletion reason and state of the article. The thread is "Deleted article check". Thank you. --Snaevar (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster University

Hi, you recently removed some content from Lancaster University about the new innovation campus. Could you explain on the talk page why you deleted this content? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It read more like a PR blurb than an encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Mean as custard,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Windsor Law - Stop Undoing Please-- Hello - we have gone through all of our content and removed all of the promotional-type language from it. Everything that is going up now should be pretty straightforward as facts of how Windsor Law operates. However you keep going through and reverting everything without apparently having even compared it to the original. I asked Drmies if you guys would review it first before we start doing the updates but this person said no. Exactly what are we supposed to do - the old content cannot stay there - it is entirely out of date. THank you. 137.207.136.151 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Annette[reply]

It wasn't me who reverted it, but I entirely agree with the reasons of the person who did - it was blatantly promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Windsor Faculty of Law

PAJASA APARTMENTS deletion (Arpitset (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

Hi I am new to wikipedia and was working on service apartments. I added all details and found the leading Indian startup was missing in every page. Even the concept of extended stay was not cleared in Wikipedia, So i added and changed some of the pages. And i have added this page PAJASA Apartments , which i got deletion notice. Please dont delete that , Let me if I add more details.

You can check their details in Google just search "PAJASA Apartments".

Thanks | Arpit

The article has only one line of content. More is needed to show how it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crime sections in town articles

Hello Mean as custard, firstly many thanks for your efforts to excise promotional material from articles, as you did with Ardara, County Donegal. Speaking of Donegal towns, there's another issue I see with Letterkenny: the Crime section. A lot of material (with sources) has been added there recently, but I'm not sure that any of it is encyclopedic or appropriate. The trouble with a section like this is that it attracts further additions and is already reading like tabloid journalism. Just wondering what your general thoughts might be on cleaning up such material. Thanks Declangi (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hive, Worcester (UK)

I understand that you are responsible for the "This page reads like an advertisement" comment on this page.

As the original author of the page back in April 2013 (though I have not contributed any of the later additions), I find this offensive comment childish and inaccurate.

I suggest you modify it to something a bit more Wiki-friendly!

62.64.220.21 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" is standard Wikipedia language as defined in Template:Advert. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power to Change Trust

I've re-read the page about Power to Change, which you've flagged for puffery. Not seeing what's not neutral in that page that needs changing. I'm struggling to see where there's subjective language to be changed, to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom Flan Flinger (talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mission statement is pure puffery, and contains no useful information: "At the heart of our vision and mission is the devolution of power to local communities. We want to support people to take action to address local challenges, enabling them to control vital assets and services that might otherwise disappear, or start new initiatives in response to local needs. Putting business in community hands – that makes places better.". . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Flan Flinger (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Yes, but that's their mission statement cited as a factual example of what they say they are created to achieve, not to endorse it as a piece of writing or to evaluate whether they are or not. You might think it's puffery and contains no useful information, which is, with respect, your view. If you were applying for funding from them, or working out whether you were the kind of organisation that might usefully think about applying for a grant, that statement tells you who they fund (local people addressing local challenges), why they fund those groups (people who make places better) and why they do this in the first place (community businesses make places better). You might not agree with that, but there is commissioned research underpinning it, available on their website. Like most organisations, mission statement are heavy on the declarative, but it's far from 'pure puffery'.[reply]

oops

ta, didnt check the diff first - JarrahTree 12:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STOP UNDOING MY EDITS

Sorry but stop. I am making purposeful edits except for 1 time. I think you are purposefully tracking me and deleting my edits. Just STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderman8604 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If and when you start making sensible edits I will stop reverting them. . . Mean as custard (talk)

An edit you made to this AFD

I just wanted to let you know that a revert you made to this AFD (the one that added back information removed by MohanishBorana) actually restored personally identifiable information that was added by another editor, and that MohanishBorana was repeatedly trying to remove in order to protect his/her privacy. You were obviously unaware of this; I just wanted to give you a heads up about it. I've taken care of everything and redacted the information out completely, so all is good now. In the future, I'd recommend taking a quick moment to review what you've restored (or at least take a glance at it) so that you might catch this sort of thing and report it to someone that can handle it - that's all. You're not in any trouble or anything... lol... it took me a bit to realize what was going on there and understand why the user was removing the same information repeatedly. I'm just messaging everyone involved to let them know. Thanks dude! Cheers :-D -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is an inherent evil

Why so mean custard? P.S. thanks for your hard work with anti-vandalism, you've beaten me to it quite a few times Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinakanakapagpapabagabag-damdamin

A quick web search together with the info on Longest words suggests that this is real. As such, I was just about to redirect the article there. It probably ought to be just deleted, but I'm not sure it actually meets a CSD.... — Smjg (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need your Guidance!

Hello Mean as Custard, i apologize for reposing my edits over and over for Al khalidi Hospital and Medical Center, i was not aware of your point of my post being "too promotional" until i went through the guidelines and figured out you are absolutely right. i will edit and change and try to keep it as objective as possible, and i hope it will be appropriate for publishing afterwards. thanks for your guidance.--Eman Ibrawish (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete all of the changes I made?

I had spent a lot of time updating the ABRAMS Books wiki page and you deleted all of my changes with invalid and incorrect information. None of what you added is correct it is completely outdated information. I request that you reinstate the changes I had made, since the changes you have made are so far off base and wrong. Cblank84 (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes were far too promotional. See WP:SPAM. You clearly have a conflict of interest. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that describing what an organisation does is classed as advertising?

Could you please explain how describing what a charity does and providing a little history to it is classed as advertising? Some examples of where I have used promotional writing techniques would be greatly appreciated. Tomthebaker (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It began with the first sentence and continued in similar vein: "inspires, unites and empowers communities". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to reword their mission statement? Not trying to be rude, just confused. Tomthebaker (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some guidance on this page: Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help Tomthebaker (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain me how the grammar became worst or skewed the meaning?

Hi,

Can you explain me how just 2-3 punctuation changes made grammar worst or skewed the meaning? I mean it sounds illogical to me. Please explain.

The fact that you are querying this shows that you are not qualified to make such changes. For instance, changing "Major representatives of this field were two scholars and clerics" to "The major representatives of this field were two scholars and clerics" changes the meaning. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffdnfg (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)== Promotional Material ==[reply]

Good afternoon Mean as custard,

Trying to wrap my head around how my edits are deemed promotional? The previous article is almost 10 years dated. Does Wiki not encourage users to edit material unfit instead of reverting back entirely to decade old information?

There was some potentially usable material in your edits, but the large amount of promotional content (such as "opened to incredible fanfare"), and huge indiscriminate lists of awards, meant it all had to be reverted. . .Mean as custard (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So adding a list of accepted awards, although factual, is promotional in nature? Thanks for you feedbackJeffdnfg (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blatlantly promotional

Hello mean as custard, I will review this page and make sure that any promotional sounded material or wording is removed. I will also add as many external links to the company ass possible I am a strong believer in communication, guidance and collaboration and was a bit surprised that instead of sending me a warning the page was simply removed. I am in the process of editing the profile of a company for which the wikipedia page was outdated to the point of providining misleading info. I will start again and will endeavour to be neutral to the extreme and factual only.

Your feedback moving forward will be really appreciated.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabriceLondon (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is promotional if there is a 3rd party reference?

Hello Mean as custard. I am new to Wikipedia and looking for guidance. I was surprised you deleted a large chunk of the page for Education Development Center without any warning or giving me a chance to reply and fix. Can you please offer guidance? An example is my including that EDC was selected by the Boston Globe as a top place to work and I included the Globe reference. You removed it as blatantly promotional yet here is the same language regarding a top place to work selection on a colleague org page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institutes_for_Research. Why is one okay and the other not? I look forward to your assistance or referring me to a Wikipedia editor who can help. Thank you. Alisonbck (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)alisonbck[reply]

No problem with that particular reference, but most of the material you added was highly promotional, with language like "Collaborating with both public and private partners, we provide strategic, cost-effective solutions that are responsive to the cultures, realities, and needs of the communities and consumers we work with. Our services include Design and Development, Evaluation, Implementation, Policy and Research". . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Official Community Link from External Links section

Hi,

I see you've undid the edit on the following page AdWords. The link I have added is of an official community moderated by Google for best practices on AdWords. Isn't this link, deserves a place in the official page? Can you guide on what scenario are we not highlighting this link, when it can able to provide User Generated Content?

Thanks in advance. Bshafiahamed (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only link I removed from the article was to a commercial SEO company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatchet

Brickbat what a brilliant word... What would be the best way to reference the Middle English pronunciation of Hatchet? There is no promotional material on that webpage. I was merely collating a list of citations and displaying the definition of the word. Not sure if you checked it out https://spam.hachet.com.au/hachet/. I have already setup a redirect for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachet

I am sure a better reference is available. hachet.com.au is just promoting a commercial organisation with no relevance to the subject of the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why a reference to a good quality article (citation) was removed

I am wondering why the change was reversed to the previous one with a 'dead link' in it?

|url=http://www.estherperel.com/2015/12/relationship-accountability/ |website=Esther Perel |access-date=2016-02-03 |language=en-US }}^{[permanent dead link‍]}</ref>

article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosting_(relationships)

It took me a while to find a good quality material. I found a 800+ words article written by an expert to replace the dead link. Is there any reason you had to reverse the change back?

It is very discouraging and confusing. There must be something else I am not aware of. Thank you.

The new reference did not support the material being cited. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe you did not read the entire article. But I digress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex A. Fox (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why revert?

hi, why did you revert the addition i made to the page norton? i just add the norton (band) for the page i am creating. Joãolumo (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you had created the article first, and it had not been speedily deleted, then it could be added back to the Norton page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reverting my edits

Why exactly did you revert my edits on the Load bearing wall page The link that I placed was certainly linked to the article

Because the reference you added was at the very top of the article, and so did not verify any specific content. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link verified the definition of a load bearing wall.The next time you answer just remember to ping11:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry. I guess I really learned my lesson there. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ERF

Hello. Why did you revert my supplement to disambiguation page? Here is more information about ERF. Don't feel I am welcome here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalen (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal. It is only that each entry in a disambiguation page should link to a Wikipedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So should I create the page first?

Yes. . .Mean as custard (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created Exponential response formula page. Please, let me know if any further improvement needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalen (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Harmony article

Hello -- we removed the "Mission Statement" section, which hopefully addresses your concern about this article appearing to be an advertisement. Please let us know if there are other issues that we need to resolve, and we will be happy to fix them as well. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfreedkin (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up and advert tag removed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I have noticed that you at times do not use edit summaries even when the purpose of your edit seems unclear. Can you explain that please? Toveswuu hed (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have never used a summary on any of your edits I don't see the point of your query. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 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.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the Artists

Hi, We are showing appreciation to the good artists.

We are not doing this for each artist but only those who are the best in our opinion. We know that all links in Wikipedia are nofollow and carry no backlinking weighting.

I do not understand why you are removing them. It only helps in showing that an artist is of a certain calibre and featured in Top 20 of one of the most prestigious Persian Music portals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmctv (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final spam warning sent. . .Mean as custard (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped inserting links just now.

But I expect an answer on the above. Please let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmctv (talk • contribs) 09:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna International Airport

Hi, in section "CAR", removed my contribution for time needed from airport to city center. Questions about journey time is very often, that is why I think that should stay there. Yes, I added link as a reference, but you have another website link from another company, reference before (36). How they stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.129.85 (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Both links were spam, so your competitor's link is now gone too. . .

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Mean as custard,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 805 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the relevant link was removed from the page?

Hello There, Hope you are doing good. Im new here. May I know why do you removed the link I gave in my page. Those link direct to the page that tells about the award, the actor received. Please let me know if I had made any mistake? It will be helpful for correcting in future.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nian at behindwoods (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behindwoods. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not inappropriate link

The link I gave is not inappropriate. Thats the exact page that says about the award he got. How can you say that it is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nian at behindwoods (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate mainly because your user name shows you are associated with the site whose links you are adding, You need to find references to other independent sources or the awards may be removed as unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you repeatedly undoing my edit?

Why are you repeatedly undoing my edit in optical illusion ? The book I referred is an accredited book, and appreciated by many eminent psychologists. It is not a self published book, it has been published from reputed publication house also. Currently the topic is under process of publication in reputed international journal also. I think before undoing you should talk with other users also. Other users requested me to re-edit the page yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winmedia (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion is discouraged on Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not self promotion, it is expressing the truth, which is authentic. It can be done by anybody. No matter when the artcle is verified and accredited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winmedia (talk • contribs) 09:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what that means, but promoting your own book is not allowed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing the CommScope page information?

The only information that is being changed is an update... Updated numbers and more recent information. I do not think the information is "blatantly promotional material". There are websites to support the information, which makes it factual. You keep reverting back to old information that needs to be updated. Why do you think the information added is promotional? If you don't like some of the writing that is different, but it is wrong to change numbers that are current and up-to-date with a source.I would like to edit the information to current numbers and information without it getting changed back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinknailpolish1 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material I reverted looked like this: "If you would like to learn more about CommScope's history and the development of their products, click here to view their timeline." - Is that not promotional? Feel free to update out-of-date factual content but leave out the pr-speak. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of eating utensils

Hi, Mean as custard! :) I'd like to know if you have a good reason for reverting my recent edits on List of eating utensils. Sujeo is a set of spoon and chopsticks. --Tyynimeri (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an eating utensil, it is a set, like knife, fork and spoon. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a set of eating utensils, just like cutlery which has been in the list for quite a long time! I'd also like to know the reason you removed spoon and chopstick rest from the "See also" section of chopstick rest article. Those are related articles. --Tyynimeri (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the photo

I said that do not removed this one. If you do, put it in Administration test. Lucy Desi (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you mean. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove my photo?

I explained in my message why the photo change is necessary. You claim my change is politically motivated, but the original post was politically motivated. My alteration was motivated by the preservation of historical truth. I hope you sympathise with this need to preserve the truth, and conservatism in this aspect is sticking your head in the sand. The original photo was offensive and racist and incorrect. You can Google photos of the original flag, and see that it looked nothing like the flag shown before the alteration. Thank you, MacRudraige. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRudraige (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why removed information about Wireless Emergency Stop?

The page kill switch is definitely missing information about wireless emergency stops. I've added those information, but you removed it within 1 minute. Can you explain why you did this?--Croptyq (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It read like an advert for the company that was selling the things. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

How come my edits are being undone for Lynn Public Schools?

WP:SPAM. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gift suite

Hi! Wiki novice here--Curious as to why a linked interview conducted by an online outlet is marked as spam, but press releases from an individual company (seen at bottom of page) are not? Would seem those are more skewed references than one conducted by a third party. Respect and thanks!Marketingwizard (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Press releases removed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Marymount

Hi, We see you keep reverting to a very old, incomplete and inaccurate content. We are trying to update this. Could you please indicate more specifically what is 'promotional' so we can edit small sections of this and still keep the main content there and thus make this a useful and factually correct summary of the institution? You can email us at communications@marymount.fr if easier. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdesplaces (talk • contribs) 07:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content like this: "offers a comprehensive standards-based curriculum that is custom built to foster the learning and growth of its diverse student body." This sort of rubbish appears in large, not small sections. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Country Trust

Hello Mean as custard. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Country Trust, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims significance. Also, after nine years another week at WP:AFD won't hurt (per WP:SILENCE). Thank you. So Why 12:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my example pictures?

These are not spam -- these are not commercial solicitations. This is a legitimate example of a belt grinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knifegrinder1 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

山椒

Hi, Mean as custard! I'd like to know the reason you reverted this edit. --Talitiainen (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is English Wikipedia, not Chinese. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page was written in English, and there are plenty of other disambiguation pages such as 燒酒 in the English Wikipedia. I'm restoring the disambiguation page and adding Template:Chinese title disambiguation.--Talitiainen (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you revert the changes for the Review Sites?

Hello, I have added a valid review website to the list of examples and you say it is self promotion. How is this so? It is a review website, an example of a review website. I don't agree with your revert. Please show me how i promote it? How can one add a new website to the list of websites?

You wrote: "a one-stop-shop for reviews and ratings with over 200 categories of different professional, products and services ratings. Anyone can contribute with something that is missing. You can earn points for the ratings and pages added to the site." - see WP:SPAM. If you want to add a new website to the list, first write an article about it which shows it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting My Edit Without Explanation!

Hello, Why did you revert my edit on the Edinburgh page without leaving a good reason why? UKAviator89 (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It is the largest financial centre in the UK after London and is the largest in Scotland" - the second part of the sentence was superfluous. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Why you delete page sharingXchange? Hi, I have been trying to create and populate the plage, but everytime gets deleted. Please, can you tell me why and give me some hints? Thanks in advance! (Articulis26 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Service-Learning Asia Network

You removed coatrack content about the above. See this history. The user returned it, as you can see. The article was deleted and he was blocked. Now, his edits, in the form of coat-racking and what might be consider ref-spamming the ln.edu.hk site, remain. Would you please consider helping to do a bit of cleanup? I'm involved, so wish to stay out of the cleanup. Also, I am not certain what should remain and what should go. Many, many thanks if you can help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta family

Why is the content added is classified as vandalism? The allegation was proven as fact.

Thanks George BPhater (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi,

thank you for bringing in to my attention that promotional material cannot be posted. I am an authorized representative of the company. No promotional content has been posted. Edits made only talks about the products in an informative way as wikipedia is meant for. If there are suggestions to rewrite the same, please guide.

-Spice Digital

SpiceDigital (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial website as citation source

Hi Mean as Custard

I'm a newbie to editing WP, and just wondering if the fact that the website(s) in question are commercial in nature is sufficient in itself to make them unsuitable sources.

I ask because the info box on this page

http://spamcoachhireliverpool.org/airport-transfer-coachhire

collates information from 3 different sources and (IMHO) adds to the discussion on the WP page.

Thanks

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedantosaurus (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links were pure spam, designed solely to attract traffic to a commercial business. See WP:SPAM. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong armenian Wikipedia logo

The SVG armenian Wikipedia logo have truncated letters. How can I fix?

--2001:B07:6442:8903:F156:DA41:5FE:5283 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Armenian is a little limited. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpamRef

I can't tell if you've gone to the dark side, or this was friendly fire. Kuru (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on my Talk page

Hi there. You have templated me about a page l have never heard of and I am in no way involved with. I'm sure it's an oversight on your part, but I'd appreciate it if you would remove the template. Thanks, Jus da fax 20:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that happened, I've started using Twinkle to nominate user pages for speedy deletion, and it posts these templates automatically. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Bitcoin Wallets

Nomination of Comparison of bitcoin wallets for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of bitcoin wallets 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/Comparison of bitcoin wallets 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling in the Philippines

Hello Mean as custard. Have you notice about the recent edits on Gambling in the Philippines? How passionate the editors may be on this subject but I disagree with some of their edits particularly them adding short information/mechanic of each game like poker, roulette, etc. without a local context (although some do like the lottery, horse racing betting, and jueteng) and the addition of short "company profile"-esque information in the private firms section. I suspect they may be expanding the article as part of an academic paper.

I'm not sure if what particular policy discourages this and how to deal with this situation?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auger

Hi, the version of Auger you restored still looks like vandalism to me. I've just restored what seems to be the real content. — Smjg (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit removed?

I posted a link to a homestding website with hundreds of articles that are free to read. How is this not a valid and helpful link on the "Homesteading" Wikipedia page? Am I misunderstanding what these links are?

Thank you for your response. Jetchie78 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetchie78: it was probably viewed as advertising. To use an article, you really should find out a) is it a reliable website?, and b) can it be used as a source in the article to verify things said in the article? If it can be, then use it as a WP:RS, however just posting a link to someones website with articles is 90% of the time or more, viewed as WP:Spam. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 06:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a copy

I wrote an article and it was flagged 'speedily deleted' and of course I missed the chance to discuss it. I wanted to try to provide more 'independent sources' to verify some of the corporate structure and stuff like 'founded on date' and 'founder'. Is it possible to copy the deleted text into "draft" space or maybe a userspace copy of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkusWells — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusWells (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this something we can do? Are you looking into it? I have learned more from the IRC channel and am looking forward to contributing — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusWells (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So really, no answer at all? I guess I can just start the page over, but I want to learn from my mistakes, so pages don't keep getting deleted. Thanks in advance MarkusWells (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations removed despite my adding to content quality and pages asking for citations to be added

A number of my citations have been removed, even from articles that specifically required a citation for the information. The links were to a commercial website, although only to the informational section, not to pages directly selling goods. There are many other citations of commercial websites throughout Wikipedia and using a source that specializes in the topic (e.g. glazing, windows etc) and has the technical knowledge is not spam. The articles were mostly short, lacking citations and depth. I improved the content as well, not just added quick links and nothing more. Please tell me what the problem is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgnarsbriefcase (talk • contribs) 12:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added a number of links to the same commercial website, suggesting a conflict of interest. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gbsb global business school

Hi Mean,

Sorry.

I want to edit the page in order to add updated content and logo. But i don't know how to do it in the right way.

Can you bring me an example of the content i have to change?

Now, the info is incorrect, name of school, logo, description, ...

Thanks a lot.

Droyo (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by looking at the pages linked from the templates I placed on your user talk page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Droyo (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Thanks Mean, I will do it in this way. I will try to update the content step by step in order to do it in the right way. Please alert me, if is something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droyo (talk • contribs) 09:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anova

Hello Mean as custard,

I just informed Daylen that I don't have a connection with the company. I'm a sous vide enthusiast and I contribute in the community from time to time. Why are you assuming I have a connection? Kellyhei (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the text read more like a company PR piece than an encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't have a connection in any way other than what I mentioned. Please remove it. When creating the draft, I resorted to media sources to pick up info. I tried to rephrase the parts that were exaggerating to make them informative as much as I can. When comparing it to Oracle Corporation page, a good page I assume, I found it the same, especially in 'products and services' section. Kellyhei (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aon plc needs content edits

Hello - I tried to correct some outdated information on the Aon page and you reverted it. I was not trying to insert promotional material, just correct old positioning and data. What did you object to? Google is pulling the outdated corporate description into their knowledge graph and I need to fix that. Kbr01 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Our 50,000 colleagues in 120 countries empower results for clients by using proprietary data and analytics to deliver insights that reduce volatility and improve performance". . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks I applied corrected copy. I have a question though: why the inclusion of legal activity - "Spitzer investigation", "UK regulatory breach" and "US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations"? I don't see this type of information included on Marsh, Willis, Accenture, etc. pages and they (as with all multinational corporations) always have legal activities going on ... does not seem fair to single out Aon. Can that be removed? Kbr01 (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, these sections are balanced by the long list of awards, so overall the coverage is neutral. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMMI changes

Hi there Mean as custard,

I hope you're doing well.

I made some edits to the BMMI Group page and they were rejected. I'm a little confused about which of the edits I made that seem promotional, as I added new facts and tried to back them up with external links. We have also changed the CEO so I made that change and that was rejected as well. Could you please help me out? What can I do to move forward?

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malgarf (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with your edits was the indiscriminate use of external links. See WP:EL for guidance. It was not possible to remove these links without reverting all your other edits as well. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mean as custard,

Thank you very much for your email and clarification. I will make the changes again and avoid excesssive use of external links. Thanks again!Malgarf (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Miraj group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miraj group 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/Miraj group 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.

Help with ICF International?

Hi there, recently I posted an edit request for the ICF International article, seeking to expand and improve it. Since you've edited there in the past, specifically to "tone down promotional material", I wondered if you'd be interested in having a look. As some background: although it has been a couple of years since you edited the article, there have been few edits since and very few by registered non-COI accounts since then—most of whom are currently inactive or on a break, or I've already pinged without a response.

Earlier this summer, the article was pretty much stubbed after an editor found that other editors inserted potential copyright violations. The draft I'm offering expands the current stubbed version and fixes issues I saw with the previous iterations of the article: the entry relied heavily on primary sources, its content was choppy, fragmented and outdated. I've been looking for a volunteer editor to review and consider implementing my proposed edits, because I am working on behalf of ICF, as I've disclosed on the article's Talk page.

However, after trying various wikiprojects the article falls under, I'm striking out getting any reply whatsoever, and hoping you might be up for taking a look. Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it looked like before the promotional material and potential copyright violations were removed, but your proposed draft looks fine; I see no reason not to update the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I've marked the request done at Talk:ICF. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you delete my anime plot? I wanted to bring joy to the people of the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr sam (talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raha International School

The changes that have been made to this page are facts on the facilities/campus, accreditation, curriculum, inspection reports, fees etc. We do not intend to use this page for promotion of the school. Please let us know if there is any unintended promotion. We endeavour to remain neutral in tone and wish only to convey facts.

School pages including below were used to identify a more neutral tone:

The British School of Al Khubairat
Brighton College
The British International School Abu Dhabi
American Community School of Abu Dhabi
American International School, Abu Dhabi — Preceding unsigned comment added by RisAbuDhabi (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Fog

Hello Why you revert last edits in Bitcoin Fog article?

Thank you Jaffar M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JafarMambiddo (talk • contribs) 08:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a website does not require three references to verify the fact. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Innovus Pharma

Hello, Nice meeting you here. I see that you have put a speedy deletion tag for one of the pages I have created ( Innovus Pharma). To be frank I never knew this article was submitted for review. I was just learning the basics. If you could give me 2 days time I will learn about all this and update the page. This company has been written about in various online news sites and listed in Stock Exchange as well, and I think given time, I can correct this.

Jeffoliver57 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingic

Hi Mean as custard,

Thanks for your response. Can you please suggest me any areas that you think must be reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerryWeatherly (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Augustus Jaspert

Hi there. Just querying this edit where you trimmed the quote from the website. I don't have a huge problem but I am curious - the text that you cut out was the text that the citation was supporting. You are a very experienced editor, so I am sure that there is a good rationale, but I was just hoping you could share your thinking. Thanks. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a meaningless series of buzzwords, I felt it would be no great loss to the article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	You know, I should've thought just a little more about an edit I made earlier, and probably made it a very different way. I'm sorry about that. On a lighter note- Always good to see your name on a CSD tag :) — fortunavelut luna 19:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internation Federation of Interior Architects/Designers "Promotional usage"

Hey Mean as Custard, Can you give me an example of "promotional material" from the International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers page that I am working so I know what to look for and how to change it when I undo the edit? Thank you! MB717 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, everything you added was promotional. Content needs to be referenced to neutral sources to show that it is balanced and notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so when I undo the change I need to make sure I am adding in these sources/references to further support the material I put? Is this correct? MB717 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also see WP:COI. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on "Not important enough"

I accept that the deletion on the "[1]" page happened but i was was wondering if there was anything I can do to ensure that it does not happen again. Giroscope is a fairly large Charity and while there are others like it none of them are as big and yet they have wiki pages. So can you please offer advice on what can be done/added to the page so that there are no deletions in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWintoul (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The primary concern is Wikipedia:Notability. If an organisation is not notable then it does not deserve a Wikipedia article, and notability must be demonstrated by providing references to multiple authoritative sources not connected with the subject. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starmind International

Dear Mean as custard,

Could you please let us know the issues you have with our content. As we have made sure that the content that has been uploaded on our page does not violate Wikipedia usage. We would appreciate it if you reverted back to us with your concerns before editing our page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.232.2 (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry I edited your page. It won't happen again (because your account will have been blocked). . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Load test software

Deleted contribution to load tester wikipedia page I am load tester for a large media company (which I can prove) and you have deleted my content for k6 - which is free software under the AGPL. However, you allow commercial software on the site. Why?

Software, whether free or commercial, has to be notable to be covered by Wikipedia. . .Mean as custard (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed on the article's talk page, but there are two general criteria for adding lists in articles, the first is "list everything as long as there is a source", which is not a common rule, and "list notable subjects", which is more common. The load testing article uses the latter. Commercial vs. FOSS is not a consideration. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello

what did i do wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6SyXx6 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep on editing the way you have been you will soon find out. . .Mean as custard (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, it's confusing 6SyXx6 (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire links for accelerators

Hi, I added links to Inspire for a lot of accelerators but you reverted them all. I would definitely argue that the links are valuable as Inspire is currently one of the biggest databases in High Energy Physics and they provide open access to all experiments and publications related to the accelerators. I would be happy to hear your motivation as to why the links are not adding any value, or what your purpose of removing them were. Best regards. Syrebrist (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Inspire links only provided very brief information, less than that in the Wikipedia articles, so they appeared to be of no value. They also included links to other sites, but if you consider these sites valuable then their urls would be more useful if added directly to the Wikipedia articles. . .Mean as custard (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do understand your point, but I would argue that the collection of links on each accelerator page ("HEP-articles associated with X", "Collaboration members in HepNames" and "Citesummary") do actually provide enough value for the original links to be relevant. I do believe that the content on Inspire is valuable for the users and there should be links to the database, in one form or another. What I could do is to create links directly to the search results for the associated articles and experiments on Inspire (example of experiments and example of articles), the downside of this would be that the links from the accelerator pages on Inspire will always up to date and if more links are added in the future then those will be available by the users. Best regards. Syrebrist (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Syrebrist and would prefer to allow INSPIRE-HEP links. IMO they should be treated in an analogous way to IMDB links which are on every(?) movie page. I'd even go so far as to say they should be added to HEP experiments as well as accelerators. Scnlf (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Scnlf, if you agree with me then I will put the links back on the pages. Syrebrist (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those links provide almost no value and in many cases, no value. Please do not add them back to the articles unless they contain specific, useful information. Toddst1 (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your message before adding them, sorry. I don't agree with you Toddst1, but ok, I will not put add the links back. What is your opinion on links directly to experiments conducted at a certain accelerator, such as this? I would argue that it is good to have a direct link the major HEP database for getting access to the major experiments conducted at each accelerator. Syrebrist (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that link is fine. However the one added here is utterly useless. It appears to mirror the Wikipedia site. Toddst1 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the decision will be, please stop the editwar. Some links are useful, some are not, I suggest evaluating it on a case-by-case basis. If there is a collection beyond what Wikipedia has, add the link, otherwise do not. --mfb (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These links *absolutely* provide added value beyond the scope of the wikipedia article. They link to all published and preprint material under an experiment or accelerator in HEP. There may be one-or-two cases where the specific links that Syrebrist has added don't actually contain any papers (the PSB one) but these are in the minority. The bigger/established experiments (e.g. CMS and ATLAS) have established pages (e.g. https://inspirehep.net/record/1108642) linking to papers, listing authors, and citation metrics. I reiterate this falls under exactly the same justification as an IMDB link for any movie. Scnlf (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative to an Inspire link is linking to a selection of articles in a "External links"-section. I think it would seem less cluttered for readers if one rather linked to the Inspire-collection. The inspire collection contains ALL articles published on a certain experiment or accelerator, making it easier for readers looking for specific articles to find them as well. I have linked to INSPIRE in "External links" section when writing articles on CERN scientists, for instance Pierre Darriulat, so I would also make the argument of consistency. Idastorehaug (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTENGLAND

My view is that, as the essay is contentious and seems to be causing some confusion already (?!), it should be deleted and redirected elsewhere. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; much of the essay is presented as fact but is in reality nothing of the sort. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca

Hello,

Could you tell me why you reverted my reference update about Seneca and De beneficiis ? Thanks in advance, L.A.Seneca (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a reference, just 'further reading', and not in English, and I suspect you have a conflict of interest. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to enlarge the "further reading" section with recent publications (even in another language than English). In some of the wiki articles connected to Seneca, De beneficiis and gift, they are links to publications in other languages than English (e.g. Testart's book in the article Gift). The book of Degand is directly connected to the topics (Seneca, gift and De beneficiis) and then relevant for the reader. Even if I am the author.L.A.Seneca (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this small edit war while patrolling recent changes, so I thought I'd weigh in briefly. While I suppose it would be more likely to be useful to English Wikipedia readers if the book were in English, it does at least appear to be relevant to the topic. It seems to have been published by a reputable publisher of scholarly works, so I don't doubt that it would be valuable as a reference, but not having access to the book itself (and not understanding French to the level I'm sure would be required to make sense of the book), I can't vouch for it beyond that. User:L.A.Seneca's username alone is insufficient evidence for a conflict of interest, though "Even if I am the author" falls short of an unequivocal statement to the contrary. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book is an updated version of my PhD dissertation (see : https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/fr/object/boreal%3A140108). The Université catholique de Louvain where the PhD has been obtained is among the 100 best universities in the world in arts and humanities (see : https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/universite-catholique-de-louvain). The content of the book is in a certain way "endorsed" by the PhD committee. As I do not receive anything for every book bought and am not active in research anymore, there is no interest for me, then no conflict. Do you have further argument for reverting ? Btw, thanks to dalahäst ^{(let's talk!) for his input on this topic. L.A.Seneca (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

I think my reasons stated above are still valid. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stated there was no conflict of interest and the book is useful for readers. Dalahäst supports the interest of the book... What is your new argument? What is your knowledge of Seneca and of De beneficiis? L.A.Seneca (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same link that why i have edited the link..check the link once.

Why did you remove my addition

Hello

Recently i added information about a help organisation i South Africa. This was later removed by you. Why is that?

It read like an advertisement. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Kodachrome reverts

Just a suggestion: when you revert someone, leave a reason. If you don't the person doesn't know why they were reverted. I have added one on Sira95's Talk page. - Denimadept (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally do agree. Moreover, if it is showed that your suspicion or reason for reverting was not ungrounded, it shouldn't be a problem to accept the amendement proposed for the page. I am still waiting for your argument on Seneca's and De Beneficiis' pages while you are still reverting the changes... Why would your suspicion or opinion have more weight than the one of others (especially people that showed legitimacy in the field ?) L.A.Seneca (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stuff?

Yes, that's an awful lot of solutions. I think you may have missed one. Martinevans123 (talk)

Cave survey

What's the problem with my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cave_survey&oldid=801560470 ? User: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speleo (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was to a commercial company. It would need unbiased third-party sources to show that it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not a commercial company. It's free and open source project - see description on webpage. Speleo (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would still need unbiased third-party sources to show that it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links

	External links
	Hi, Thank you for your continued efforts in keeping wikipedia clean. I noticed you removed our external links. We would like to post the ones up that are owned by us and use our name. This is not for promotional purposes. This is just for reference purposes so people can see the connections. Cna-webmaster (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of rollback

Do not use rollback to remove edits that are not vandalism, like you did to my edits on Chipmunk. Thank you. Comfycozybeds (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wise guidance, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit on Language revitalization

Hi, noticed you reverted an edit on this article but with an alternate summary, "Removed spam links"? It was a good thing to revert an unhelpful edit, but please use the correct edit summary. Thanks. Catrìona (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? . .Mean as custard (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the edit had switched to using unclear and non-standard vocabulary and cited a less-reliable source, maybe Undid revision X by user Y altering accepted technical vocabulary? It isn't explicitly stated in Wikipedia policy, but the spirit of Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts seems to imply that it's best to be explicit that you are making a revert. Catrìona (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CGCN Group

Hi, Mean as custard! Back in 2014, you reverted CGCN Group to a less promotional version. Within the past month, I've been looking for editors to review updates I drafted for History and Partners sections. If you get a few moments, would you be willing to look at my drafted changes and potentially move them live if they're appropriate?

As disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I am offering these updates for CGCN Group as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I have posted messages to seek review and comment from others, including WikiProjects and other individual editors who have made substantial edits in the past, but I've not received any response on my most recent requests. Any assistance or feedback from you on the drafts would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this

This new editor uploaded file from commons with this awkward syntax

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7Nord_Anglia_School_Master_Logo_Hong_Kong.jpg

. I changed it to to standard WP:IMAGESYNTAX as below:

[[File:Nord_Anglia_School_Master_Logo_Hong_Kong.jpg]]

Within moments your reverted it leaving cold and vague edit summary thus: better before?! Now, you should explain to me what you mean by better before and relevant image guideline/policy that prompt your action. Above this section, is also two related concerns about your misuse of Rollback and Revert rights, it will be better if your review the way you handle these tools. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your change completely messed up the formatting of the article so it was impossible to read. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So changing file from clumsy syntax https//upload.wikimedia..... to standard syntax [[File:.... is what mess article? right? –Ammarpad (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; maybe it works on some browsers but on Safari it just showed a blank page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your claim: If you've technical issue, WP:TECHPUMP is the appropriate place to report it not hasty reverting if what you don't understand. The format [[File:..]] is the site-wide standard syntax for ALL files on Wikimedia projects including multimedia files and that's detailed in WP:EIS and WP:IMAGESYNTAX, you should acquaint yourself with their contents. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I don't understand the technicalities is not a reason not to undo an obviously bad edit. I suggest you revert my edit, but preview how it looks on your browser before saving. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, you're little bit enraged, but you shouldn't. If I had reverted you the moment you did (which I can, since I've reasons, and sure I am right); you'll equally perhaps fight back and that will lead to unnecessary edit war on a stub article. That's why I engage you here in amicable manner to ask whether you've reason that eluded me. Now, it's over, have cheers. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in the least enraged before, but now I am by your patronising and dismissive attitude. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to Improve

Hello Mean as custard, just noticed that you removed the content I added on Tecno Mobile page about it's arrival in Pakistan. I would appreciate to know the reason as well as guidance on how to improve that content. Thanks. ARahman15 (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Launches in other countries are not mentioned, so why should Pakistan be special? and (2) The references were to a commercial site selling phones, not a reputable news source. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Right, now I have updated the content and mentioned about the continents instead of a country. As you can see that the previous information about Tecno - limited to Africa - got outdated after its expansion to other continents. (2) AnyMobile.pk is a mobile information website (specs, prices, news) and not a mobile selling site. I have updated the citations w.r.t. updated content. Please review and let me know if it needs further improvement. Thanks for your prompt response... ARahman15 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial blogs

So, my first ever edit (on Storage_of_wine) has been quite a stumbling block. My provision of a citation for an unverified claim was removed because it was a "commercial blog" even though I edited the claim to be in-line with the linked-to content. It's now completely unverified and I was unable to find the same information anywhere else on the web. Is that preferable?

I have since had to stop myself from editing other Wikipedia pages because I realise I am linking to blogs containing information from companies that specialise in the field. Can I please ask why it is frowned upon to link to such pages? I would understand if I had linked to a promotional blog, but I didn't. Furthermore, a lot of interesting and exclusive information can only be found on company blogs. I'm tempted to think that your rule is diluting Wikipedia's authority.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60winedude (talk • contribs) 12:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information doesn't have to be on the web; any reputable published source is fine. Commercial blogs tend to be frowned on as sources as many editors add them purely to attract traffic for commercial gain, and as such their overuse brings Wikipedia into disrepute as a reliable site. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Valmet article

Hi there! 3 years ago you added 2 tags on Valmet page. It has been edited a lot since that and the other tag has been removed. Could you review the article and see if the other tag could be removed too? If not, could you advice me what kind of sources should still be added? --Jjanhone (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Business One article

Hi. Thanks for your review of the SAP Business One article. I have recently edited the article and it appears that there are a few sections identified as Advert. I will work on the article to improve it. One thing I would ask off you is to direct me to one section in the article that you have reviewed and marked as advert so I can target like items in all the sections. Appreciate your help on this. Dipanshah69 (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"prioritize customer orders via a drag-and-drop interface ensuring accurate and timely deliveries to your key customers." - That's just a quick example; most of the article is written in similar vein. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks - I will review and amend.Dipanshah69 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have just amended one section under the heading HANA Apps. I would appreciate if you could review that to confirm that I am on the right track to get this article correct. Thanks in advance. Dipanshah69 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A slight improvement, though it still reads more like a product brochure than an encyclopedia article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thoughtless reverts

I see you're no stranger to accusations of reverting edits in haste. I think you would help yourself if you provided more info behind your thinking. From what I have seen, you provide little-to-no detail about your actions. For example, on a recent revert (on storage of wine (a topic I actually know quite a bit about)), you've given the reason "revert reference from commercial blog" but there the blog in question is not commercial. You clearly haven't even looked at it. If you can tell me what part of that blog is remotely commercial, I will happily accept your edit. Until then, it's my revert (up to 3 in 24 hours) against yours. I don't know why you are the authority to be trusted; given the state you're happy to leave that page in, I doubt your knowledge of wine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipepé (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kmow nothing about wine, but I know a link to a commercial site when I see it: "The London Wine Cellar is built upon long standing relationships with investors, buyers and industry experts alike. If you’re looking to sell wine and release an investment quickly we provide reliability, competitive rates and a service you can trust." See WP:Spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you found that information, because it's not mentioned on the page that was referenced. If that's your approach, I'm sure you could find a commercial aspect to any reference if you tried hard enough. That statement has nothing to do with wine storage anyway. I take issue with your "spam link" too, as the page had relevance. Now there's nothing to back-up the claims made in the initial paragraph on that wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipepé (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mean as custard, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revert first 4 sentences

Hey there. Okay, maybe the last sentence was somewhat spammy: "Grundig supports "Respect Food" by designing products...." But how about keeping the rest of the paragraph? Grundig's efforts to fight a global problem is relevant, important and not intended to be self-promotional. Whitecat0987 (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole paragraph was promotional in tone. . .Mean as custard (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clamp holder spam link

Hello Mean as custard, I hope you don't mind but I'm new to Wikipedia and I'd like to ask you about that edit you did on the article "Clamp holder" several weeks ago. Could you please tell me why it was considered a spam link and how can I improve my references? Thank you for removing it if it was indeed spammy. -- Cellsparkle (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must have been because it was a link to a sales brochure so could be interpreted as promoting a particular company's products. . .Mean as custard (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman Institute

Hi Mean as custard, I just nominated this article for deletion. I checked it out and it's pseudoscience for sale. I hope you'll go to da discussion page and vote in the matter. Mark^Dask 23:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Notes

ProfessorEdICT (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Mean As Custard, I am working with a group of university students in the United States to edit the Wikipedia Article for Stage management a bit more useful and informative. You have undone a number of our edits and we would like to know what we can do to improve our edits. Thank you for your time and consideration in helping to improve the community.[reply]

Ed Baker, Associate Professor Theatre Technology and Management Wichita State University School of Performing Arts

ProfessorEdICT (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits on stage management appeared to fail Wikipedia guidelines under Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRLA

You are right - I must have been half asleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidaying1 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt clarification

Hey can you please tell me, if I said some information from a site to Wikipedia so I am not suppose to give reference? please let me know so that I won't do such things., Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahil Bali (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References are fine; spam links are not. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mean as custard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]