User talk:Mean as custard - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hiya!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NeverNotLearning (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)NeverNotLearningReply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

Why not research the question yourself and put the answer in the article if it is relevant? . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

Below is a link to our current Wikipedia page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith5545 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

In reply to your message on my talk page:

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

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

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

 This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello MaC,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LINKS help articles Everyandous (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

ITS Dublin Airport Yimo32 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

Please Help!

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

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

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

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

Hi, what is wrong with links I added ?

Arqadius (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

kind regrades hazzer1998

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the email.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harshilbs91 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Harshil ShahHarshilbs91 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

So you're mean as custard?

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Saaimshafi (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir/Madam (not sure which), you instructed me that posting a link to a business/personal website was not appropriate on Wikipedia. I was not as aware as I should have been of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules but realize after your instruction that this is inappropriate. However, I tried several times to reedit information on the "Enterprise Legal Management" Wikipedia page and it continues to disappear. As you instructed, I did not re-add the link, but simply added an additional vendor in proper alphabetical order to the "Vendor Landscape" section that wasn't already included. Can you please advise if you know why the edit I made continues to disappear? Thanks Much Ldub1702 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)ldub17Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there,

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

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

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

hi

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

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

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

Hi there,

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

DCTransit (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Transport is a very general, wide-ranging subject and the edit is too specific and appears to be mainly designed to promote a campaign. If there was an article entitled "Women in transport", it might be appropriate to add it there. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Go through and find out how it can benefit you" - is this not promotional? And references to reliable sources are needed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was your main concern about your discarding my edits?